« first day (1175 days earlier)      last day (3849 days later) » 

12:01 AM
for any $a, b$?
 
@DonLarynx Yes, but here $a,b$ are fixed.
 
Well $(4, 3)$ with $a = 5$ and $b = 6$, then we have $6(4, 3) = (24, 18) = (4, 0)$ don't we @PedroTamaroff?
 
@DonLarynx No, ${\rm lcm}(5,6)=30$.
 
ah well then
I don't know why though
 
@DonLarynx What don't you know?
@KarlKronenfeld Kaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarl. That kills people!
 
12:09 AM
Why we have $n(m,q)=0$ for any $(m,q)∈ℤa×ℤb$?
 
@PedroTamaroff Yes, well I do have murderous tendencies. I am seeing a doctor about that.
 
@DonLarynx $nm=0\mod a,nq=0\mod b\iff a\mid nm,b\mid nq$.
But by definition $a,b\mid {\rm lcm}(a,b)$.
@KarlKronenfeld Never saw "Llamas with hats"?
 
@PedroTamaroff no
 
@KarlKronenfeld Enjoy.
 
@PedroTamaroff Oh, well. Now you know that I eat hands.
 
12:17 AM
@KarlKronenfeld I knew there was something off about you.
Hmm....
Did you sort the problem in Pete's notes?
 
@PedroTamaroff Well, PLC and some user33... did.
 
@KarlKronenfeld Pete is a cool guy. =)
 
@PedroTamaroff Oh and I am a llama
 
He's a number theorist, right?
 
I think so, I have seen him answer algebraic geometry questions on MO though.
"My research is primarily in number theory and arithmetic geometry" That explains it.
 
12:23 AM
"arithmetic geometry", never heard of that.
 
Thus the characteristic of $Z_2 \times Z$ is just $lcm(a, b) = lcm(2, 1) = \frac{2*1}{\gcd(1, 2) = 1} = 2$?
 
@DonLarynx What is the characteristic of $\Bbb Z$?
 
oh sorry
i meant $Z_1$
 
@DonLarynx Heh, but $\Bbb Z/(1)$ is trivial.
 
So for $A = \{Z_5 \times Z_7\}$ we have $lcm(5, 7) = \frac{5*7}{gcd(5, 7) = 1} = 35$ so 35 is our characteristic?
 
12:26 AM
@DonLarynx ${\rm lcm}(5,7)=35$.
@DonLarynx We haven't really concluded that.
Yet.
Now, suppose that $k(m,n)=(0,0)$.
 
Pedro
I'm proving it
no answer pls
Yet.
Let $n = lcm(a, b)$, where $a$ is the first ideal and $b$ is the second ideal. So for any $(p, q) \in A$ suppose $n(p,q) = 0$, so we have $np = 0\mod a, nq = 0 \mod b$. Thus $a | np$ and $b | nq$. Thus we have $lcm(p, q) = 0$, which proves the $lcm(a, b)$ is the characteristic of the cartesian product of the two rings.

Is that correct?
 
@DonLarynx No, Don.
@DonLarynx At any rate, I am misleading you.
Because we're talking about characteristic. And I fixed in my head you were talking about order.
Those are two very different things. =)
So I apologize.
 
well this knowledge shall help for dihedral group
lol
 
The unit of $\Bbb Z_a\times\Bbb Z_b$ is $(1,1)$.
Now, suppose that $(k,k)=(0,0)$. This means $k=0\mod a,k=0\mod b$.
Then $a,b\mid k$.
This proves that the characteristic of $\Bbb Z_a\times\Bbb Z_b$ is $[a,b]={\rm lcm}(a,b)$, since by definition $[a,b]$ is the least of the elements $k$ with the property $a,b\mid k$.
*unity
 
What is $[a, b]$?
 
12:39 AM
@DonLarynx Alternative notation for the lcm.
@KarlKronenfeld Do you approve of my message $\uparrow$?
 
I'm reading through a few proofs, and this one says: "If A is a bounded self-adjoint operator on a Hilbert space, then $r(A) = ||A||$". I hadn't seen $r$ used before, is that some well known function?
 
@PedroTamaroff Yes, that is right.
 
Ah.. and just as i ask the question, i managed to find the definition in the book
Spectral radius.
 
@KarlKronenfeld Dude. You had to say "I am Karl Kronenfeld and I approve of this message."
 
@PedroTamaroff Do I really have to misspell my name?
 
12:42 AM
@PedroTamaroff The two proofs (mine and yours) don't appear much different.
 
@KarlKronenfeld I have an $\varepsilon$ case of dyslexia.
@DonLarynx Are you sure?
 
@PedroTamaroff in terms of characteristic and order
@PedroTamaroff Right, the $a$ and $b$ are needed such that $na$ and $nb$ because of order
Let $R$ and $S$ be rings with (multiplicative) identity. What are the units in $R×S$?

Obviously those $(r_1, s_1) \times (s_1, r_1) = (1, 1)$.
Correct?
Since $r_1s_1 = s_1r_1 = 1$?
 
@KarlKronenfeld I will mail you in a sec.
 
@DonLarynx Hm, I don't see how you can write that expression (unless R=S).
@PedroTamaroff ok
 
@KarlKronenfeld Done.
@KarlKronenfeld Man. Gauss' sums are mesmerizing.
 
1:01 AM
@PedroTamaroff Yeah, they're pretty cool. I always knew I wasn't getting as much as I could out of them (in other words I suck at handling them).
 
@KarlKronenfeld Get my mail?
 
@PedroTamaroff Yeah, I replied.
 
@KarlKronenfeld Hm.
 
I think I might have an answer to that sum over there on the right ----------->
was it asked as a question anywhere?
 
@Bitrex Just post the answer.
No problem.
 
1:12 AM
@PedroTamaroff Still workin' on it - might not work out :)
 
@Bitrex It is probably some telescopic mischief.
 
Someone got banned from MSE?
 
@PedroTamaroff For a start, the cosine term can be rewritten as $\cos(n\pi -\sqrt{1+n^2}\pi)$
 
$= \Re(e^{i(n\pi - \sqrt{1 + n^2}\pi)})$
 
1:38 AM
Am I leaving out any important details here?

"Let $A$ be an $m\times n$ matrix. Suppose that $A$ has a right inverse $B$ and has a left inverse $C$. Prove that $m=n$, $B=C$, and $B$ is the inverse of $A$."

Proof:
Since $A$ has a right inverse $B$, we can conclude that $rank(A)=m$. Aditionally, since $A$ has a left inverse $C$, we can conclude that $rank(A)=n$. Therefore, $m=n$, and $A$, $B$, and $C$ are square matrices. Since $m=n$, we have $CA=I=AB$, $C=B=A^{-1}$.
 
how to prove 1 is the only number with 1*k = k?
 
@Zen8000k What is $k$? Is it a real number? Integer?
 
real number
is it correct to say that each real number has only one reversal number?
 
Well, one of the field axioms states that there exists a special number $1\in\mathbb{R}$ such that $\forall x\in\mathbb{R}, x\cdot 1=x$.
 
yes but it doesn't say 1 is the only number with this effect. How to prove this?
 
1:44 AM
Assume that there is another one and show that they are equal. For example, say there exists two "one" numbers $s,t$ such that $s\cdot x=x$ and $t\cdot x=x$, and $s\neq t$.
Then try to show that $s=t$ and there is a contradiction.
Use your axioms
 
Thanks!
 
@KarlKronenfeld @PedroTamaroff How could I find such an expression then?
What if instead of the subscript 1, i remove it?
 
2:00 AM
Prove each number has only one reversal?
 
You mean $\forall x\in\mathbb{R}, x\neq 0,\ \exists y\in\mathbb{R}\ s.t.\ xy=1$?
 
yes
 
Same way. Use the assumption that one exists, and then assume that two distinct copies exist where they do not equal eachother
Any time you want to prove that something is unique, always assume that there are two different ones and show that they are equal
 
Can you give me more info, please?
 
$\forall x\neq 0,\ \exists y\in\mathbb{R}$ such that $xy=1$. This is your given axiom.
Now, assume the following:
$\forall x\neq 0,\ \exists z\in\mathbb{R}$ such that $xz=1$, and $y\neq z$.
So then you have $xy=1$ and $xz=1$ and $y\neq z$
 
2:14 AM
boo
 
You can say $y$ is an inverse of $x$ if and only if $y$ satisfies $xy=1$
Additionally $z$ is an inverse of $x$ if and only if $z$ satisfies $xz=1$.
 
Thanks a lot!!!!
 
@TheChaz2.0 What was going on? All I see is [redacted]
 
Check the edit history if you want to see a bunch of profanity.
 
2:19 AM
Doesn't appear to be many people alive here right now... Was hoping to get some input on a question but nobody replied
 
@TheChaz2.0 Well, that made me chuckle.
 
@PedroTamaroff seems like an influx of profane//troll posts today
 
@PedroTamaroff You able to help with my above question in Linear Algebra? I can repeat it if you need
 
@agent154 OK.
Repeat.
 
Repeat.
 
2:22 AM
Am I leaving out any important details here?

"Let $A$ be an $m\times n$ matrix. Suppose that $A$ has a right inverse $B$ and has a left inverse $C$. Prove that $m=n$, $B=C$, and $B$ is the inverse of $A$."

Proof:
Since $A$ has a right inverse $B$, we can conclude that $rank(A)=m$. Aditionally, since $A$ has a left inverse $C$, we can conclude that $rank(A)=n$. Therefore, $m=n$, and $A$, $B$, and $C$ are square matrices. Since $m=n$, we have $CA=I=AB$, $C=B=A^{-1}$.
 
@agent154 Seems fine. It really depends on what you already have as theorems.
 
My textbook says "The following statements are equivalent:" 1. $A$ has a right inverse. 2. The columns of $A$ span $R^m$. 3. $rank(A)=m$. 4. The rows of $A$ are linearly independent. So it seems I can use them
 
@agent154 Aha.
Cool.
 
There's a similar one for $A$ having a left inverse.
I just used those two theorems to come up with $m=n$, but I feel like my proof that $B=C=A^{-1}$ is weak
 
Mods are asleep - post questions about art!
 
2:26 AM
@agent154 Well, do you know that if a square matrix has a left inverse, then it immediately has a right inverse, and they coincide?
 
Prove that though
 
Well, before I learned about one-sided inverses, I assumed that there was only one inverse for any matrix if it existed... so I pretty much assumed that this was the case
 
@EnjoysMath Is that an order...?
 
No, I'm just saying it might be less fundamental than his theorem
 
But in any event, I know that $A,B,C$ are square matrices, and that $CA=I$ and $AB=I$... I want to conclude that since $CA=AB$, then $C=B$, but I don't know if I can do that with matrix multiplication.
 
2:31 AM
@agent154 Multiply both sides by $C$ on the left to get $C^2 A = C A B = B$ then use again that $CA = I$ to conclude $C=B$
 
@KevinDriscoll That makes sense. Thanks for the insight.
 
No problemo
 
Isn't this simpler: $c = cca = cab = b$
for any element $a$ with left inverse $c$, right inverse $b$.
 
@EnjoysMath Ooooooohhh, you mentioned a semigroup.
 
so
semigroups are the easiest to describe
easier than matrices
 
2:38 AM
@EnjoysMath "...easier to describe..."?
What do you mean?
 
their definitions are simpler, less lines
 
@FernandoMartin Sap.
 
not much, just came back
trains weren't working -.-
 
@FernandoMartin Just returned?
Woah.
 
2:46 AM
Well, I arrived at 11.25 to be precise
yeah, the bus I take when there's no train service isn't exactly quick
 
@FernandoMartin Hope this isn't usual.
 
Yup, it's not
 
@FernandoMartin Oh.
I thought you were stuck somewhere.
 
No, it takes about 2 hours
 
@FernandoMartin I am reading about Gauss Sums. Chapter 6.
 
2:49 AM
Great!
 
leo
isn't this weird?
 
@leo What is?
 
leo
the accepted answer
it's about prove linear independence
look at my comment there
 
@leo Yeah, it looks fine.
The wording might be weird.
 
leo
but look, the $a_i$s are previously given, that's why the trick there works. But how, will one go about that, with arbitrary scalars?
 
3:00 AM
@leo Oh, nah. I just think the guy was not careful =)
 
if x > y, how to prove x + h > y + h?
 
leo
@PedroTamaroff I don't understand. In the other hand the other answer is pretty good
 
@leo I think the guy just didn't realize he reused the $a_i$s.
 
@Zen because the reals are an ordered group
 
3:02 AM
@FernandoMartin JAJAJAJAJAJA
@Zen8000k What is your definition of $x>y$?
 
actually an ordered field
 
@Zen8000k Forgive my naivete but add $h$ to both sides?
 
using only field and provisions axioms
 
leo
but with arbitrary scalars $c_j$ it does not holds that $g_i(c_j)=\begin{cases}0&i=j \\ 1 & i\neq j\end{cases}$ which is the crucial part of the proof given there
 
what provisions axioms?
^-^
 
3:05 AM
@leo Well, these polynomials are the predual basis of the evaluation maps $P\mapsto P(a_i)$ in $(\Bbb R_{n-1}[X])^{\ast}$.
So it is natural to use those to prove it.
 
@Pedro: Te agregué recién
 
*sorry, ordering axioms
 
what's the first ordering axiom?
 
@Zen8000k That's usually one of the ordering axioms
 
Remember that if you have a basis $B=\{x_1,\ldots,x_n\}$ in a vector space $V$ you define the dual basis $B^\ast=\{\varphi_1,\ldots,\varphi_n\}$ of $B$ to be that basis of $V^\ast$ such that $\varphi_i{x_j}=\delta_{ij}$, @leo
@FernandoMartin "Cada vez más gente del pab3 viene a hacer sus maquetas al playón del pab2. Organizamos pisada de maquetas a lo Godzilla?"
 
3:08 AM
jajajaj
Estoy considerando armarme un perfil en serio nada más que para romper las bolas en los comentarios
 
@leo It can be proven that for any basis $B'$ of $V^\ast$ we can find a so called "predual" basis $B$ such that $B^\ast=B'$.
(Here I am talking fin. dim., always.)
@FernandoMartin "eso es malo? ahora van a poder fichar culos sin tener que caminar hasta el 3"
 
@Pedro culos........shame on you
 
leo
@PedroTamaroff Indeed. You are right
 
@leo Never forget about it. Predual is a cool word.
 
leo
3:14 AM
yeah, so what is proving the guy exactly?
 
@leo Well, he proves they are l.i.
 
leo
@PedroTamaroff Don't follow. As I understand, he proves something that (between the lines) implies they are l.i.
 
@leo You still haven't convinced yourself that when he used the $a_i$ in $\sum a_ig_i$ he meant to use another letter, not $a$, which is already in use.
 
leo
Pero cuando se cambia la letra esto: $$g_i(c_j)=\begin{cases}0&i=j \\ 1 & i\neq j\end{cases}$$ no sirve
 
@leo Por eso, ahi si tenes que usar $a_i$ =D
Es un error feo.
Lo edito.
 
leo
3:21 AM
ya lo tengo
si ya veo
darse escalares arbitrarios y usar que los $a_j$'s hacen eso
gracias
Por cierto sería bueno si agregas la prueba usando duales
 
@leo Es esencialmente lo mismo que hace la respuesta aceptada.
Quiza uno podría mostrar que las evaluaciones son una base del dual.
 
leo
@PedroTamaroff Por eso. Digamos hay un Teorema que dice que si usted evalúa en una base queda una base
y sí la prueba es lo mismo de la respuesta aceptada
any way. It doesn't matter. Such a confusion!
 
leo
3:39 AM
Indeed they are
 
What does predual mean?
 
@FernandoMartin If $B'$ is a basis of the dual $V^\ast$, its predual basis is the basis $B$ of $V$ such that $B^\ast=B'$.
 
Ahh, I see
 
@FernandoMartin FUUUUUUUUUU
escribi lema con dos emes.
 
En español o en inglés? jaja
 
3:47 AM
@FernandoMartin claramente en español, si no no me estaría quejando.
jajajaja
 
Mi letra es tan mala que si yo hiciera eso nadie se daría cuenta :)
 
do spiders take revenge after you try to kill them?
 
yes, always
don't sleep tonight
 
=|
I won't
 
@FernandoMartin Mis $\zeta$s estan mejorando.
ARGH.
Ahora la veo en $\TeX$ y FUUUU.
 
3:52 AM
wow no me habia dado cuenta que ahora se chatea en español :D
que bien! :D
lo natural es hablar en tu idioma materno :)
hablar en otro idioma es antinatura
 
@Twink Meh.
 
leo
nunca había visto tanta gente hablando español aquí
 
Las difíciles son las $\xi$
al menos para mí
 
@FernandoMartin Ufff.
Demasiados rulos.
 
que es meh?
hola leo
 
leo
3:56 AM
hola
 
@FernandoMartin El masoquista en mi hace que escriba $\sum\limits_{t=0}^{p-1}$ siempre en vez de $\sum_t$.
 
hoy hice un examen y no me fue bien :(
@PedroTamaroff tu siempre sacas 10 en tus examenes verdad?
o A+
no se como califiquen
 
leo
y de que era?
 
si es claro por contexto no está mal poner $\sum$ y listo
 
@Twink Rendí dos finales hasta ahora. En uno saque un 10, y en el otro 9. Pero no es algo poco común (c.f. @Fernando)
 
3:58 AM
:(
en mi examen venian 4 preguntas
y adivina cuantas conteste
 
@Pedro: en los primeros sí
(sí es poco común)
bah
 
@Twink Cuantas?
 
son menos generosos
 
@FernandoMartin Que quiere decir eso =P ?
 

« first day (1175 days earlier)      last day (3849 days later) »