« first day (1638 days earlier)      last day (3384 days later) » 

8:12 PM
@DonLarynx Oh?
 
@Huy DG?
 
Huy
diffgeo
 
DargonGall
 
8:28 PM
@Huy ugh differential forms
 
Ugh?
 
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhh
@MikeMiller I have 150 problemsets to correct, any comforting words?
 
No.
 
Hi all!
 
So, another question. If $G$ is finite abelian group, $o(G)=p_1^{n_1}\dots p_k^{n_k}$, $G$ would have the largest element if $G=C_{p_1^{n_1}}\times \dots \times C_{p_k^{n_k}}$?
 
8:43 PM
@Studentmath I don't understand your question.
"Largest element"?
 
Element of largest order, compared to other $G$'s with same order.
 
Every finite abelian group has an element of largest order.
I still don't understand the "$G$ would have the largest element if..." part.
 
hi @gato !
 
@Pedro I mean that, say, $o(G)=2^23^2$. I have 4 different abelian groups of such order, correct?
Ah, I get the point.
No, wait, I don't.
 
I think I understand what you mean.
 
8:47 PM
Then the one with the element of largest order out of all 4 different groups, would be $G=C_{2^2}\times C_{3^2}$.
 
Say $C_p\times C_p$ has order $2$, but the order of its elements is at most $p$.
 
The others would have an element of largest order, of smaller order than the rest.
 
Yet $C_{p^2}$ has an element of order $p^2$.
 
Yeah.
 
Yes, this has to do with exponents @Studentmath.
For any abelian group $G$, there is a least $n$ such that $nG=0$.
This is called the exponent of $G$. Some people call any $k$ such that $kG=0$ an exponent. So the exponent is the least integer that is an exponent of $G$.
$G$ is cyclic if and only if $n=G$.
 
8:48 PM
Oh. That's nice
 
Note that $|G|$ is an exponent of $G$, so $\exp G\leqslant |G|$.
@Studentmath Try to prove it. Tell me if you're stuck.
 
So a cyclic group has the largest exponent?
 
Among groups of its order, yes.
That's what you observed.
 
Cheers, will try to do that exercise
Doesn't it come directly from the fact that the order of elements divides the order of the group?
 
@Studentmath Just write down the proof.
You want to see that $G$ must contain an element of order $|G|$.
Show that if $g\in G$ has maximal order, it has order $\exp G$, @Studentmath.
 
9:02 PM
@DanielFischer In my lecture notes, it says that we suppoe that we have a solution $x_n=\sum_{i=0}^n a_i 7^i$ of $x_n^2-2 \equiv 0 \mod{7^{n+1}}$ and then we are looking for a $x_{n+1}$ such that $x_{n+1}^2 -2 \equiv 0 \mod{7^{n+2}}$ and $x_{n+1} \equiv x_n \mod{7^{n+1}}$.
After having shown that there is a $a_{n+1}$ such that $x_{n+1} = \sum_{i=0}^{n+1} a_i 7^i$, it says that we want to have solutions for each $n \in \mathbb{N}$ (of $x^2 \equiv a \mod{p^n}$), i.e. for $n \to +\infty$ and $x_{\infty}=\lim_{n \to +\infty} x_n=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a_n 7^{n+1}$.
 
@Pedro wouldn't it be enough to show that $\exp G$ divides $|G|$?
 
@Studentmath Why?
 
@Pedro because then we have that $|G|$ is an exponent, and $\exp G\le |G|$
 
$|G|$ is always an exponent.
By Lagrange.
 
@evinda I don't understand your question. You assume that your $x_n$ satisfies $x_n^2 \equiv 2 \pmod{7^{n+1}}$. The other solution of $a^2 \equiv 2 \pmod{7^{n+1}}$ is then $-x_n$, or, if you wish to write it that way, $7^{n+1} - x_n$.
 
9:11 PM
@DanielFischer I haven't understood if it is right to assume that the solution of $x_n^2 \equiv 2 \pmod{7^{n+1}}$ is $x_n=\sum_{i=0}^n a_i 7^i$ or if it should be $x_n=\sum_{i=0}^n a_i 7^{i+1}$.. :/
 
@evinda $\sum_{i=0}^n a_i 7^i$. It must not be divisible by $7$, so you need a $a_07^0$ term.
 
Oh, I only now got that you mean to prove that $G$ is cyclic iff $|G|=\exp G$....
 
Are simple functions complex-analytic?
i retract the question
 
@DanielFischer A ok.. So should it then be $x_{\infty}=\lim_{n \to +\infty} x_n=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a_n 7^n$, with $0 \leq a_n \leq 6$ ?
 
@evinda Yes. I didn't notice the $7^{n+1}$ there before. That's a typo.
 
9:20 PM
@DanielFischer A ok :-) Could you maybe also explain me why we don't expect that $\lim_{n \to +\infty} x_n$ is an integer?
 
@evinda It can't be an integer. For every integer $k$, there is an $m$ such that $7^m > k^2$. Then you can't have $k^2 \equiv 2 \pmod{7^n}$ for any $n \geqslant m$.
 
@Studentmath Yes. =)
 
@DanielFischer I am confused now.. Could you explain it further to me?
@DanielFischer Is it also related to the fact that $x^2-2=0$ has no solution in $\mathbb{Z}$ that $x_{\infty}=\sum_{n=0} a_n 7^n$ is not an integer? :/
 
@evinda The only way that an integer $k$ satisfies $k^2 \equiv s \pmod{7^n}$ for all $n$ is that $k^2 = s$, since for $7^n > k^2$, the representative of the residue class of $k^2$ modulo $7^n$ is $k^2$ itself. Since $2$ is not the square of an integer, that cannot happen for $s = 2$.
@evinda It is exactly that fact.
 
9:38 PM
Hmmm, exponent of a finite abelian group was part of the first question on our algebra qualifying exam, @Pedro. And using it to prove that the multiplicative group of a finite field is cyclic. Didn't go very well.
 
@TedShifrin Weird. It's not that complicated.
 
puts on ignore anyone who says "ugh" about differential forms
 
@TedShifrin What was the question precisely?
 
Plus they know all the structure theory of finitely generated modules over a PID, @Pedro. Sigh.
 
@MikeMiller: I am on campus today.
 
9:40 PM
Hi @robjohn
 
@DanielFischer So the solution of $x_n^2-2 \equiv 0 \mod{7^{n+1}}$ is equal to $x_n=\sum_{i=0}^n a_i 7^i$. If the latter would be an integer for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$ that would mean that $x^2-2$ has an integer solution, but that doesn't happen, so at $\infty$ we expect that $x_{\infty}$ is not an integer.
Or have I understood it wrong?
 
@Pedro: Let $F$ be a finite field. (a) Tell me about the structure of $(F,+)$. (b) We defined exponent of a finite abelian group. Prove that there's an element of order the exponent. (c) Prove that $F^\times$ is cyclic.
 
@TedShifrin Oh, OK.
 
@evinda $x_n$ is an integer for all $n$. But the limit (in $\mathbb{Z}_7$) is not an integer.
 
The proof I know regarding $F^\times$ is the one that uses $\varphi$.
 
9:43 PM
@DanielFischer Have you gone on a meta editing spree?
 
Hmm, I don't think I know that proof.
 
@Arkamis Yes. Fixing borken links. I thought a little and decided it was less bad to get over with it in one go, flooded front page may go to wherever.
 
@TedShifrin Hey, Ted. I am at UCLA proctoring a logic exam
 
a logic exam?
 
@DanielFischer Do we know that $x_n$ is an integer for all $n$ since $a_n$ is an integer for all $n$ and $7^n$ too and thus also $\sum_{i=0}^n a_i 7^i$?
But if the limit is would also be an integer that would mean that $x-2$ has an integer solution?
 
9:45 PM
this is how you moonlight now, @robjohn? :P
 
@DanielFischer Ah, gotcha. I visited meta for the first time in a couple of days and was like "woooahhh what is even happening?"
 
@TedShifrin If we have $f(x)\sim_a g(x)$, do we always have $\displaystyle\lim_{e\to0}\int_a^{a+e}f(x)dx=\lim_{e\to0}\int_a^{a+e}g(x)dx$ ?
 
@TedShifrin Well, one knows that over $F^\times$ the equation $x^d=1$ has at most $d$ solutions.
 
Yes, I use that too, @Pedro.
 
@TedShifrin OK.
 
9:45 PM
@Arkamis Unfortunate timing then.
 
@Hippa: What's your definition of $f(x)\sim_a g(x)$?
 
Meta is unusually quiet these days.
 
@TedShifrin $f(x)$ equivalent to $g(x)$ in $a$
 
ça ne me dit rien, @Hippa
 
@TedShifrin Tu n'aurais pas un contre example ?
 
9:47 PM
@TedShifrin Say $F$ has order $q$, then $G=F^\times$ has order $q-1$, and every element has $x^{q-1}=1$. This splits completely into linear factors, and for any divisor $d$ of $q-1$ you know $x^d-1$ divides $x^{q-1}-1$ so it has distinct roots.
 
Je n'arrive pas à comprendre ce que tu veux dire @Hippa
 
@TedShifrin Quele partie ?
 
La définition
 
Sounds awful, @DanielF. How will you cope?
 
@TedShifrin I logged in during a quiet time. Proctoring is not the most exciting of pasttimes
 
9:48 PM
So is this what you do on your time off from your other job, @robjohn? Or are you still at UCLA in some capacity?
 
anyone knows autoit ?
 
@TedShifrin De l'équivalent ? $f(x)\sim_a g(x)$ lorsque il existe $\epsilon(x)$ telle que $\epsilon(x)\to_a 0$ et $f(x)=g(x)+\epsilon(x)g(x)$
 
@MikeMiller Handle a couple of flags, idle around in chat, the usual stuff.
 
eh bien, $f-g = o(g)$.
$g$ continuous on $[a,a+\delta]$?
 
Uh pas sur. En tout cas, oui sur $(a,a+\delta)$
 
9:50 PM
Hi @Ted, give me three numbers, each below 2.147 *10^9.
They can be negative.
 
Mais les intégraux convergent?
 
Think I wrote it down right, Pedro. And I just found an intriguing question, gonna try it out.
 
@TedShifrin intégraux ?
 
oops, intégrals
hmm
 
@Daniel Why'd ya bump 200 meta questions?
 
9:51 PM
non, j'avais raison :P
 
@TedShifrin I am the developer for the software that is used at UCLA (and about 2 dozen other universities) to teach first year sentential logic. Part of what I do is to proctor the exams here.
 
@TedShifrin oui, elles convergent. Et non, intégraux n'existe pas.
 
oops, intégrale ... j'oublie trop
 
@MikeMiller Because. And the way you count, don't play Poker.
 
ah, interesting @robjohn ... distance learning stuff, then? There are mass sentential logic courses?
applauds @DanielF :D
Alors, @Hippa: $\int_a^{a+\delta} \epsilon(x)g(x)\,dx \le \epsilon \int_a^{a+\delta}g(x)\,dx$ if $\delta$ is small enough. So, yes?
 
9:54 PM
@TedShifrin No, the course is being taught now from a text that is written around the software. There are courses at a number of universities.
 
@TedShifrin Thanks
 
I guess I'm shocked that so many universities teach such a course. To what audience, @robjohn?
 
@TedShifrin Sorry Ted I didn't finish my proof. This means the subgroup $\{x:x^d=1\}$ has $d$ de elements, so if you take $\psi(c)$ to be the number of elements of order $c$ in $G$, then $\sum_{c\mid d}\psi(c)=d$. Inverting gives $\psi(c)=\varphi(c)$.
Taking $c=q-1$ gives an element of order $q-1$.
 
I just got the ping, @robjohn. What are you up to now?
@DanielF Well, I play with other math students, and they seem to be worse at counting.
 
but the old gay guys can count, @Mike? :D
 
10:02 PM
None of them are in combinatorics, luckily.
 
I tell people at cocktail parties that mathematicians are no better at balancing checkbooks than other mortals :)
 
@TedShifrin I do the same. "Oh, you're a mathematician. You must be good at numbers." "Ummmmm"
(the sad part is I'm a numerical analyst)
 
so you need to be better at numbers than I do :P
 
@TedShifrin The software had been written around this book, but my program made it easier to teach and so a new book was written.
@TedShifrin It is mostly for undergrads, but there are some grads who have not had the proper background in logic for their philosophy classes
 
@robjohn: Is this an intro course for CS majors? A math for poets type of course? I just don't see the audience.
 
10:06 PM
@MikeMiller finishing up the exam now, there are some stragglers who require a bit more time.
 
Hmm, weird. I've never seen a course like this any place I've been. We have a discrete math for CS course, but it has a lot more content than just sentential logic.
 
@robjohn I don't have anything planned until 4, if you'd like to grab coffee.
 
@TedShifrin No, it is part of the philosophy dept
 
oh, we have a symbolic logic course in the philosophy department. I guess that's what this is, sorta. I get it. Thanks.
 
@MikeMiller We will probably be here another half hour. I will let you know when we have finished.
 
10:07 PM
damn, @Mike gets to meet @robjohn before I do :(
 
Sure, @robjohn.
 
@Pedro, once we have the exponent, we're done by your early comment. Because if the exponent $<d=q-1$, then we have $d$ roots of a polynomial less than $d$. Done.
 
@TedShifrin That's a very nice argument.
Good.
 
@TedShifrin Logic courses get weird as you get to the higher level. I took a class on Modal Logic that was sorta sprinkle in the set theory and the topology and the analysis and all sorts of bits and bobs.
 
I took a graduate course in logic as an undergraduate. I loved the model theory stuff (including hyperreal numbers), but after weeks of Turing machines, gave up and dropped the course.
 
10:19 PM
@Pedro I proved that, in the division algorithm, the term $r_n$ contains $f(n)$ number of $a$'s and $f(n+1)$ number of $b$'s. For example, when $r_2 = 0$, and $gcd(a, b) = r_1$, then we have $a - bq_1 = r_1$ so it has 1 $a$ term and 1 $b$ term. Similarly, when $gcd(a, b) = r_2$, $$b - (a-bq_1)q_2 = r_2$$ so we have 2 $b$ terms and 1 $a$ terms. We continue inductively to prove our claim, $r_n$ contains $f(n)$ number of $a$'s and $f(n+1)$ number of $b$'s
 
What is $f$?
 
The Fibonacci sequence
i.e. when $r_{13} = gcd(a, b)$ we have $f(13)$ a's and $f(14)$ b's
 
I am given $A\left(−8;3\right)$, $B\left(−6;−6\right)$, $C\left(−7;2\right)$.

I want to calculate the equation of the median from C.

If M is the point such that $\left(MC\right)$ is the median from C,

$MC : y=mx+p$

$m=\dfrac{\frac{y_a+y_b}{2}-y_c}{\frac{x_a+x_b}{2}-x_c}$, So

$m=\dfrac{\frac{y_a+y_b}{2}-y_c}{\frac{-8-6}{2}+7}$, So

$m=\dfrac{\frac{y_a+y_b}{2}-y_c}{0}$

And that's impossible ! Although, I now this equation exists... Where does it go wrong is what's just above ?
 
What is the midpoint of $\overline{AB}$, @Ramanewb?
 
@ted "midpoint" ?
@ted oh ok
 
10:24 PM
la moitié de $A$ à $B$ ?
 
@ted hum what's the point of the overline on $AB$ ?
 
for me, $AB$ means the length, $\overline{AB}$ means the line segment
 
@ted ok, that must be the american way...
 
it's not universal here, either
 
ok
@ted it's

$x(midpoint_AB)=\dfrac{x_a+x_b}{2}$ and $y(midpoint_AB)=\dfrac{y_a+y_b}{2}$.
 
10:27 PM
OK, et puis?
Oh, I see the problem. The $x$-coordinates are the same. So the line is not of the form $y=mx+b$ !!
 
@ted they are the same ?? for what points ?
 
@hippa knows what ?
 
for $C$ and the midpoint, @Ramanewb
@Hippa: Antonio Vargas just added a comment with a reference for you.
 
@ted yes, I get that.
@ted the $x$-coordonates are the same so it's not $y=mp+p$, right ?
 
10:31 PM
right
 
@ted so what ?
 
How do you give the equation of a vertical line?
 
@ted I'm stupid, of course !
 
c'est ton frère qui dit ça souvent :P
NON @Ramanewb
 
@ted lol...
@ted no WAIT !!!!!
$x=k$ I mean ! @ted
 
10:34 PM
beaucoup mieux
 
@ted I'm just tired ^^ or not...
so $k=-7$ right @ted ?
 
bien sûr
 
@DanielFischer According to my lecture notes, the representation of the integer p-adic $x=(x_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}_0} \in \mathbb{Z}_p$ is called "opened" when $0 \leq x_n<p^{n+1}$. But doesn't this always hold?
 
non @Ramanewb
 
10:36 PM
@evinda That depends on the representation. There are many many many ways to define $\mathbb{Z}_p$.
 
$x+7$ I mean@ted
 
Trop de fautes, @Ramanewb. Bonne nuit!
 
@ted lol...
 
@MikeMiller Kerckhoff patio?
 
@ted it's too late, I can't think properly !
 
10:38 PM
Sure, @robjohn. Give me a minute to drop stuff off in my office.
 
that's the only reason I do so many mistakes... @ted
 
The definition is this: $$\mathbb{Z}_p=\{ (\overline{x_n})_{n \in \mathbb{N}_0} \in \prod_{n=0}^{\infty} \mathbb{Z}/p^{n+1}\mathbb{Z} | x_{n+1} \equiv x_n \mod{p^{n+1}}\}$$ @DanielFischer
 
Have a drink for me @robjohn @Mike
 
@Ramanewbie go to bed then
 
@hippa Sure ! That's what I'm doing, actually !
 
10:40 PM
@evinda Then you don't necessarily have $x_n < p^{n+1}$, since $x_n$ is not determined by $\overline{x_n}$.
 
@MikeMiller I am holding a Logic Team hat :-)
 
@DanielFischer $$(\overline{x_n}) \in \prod_{n=0}^{\infty} \mathbb{Z}/p^{n+1}\mathbb{Z}$$


means that $(x_1, x_2, \dots, x_k, \dots )$ where $x_k \in \mathbb{Z}/p^{k+1} \mathbb{Z}$, right?

Doesn't $x_k \in \mathbb{Z}/p^{k+1} \mathbb{Z}$ mean that $x_k$ is a residue class modulo $p^{k+1}$, i.e. that it is an integer from the interval $[0, p^{k+1}-1]$ ? Or have I understood it wrong?
 
@evinda No, $x_k \in \mathbb{Z}$, but $\overline{x_k} \in \mathbb{Z}/p^{k+1}\mathbb{Z}$.
 
@DanielFischer So you mean that $(\overline{x_k})=(\overline{x_1}, \overline{x_2}, \dots)$, right? But then how is $x_k$ related with the definition?
 
@evinda That's the snag in that definition. The $x_k$ are not (uniquely) determined by $x\in \mathbb{Z}_p$. Only the $\overline{x_k}$ are.
 
10:56 PM
@DanielFischer I haven't understood which will then be the form of $x_k$... :/
 
$x_k$ is just an ordinary integer. The sequence of the $x_k$ needs to satisfy the compatibility relation $x_{k+1} \equiv x_k \pmod{p^{k+1}}$, but that's all you generally know about the $x_k$.
 
@DanielFischer So does it have to hold that $(\overline{x_k}) \in \mathbb{Z}/p^{k+1}\mathbb{Z}$ and $x_{k+1} \equiv x_k \mod{p^{k+1}}$ ? I thought that the same component has to satisfy both of the above relations... Am I wrong?
I am confused now.. Do we maybe relate the two definitios of $\mathbb{Z}_p$ and $x_n$ is equal to $x_n=\sum_{i=0}^n a_i p^i$ ? :/
 
@evinda It is convenient to take $x_n = \sum_{i=0}^n a_i p^i$. But it is not necessary to take those. You can add arbitrary multiples of $p^{n+1}$ to $x_n$ if you wish. (You shouldn't wish, but meh.)
 
11:17 PM
@DanielFischer So we have a $x \in \mathbb{Z}_p$ with $x=\overline{x}_n=(\overline{x_0}, \overline{x_1}, \overline{x_2}, \dots, \overline{x_k}, \dots)$ and $\overline{x_k} \in \mathbb{Z}/p^{k+1}\mathbb{Z}$. And we say that $x$ is "opened" if $0 \leq x_n< p^{n+1}$. Could you explain me how we relate the two definitions of $\mathbb{Z}_p$? I am confused now..
 
I have another question.
 
@TedShifrin I'm afraid the comment on math.stackexchange.com/questions/1124162/… doesn't really help.
@TedShifrin His method involves an integral which I cannot compute.
@MikeMiller Got an idea ?
The point that's important is the equivalent near $1$. I don't know where D'aurizio got it.
@Chris'ssis Maybe you know :D
 
I couldn't sleep, I have to ask that!
Why on earth Mathematica gives different results here?
NIntegrate[E^(-(x + y)), {x, 0, Infinity}, {y, 0, Infinity}]=1
and
NIntegrate[E^(-(x + y)), {x, 0, 0.1}, {y, 0, 0.1}] + NIntegrate[E^(-(x + y)), {x, 0, 0.1}, {y, 0, Infinity}] + NIntegrate[E^(-(x + y)), {x, 0, Infinity}, {y, 0, 0.1}] + NIntegrate[E^(-(x + y)), {x, 0.1, Infinity}, {y, 0.1, Infinity}]=1.01811
 
Because NIntegrate = approximation, I guess
 
Indeed, I'm exceptionally tired, but still, I don't see why.
@Hippalectryon I took that N out
Integrate[E^(-(x + y)), {x, 0, 0.1}, {y, 0, 0.1}] + Integrate[E^(-(x + y)), {x, 0, 0.1}, {y, 0, Infinity}] + Integrate[E^(-(x + y)), {x, 0, Infinity}, {y, 0, 0.1}] + Integrate[E^(-(x + y)), {x, 0.1, Infinity}, {y, 0.1, Infinity}]=1.01811
Maybe I did something incorrectly?
 
11:32 PM
Are the limit swaps all legal ?
@Chris'ssis So, $\displaystyle\int_0^{.1}\int_0^{.1}+\int_0^\infty\int_0^{.1}+\int_0^{.1}\int_0^‌​\infty+\int_{.1}^\infty\int_{.1}^\infty$ ?
 
@Hippalectryon I check that again ...
 
@Chris'ssis Some bounds seem to overlap
 
@Hippalectryon Yeah, typos. Damn ... I run to sleep. Thanks!
Middle integrals were the problem due to the typo.
 
Good night :-)
 

« first day (1638 days earlier)      last day (3384 days later) »