nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqc9m22hkc5h6zgrwkz48crhcpw6vch2rf6j97746ugl3neys86jeqcr59k6 (nprofile…59k6) nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpq9g86fe4my0hhfks50t2049zlmstlfrwyd6kahh3fhg5xwc8lt3cqls5k3r (nprofile…5k3r)
Yes, this equivalence class is another good characterization, although notice that it gets you vectors (at the given point) rather than vector fields (not that it's hard to move between these). But there are a lot of things you could use for B here if you just want to characterize the equivalence; that is, there are a lot of choices for B and operators from A to B that have the desired equivalence kernel. What we really need is a B where the operator from A to B is surjective. And it's natural first to think of a larger B and then find a way to characterize the image. I suggest that it would be natural to think of differential operators when constructing this larger B, later restricting to derivations.
TobyBartels /
npub1kp…gr9jw
2025-04-14 18:34:30
in reply to nevent1q…lzur
Author Public Key
npub1kpf5nh0jvj3ygrlz3zw2s2qvy2dpdp5zdlwnl2nqujugfugumkfqngr9jwPublished at
2025-04-14 18:34:30Event JSON
{
"id": "8f559179163e1371aac8da37947e939d20ddffbfc836d35c9bc0d098ed24f403",
"pubkey": "b05349ddf264a2440fe2889ca8280c229a1686826fdd3faa60e4b884f11cdd92",
"created_at": 1744655670,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"c176a55ed8a5f4240dd6154f81df0176998ba869d48bef575c47e33c9207d4b2",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"2a0fa4e6bb23ef74da147ad4fa945fdc17f48dc46eaddbde29ba286760ff5c70",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"a46835d2c6ad0499d0fd2450ead839544ebb297a471d6ce8e7efeffb33610497",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"3422fcbc32f333fb2d3481b2e981258af8a0b571869cbfe93c42962410e232ef",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"e",
"31e8e24441cf9afa70fd8bcbf97536a40c954cea9fd0c8bf7e688110a67ef0d6",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub",
"reply"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://mathstodon.xyz/users/TobyBartels/statuses/114337754019148675",
"activitypub"
],
[
"client",
"Mostr",
"31990:6be38f8c63df7dbf84db7ec4a6e6fbbd8d19dca3b980efad18585c46f04b26f9:mostr",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
]
],
"content": "nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqc9m22hkc5h6zgrwkz48crhcpw6vch2rf6j97746ugl3neys86jeqcr59k6 nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpq9g86fe4my0hhfks50t2049zlmstlfrwyd6kahh3fhg5xwc8lt3cqls5k3r\n\nYes, this equivalence class is another good characterization, although notice that it gets you vectors (at the given point) rather than vector fields (not that it's hard to move between these). But there are a lot of things you could use for B here if you just want to characterize the equivalence; that is, there are a lot of choices for B and operators from A to B that have the desired equivalence kernel. What we really need is a B where the operator from A to B is surjective. And it's natural first to think of a larger B and then find a way to characterize the image. I suggest that it would be natural to think of differential operators when constructing this larger B, later restricting to derivations.",
"sig": "7385fb945e0ff9710b30c6ba56bcbaa45933a5dd7c319537b8ebc4b43ea80cee39f38090aa3559ab9606f14537365da22a34c8f5fa96383e668b9ce4bf0fe41d"
}