« first day (1031 days earlier)      last day (3991 days later) » 

6:00 PM
@MattN. When I first came to chat, skullpatrol asked a lot of questions like the one Jayesh cited above on metaMO. However, in my experience he has slowed down on those. I also note that Jonas has some outside issues that are probably inflaming his situation. As I said, I am not here all the time that skullpatrol is on, so I may be missing a lot.
 
what is normal form of a polynomial ? any one knows ?
could be a silly question .
but i have no idea
 
@Theorem the sum of the monomials? maybe asking a numerican will help
I think there is lagrange, newton and normal
 
oh they mean the projection
 
@PeterTamaroff here it is
 
6:05 PM
taking for example the ideal generated by x+1 then x^2 will have the normal form (x+1)(x-1)+1
 
@PeterTamaroff that is made of four circular arcs.
 
@robjohn Ha! Nice!
 
@PeterTamaroff The surface area should be easy to compute because of its generation
 
@Theorem could that be ?
 
@PeterTamaroff of course, the arcs would not be rotated about their respective centers.
 
6:08 PM
@PeterTamaroff "Don't make an answer harder than it should be!"
 
@amWhy Yeah, I edited and didn't look at what I wrote =)
@amWhy All Hail!
 
@DominicMichaelis : i believe so
 
Btw how to cite a chat talk ? :D
 
@PeterTamaroff and naturally, two people have given complete solutions
 
6:14 PM
**THM** Let $(M,d)$ be a complete metric space with no isolated points. Then $(M,d)$ is uncountable.

**PROOF** Assume $M$ is **countable**, and let $\{x_1,\dots\}$ be an enumeration of $M$. Since each singleton is closed, each $X_i=X\smallsetminus \{x_i\}$ is open for each $i$. Moreover, each of them is dense, since each point is an accumulation point of $X$. By Baire's Theorem, $\bigcap_{i=1}^n X_i$ must be dense, hence nonempty, but it is readily seen it is empty, which is absurd.

**COROLLARY** Let $(M,d)$ be complete, $P$ a perfect subset of $M$. Then $P$ is uncountable.
 
@PeterTamaroff why for me?
 
@TobiasKildetoft Peer review! =)
 
ahh
I am not familiar with Baire
 
@TobiasKildetoft Oh. It says that if $(X,d)$ is complete and $\langle G_n\rangle $ is a sequence of open dense subsets of $X$, $\bigcap_{n\in\Bbb N} G_n$ is dense.
 
@PeterTamaroff but that intersection is not empty
 
6:18 PM
@TobiasKildetoft Which one?
 
the one you claim to be empty
you need to take all the $X_i$ for it to be empty
 
@TobiasKildetoft That $N$ should be$\infty$ !=D
 
@PeterTamaroff ahh. Quite important detail
 
@TobiasKildetoft Yep. Typo.
 
then it looks good
 
7:02 PM
hi
@BabakS. how are you?
 
7:35 PM
@DominicMichaelis click on the triangle to the left of the comment, and copy the permalink in the popup.
 
7:47 PM
I haven't taken the putnam yet.
However, I am preparing for the Putnam 2014. My strategy is to prepare intensely over a long period of time. Note that I have no experience in Math Olympiad.

As a college student, I have access to my college's Putnam resources. For example, here at UCLA there is a Putnam coach (Prof. Ciprian Monalescu!)and a Putnam preparation program.

Your concern about classes+work+time is very real. There is an entire thread on CollegeConfidential, http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/science-majors/1306946-chances-putnam-exam.html .
 
@Raindrop Here is my other worry (from that link): "In high school, competitions were my creative outlet and my opportunity to learn interesting math. In college, there is so much advanced material that doing competitions would only hold me back."
 
And back.
 
@Raindrop I think I will take the putnam prep course and I guess if I feel like it, and it seems like enough fun, I will put more time into studying with the hopes of actually taking the putnam.
 
Neighbours are unbearable.
Fuck I hate living in a flat.
Despair.
I need money to buy a house.
With a moat around it. And a pack of hungry Rotweilers.
=> Peace and quiet.
 
@MattN. well, apart from the constant growling of those rottweilers
 
7:56 PM
Well not so much if I can feed them a trespasser every now and again.
Or some other mean sort of dog.
But I can't think of a scarier breed.
Ugh. Awful.
 
@Ethan It's a gifted school for high school students in Malaysia. There are many references to and explanations about it on the web.
@Bageer I do have a problem in college: it's just not fast or advanced enough. This is because I learned lots of first/second year Calculus and Physics college material in high school in preparation for the Physics Olympiad.
However, at college I failed to prove myself worthy of skipping courses, so I had and have to take lots of those courses which I have already studied long ago. Now, I have two 'creative outlets': research and Putnam. My preparation for (photonics) research would be learning programming languages such as C++, Matlab, AutoCAD and LabVIEW. (See talk.collegeconfidential.com/california-institute-technology/…)
I don't have any rational rationale for choosing to prepare for the putnam instead of research, other than (a)Feynman did the Putnam and went on to become an extraordinary physicist, (b) I love the tonnes of external support (people pressure) that UCLA would give me to prepare for the Putnam, including having a coach and working with like-minded peers to achieve a common goal.
 
8:48 PM
Hi. Let f:A -> B be a function. if B is restricted to f(A), does f:A->f(A) have name?
 
then it becomes a surjective map
@MinimusHeximus
surjection
 
I mean a name which shows connection with f: A-> B. something like "surjective restriction of f".
 
9:34 PM
@MinimusHeximus Well, it is not a restriction.
You don't restrict the function, but change the codomain to match the image.
The function $f:A\to B\;/\; x\mapsto f(x)$ is different from the function $f:A\mapsto f(A)\;/\; x\mapsto f(x)$. In particular, as you say, the latter is surjective.
 
Isn't that what restrictions are? Changing the domain (codomain) to some subset of the original domain ( codomain).
 
@Bageer Well, as far as I know, the domain is restricted. You cannot restrict the codomain, since that would mean the domain might be changed. The best you can do is change $B$ by $f(A)$.
For example, consider $f:\Bbb R\to\Bbb R\;/\; x\mapsto x$.
If we want to change the codomain to $\Bbb R_{\geq 0}$, what we should really do is change the domain to $\Bbb R_{geq 0}$. Else, points of the alleged domain would have no image.
Which is nonsense.
 
@PeterTamaroff That doesn't mean it can't still be a restriction, you just have to be more careful if you want to end up with an actual function.
 
@Bageer Careful $\equiv$ change domain, not codomain.
 
@PeterTamaroff Well you would change both (if needed). Its still a restriction just to both domain and codomain.
 
9:47 PM
"Its still a restriction just to both domain and codomain." ?
 
You restrict the domain, and you also restrict the codomain
 
A restriction of a function $f:A\to B$ is a function $f\mid_S:S\subseteq A\to B$. If you want to define the Bageer restriction of a function, go ahead.
I think I just gave you a sound argument why chaging the codomain should immediately affect the domain unless you change it to $f(A)$.
 
I didn't say changing the codomain wouldn't change the domain.
 
For example, let's take $f:[-1,1]\to [0,1]\; /\; x\mapsto x^2$. If we want to change the codomain, we must always change the domain.
@Bageer Yes, I know. What I'm trying to say is that it makes little sense to worry about chaging the codomain.
 
@PeterTamaroff Unless say a proof relied on having a surjective function and restricting the codomain would be a sensical concept
 
9:55 PM
Do you agree or not?
@Bageer Yes, but then it is just the usual change of $B$ to $f(A)$. And this is merely a matter of convenience.
 
@PeterTamaroff Exactly a restriction of the codomain to the image
 
@Bageer Yep.
 
10:19 PM
@anon LOL.
 
eh?
 
I just got a mail from my university's dean: a guy graduated and instead of throwing eggs and stuff at him, some guys got dead rabbits.
What the fuck.
@anon How do you guys "celebrate" when a person graduates?
 
ceremonies in large spaces
 
@anon I mean, between friends.
Here, it is customary to throw diverse products at the person, such as flour, eggs and other stuff.
I find it quite silly, but well...
@BrianMScott
 
oh, at the ceremony we do tend to throw things. at my high school we use bouncy balls, but it varies widely.
 
10:28 PM
@anon Hehehe, I see.
 
11:06 PM
@BrianM.Scott Hello! =)
 
@PeterTamaroff I’m here, more or less.
 
@PeterTamaroff I knew that it was there; I’ve not actually read it.
 
@BrianM.Scott Oh.
 
@PeterTamaroff Give me a few minutes to take a look.
Looks fine. Of course as Asaf points out, it has the same shortcoming as the one in the original link, in that it gives only uncountability, but if the Baire category theorem is available, it’s a simpler argument than the one in the link.
 
11:17 PM
@BrianM.Scott Yes. But I have no means of proving it has cardinality al least $2^{\aleph_0}$. At least, not by myself.
 
@PeterTamaroff You do; you just don’t know that you do. :-) The trick is to combine Hausdorffness with the construction that you use to prove the BCT to produce not one nest with singleton intersection, but $2^\omega$ such nests.
 
@BrianM.Scott That is what you do, right?
 
@PeterTamaroff Yes.
 
@BrianM.Scott Heh =) I see. Well, my proof is the "Perfect Sets 101", your proof is "Perfect Sets: Doing it well."
@BrianM.Scott I see how you have to index with such $\Sigma$s and not with $\Bbb N$ any more. That is something I had never seen before.
 
@PeterTamaroff The idea is to index by the complete binary tree of height $\omega$.
 
11:23 PM
@BrianM.Scott I don't know what the "complete binary tree of height $\omega$" is.
 
@PeterTamaroff One such is $\left\langle{}^{<\omega}\{0,1\},\subseteq\right\rangle$, the set of finite sequences of zeros and ones ordered by $\subseteq$ (which is in effect by extension).
 
@BrianM.Scott I guessed something like that, yes.
You start with $0,1$ and make the $0,1$ sprout off.
 
See infinite complete binary tree here.
 
@anon Hey
 
yo
 
11:29 PM
@anon Will you be around later? I might have some questions about flows and the like
@anon I have a differential geometry exam next week
 
@BrianM.Scott I see.
 
@BenjaLim probably not, I am going to a friend's bday party tonight (haven't seen him but three times this semester), and my brother's grad parties last all weekend
 
@anon Ok.
@anon I am just worried because my differential geometry course has a shit ton of material to study for
Lie groups, vector fields, flows, differential forms, integration on manifolds, riemannian metrics, etc
 
my diff geo course was pretty softcore.
 
We don't prove anything though :(
 
11:31 PM
we only studied how to compute things with fund. forms in three dimensions really
 
oh you guys do Riemannian geometry?
@anon Somehow I found the presentation of Lie groups (at least from the Lee book) to be somewhat mundane,dry and boring
 
differential geometry, but like I said we barely covered anything in the class. both students and teacher were more busy with other things so we let things slide pretty far
 
@anon Right.
Yea I know what it feels like. I kinda feel that my class was kinda empty and hollow
Like we were "told" how to integrate a k - form on a manifold by pulling to a chart and "erasing the wedges"
and the formula for the exterior derivative in coordinates was just thrown at us
 
later
 
yea @anon later
@robjohn Can you delete this answer here? math.stackexchange.com/a/408101/38268
It's definitely spam
 
11:39 PM
@BrianM.Scott Define a sequence of rational numbers to be eventually arithmetic if there exists $d\in\Bbb N$ and $n_0$ such that $a_{n+1}-a_n=d$ for $n\geq n_0$. What is the cardinality of eventually arithmetic rational sequences?
Hm...
 
@PeterTamaroff There are $\omega$ arithmetic rational sequences. There are $\omega$ finite rational sequences. Therefore ...
 
They can all be coded by $(a_{n_0},d,n_0)$ and the first $n_0-1$ terms.
@BrianM.Scott So it is indeed $\omega$.
 
That was asked in a midterm in "Advanced Calculus" in my uni.
@BrianM.Scott Yeah, that is what they did in the solution, they used for each $n\in\Bbb N$ the surjection $f(\text{ev. ar. seq.})=(a_1,\dots,a_n,a_{n+1}-a_n=d)$ for each set $A_n$ of sequence that are eventually arithmetic after the term $n$. (Just read it)
Then the set is a countable union of sets of card. $\omega$
 
@PeterTamaroff Alternatively, there’s an easy bijection between it and the Cartesian product of two countably infinite sets.
 
11:47 PM
@BrianM.Scott Let me think.
$\left(\bigcup_k {}^{<k}{\Bbb N}^{\Bbb Q}\right)\times\Bbb N$? @BrianM.Scott
 
@PeterTamaroff See my earlier comment starting There are $\omega$ ...
 
@BrianM.Scott Sorry, in the $\cup$ I mean of finite length.
@BrianM.Scott Is my notation OK?
 
@PeterTamaroff Your first factor is fine, but the second requires some preliminary work to show that the set of rational arith. seqs. is countably infinite.
 
@BrianM.Scott Oh. But it can be coded as $(a_0,d)$ for each $a_{n+1}=a_n+d$. And two are equall $\iff( a_0=a_0^\prime $ and $d=d^\prime$).
So $\simeq \Bbb N^2\simeq \Bbb N$.
@BrianM.Scott Yes?
 
Yes, so the natural correspondence is with ${}^{<\omega}\Bbb Q\times\omega\times\omega$.
 
11:54 PM
@BrianM.Scott Oh, OK. I skipped the $\omega\times\omega$ to make it $\omega$.
I see you change $\Bbb N$ to $\omega$ depending on context.
 
@PeterTamaroff I generally prefer $\omega$; I use $\Bbb N$ a lot here simply because many users won’t understand $\omega$.
 
Close votes @anon @BrianM.Scott ?
@BrianM.Scott I see.
 

« first day (1031 days earlier)      last day (3991 days later) »