« first day (1603 days earlier)      last day (3434 days later) » 

11:05 AM
I didn't intend to dogpile you haha @Alizter. Just wanted to say that I haven't yet encountered anything fun about Lie stuff.
To make you happy, there is a geometric-topology conjecture that says that Z_p (p-adics) can't act by homeomorphisms on any finite-dimensional manifold.
It's unsolved till now, AFAIK.
In fact it can be proved that what I said above is essentially equivalent to say that if G is any topological group that acts faithfully on a compact finite-dimensional manifold by homeomorphisms, G must be Lie.
Of course, I dunno any of that stuff. Just understand the statement of the problem prof told me.
 
What's $\lim_{x\to0}\left(\frac{a^x+b^x}{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{x}}$
 
Thats the geometric mean
@Hippalectryon
 
O_o
Isn't the geo mean $\sqrt{\prod}$ ?
 
11:20 AM
Yup
same as that limit
 
oh yikes
looks like you were partly correct @Alizter
 
@BalarkaSen partly?
 
lie groups appear as galois groups of differential extensions
 
oh
And 'splitting fields' for power series
 
differential galois theory and that stuff i never studied in my life
 
11:21 AM
I remember something like that
@Hippalectryon sub 1/x -> x and stolz
 
@Alizter How does Stolz help here ?
 
@Alizter splitting field of power series are just extensions of $\mathbf{Frac} \, F[[X]]$.
so no, galois groups are still totally disconnected
you just can't get "smooth galois groups" in ordinary extensions
oh man. in fact Lie's motivation for his groups were differential galois theory
interests
 
Makes sense
 
Hmm @Alizter. When you say power series, do you have a topology in mind?
 
@BalarkaSen no
@Hippalectryon Rewrite the limit as exp log
then lhopital
you should be good
 
11:29 AM
I hate l'hospital xD
 
makes you think of hospitals, not?
 
It is actually hospital
 
That, also
 
French in those days had a trend of not ssing
 
Huy
Please write either Hospital or Hôpital.
 
11:30 AM
:P
 
hôspitalle
 
Huy
Hopital just doesn't make sense.
 
What present do I want for Christmas? I want the ability to surpass Ramanujan ...
 
loptial
 
11:30 AM
nayway
 
lopital's rule
 
@Hippalectryon what happens when you rewrite in terms of log exp
its a nice lopital dont worry
 
@Alizter I don't see anything anything nice appearing :c
 
What do you get?
you want log inside
 
exp(1/x * log(blah))
 
11:32 AM
^
 
Now lopital
 
@Alizter But with what functions ?
 
x is denom
log blah is top
 
that doesn't work
 
yes
log 1 = 0 bal
 
11:33 AM
oh log(blah x--> 0) = 0
 
@Alizter @Balarka \o
 
hi @Studentmath
 
yes
 
How's it going?
 
blah @Studentmath
 
11:34 AM
Why?
 
blah
 
Then plug x -> 0
you should be good
 
what @Alizter says works @Hippa
 
@Alizter $\dfrac{\ln(a)+\ln(b)}{a+b}$ ?
 
someone a few days ago wanted me to calculate derivative of x^x wrt x
 
11:36 AM
@Hippalectryon How did you get that?
 
I partialed. :P
 
After lop i get $$\frac{1}{a^x+b^x}\left(a^x \log a + b^x \log b\right)$$
 
@Alizter Oh lol I wrote $a^x=1$ for $x=0$
 
x = 0, @Hippa not x = 1.
 
$(\ln(a)+\ln(b))/2$
 
11:37 AM
you plugged x = 1
 
Me stoopid
 
What are you even doing
 
No
1/2
now exp that and we are done
 
Thanks
 
11:38 AM
what do you get
 
@Studentmath blah. nothing fancy.
 
@Studentmath Leeemites
 
$\sqrt{ab}$
 
Geo mean
 
Ye :D
 
11:39 AM
Which is true for n terms over n
 
AM-GM can be derived from lagrange maximizing a cube in R^n
 
Heh. I've a question. An open set in the basis of an infinite product topology has some $n$ so that for every $i>n$, $U_i=X_i$, right? Otherwise we would have infinite number of open sets $U_i \neq X_i$, contradicting it being the product topology
 
it's a very nice proof
 
If you think of the means as $$\left(\frac1m \sum_i x_i^n \right)^{1/n}$$
we have n = 1 arithmetic mean
 
looonnnggg solution ....
 
11:40 AM
n = 2 quadratic
n = 0
goemetric
n = -1 harmonic
blah blah
and
oh yeah
n -> inf gives the max
and n -> -inf gives the min
 
It's like the p-norms :D
 
yes @Hippa
n -> -inf gives the manhattan metric
 
Yeah what I said makes sense. I still don't get what you are trying to do, though.
 
i am trying to find two simply connected spaces s.t. one point union of those ain't simply connected.
 
@Chris'ssis Stupid question, but how do you use S-C to solve limits with an expression like $(u_n)^n$ ?
 
11:51 AM
@DanielFischer do cones over hawaiian earrings work?
 
@Hippalectryon $$\frac{\log(u_n)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}$$
 
@Hippalectryon take logs?
@Chris'ssis :-)
 
Is that the only way ? If I remember well, in some proof I can't manage to find you got rid of the $^n$ by using S-C, but without logs @Chris'ssis
 
@Hippalectryon You refer to Stolz-Cesaro theorem for the case $0/0$, right?
 
Indeed
Or, for another case if needed
 
11:55 AM
@BalarkaSen Certainly not if the two points you identify are the tips of the cones. Then you get a contractible space. If you identify other points, it may work, you need to pick the right points, however. (I think if you pick the right points it works, but I haven't verified that.)
 
@Hippalectryon Which proof?
 
@Chris'ssis That's the problem :/ I can't find it
 
@DanielFischer Say if I pick the points where all of the circles are wedged at.
Then around that point you don't have local simple connectedness
 
@Hippalectryon You know the internet rules, "link or it didn't happen" ;)
@BalarkaSen That's what I think.
 
11:57 AM
You need to see somethign you'd love ....
(about limits)
 
:D
Another present for me ? :DDD
 
@Hippalectryon Yeah, a Christmas present for you!!! :-)
 
taken
 
@Hippalectryon I love very much that way I found.
 
Christmas evryone
 
11:59 AM
@Chris'ssis I wouldn't call that "without pen and paper" though :)
 
@Hippalectryon I give you my word you need no pen and paper. Just carefully see the basic things I did.:-)
 
@Chris'ssis you need no pen and paper, but many people need to write even simple things to make sure they don't do stupid mistakes
 
@Chris'ssis Did you send that to AMM ?
 
@Chris'ssis uses the table to write on in order to save the environment, is what she meant @Hippalectryon
 
12:02 PM
@DonLarynx >.>
 
@Hippalectryon No. It appeared in April 2014 I think, but I only saw it some days ago.
@DonLarynx :-)
 
@Chris'ssis Ahh too bad
 
So yeah, back to proving $\sum_1^{\infty}r_n$ equals an irrational number.
where $r_n$ is rational
and decreasing
 
@Hippalectryon I plan to send to AMM serious stuff, not this one.
(however, they rejected the proof to the Au-Yeung series - that one was so bright, a masterpiece ... :-(((((((((((((((((((()
 
@Chris'ssis I won't reject it :D send it :DD
 
12:05 PM
@Hippalectryon :-)))))
 
@Chris'ssis isn't the above sequence divergent by divergence test of $\sum_1^{\infty}\frac{1}{n}$?
the former sequence is greater than the latter
 
@DonLarynx Well, I think my problem looked a bit differently if I correctly got your point.
Let $(a_n)_{n\ge 1}$ a strictly increasing sequence in natural numbers. Prove that

$$\lim_{n\to\infty} \left(\frac{1}{a_1} +\frac{1}{a_1\cdot a_2}+\cdots + \frac{1}{a_1\cdot a_2\cdots a_n}\right)\in \mathbb R \setminus \mathbb Q$$
To prove this one converges is very simple.
 
@Chris'ssis What about a sequence whose terms are increasing in chunks ?
(Let me explain what I mean, that's a word I just created xD)
 
@Hippalectryon " increasing in chunks"? I have no idea what that means.
 
Your sequence can be re-written as $\frac{1}{a_1}\sum_1^{\infty}\frac{1}{r_n}$, where the $r_n = a_n : n = 2, 3, 4, \dots$
wait
im wrong
Well, the sequence is less than the sum of reciprocal of factorials, so I can see how it converges
 
12:12 PM
First, let's note a simple fact, a very simple fact: what can we say about $a_n$ since we know it's a strictly increasing sequence in natural numbers?
 
@Chris'ssis By "increasing in chunk of $n$ terms" I mean the following : let $u_k=\min\{a_k,\dots,a_{k+n-1}\}$, then $u_k$ is increasing. Do you get the idea ?
 
@Hippalectryon Yeah.
 
I wonder what would happen to that limit then
 
@Hippalectryon "it's a strictly increasing sequence in natural numbers"
@DonLarynx Right
 
I meant : if $a_k$ is just strictly increasing in chunks (not strictly increasing everywhere anymore), what happens to the limit ? @Chris'ssis
 
12:15 PM
$ \Large \mathfrak{Merry \ \ Christmas} $
4
 
@N3buchadnezzar You're one day early
@N3buchadnezzar e__e
 
@Hippalectryon =P
 
@N3buchadnezzar: By contrast, what days should we celebrate O Wise One?
 
@DonLarynx Every day except christmas
 
slays with Silverlight
 
12:18 PM
@Hippalectryon I'll think of that.
 
@Chris'ssis Ok :D
 
12:32 PM
$$\lim_{n\to\infty} n\left(\left(n \int_0^{\pi/4}e^{n x} (\tan^{n-1}(x)+\tan^{n}(x)+\tan^{n+1}(x)) \ dx\right)^{1/n^2}-1\right)$$
 
People.
 
Me Lord :-)
 
@skullpatrol Are you ever not here, skull?
 
Even when I'm not here, I'm here :D
 
@skullpatrol :P
 
12:38 PM
How go the logical fallacies @Lord_Farin?
 
OK, we have that $$\lim_{n\to\infty} n\left(\left(n \int_0^{\pi/4}e^{n x} (\tan^{n-1}(x)+\tan^{n}(x)+\tan^{n+1}(x)) \ dx\right)^{1/n^2}-1\right)=\frac{\pi}{4}$$
 
@skullpatrol I've retracted a bit from that field, and from maths in general (until this week). So I'm not entirely sure :).
 
@Chris'ssis Do you have any books or texts about double / multivariable integrals
 
I also wonder what happens when we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty} n\left(\left(n \int_0^{\pi/4}e^{n x} (\tan^{n-k}(x)+\tan^{n}(x)+\tan^{n+k}(x)) \ dx\right)^{1/n^2}-1\right)$$
@N3buchadnezzar No, unfortunately.
 
@Chris'ssis =(
 
12:41 PM
icic, well this site @Lord_Farin should wet your appetite, I hope.
 
@N3buchadnezzar Ovidiu Furdui has some problems with multiple integrals and series in his book.
 
@skullpatrol Definitely :P. I've started to see some old patterns coming back at a frightening pace :).
 
Nice.
 
@Chris'ssis $$ \iint_S \arctan \left( e^{xy} \right)\,\mathrm{d}x\,\mathrm{d}y $$ where $S = \{ (x,y)\in \mathbb{R}^2 \ : \ x^2 + y^2 \leq 4x \}$. Looking for problems like these
 
@N3buchadnezzar I see. Well, I think I might have some though but in Romanian language ...
 
12:44 PM
@Chris'ssis Oui oui
@Chris'ssis Do you have "Limits, Series, and Fractional Part Integrals" `?
 
@N3buchadnezzar Yeah, I received it from the author with an autograph. :-)
 
@Chris'ssis I need to buy it then. If it is good
 
@N3buchadnezzar Yeah, it is.
@N3buchadnezzar That should work easily by using polar coordinates.
 
@Chris'ssis It is simpler than that.
 
@N3buchadnezzar Teach me.
 
12:59 PM
@Chris'ssis Well
one integrates over a circle and we have $\arctan x + \arctan 1/X = \pi$
the circle adds another $\pi$ to the answer
 
@N3buchadnezzar you mean that $\arctan(x)+\arctan(1/x)=\pi$?
 
@Chris'ssis Yeah
 
@N3buchadnezzar How is that? I think it's $\arctan(x)+\arctan(1/x)=\pi/2$.
 
@Chris'ssis I guess you can see this easilly if you write it as a polar integral, I just wrote it using cartesian. Lemme give you an picture
@Chris'ssis Yeah. Sorry my mistake
 
OK :-)
 
1:08 PM
Anyway the symmetry of the domain makes it easy to apply $\arctan x + \arctan 1/x = \pi/2$. Then you get half the area of a circle with area $r=2$.
 
1:26 PM
@N3buchadnezzar Watch 5:08 youtube.com/watch?v=I2Z6K_g5kpc
Nowadays people can learn from internet almost everything, one only needs the will to do it.
 
@Chris'ssis you do not think I do not know polar coordinates? :p I feel hurt!
 
@N3buchadnezzar No, I didn't think of that. Polar coordinates stuff is far too easy to think you don't know it.
I was thinking these days it's so bad I don't find pleople passionate as I am in terms of integrals, series and limits.
 
@Chris'ssis I liked this book people.reed.edu/~jerry/211/vcalc.pdf. It is more of a deeper understanding, instead of practical tricks. However I really like it
@Chris'ssis I feel there are many of us.
 
@N3buchadnezzar Some time ago you seemed to be against integration (or it just seemed to me).
 
@Chris'ssis I love it. But like I say, i treat it like brainteasers.
 
1:59 PM
@Venus Now I won't get to see you :(
Poor Anna :(
 
@Iuʇǝƃɹɐʇoɹ rotargetni ???
 
@Hippalectryon ????
 
@Iuʇǝƃɹɐʇoɹ your pseudo
 
@Hippalectryon Integrator!
 
2:04 PM
@Hippalectryon :o
 
2:20 PM
@usukidoll Congratulations!!!! ^_^
Good morning everybody
 
Morning.
 
Am I the only one who pronounces "cout" as coot
lol
 
Anyone has an example of a function $[0,1]\to[0,1]$ s.t. $\forall x\in[0,1],f^{-1}(a)$ is a tuple of two elements ?
 
$f: x \to x$, with the order $=$
@Hippalectryon
 
$x \mapsto x \bmod \frac12$?
 
2:34 PM
@DonLarynx Won't that give only one element ?
 
Oh wait, that one has equal image for $0, \frac12, 1$.
 
@Lord_Farin That function only has images <1/2
 
@Lord Consider $x = 0.25$
 
@Hippalectryon Yes, $2x \mod 1$ then, but it suffers from the same problem.
 
Btw how could you call $f^{-1}(a)$ ? The reciprocal image of $a$ by $f$ ?
 
2:36 PM
@Hippalectryon The inverse
or pre-image
 
@DonLarynx Why does that one work ? (Actually I'm not sure what you mean by "the order $=$")
 
@Hippalectryon it doesn't
 
Ah xD
 
looking for another example
 
I've just asked the more general case here
0
Q: Function such that it has a set number of pre-images

HippalectryonLet $A,B\subset\mathbb{R},n\ge2$. Let $f:A\to B$ (not necessarily continuous) such that $\forall a\in A,f^{-1}(a)$ is a tuple of $n$ elements. I know that if $f$ in continuous, for $A=B=\mathbb{R}$ and $n=2$, such a function does not exist. Therefore I was wondering : When does such a functio...

 
2:45 PM
hahaha, I have so fun watching some videos on youtube ... some are really funny (related to math, of course)!
 
@DonLarynx I know that such a function does not always exist, I am wondering when it actually exists
 
I don't like that much the way the professor answered to the student's question here
13:06
 
@Chris'ssis I watch Ted's classes, it's funnier :D
 
@Hippalectryon Please watch that part.
 
@Hippa: You're still at it !
 
2:48 PM
@Chris'ssis I used to watch Numberphile a lot, but I realized a couple of months ago that most of the videos are painfully trivial...
 
hi @teadawg, @chris'ssis
 
Heya @Ted
 
@TedShifrin I haven't been able to watch them. I have 3h30 of IHES conferences to watch first.
 
@teadawg1337 I try to figure out why math is hard, it's because math is hard or is simply badly explained.
 
@TedShifrin Btw if you could take a look at math.stackexchange.com/questions/1079822/… :)
 
2:49 PM
IHES lectures on what, @Hippa?
 
@TedShifrin Moduli spaces and stuff
 
You're too young for "moduli spaces and stuff"
 
@TedShifrin I don't understand that much of it, but some parts are interesting
 
@Hippalectryon: I've edited my answer
 
@Chris'ssis Wow. YT's subtitles get better every year.
 
2:51 PM
@Hippalectryon I should upload a video on youtube explaining the application of the polar coordinates in double integrals.
 
@Chris'ssis Sure :D
@DonLarynx Thanks, however that does not give me an explicit formula for the general case. I know that for the example I showed above ($[0,1]\to[0,1]$) such a function does exist, so I guess for higher $n$s it should exist too...?
 
@Hippalectryon I don't use subtitles ... :-)
 
@Chris'ssis I can't use sound right now because there are other people around so I rely on subtitles
 
How do you know such a function exists @Hippalectryon? I just proved it can't.
 
@Hippa: Answered.
 
2:54 PM
@TedShifrin Commented
 
"More questions? No." :-)
 
@Hippalectryon: non-continuous?
 
@TedShifrin @DonLarynx For my comment : I don't know which one exactly, but question b) of an exercise I have tells me to find one for $A=B=[0,1]$ and $n=2$. So there has to be one. And I'm pretty sure it's not continuous.
 
@Hippalectryon: It's impossible unless the function is discontinuous at the critical point.
 
Edited, @Hippa. I was tacitly assuming continuous, $A=B=\Bbb R$. I said so now.
 
Huy
2:56 PM
@TedShifrin: I'm starting go get confused by the approximately 9001 new expressions from Differential Geometry needed in GR.
 
Indeed, @Huy.
 
@Hippalectryon: edited.
 
@TedShifrin Do you have an idea for the case in my exercise though ?
 
Huy
@TedShifrin: And I'm only starting with the Lie derivative. Still a long way to go till I'm done with new definitions.
 
Um, @Huy, very long way.
 
2:58 PM
@DonLarynx Well, it can be discontinuous at the critical point then :) thanks for the answer though
 
@Hippa: You're asking if there's a continuous function mapping $[0,1]$ to itself for which every $y$ has two preimages?
 
@TedShifrin No, I know there is one. I want to find one.
 
The same proof as for $\Bbb R$ says there can be no such.
 
@Hippalectryon how do you KNOW there is one? Where is the proof?
 
Huy
@TedShifrin: My goal is to finish the first chapter tomorrow. Then I'm at 15/100 pages. At this rate, I'll be done by January 15th.
 
2:59 PM
Glückliche Wünsche, @Huy :P
 
I remember when I used to calculate when I would be done with books based on a rate @Huy
 
Huy
:D
@DonLarynx: Worked for me every time so far, before exams.
 
@Huy before exams, huh...
 

« first day (1603 days earlier)      last day (3434 days later) »