Show that this ring is semi-simple
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let $mathbb{F}_q$ be a field of order $q = p^m$, where $p$ is the characteristic of the field; a prime.
Consider the ring $$R_n = mathbb{F}_q[x]/langle x^n - 1 rangle $$ Now, I've read that this ring is semi-simple when $p$ does not divide $n$, but no proof was given.
Does anyone know how to prove it or somewhere where I can read the proof? Thank you.
abstract-algebra reference-request ring-theory semi-simple-rings
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let $mathbb{F}_q$ be a field of order $q = p^m$, where $p$ is the characteristic of the field; a prime.
Consider the ring $$R_n = mathbb{F}_q[x]/langle x^n - 1 rangle $$ Now, I've read that this ring is semi-simple when $p$ does not divide $n$, but no proof was given.
Does anyone know how to prove it or somewhere where I can read the proof? Thank you.
abstract-algebra reference-request ring-theory semi-simple-rings
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let $mathbb{F}_q$ be a field of order $q = p^m$, where $p$ is the characteristic of the field; a prime.
Consider the ring $$R_n = mathbb{F}_q[x]/langle x^n - 1 rangle $$ Now, I've read that this ring is semi-simple when $p$ does not divide $n$, but no proof was given.
Does anyone know how to prove it or somewhere where I can read the proof? Thank you.
abstract-algebra reference-request ring-theory semi-simple-rings
Let $mathbb{F}_q$ be a field of order $q = p^m$, where $p$ is the characteristic of the field; a prime.
Consider the ring $$R_n = mathbb{F}_q[x]/langle x^n - 1 rangle $$ Now, I've read that this ring is semi-simple when $p$ does not divide $n$, but no proof was given.
Does anyone know how to prove it or somewhere where I can read the proof? Thank you.
abstract-algebra reference-request ring-theory semi-simple-rings
abstract-algebra reference-request ring-theory semi-simple-rings
asked Dec 3 at 13:58
the man
672715
672715
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
One way to look at it is that if $C={1, c, c^2,ldots, c^{n-1}}$ is the cyclic group of order $n$, then $xmapsto c$ is an isomorphism of $R_nto F_q[C]$, the group ring of $C$ over $F_q$.
Maschke's theorem says that if $|G|=n<infty$, then $F[G]$ is semisimple exactly when $|G|$ is a unit in $F$, and this would be the case only when $gcd(p,n)=1$.
Another way to prove it would be to show that $x^n-1$ is square-free when factorized over $F_q$. This says that the ring is semiprime, and since it is already obviously Artinian, that would make it semisimple. Sorry to say my cyclotomic factorization knowledge is too rusty to spell this out, but the same is true.
1
if $p$ does not divide $n$, then the derivative of $x^n-1$ does not vanish at the roots of $x^n-1$, so the monic $x^n-1$ is square-free. Reference: theorem 4.5 Jacobson BA1. (+1 by the way)
– peter a g
Dec 3 at 14:28
@peterag Thanks for filling that in!
– rschwieb
Dec 3 at 14:31
Why does $x^n - 1$ being square free imply that the ring is semiprime?
– the man
Dec 3 at 16:29
@theman Prove it! More generally if $p(x)in F[x]$, $F[x]/(p(x))$ is semiprime iff $p(x)$ is square free. If it is square free, you can apply the Chinese Remainder theorem, and if it isn't square free you can find a nonzero nilpotent.
– rschwieb
Dec 3 at 16:46
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
I'll give a proof. First we'll need some facts.
Fact 1
A commutative ring (possibly without identity) is semisimple if and only if it is a direct sum of fields.
Proof:
It is clear that a direct sum of fields is semisimple, so assume $R$ is a commutative semisimple ring. Then note that since $R$ is commutative maximal left ideals are simply maximal ideals of $R$, so every simple left $R$ module is in fact a quotient ring of $R$.
Now let $phi : Rto bigoplus_i S_i$ be the isomorphism demonstrating semisimplicity of $R$, with all of the $S_i$ simple. Let $m_i$ be the kernel of the composite map $Rto bigoplus_i S_ito S_i$, so that we can identify $phi$ with the canonical map $Rto bigoplus_i R/m_i$. However, this canonical map is a ring homomorphism. Since $phi$ was a bijection, and we can identify it with this map, this canonical map is a bijection. Thus $Rcong bigoplus_i R/m_i$.
Fact 2
An Artinian ring is a finite product of (necessarily Artinian) local rings.
Proof sketch: See e.g. Atiyah and MacDonald for more details, but the idea is to prove the following lemma: An Artinian ring with no nontrivial idempotents is local. Then this implies that we can recursively break the ring up into a product of rings until we arrive at a local ring, and this process must terminate since the ring is Artinian.
Fact 3
An Artinian local ring is either a field or has nilpotents.
Proof: Let $m$ be the maximal ideal of the Artinian local ring. Since the descending chain $msupseteq m^2 supseteq cdots supseteq m^nsupseteq cdots $ must stabilize,
for some $n$, we have $m^n=m^{n+1}$, so by Nakayama's lemma, we have $m^n=0$. Thus $m^n$ is nilpotent. Thus any nonzero element of $m$ is nilpotent, so either $m=0$ and the ring is a field, or the ring has nilpotents.
Conclusion
Combining facts 1, 2, and 3 we see that a commutative Artinian ring is semisimple if and only if it is reduced.
Then $k[x]/(x^n-1)$ is reduced if the characteristic of $k$ doesn't divide $n$, so being artinian, it is semisimple.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
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%2f3024091%2fshow-that-this-ring-is-semi-simple%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
up vote
5
down vote
One way to look at it is that if $C={1, c, c^2,ldots, c^{n-1}}$ is the cyclic group of order $n$, then $xmapsto c$ is an isomorphism of $R_nto F_q[C]$, the group ring of $C$ over $F_q$.
Maschke's theorem says that if $|G|=n<infty$, then $F[G]$ is semisimple exactly when $|G|$ is a unit in $F$, and this would be the case only when $gcd(p,n)=1$.
Another way to prove it would be to show that $x^n-1$ is square-free when factorized over $F_q$. This says that the ring is semiprime, and since it is already obviously Artinian, that would make it semisimple. Sorry to say my cyclotomic factorization knowledge is too rusty to spell this out, but the same is true.
1
if $p$ does not divide $n$, then the derivative of $x^n-1$ does not vanish at the roots of $x^n-1$, so the monic $x^n-1$ is square-free. Reference: theorem 4.5 Jacobson BA1. (+1 by the way)
– peter a g
Dec 3 at 14:28
@peterag Thanks for filling that in!
– rschwieb
Dec 3 at 14:31
Why does $x^n - 1$ being square free imply that the ring is semiprime?
– the man
Dec 3 at 16:29
@theman Prove it! More generally if $p(x)in F[x]$, $F[x]/(p(x))$ is semiprime iff $p(x)$ is square free. If it is square free, you can apply the Chinese Remainder theorem, and if it isn't square free you can find a nonzero nilpotent.
– rschwieb
Dec 3 at 16:46
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
One way to look at it is that if $C={1, c, c^2,ldots, c^{n-1}}$ is the cyclic group of order $n$, then $xmapsto c$ is an isomorphism of $R_nto F_q[C]$, the group ring of $C$ over $F_q$.
Maschke's theorem says that if $|G|=n<infty$, then $F[G]$ is semisimple exactly when $|G|$ is a unit in $F$, and this would be the case only when $gcd(p,n)=1$.
Another way to prove it would be to show that $x^n-1$ is square-free when factorized over $F_q$. This says that the ring is semiprime, and since it is already obviously Artinian, that would make it semisimple. Sorry to say my cyclotomic factorization knowledge is too rusty to spell this out, but the same is true.
1
if $p$ does not divide $n$, then the derivative of $x^n-1$ does not vanish at the roots of $x^n-1$, so the monic $x^n-1$ is square-free. Reference: theorem 4.5 Jacobson BA1. (+1 by the way)
– peter a g
Dec 3 at 14:28
@peterag Thanks for filling that in!
– rschwieb
Dec 3 at 14:31
Why does $x^n - 1$ being square free imply that the ring is semiprime?
– the man
Dec 3 at 16:29
@theman Prove it! More generally if $p(x)in F[x]$, $F[x]/(p(x))$ is semiprime iff $p(x)$ is square free. If it is square free, you can apply the Chinese Remainder theorem, and if it isn't square free you can find a nonzero nilpotent.
– rschwieb
Dec 3 at 16:46
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
One way to look at it is that if $C={1, c, c^2,ldots, c^{n-1}}$ is the cyclic group of order $n$, then $xmapsto c$ is an isomorphism of $R_nto F_q[C]$, the group ring of $C$ over $F_q$.
Maschke's theorem says that if $|G|=n<infty$, then $F[G]$ is semisimple exactly when $|G|$ is a unit in $F$, and this would be the case only when $gcd(p,n)=1$.
Another way to prove it would be to show that $x^n-1$ is square-free when factorized over $F_q$. This says that the ring is semiprime, and since it is already obviously Artinian, that would make it semisimple. Sorry to say my cyclotomic factorization knowledge is too rusty to spell this out, but the same is true.
One way to look at it is that if $C={1, c, c^2,ldots, c^{n-1}}$ is the cyclic group of order $n$, then $xmapsto c$ is an isomorphism of $R_nto F_q[C]$, the group ring of $C$ over $F_q$.
Maschke's theorem says that if $|G|=n<infty$, then $F[G]$ is semisimple exactly when $|G|$ is a unit in $F$, and this would be the case only when $gcd(p,n)=1$.
Another way to prove it would be to show that $x^n-1$ is square-free when factorized over $F_q$. This says that the ring is semiprime, and since it is already obviously Artinian, that would make it semisimple. Sorry to say my cyclotomic factorization knowledge is too rusty to spell this out, but the same is true.
answered Dec 3 at 14:16
rschwieb
104k1299241
104k1299241
1
if $p$ does not divide $n$, then the derivative of $x^n-1$ does not vanish at the roots of $x^n-1$, so the monic $x^n-1$ is square-free. Reference: theorem 4.5 Jacobson BA1. (+1 by the way)
– peter a g
Dec 3 at 14:28
@peterag Thanks for filling that in!
– rschwieb
Dec 3 at 14:31
Why does $x^n - 1$ being square free imply that the ring is semiprime?
– the man
Dec 3 at 16:29
@theman Prove it! More generally if $p(x)in F[x]$, $F[x]/(p(x))$ is semiprime iff $p(x)$ is square free. If it is square free, you can apply the Chinese Remainder theorem, and if it isn't square free you can find a nonzero nilpotent.
– rschwieb
Dec 3 at 16:46
add a comment |
1
if $p$ does not divide $n$, then the derivative of $x^n-1$ does not vanish at the roots of $x^n-1$, so the monic $x^n-1$ is square-free. Reference: theorem 4.5 Jacobson BA1. (+1 by the way)
– peter a g
Dec 3 at 14:28
@peterag Thanks for filling that in!
– rschwieb
Dec 3 at 14:31
Why does $x^n - 1$ being square free imply that the ring is semiprime?
– the man
Dec 3 at 16:29
@theman Prove it! More generally if $p(x)in F[x]$, $F[x]/(p(x))$ is semiprime iff $p(x)$ is square free. If it is square free, you can apply the Chinese Remainder theorem, and if it isn't square free you can find a nonzero nilpotent.
– rschwieb
Dec 3 at 16:46
1
1
if $p$ does not divide $n$, then the derivative of $x^n-1$ does not vanish at the roots of $x^n-1$, so the monic $x^n-1$ is square-free. Reference: theorem 4.5 Jacobson BA1. (+1 by the way)
– peter a g
Dec 3 at 14:28
if $p$ does not divide $n$, then the derivative of $x^n-1$ does not vanish at the roots of $x^n-1$, so the monic $x^n-1$ is square-free. Reference: theorem 4.5 Jacobson BA1. (+1 by the way)
– peter a g
Dec 3 at 14:28
@peterag Thanks for filling that in!
– rschwieb
Dec 3 at 14:31
@peterag Thanks for filling that in!
– rschwieb
Dec 3 at 14:31
Why does $x^n - 1$ being square free imply that the ring is semiprime?
– the man
Dec 3 at 16:29
Why does $x^n - 1$ being square free imply that the ring is semiprime?
– the man
Dec 3 at 16:29
@theman Prove it! More generally if $p(x)in F[x]$, $F[x]/(p(x))$ is semiprime iff $p(x)$ is square free. If it is square free, you can apply the Chinese Remainder theorem, and if it isn't square free you can find a nonzero nilpotent.
– rschwieb
Dec 3 at 16:46
@theman Prove it! More generally if $p(x)in F[x]$, $F[x]/(p(x))$ is semiprime iff $p(x)$ is square free. If it is square free, you can apply the Chinese Remainder theorem, and if it isn't square free you can find a nonzero nilpotent.
– rschwieb
Dec 3 at 16:46
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
I'll give a proof. First we'll need some facts.
Fact 1
A commutative ring (possibly without identity) is semisimple if and only if it is a direct sum of fields.
Proof:
It is clear that a direct sum of fields is semisimple, so assume $R$ is a commutative semisimple ring. Then note that since $R$ is commutative maximal left ideals are simply maximal ideals of $R$, so every simple left $R$ module is in fact a quotient ring of $R$.
Now let $phi : Rto bigoplus_i S_i$ be the isomorphism demonstrating semisimplicity of $R$, with all of the $S_i$ simple. Let $m_i$ be the kernel of the composite map $Rto bigoplus_i S_ito S_i$, so that we can identify $phi$ with the canonical map $Rto bigoplus_i R/m_i$. However, this canonical map is a ring homomorphism. Since $phi$ was a bijection, and we can identify it with this map, this canonical map is a bijection. Thus $Rcong bigoplus_i R/m_i$.
Fact 2
An Artinian ring is a finite product of (necessarily Artinian) local rings.
Proof sketch: See e.g. Atiyah and MacDonald for more details, but the idea is to prove the following lemma: An Artinian ring with no nontrivial idempotents is local. Then this implies that we can recursively break the ring up into a product of rings until we arrive at a local ring, and this process must terminate since the ring is Artinian.
Fact 3
An Artinian local ring is either a field or has nilpotents.
Proof: Let $m$ be the maximal ideal of the Artinian local ring. Since the descending chain $msupseteq m^2 supseteq cdots supseteq m^nsupseteq cdots $ must stabilize,
for some $n$, we have $m^n=m^{n+1}$, so by Nakayama's lemma, we have $m^n=0$. Thus $m^n$ is nilpotent. Thus any nonzero element of $m$ is nilpotent, so either $m=0$ and the ring is a field, or the ring has nilpotents.
Conclusion
Combining facts 1, 2, and 3 we see that a commutative Artinian ring is semisimple if and only if it is reduced.
Then $k[x]/(x^n-1)$ is reduced if the characteristic of $k$ doesn't divide $n$, so being artinian, it is semisimple.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
I'll give a proof. First we'll need some facts.
Fact 1
A commutative ring (possibly without identity) is semisimple if and only if it is a direct sum of fields.
Proof:
It is clear that a direct sum of fields is semisimple, so assume $R$ is a commutative semisimple ring. Then note that since $R$ is commutative maximal left ideals are simply maximal ideals of $R$, so every simple left $R$ module is in fact a quotient ring of $R$.
Now let $phi : Rto bigoplus_i S_i$ be the isomorphism demonstrating semisimplicity of $R$, with all of the $S_i$ simple. Let $m_i$ be the kernel of the composite map $Rto bigoplus_i S_ito S_i$, so that we can identify $phi$ with the canonical map $Rto bigoplus_i R/m_i$. However, this canonical map is a ring homomorphism. Since $phi$ was a bijection, and we can identify it with this map, this canonical map is a bijection. Thus $Rcong bigoplus_i R/m_i$.
Fact 2
An Artinian ring is a finite product of (necessarily Artinian) local rings.
Proof sketch: See e.g. Atiyah and MacDonald for more details, but the idea is to prove the following lemma: An Artinian ring with no nontrivial idempotents is local. Then this implies that we can recursively break the ring up into a product of rings until we arrive at a local ring, and this process must terminate since the ring is Artinian.
Fact 3
An Artinian local ring is either a field or has nilpotents.
Proof: Let $m$ be the maximal ideal of the Artinian local ring. Since the descending chain $msupseteq m^2 supseteq cdots supseteq m^nsupseteq cdots $ must stabilize,
for some $n$, we have $m^n=m^{n+1}$, so by Nakayama's lemma, we have $m^n=0$. Thus $m^n$ is nilpotent. Thus any nonzero element of $m$ is nilpotent, so either $m=0$ and the ring is a field, or the ring has nilpotents.
Conclusion
Combining facts 1, 2, and 3 we see that a commutative Artinian ring is semisimple if and only if it is reduced.
Then $k[x]/(x^n-1)$ is reduced if the characteristic of $k$ doesn't divide $n$, so being artinian, it is semisimple.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
I'll give a proof. First we'll need some facts.
Fact 1
A commutative ring (possibly without identity) is semisimple if and only if it is a direct sum of fields.
Proof:
It is clear that a direct sum of fields is semisimple, so assume $R$ is a commutative semisimple ring. Then note that since $R$ is commutative maximal left ideals are simply maximal ideals of $R$, so every simple left $R$ module is in fact a quotient ring of $R$.
Now let $phi : Rto bigoplus_i S_i$ be the isomorphism demonstrating semisimplicity of $R$, with all of the $S_i$ simple. Let $m_i$ be the kernel of the composite map $Rto bigoplus_i S_ito S_i$, so that we can identify $phi$ with the canonical map $Rto bigoplus_i R/m_i$. However, this canonical map is a ring homomorphism. Since $phi$ was a bijection, and we can identify it with this map, this canonical map is a bijection. Thus $Rcong bigoplus_i R/m_i$.
Fact 2
An Artinian ring is a finite product of (necessarily Artinian) local rings.
Proof sketch: See e.g. Atiyah and MacDonald for more details, but the idea is to prove the following lemma: An Artinian ring with no nontrivial idempotents is local. Then this implies that we can recursively break the ring up into a product of rings until we arrive at a local ring, and this process must terminate since the ring is Artinian.
Fact 3
An Artinian local ring is either a field or has nilpotents.
Proof: Let $m$ be the maximal ideal of the Artinian local ring. Since the descending chain $msupseteq m^2 supseteq cdots supseteq m^nsupseteq cdots $ must stabilize,
for some $n$, we have $m^n=m^{n+1}$, so by Nakayama's lemma, we have $m^n=0$. Thus $m^n$ is nilpotent. Thus any nonzero element of $m$ is nilpotent, so either $m=0$ and the ring is a field, or the ring has nilpotents.
Conclusion
Combining facts 1, 2, and 3 we see that a commutative Artinian ring is semisimple if and only if it is reduced.
Then $k[x]/(x^n-1)$ is reduced if the characteristic of $k$ doesn't divide $n$, so being artinian, it is semisimple.
I'll give a proof. First we'll need some facts.
Fact 1
A commutative ring (possibly without identity) is semisimple if and only if it is a direct sum of fields.
Proof:
It is clear that a direct sum of fields is semisimple, so assume $R$ is a commutative semisimple ring. Then note that since $R$ is commutative maximal left ideals are simply maximal ideals of $R$, so every simple left $R$ module is in fact a quotient ring of $R$.
Now let $phi : Rto bigoplus_i S_i$ be the isomorphism demonstrating semisimplicity of $R$, with all of the $S_i$ simple. Let $m_i$ be the kernel of the composite map $Rto bigoplus_i S_ito S_i$, so that we can identify $phi$ with the canonical map $Rto bigoplus_i R/m_i$. However, this canonical map is a ring homomorphism. Since $phi$ was a bijection, and we can identify it with this map, this canonical map is a bijection. Thus $Rcong bigoplus_i R/m_i$.
Fact 2
An Artinian ring is a finite product of (necessarily Artinian) local rings.
Proof sketch: See e.g. Atiyah and MacDonald for more details, but the idea is to prove the following lemma: An Artinian ring with no nontrivial idempotents is local. Then this implies that we can recursively break the ring up into a product of rings until we arrive at a local ring, and this process must terminate since the ring is Artinian.
Fact 3
An Artinian local ring is either a field or has nilpotents.
Proof: Let $m$ be the maximal ideal of the Artinian local ring. Since the descending chain $msupseteq m^2 supseteq cdots supseteq m^nsupseteq cdots $ must stabilize,
for some $n$, we have $m^n=m^{n+1}$, so by Nakayama's lemma, we have $m^n=0$. Thus $m^n$ is nilpotent. Thus any nonzero element of $m$ is nilpotent, so either $m=0$ and the ring is a field, or the ring has nilpotents.
Conclusion
Combining facts 1, 2, and 3 we see that a commutative Artinian ring is semisimple if and only if it is reduced.
Then $k[x]/(x^n-1)$ is reduced if the characteristic of $k$ doesn't divide $n$, so being artinian, it is semisimple.
answered Dec 3 at 14:38
jgon
11.9k21840
11.9k21840
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
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%2f3024091%2fshow-that-this-ring-is-semi-simple%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