Do we really need $X$ to be compact Hausdorff?
$begingroup$
Let $R= C(X,mathbb{R})$ be the ring of all continuous real-valued functions on a topological space $X$, where $mathbb{R}$ is equipped with the standard Euclidean topology. Suppose $|X|>1$ and $X$ is connected and compact Hausdorff. Then the only idempotents in $R$ are the functions $0$ and $1$. Prove also that if $R$ is Von Neumann regular then $R$ is a field.
Proof:
We clearly have that $0^2=0$ and $1^2=1$. Now take $f in R$ such that $f$ is idempotent. Then, for all $x in X$, we have that $f^2(x)-f(x)=0$. This equation has only two solutions in $mathbb{R}$, namely $f(x)=0$ or $f(x)=1$. Now define
begin{align*}
A:=lbrace x in X mid f(x)=0 rbrace=f^{-1}(lbrace 0 rbrace) \
B:= lbrace x in X mid f(x)=1 rbrace=f^{-1}(lbrace 1 rbrace)end{align*}
Since $mathbb{R}$ is equipped with the standard Euclidean topology, we know that all the singletons are closed subsets of $mathbb{R}$. The continuity of $f$ implies that $A$ and $B$ are closed subsets of $X$. Furthermore, we have that $A cap B = emptyset$ and $A cup B =X$. Assume that both $A$ and $B$ are non-empty (which is possible since $|X|>1$), then connectedness of $X$ gives us a contradiction. So we must have that $A=X$ and $B= emptyset$ (and thus $f=0$), or $A= emptyset$ and $B=X$ (and thus $f=1$).
Assume that $R$ is Von Neumann regular. Then, for every non-zero $f in R$, we have that $(f)=(e)$, where $e in R$ is idempotent. It follows that $(f)=R$ and thus $f$ is invertible. Hence, $R$ is a field.
Now, my question is the following: why did we need $X$ to be compact Hausdorff?
general-topology proof-verification ring-theory
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $R= C(X,mathbb{R})$ be the ring of all continuous real-valued functions on a topological space $X$, where $mathbb{R}$ is equipped with the standard Euclidean topology. Suppose $|X|>1$ and $X$ is connected and compact Hausdorff. Then the only idempotents in $R$ are the functions $0$ and $1$. Prove also that if $R$ is Von Neumann regular then $R$ is a field.
Proof:
We clearly have that $0^2=0$ and $1^2=1$. Now take $f in R$ such that $f$ is idempotent. Then, for all $x in X$, we have that $f^2(x)-f(x)=0$. This equation has only two solutions in $mathbb{R}$, namely $f(x)=0$ or $f(x)=1$. Now define
begin{align*}
A:=lbrace x in X mid f(x)=0 rbrace=f^{-1}(lbrace 0 rbrace) \
B:= lbrace x in X mid f(x)=1 rbrace=f^{-1}(lbrace 1 rbrace)end{align*}
Since $mathbb{R}$ is equipped with the standard Euclidean topology, we know that all the singletons are closed subsets of $mathbb{R}$. The continuity of $f$ implies that $A$ and $B$ are closed subsets of $X$. Furthermore, we have that $A cap B = emptyset$ and $A cup B =X$. Assume that both $A$ and $B$ are non-empty (which is possible since $|X|>1$), then connectedness of $X$ gives us a contradiction. So we must have that $A=X$ and $B= emptyset$ (and thus $f=0$), or $A= emptyset$ and $B=X$ (and thus $f=1$).
Assume that $R$ is Von Neumann regular. Then, for every non-zero $f in R$, we have that $(f)=(e)$, where $e in R$ is idempotent. It follows that $(f)=R$ and thus $f$ is invertible. Hence, $R$ is a field.
Now, my question is the following: why did we need $X$ to be compact Hausdorff?
general-topology proof-verification ring-theory
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
My bad, I'm not familiar with the reputation system on Stackexchange so I thought it was possible to accept both answers. Apparently not...
$endgroup$
– J.Bosser
Jan 17 at 8:28
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $R= C(X,mathbb{R})$ be the ring of all continuous real-valued functions on a topological space $X$, where $mathbb{R}$ is equipped with the standard Euclidean topology. Suppose $|X|>1$ and $X$ is connected and compact Hausdorff. Then the only idempotents in $R$ are the functions $0$ and $1$. Prove also that if $R$ is Von Neumann regular then $R$ is a field.
Proof:
We clearly have that $0^2=0$ and $1^2=1$. Now take $f in R$ such that $f$ is idempotent. Then, for all $x in X$, we have that $f^2(x)-f(x)=0$. This equation has only two solutions in $mathbb{R}$, namely $f(x)=0$ or $f(x)=1$. Now define
begin{align*}
A:=lbrace x in X mid f(x)=0 rbrace=f^{-1}(lbrace 0 rbrace) \
B:= lbrace x in X mid f(x)=1 rbrace=f^{-1}(lbrace 1 rbrace)end{align*}
Since $mathbb{R}$ is equipped with the standard Euclidean topology, we know that all the singletons are closed subsets of $mathbb{R}$. The continuity of $f$ implies that $A$ and $B$ are closed subsets of $X$. Furthermore, we have that $A cap B = emptyset$ and $A cup B =X$. Assume that both $A$ and $B$ are non-empty (which is possible since $|X|>1$), then connectedness of $X$ gives us a contradiction. So we must have that $A=X$ and $B= emptyset$ (and thus $f=0$), or $A= emptyset$ and $B=X$ (and thus $f=1$).
Assume that $R$ is Von Neumann regular. Then, for every non-zero $f in R$, we have that $(f)=(e)$, where $e in R$ is idempotent. It follows that $(f)=R$ and thus $f$ is invertible. Hence, $R$ is a field.
Now, my question is the following: why did we need $X$ to be compact Hausdorff?
general-topology proof-verification ring-theory
$endgroup$
Let $R= C(X,mathbb{R})$ be the ring of all continuous real-valued functions on a topological space $X$, where $mathbb{R}$ is equipped with the standard Euclidean topology. Suppose $|X|>1$ and $X$ is connected and compact Hausdorff. Then the only idempotents in $R$ are the functions $0$ and $1$. Prove also that if $R$ is Von Neumann regular then $R$ is a field.
Proof:
We clearly have that $0^2=0$ and $1^2=1$. Now take $f in R$ such that $f$ is idempotent. Then, for all $x in X$, we have that $f^2(x)-f(x)=0$. This equation has only two solutions in $mathbb{R}$, namely $f(x)=0$ or $f(x)=1$. Now define
begin{align*}
A:=lbrace x in X mid f(x)=0 rbrace=f^{-1}(lbrace 0 rbrace) \
B:= lbrace x in X mid f(x)=1 rbrace=f^{-1}(lbrace 1 rbrace)end{align*}
Since $mathbb{R}$ is equipped with the standard Euclidean topology, we know that all the singletons are closed subsets of $mathbb{R}$. The continuity of $f$ implies that $A$ and $B$ are closed subsets of $X$. Furthermore, we have that $A cap B = emptyset$ and $A cup B =X$. Assume that both $A$ and $B$ are non-empty (which is possible since $|X|>1$), then connectedness of $X$ gives us a contradiction. So we must have that $A=X$ and $B= emptyset$ (and thus $f=0$), or $A= emptyset$ and $B=X$ (and thus $f=1$).
Assume that $R$ is Von Neumann regular. Then, for every non-zero $f in R$, we have that $(f)=(e)$, where $e in R$ is idempotent. It follows that $(f)=R$ and thus $f$ is invertible. Hence, $R$ is a field.
Now, my question is the following: why did we need $X$ to be compact Hausdorff?
general-topology proof-verification ring-theory
general-topology proof-verification ring-theory
asked Jan 14 at 17:38
J.BosserJ.Bosser
363210
363210
$begingroup$
My bad, I'm not familiar with the reputation system on Stackexchange so I thought it was possible to accept both answers. Apparently not...
$endgroup$
– J.Bosser
Jan 17 at 8:28
add a comment |
$begingroup$
My bad, I'm not familiar with the reputation system on Stackexchange so I thought it was possible to accept both answers. Apparently not...
$endgroup$
– J.Bosser
Jan 17 at 8:28
$begingroup$
My bad, I'm not familiar with the reputation system on Stackexchange so I thought it was possible to accept both answers. Apparently not...
$endgroup$
– J.Bosser
Jan 17 at 8:28
$begingroup$
My bad, I'm not familiar with the reputation system on Stackexchange so I thought it was possible to accept both answers. Apparently not...
$endgroup$
– J.Bosser
Jan 17 at 8:28
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I think you're right that the assumption $X$ is Hausdorff is unnecessary... all that matters is that the topology on $mathbb R$ is enough to make points closed.
As for compactness, I think you are also right that it is unnecessary. Connectedness, the fact that $mathbb R$ with the usual topology is $T_2$ (or even just $T_1$) and the continuity of the maps is all that's necessary to conclude there are only trivial idempotents.
And a VNR ring with trivial idempotents is a division ring, for exactly the reasons you gave.
Added:
Here's a screenshot of the solution from the companion book Exercises in classical ring theory
As you can see, the additional hypothesis that $X$ be compact and Hausdorff was used in the proof to appeal to the classification of maximal ideals of $C(X,mathbb R)$. The theorem in question says that the maximal ideals are exactly of the form $M_c={fmid f(c)=0}$.
It looks like in this case, the author simply did not notice the elementary proof you have given above (that Hausdorff+connected+VNR implies field.)
Not sure exactly what the precise wording of the edition you're looking at is, but my guess is that it is aimed at using this same path to a solution.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
No, not really. It was an exercise from the book 'A first course in non-commutative ring theory' by T.Y. Lam.
$endgroup$
– J.Bosser
Jan 14 at 18:35
$begingroup$
@J.Bosser Is it part of a family of exercises? It really does seem to be this elementary to prove this particular part of the statement.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
Jan 14 at 18:50
$begingroup$
No, the exercise was independent from the other exercises
$endgroup$
– J.Bosser
Jan 14 at 18:52
$begingroup$
@J.Bosser Can you tell me the section/problem number actually?
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
Jan 14 at 18:53
$begingroup$
Chapter 4 on the Jacobson Radical, exercise 13.
$endgroup$
– J.Bosser
Jan 14 at 18:54
|
show 9 more comments
$begingroup$
It is indeed a standard topological fact that $X$ connected implies that $C(X)$ only has two-idempotents, and you've basically given the standard proof for it. It's part of exercise 1B in Gilman and Jerrison's classic "Rings of continuous functions". Compactness nor Hausdorffness are needed. Nor is $|X|>1$ needed: if $X$ is a singleton, then $C(X) simeq mathbb{R}$ and it's also true. Only connectedness matters.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3073504%2fdo-we-really-need-x-to-be-compact-hausdorff%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I think you're right that the assumption $X$ is Hausdorff is unnecessary... all that matters is that the topology on $mathbb R$ is enough to make points closed.
As for compactness, I think you are also right that it is unnecessary. Connectedness, the fact that $mathbb R$ with the usual topology is $T_2$ (or even just $T_1$) and the continuity of the maps is all that's necessary to conclude there are only trivial idempotents.
And a VNR ring with trivial idempotents is a division ring, for exactly the reasons you gave.
Added:
Here's a screenshot of the solution from the companion book Exercises in classical ring theory
As you can see, the additional hypothesis that $X$ be compact and Hausdorff was used in the proof to appeal to the classification of maximal ideals of $C(X,mathbb R)$. The theorem in question says that the maximal ideals are exactly of the form $M_c={fmid f(c)=0}$.
It looks like in this case, the author simply did not notice the elementary proof you have given above (that Hausdorff+connected+VNR implies field.)
Not sure exactly what the precise wording of the edition you're looking at is, but my guess is that it is aimed at using this same path to a solution.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
No, not really. It was an exercise from the book 'A first course in non-commutative ring theory' by T.Y. Lam.
$endgroup$
– J.Bosser
Jan 14 at 18:35
$begingroup$
@J.Bosser Is it part of a family of exercises? It really does seem to be this elementary to prove this particular part of the statement.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
Jan 14 at 18:50
$begingroup$
No, the exercise was independent from the other exercises
$endgroup$
– J.Bosser
Jan 14 at 18:52
$begingroup$
@J.Bosser Can you tell me the section/problem number actually?
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
Jan 14 at 18:53
$begingroup$
Chapter 4 on the Jacobson Radical, exercise 13.
$endgroup$
– J.Bosser
Jan 14 at 18:54
|
show 9 more comments
$begingroup$
I think you're right that the assumption $X$ is Hausdorff is unnecessary... all that matters is that the topology on $mathbb R$ is enough to make points closed.
As for compactness, I think you are also right that it is unnecessary. Connectedness, the fact that $mathbb R$ with the usual topology is $T_2$ (or even just $T_1$) and the continuity of the maps is all that's necessary to conclude there are only trivial idempotents.
And a VNR ring with trivial idempotents is a division ring, for exactly the reasons you gave.
Added:
Here's a screenshot of the solution from the companion book Exercises in classical ring theory
As you can see, the additional hypothesis that $X$ be compact and Hausdorff was used in the proof to appeal to the classification of maximal ideals of $C(X,mathbb R)$. The theorem in question says that the maximal ideals are exactly of the form $M_c={fmid f(c)=0}$.
It looks like in this case, the author simply did not notice the elementary proof you have given above (that Hausdorff+connected+VNR implies field.)
Not sure exactly what the precise wording of the edition you're looking at is, but my guess is that it is aimed at using this same path to a solution.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
No, not really. It was an exercise from the book 'A first course in non-commutative ring theory' by T.Y. Lam.
$endgroup$
– J.Bosser
Jan 14 at 18:35
$begingroup$
@J.Bosser Is it part of a family of exercises? It really does seem to be this elementary to prove this particular part of the statement.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
Jan 14 at 18:50
$begingroup$
No, the exercise was independent from the other exercises
$endgroup$
– J.Bosser
Jan 14 at 18:52
$begingroup$
@J.Bosser Can you tell me the section/problem number actually?
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
Jan 14 at 18:53
$begingroup$
Chapter 4 on the Jacobson Radical, exercise 13.
$endgroup$
– J.Bosser
Jan 14 at 18:54
|
show 9 more comments
$begingroup$
I think you're right that the assumption $X$ is Hausdorff is unnecessary... all that matters is that the topology on $mathbb R$ is enough to make points closed.
As for compactness, I think you are also right that it is unnecessary. Connectedness, the fact that $mathbb R$ with the usual topology is $T_2$ (or even just $T_1$) and the continuity of the maps is all that's necessary to conclude there are only trivial idempotents.
And a VNR ring with trivial idempotents is a division ring, for exactly the reasons you gave.
Added:
Here's a screenshot of the solution from the companion book Exercises in classical ring theory
As you can see, the additional hypothesis that $X$ be compact and Hausdorff was used in the proof to appeal to the classification of maximal ideals of $C(X,mathbb R)$. The theorem in question says that the maximal ideals are exactly of the form $M_c={fmid f(c)=0}$.
It looks like in this case, the author simply did not notice the elementary proof you have given above (that Hausdorff+connected+VNR implies field.)
Not sure exactly what the precise wording of the edition you're looking at is, but my guess is that it is aimed at using this same path to a solution.
$endgroup$
I think you're right that the assumption $X$ is Hausdorff is unnecessary... all that matters is that the topology on $mathbb R$ is enough to make points closed.
As for compactness, I think you are also right that it is unnecessary. Connectedness, the fact that $mathbb R$ with the usual topology is $T_2$ (or even just $T_1$) and the continuity of the maps is all that's necessary to conclude there are only trivial idempotents.
And a VNR ring with trivial idempotents is a division ring, for exactly the reasons you gave.
Added:
Here's a screenshot of the solution from the companion book Exercises in classical ring theory
As you can see, the additional hypothesis that $X$ be compact and Hausdorff was used in the proof to appeal to the classification of maximal ideals of $C(X,mathbb R)$. The theorem in question says that the maximal ideals are exactly of the form $M_c={fmid f(c)=0}$.
It looks like in this case, the author simply did not notice the elementary proof you have given above (that Hausdorff+connected+VNR implies field.)
Not sure exactly what the precise wording of the edition you're looking at is, but my guess is that it is aimed at using this same path to a solution.
edited Jan 14 at 19:05
answered Jan 14 at 18:25
rschwiebrschwieb
108k12105253
108k12105253
$begingroup$
No, not really. It was an exercise from the book 'A first course in non-commutative ring theory' by T.Y. Lam.
$endgroup$
– J.Bosser
Jan 14 at 18:35
$begingroup$
@J.Bosser Is it part of a family of exercises? It really does seem to be this elementary to prove this particular part of the statement.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
Jan 14 at 18:50
$begingroup$
No, the exercise was independent from the other exercises
$endgroup$
– J.Bosser
Jan 14 at 18:52
$begingroup$
@J.Bosser Can you tell me the section/problem number actually?
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
Jan 14 at 18:53
$begingroup$
Chapter 4 on the Jacobson Radical, exercise 13.
$endgroup$
– J.Bosser
Jan 14 at 18:54
|
show 9 more comments
$begingroup$
No, not really. It was an exercise from the book 'A first course in non-commutative ring theory' by T.Y. Lam.
$endgroup$
– J.Bosser
Jan 14 at 18:35
$begingroup$
@J.Bosser Is it part of a family of exercises? It really does seem to be this elementary to prove this particular part of the statement.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
Jan 14 at 18:50
$begingroup$
No, the exercise was independent from the other exercises
$endgroup$
– J.Bosser
Jan 14 at 18:52
$begingroup$
@J.Bosser Can you tell me the section/problem number actually?
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
Jan 14 at 18:53
$begingroup$
Chapter 4 on the Jacobson Radical, exercise 13.
$endgroup$
– J.Bosser
Jan 14 at 18:54
$begingroup$
No, not really. It was an exercise from the book 'A first course in non-commutative ring theory' by T.Y. Lam.
$endgroup$
– J.Bosser
Jan 14 at 18:35
$begingroup$
No, not really. It was an exercise from the book 'A first course in non-commutative ring theory' by T.Y. Lam.
$endgroup$
– J.Bosser
Jan 14 at 18:35
$begingroup$
@J.Bosser Is it part of a family of exercises? It really does seem to be this elementary to prove this particular part of the statement.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
Jan 14 at 18:50
$begingroup$
@J.Bosser Is it part of a family of exercises? It really does seem to be this elementary to prove this particular part of the statement.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
Jan 14 at 18:50
$begingroup$
No, the exercise was independent from the other exercises
$endgroup$
– J.Bosser
Jan 14 at 18:52
$begingroup$
No, the exercise was independent from the other exercises
$endgroup$
– J.Bosser
Jan 14 at 18:52
$begingroup$
@J.Bosser Can you tell me the section/problem number actually?
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
Jan 14 at 18:53
$begingroup$
@J.Bosser Can you tell me the section/problem number actually?
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
Jan 14 at 18:53
$begingroup$
Chapter 4 on the Jacobson Radical, exercise 13.
$endgroup$
– J.Bosser
Jan 14 at 18:54
$begingroup$
Chapter 4 on the Jacobson Radical, exercise 13.
$endgroup$
– J.Bosser
Jan 14 at 18:54
|
show 9 more comments
$begingroup$
It is indeed a standard topological fact that $X$ connected implies that $C(X)$ only has two-idempotents, and you've basically given the standard proof for it. It's part of exercise 1B in Gilman and Jerrison's classic "Rings of continuous functions". Compactness nor Hausdorffness are needed. Nor is $|X|>1$ needed: if $X$ is a singleton, then $C(X) simeq mathbb{R}$ and it's also true. Only connectedness matters.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is indeed a standard topological fact that $X$ connected implies that $C(X)$ only has two-idempotents, and you've basically given the standard proof for it. It's part of exercise 1B in Gilman and Jerrison's classic "Rings of continuous functions". Compactness nor Hausdorffness are needed. Nor is $|X|>1$ needed: if $X$ is a singleton, then $C(X) simeq mathbb{R}$ and it's also true. Only connectedness matters.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is indeed a standard topological fact that $X$ connected implies that $C(X)$ only has two-idempotents, and you've basically given the standard proof for it. It's part of exercise 1B in Gilman and Jerrison's classic "Rings of continuous functions". Compactness nor Hausdorffness are needed. Nor is $|X|>1$ needed: if $X$ is a singleton, then $C(X) simeq mathbb{R}$ and it's also true. Only connectedness matters.
$endgroup$
It is indeed a standard topological fact that $X$ connected implies that $C(X)$ only has two-idempotents, and you've basically given the standard proof for it. It's part of exercise 1B in Gilman and Jerrison's classic "Rings of continuous functions". Compactness nor Hausdorffness are needed. Nor is $|X|>1$ needed: if $X$ is a singleton, then $C(X) simeq mathbb{R}$ and it's also true. Only connectedness matters.
edited Jan 15 at 6:00
answered Jan 14 at 22:58
Henno BrandsmaHenno Brandsma
117k350128
117k350128
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3073504%2fdo-we-really-need-x-to-be-compact-hausdorff%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
My bad, I'm not familiar with the reputation system on Stackexchange so I thought it was possible to accept both answers. Apparently not...
$endgroup$
– J.Bosser
Jan 17 at 8:28