« first day (1324 days earlier)      last day (3702 days later) » 

r9m
1:00 PM
@Hawk the question is step 2 (taking it to cubics) .. my comment asks for the generalization (polynomials of degree n) .. :D
 
@r9m yes, but are you asking me for the generalization? that is certainly gonna kill me...the problem will haunt me when i will sleep... :D
@r9m @ah yes, you are absolutely correct in identifying it and it is actually true...really worth learning...thanks for sharing the link
 
r9m
@Hawk I'm not asking you ... :) I have the general idea how to proceed .. now I just need time to figure out how to get it :D
Welcome
@Hawk you watch Naruto ?
 
@r9m No, I didn't even know about it, is it related to math?
@r9m But I do watch Shinchan
@r9m I don't think it is related to math...it is related to ninja...
@r9m Okay, this is interesting, someone says that "most irrationals are non-terminating". I say "all irrationals are non-terminating". Who is correct?
@r9m I think you didn't like me not watching naruto :D
Bye, I cannot stay anymore...will try after 9 or 10 pm...
 
r9m
1:19 PM
@Hawk I love Shinchan :D
I went to the next room .. () sorry for the delay
@Hawk The idea of not liking someone who dosen't watch Naruto .. gives me creeps :P
 
Yep, today we leant the definition of a continuous function !
Using metric.
@r9m
Have you watched the new Naruto?
 
r9m
@eXtremiity downloading it .. :D
 
Is it still filler?
 
r9m
@eXtremiity title says 'Kakashi: Shadow of the ANBU Black Ops – A Shinobi of the Leaf' .. filler
 
Yep - a filler. Gah.
Well, at least its about Kakashi. He is a cool character.
But when they have talking ninja turkeys, then it gets a little ridic. :p
 
1:31 PM
@eXtremiity isn't it essentially the same as the $\epsilon-\delta$ one?
 
@SabyasachiMukherjee . Yes it is.
 
r9m
@eXtremiity talking ninja turkey .. ? havent seen that !! Is something like that there ??
 
Well, this was a WHILE ago. And it was a filler of Naruto, not Naruto Shippuden.
Damn, I have been watching Naruto for so long.
 
@eXtremiity,I think there's another one in terms of open sets.
 
6-7 years?
 
r9m
1:33 PM
@eXtremiity Naruto is still going on .. I thought there were only 220 episodes
??
 
@SabyasachiMukherjee. Yes. That's right.
Let $(X,d_x)$ and $(Y,d_y)$ be metric spaces and $f:X \to Y$. Then $f$ is continuous on $X$ iff $f^{-1}(U)$ is open in $(X,d_x)$ for every open set $U$ in $(Y,d_y)$.
@r9m. No, Naruto Shippuden is a sequel to Naruto.
 
@eXtremiity.precisely!
:)
 
But back when Naruto had fillers, there was one with a talking ninja turkey.
 
r9m
@eXtremiity which episode ?
 
Not sure. Actually, not sure if it was a turkey. But it was definitely a bird. Hold on, let me look into it.
@r9m . I can't find it :( .
Ostrich Ninja :D.
$*\smile*$
 
r9m
1:38 PM
@eXtremiity thats crazy ,, ROFL :P
 
Any Phineas and Ferb fan here?
 
@r9m. And it -was- a Naruto Shipp. filler.
I can't get my episodes right anymore. It's been too long.
 
1:58 PM
@SabyasachiMukherjee. Sure am.
 
@eXtremiity, Indian I believe?
 
Oh no. I'm from Australia with Bolivian background.
 
@robjohn You are up early!
 
@eXtremiity, oh I am sorry for the incorrect guess. I thought you knew r9m and hence my guess.
Are you also a math major?
 
I'm doing a double degree majoring in Finance and Pure Mathematics with Honors.
So to answer your question, yes.
 
2:02 PM
oh, nice
 
I enjoy it. So i'm happy.
However, I'm currently doing a psychology subject and it's so boring.
Regret picking it up.
 
ah, i see.
I started to regret doing microeconomics last semester.
But inspite of the not-so-stellar grade, I kind of got a new perspective.
 
Microeconomics is actually very interesting.
That's good.
 
So, which area i math are you interested in?
 
Analysis. I love it.
We've only touched on it - but it's so damn interesting.
I love how these mathematical structures are being defined.
 
2:06 PM
I like real analysis too. But I like number theory(elementary) too.
 
Possible topology - I'm still very new to this all.
That is fun :) !
 
After a while, it gets a bit boring.
 
What does?
 
Math, lol.
 
Hmmmm.
 
2:09 PM
@JasperLoy Have you done any pure mathematics?
 
@ParthKohli Such as?
 
@JasperLoy, why do you say so?
 
@JasperLoy Abstract algebra or number theory.
 
@SabyasachiMukherjee Well, it happens naturally. You may like a girl very much, but sometimes you still find her boring.
@ParthKohli Yes, yes.
 
@JasperLoy OK.
 
2:11 PM
I guess you have a point to a certain degree. However, that's if you let it get boring.
 
@JasperLoy just back from the park
 
@robjohn I will talk more to you if I go to UCLA. There are some things that I don't dare to ask you in this chat, hehe.
 
@eXtremiity, how much real analysis have you done?
 
Not much. It's all more or less introductory.
 
same here.
 
2:14 PM
For example, we've learnt about the cardinality of sets, convergence, continuity - open and close etc.
 
I prefer real analysis to complex analysis.
 
I'm writing all the theorems and definitions into handbook as we speak.
I have to memorise these.
Oh, I loved complex analysis.
But I agree. Real Analysis is more beautiful.
 
Oh. I have never seen any complex analysis.
 
Oh it's fantastic !
 
In that case, here's a problem: $(a_n)$ is a sequence with positive terms and $\frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n}\to L$ such that $L<1$. Then show that $a_n\to 0$
 
2:16 PM
Here's a taste. So I'm sure you've seen many functions. You have worked with these functions, learnt certain characteristics and so on. However, the domain of these functions were more or less - the reals. My question to you is, what happens if I put a complex number into these functions? I.e. - what if the domain is the complex field?
Is sin(z) still bounded between -1 and 1? It's a great subject (y).
 
(0<L<1)
(in that case, I need to know what one means by $\sin z$.
 
$sin$ is a trigonometric function. And $z \in \mathbb{C}$
$z = x+iy, x, y \in \mathbb{R}$
 
@eXtremiity, yes, I mean which definition of sin are you using?
 
What -should- I use :p ?
 
The definition I know is the one about the unit circle.
But I guess to do some analysis, one needs the series definition of sin x.
 
2:23 PM
What is the practical significance of second order and higher derivatives?
 
And you definitely use that a lot in Complex Analysis. From what I know there are 3 ways to define $sin$. The first is its trigonometric ratio: Opp/Hyp. The second is its transcendental function. And the third is expressing sin in terms of exponentials.
 
I.e. $sin(z) = \frac{e^{iz}-e^{-iz}}{2i}$
 
@AwalGarg Taylor series, analyticity.
 
@eXtremiity, that is one fine way to define sine.
Let me finish taking real analysis, then I'll think about complex
:D
 
2:29 PM
It is. I actually don't know why.
Like, how its derived.
Yes, I agree. I need to stick to Real Analysis :p.
 
@eXtremiity, Do you have something like REU's in Australia?
 
Have not heard of an REU.
 
Research experience for undergrads.
 
Hmmmm, I think so.
Yes, I believe so.
 
I think undergrads should not be made to do research. I prefer the European system, lol.
 
2:35 PM
Research is fun !
 
@eXtremiity In English, there should be no space before the punctuation mark, mostly.
 
Hahahaha. Yes, that's right :p.
It is a bad habit.
In fact, I blame my latex editor for that.
 
Complex Analysis told me to shut up when I told him about it, lol.
 
Alright, well - it's time for bed. Night everyone Zzzzzzz.
 
@eXtremiity, good night.
 
2:51 PM
@JasperLoy, do you know of one very counter-intuitive fact in real analysis?
 
@SabyasachiMukherjee Well, when I was in high school, I did not understand why 1+1/2+1/3+... diverges.
 
hmm. yes, even i had a bit of difficulty understanding that.
@JasperLoy,thanks. see you later.
 
@SabyasachiMukherjee Welcome to the club!
 
My suttas arrived today in 4 big books.
 
3:06 PM
@JasperLoy Smooth manifolds came yesterday
 
@Mike You are lucky you are in the US. I might try to migrate there...
 
3:17 PM
I am going to stay home and watch TV this weekend. Two shows on Fri, two on Sat, and two on Sun.
 
3:48 PM
@Jasper Well, amazon is based here.
 
@Mike Yes, I am considering being reborn there or in Germany, lol.
 
Hi folks
 
@OldJohn You are not so active on the site?
 
@JasperLoy Just back from a 2 week holiday in Tenerife :)
 
@OldJohn Where is that?
 
3:50 PM
An island off the west coast of Africa - actually part of Spain
 
@OldJohn Ah, OK. I don't think I would wanna go to Africa.
 
nice weather, good food, and some excellent hill-walking
Ah - but Tenerife is not like africa in many ways - more like a spanish resort just a bit further south - no poisonous snakes/insects or animals that eat people, for instance
 
that's good to hear
 
@Mike Dude.,
 
Yah.
 
3:55 PM
@OldJohn I just got a complete set of the main discourses of the Buddha, 4 huge books!
 
Do you happen to remember the move that showed multiplication is well defined in the ring of fractions $S^{-1}A$?
 
It was definition pushing IIRC
 
You know, we have $s_1(s'a-sa')=0$ and $s_2(r'b-rb')=0$ and we want to show $s_3(r's'ab-rsa'b')=0$.
 
right
 
My first idea was to multiply the above.
 
3:56 PM
Hey, @OldJohn Haven't seen you for a while, welcome back.
 
@JasperLoy That sounds like some serious reading effort is required. When I was young I once spent a whole summer sitting outdoors in wonderful weather reading a book on Buddhism.
 
But it is not useful, since it gives something with sum, not subtraction.
 
@DanielFischer Thanks - just back from a long holiday (Tenerife)
 
@OldJohn Yes, one of them is over 2000 pages!
 
@JasperLoy sheesh!
 
3:57 PM
@Pedro Multiply the first by r'b, second by sa'
 
Not sure I have ever seen a single book with that many pages
 
Add
 
Nevermind, yes I got it. =P
Silly me. =)
@Mike Also by r_1,s_1
 
You're distracting me! :P
ah you're right
 
@OldJohn @Mike Look
 
4:03 PM
@PedroTamaroff Hmm - David's answer is pretty insightful!
 
@OldJohn I kinda changed my question.
I am an asshole. =)
 
Everyone's ass has a hole.
 
@JasperLoy No shit Sherlock. =D
 
@parth What picture is that?
 
@JasperLoy Cyanide and Happiness.
 
4:26 PM
@BalarkaSen, what club?
 
@PedroTamaroff I didn't understand what you were trying to do here : math.stackexchange.com/questions/719433/…
 
@SabyasachiMukherjee Where?
 
"(removed)"
 
2 hours ago, by Balarka Sen
@SabyasachiMukherjee Welcome to the club!
@ParthKohli, that one.
 
4:38 PM
@SabyasachiMukherjee He was responding to "I like real analysis too. But I like number theory (elementary) too."
"Welcome to the club" means that there are many more like you who like real analysis and number theory.
 
oh. There are so many bright 14 year olds nowadays.
@ParthKohli, that's nice. You people seem to have done a lot of math at a younger age than most Indians.
 
@SabyasachiMukherjee It's really good of you to think so, but I'm nowhere near Sawarnik or Balarka.
 
@ParthKohli, that is not really bad. If you don't mind, can yu create a separate room for us?
 
@SabyasachiMukherjee Sure.
 
5:05 PM
@ParthKohli Will you give me the access?
 
@Sawarnik Eh, don't want to duplicate rooms.
So switching our convo to the GMC room.
 
Yes.
@ParthKohli, hope I could help.
 
@SabyasachiMukherjee thanks for the suggestions
 
You're welcome.
I know a few more but I think I could have benefited a lot more if I had stuck to a few books and done them.
 
Greetings
A question I just created. Maybe you like it. Compute
$$\lim_{n\to\infty}\int_0^{3/4}\int_0^{15/16}\cdots\int_0^{(4 n^2 - 1)/(4 n^2)}\frac{1}{1-(x_1x_2\cdots x_n)^2} dx_1dx_2\cdots dx_n$$
 
5:10 PM
@SabyasachiMukherjee You are right. Sticking to fewer books is better.
 
r9m
@Sawarnik yo man ... 'sup ?
 
All hail @BalarkaSen is here
2
 
@BalarkaSen It's a sad thing you dismiss $\delta$-$\varepsilon$ things and then say "I don't know limits."
You cannot expect someone to take you seriously with that attitude.
 
@BalarkaSen, what club wereyou talking about?(Parth tried to explain but let's see what you were thinking)
 
in Room for General Mathematical Conversation, 2 days ago, by Balarka Sen
@Sawarnik I don't know rigorous limits, and that's frank-talk. Nonrigorus bumpy definitions do the trick for me very easily.
in Room for General Mathematical Conversation, 2 days ago, by Balarka Sen
$\epsilon - \delta$ sucks.
 
5:14 PM
@PedroTamaroff Precisely, I am not serious.
And I am neither a mathematician, man.
Don't take me seriously
=)
 
@BalarkaSen You're the one who's always insisting on seriousness and "real" mathematics.
 
@SabyasachiMukherjee The people who like NT.
@PedroTamaroff My real math is not isomorphic to your real math.
 
@BalarkaSen, Parth told me so.
 
@PedroTamaroff lol. pwned.
 
5:17 PM
Nope, my internet connection.
 
sorry :(
 
Who's up for some elementary number theory?
 
@PedroTamaroff lighten up pal
 
Find the number of integral solution $(x, y)$ to $$\frac1x + \frac1y = \frac1N$$ for some fixed $N$.
 
@skullpatrol Same response.
 
5:19 PM
@PedroTamaroff why so srs?
 
Hey I have a pregunta!
 
@Anthony OK.
 
Every open set in R is a countable disjoint union of open interval?
 
@skullpatrol The kid should deflate a bit.
@Anthony Yes.
 
Is there a similar thing for closed sets?
 
5:21 PM
@PedroTamaroff are you the only one who can have fun?
 
@skullpatrol There is a difference between having fun and preaching ridiculous stuff. Come on.
 
@PedroTamaroff I have nothing to deflate, man, nothing.
 
You're a reasonable person.
@Anthony Well, take the complement of that union. =)
 
lol
 
The important thing goes with open sets, though.
 
5:23 PM
I don't see why...
 
@PedroTamaroff Let the subject mold the person. Nobody can "deflate" anybody in here, right?
 
@skullpatrol I didn't say someone should deflate anyone, that is something done by oneself.
 
And also how do you take the complement? I thought complements turn unions into intersections, but a disjoint union…?
 
3 mins ago, by Pedro Tamaroff
@skullpatrol The kid should deflate a bit.
 
Oof, suddenly things got bit serious.
 
5:24 PM
@Anthony If $O=\bigcup I_i$; then $X\smallsetminus O=\bigcap X\smallsetminus I_i$.
@skullpatrol Yes.
 
@PedroTamaroff what he should or should not do is his business
 
@skullpatrol Not if he's telling people who praise him ridiculous stuff.
Much like if a preacher preaches hate.
 
7 mins ago, by skullpatrol
@PedroTamaroff lighten up pal
 
@skullpatrol I don't want to go out jogging.
 
@PedroTamaroff What are you referring to?
 
5:27 PM
OK, OK you win, I give up pal
 
@BalarkaSen The three messages I posted above, what was said in General Math. Conversation.
@skullpatrol Peter 1 Skull 0.
 
@PedroTamaroff Peter $+\infty$ Skull $-\infty$
 
@PedroTamaroff Why is that theorem significant though…. I don't really understand. Doesn't it make sense for every open set to be a countable union?
 
@Anthony Well, it's a theorem. =)
 
@PedroTamaroff Ah, that. I stand by to what I said in (1) and (2). Added to (3) should be "in the stuffs I do"
 
5:29 PM
Oh well I guess it doesn't necessarily.
 
It gives you the complete structure of any open set in $\Bbb R$.
So knowing what an open set looks like generically is very useful.
 
Yeah-If you have the power set of R?
The same doesn't hold right?
 
@BalarkaSen You sound like anyone who never studied calculus rigorously.
@Anthony Come again?
 
@PedroTamaroff Analysis, no.
But you know me, I know nothing of mathematics.
 
0
Q: Integration by parts on a sum of a product of partial derivatives

Jessy CatLet $\Omega$ be a region $\subset \subset \mathbb{R}^{n}$, and suppose that both $u_{\infty}$ and $\varphi$ $\in C_{0}^{\infty}(\Omega)$. Then, I want to perform integration by parts on the following: $\displaystyle \int_{\Omega}\sum_{j=1}^{n} \frac{\partial u_{\infty}}{\partial x_{j}} \frac{\p...

 
5:31 PM
So why lecture someone who knows nothing?
Leave my stupidity be. =)
 
Jessy's got one of her questions again.
 
A fair-and-square suggestion.
 
Balarka, you know more than you think you do.
 
@JessyCat nah.
Not particularly true.
I admit it.
 
In mathematics you don't understand anything, you just get used to it.
 
5:33 PM
@skullpatrol WAT
 
If you have the Power sets of R, with whatever metric they have, and you look at any open set… the same doesn't hold right?
 
Of course you have to understand.
 
define "understand"
 
@skullpatrol We are heading to philosophy now, great.
 
@BalarkaSen what does it mean to understand something?
 
5:38 PM
Forget my question above. I missed a point ...
 
Tell me one thing @Pedro, lots of people wander around saying that mathematics is useless, do you care to contradict them? So why me? C'mon, ones a stupid always a stupid, you can't do anything about them.
 
@BalarkaSen Right =)
 
@BalarkaSen Uselessness is completely subjective, but of course math is not, much like engineering isn't useless. Most things have a purpose -- one might be wondering into philosophical speech, though. I don't think you're stupid, but you should be careful about your attitude towards yourself, your learning and your respect to things you don't know.
3
One forms an opinion of something if one studies it. Else, it's just gibberish.
 
@PedroTamaroff "I don't think you're stupid" That's not a frank truth, c'mon. Anyways, I do, though, and that's a reasonable explanation of how one says something is useless etc. without studying it, no?
 
5:45 PM
For example, many people that are just learning mathematics look for "intuition" (I did) when "intuition" simply means "let's study it enough so it makes sense to me". Someone explained to me, and I agreed, that intuition is something we build on experience. Mathematics happens to defy our usual understanding of things, hence our intuition (...)
In the lower levels, one can try to overlap certain ideas to every-day situations or known things, but then one needs to develop a new intuition, a mathematical intuition, to make sense of things.
 
what is the opposite of "intuition"?
 
@BalarkaSen Well, you seem to be good a learning the big words and using them. I think you should also learn the basics, since the provide with the examples the big guys built modern math over.
@skullpatrol "estrangement"?
Intuition would be like "let's get this into my comfort zone, into a form I can with things I already know."
Sometimes the interesting situation is to leave our comfort zone... I think that's how we progress.
 
One more thing! Does every sequence in Q also have a monotone subsequence?
 
@PedroTamaroff I am trying to stay focused at NT.
 
@BalarkaSen Number theory?
 
5:48 PM
the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.
"we shall allow our intuition to guide us"
synonyms: instinct, intuitiveness
 
@PedroTamaroff So you prefer people to do that?
@PedroTamaroff Yes, that.
 
Can Complex Infinity be the same as -1?
 
@BalarkaSen Yes, that's my opinion.
@MatsGranvik Huh?
@BalarkaSen What book are you using?
 
Er I think that may have gotten lost-I'm just gonna repost-
Does every sequence in Q also have a monotone subsequence? I know it does in R, and the argument doesn't seem to require anything like LUBP so...
 
@PedroTamaroff I have used Niven-Zuckerman-Montgomery, Apostol (a bit), Ireland-Rosen mostly and now onto Iwaniec-Kowalski to improve my ANT.
 
5:51 PM
@BalarkaSen Those are quite a few books. =) I cannot say I haven't done that. Ireland-Rosen is very nice.
 
@MatsGranvik In what way? You can view the complex plane as a sphere topologically, but $\infty$ still cannot be used arithmetically.
 
@PedroTamaroff I am doing a limit that gives the number of divisors at the pole of zeta, but is equal to either -1 or Complex infinity for a zeta zero when simplifying it.
@robjohn
 
> Rather than knowing the correct rules of thought theoretically, one must have them assimilated into one's flesh and blood ready for instant and instinctive use. Therefore, for the schooling of one's powers of thought only the practice of thinking is really useful.
 
@PedroTamaroff I&R is from what I learned number theory.
 
@BalarkaSen But Ireland and Rosen is not an introductory text.
 
5:54 PM
Niven-Zuckerman-Montgomery is.
 
$$\lim_{s\to 1} \, \zeta (s) \left(\exp \left(\frac{\text{Total}\left[\frac{1}{\text{Divisors}[n]^{s-1}}\right]}{\zeta (s)}\right)-1\right)$$
 
Books like Landau's "Elementary Number Theory" and Burton's "Number Theory" are awesome.
 
Clear[s, n]
Monitor[Table[
Limit[Zeta[s]*(Exp[Total[1/Divisors[n]^(s - 1)]/Zeta[s]] - 1),
s -> 1], {n, 1, 16}], n]
 
And Landau has Analytic Number Theory.
 
@PedroTamaroff Yes, I have heard that.
 
5:55 PM
{1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 4, 2, 4, 3, 4, 2, 6, 2, 4, 4, 5}
 
@BalarkaSen I had a problem for you about that, remember?
 
NZM has lot of exercises, that's why I like it.
@PedroTamaroff About what?
 
Proving $$f(s)=\sum_{n\geqslant 1}\frac{\log n}{n^s}$$ is continuous over $(1,+\infty)$
 
And that's not NT at all.
But related, anyways.
 
That's Analytic Number Theory.
 
5:57 PM
Proving that the derivative exists.
 
It's a Dirichlet series.
 
@PedroTamaroff Well, kind of a, but not the usual kind.
$\log$ is not multiplicative
@PedroTamaroff Nope, can't agree with you on that.
 
@BalarkaSen Err... yes it is. Dirichlet series are used widely on ANT, to prove say Dirichlet's theorem.
And knowing the series is continuous is helpful.
 
@PedroTamaroff I know, but continuity is not ANT
@PedroTamaroff That's the point.
Not entirely a study of ANT.
 
@BalarkaSen Well, it just happens to be a thing that comes up.
So, how would you show it is continuous?
 

« first day (1324 days earlier)      last day (3702 days later) »