« first day (1896 days earlier)      last day (3119 days later) » 
00:00 - 16:0016:00 - 00:00

12:10 AM
@anon
 
?
 
2
Q: if $N$ normal in G, Then $\phi(N) \leq \phi(G)$, where $\phi(N)$ is the frattini subgroup of N

Karim MansourI was thinking somehow to use normality of N as follows Since N is normal, then $G/N \leq G$, so we can consider the natural map $pi \ :\ G \rightarrow G/N$, where $g \mapsto gN$, $ker(\pi) = N$. So It is here enough to prove that a maximal subgroup M of G will contain $ker(\pi)$, then since ...

I proved this in another way
 
G/N<=G follows from N normal? wat?
 
by proving N = $phi(N)(N \cap M)$ and then proving $N = N \cap M$
but I was wondering
can I do it the way I suggested in the problem above?
that is G/N will be a group
since N is normal
 
G/N won't be a subgroup of G
 
12:13 AM
I shouldn't have typed subgroup of G
I typed that problem at 3 am yesterday
1 moment let me edit
 
it's always a good idea to introduce trivial errors in a problem statement so you can edit it later
 
a normal subgroup N needb't be contained in every maximal subgroup of G
 
yeah I was wondering if this was the case
well, the result is true I proved it other way this means that $\phi(N) \leq ker(\pi)$
since it is intersection of all maximal groups of N
I was wondering is there some kind of relation between maximal subgroups of a group and kernel of a specific homomorphism?
all we have to do is to get 1 maximal subgroup to contain the kernel as a subgroup and then we will be done
@anon I am doing a talk about frattini-subgroup so just solving couple of problems to include it in my talk
any suggestion to add about this subgroup ?
 
12:33 AM
hi @Karim @anon
 
1:07 AM
Hi @TedShifrin
I am dealing with frattini subgroups
 
1:36 AM
Howdy
 
@TedShifrin
 
Did you bring enough Frattini for all of us?
Oh, wait, I'm thinking of frittata.
 
what completely characterizes frattini subgroup to be trivial ?
 
well, for p-groups, it's equivalent to being cyclic
don't offhand remember things about frattini
besides it being related to elementary abelian (sub)factors in p-groups
 
oh yeah if its cyclic for p groups.
 
1:45 AM
I gave this answer over here I recall
 
cool thats a nice problem I will include it in my presentation
 
it has to do with Phi(G) being minimal wrt G/Phi(G) being elementary abelian
 
I also saw something called prufer group
I see
 
Since p-groups are nilpotent they have composition series, which ultimately means cyclic factors, so it's interesting how high of rank we can get in elementary abelian composition factors
what about the prufer groups?
 
that $\phi(G) = G$ in that case since it has no maximal subgroups
 
1:48 AM
they are the p-primary components of Q/Z, equivalently Z[1/p]/Z, equivalently the dual of the additive group of p-adic integers
 
I see
 
yeah. prufer p's aren't special in having no maximal subgroups though
 
I haven't dealt with p-acdic integers before
 
A'right, am I the only one who thinks degrees are pointless?
 
it seems to me that having no maximal groups is same
the set being dense
 
1:49 AM
found another dim 5 subspace of H^2 characterizable by the inner product: pairs whose inner product is real. however since Sp(2) acts faithfully on H^2 and I'm trying to get a double cover of SO(5) I need a kernel +/-1 I think, so I'm going the wrong way looking at subsets of H^2.
@Pies fractions would have been nicer, just as natural and easy to understand for children. it's unfortunate.
@KarimMansour ?
 
Well radians are just more useful later in life
 
oh yeah I am wrong well I thought all countable groups will have maximal groups
 
what's H^2
 
but prufer is a example of that
Hilbert space of dimension 2?
 
H is quaternions, H^2 is a right vector space over H
 
1:52 AM
Why teach degrees when they're going to be replaced?
 
Sp(2) is 2x2 quaternionic matrices preserving the inner product on H^2
 
@Pies in spirit, yes, but you need a degree or two to get a job ;)
 
.-.
Dang, that was good
 
I haven't fully tackled qiaochu's answer but I suspect it's a translation of the clifford algebra construction (since clifford algebras are just exterior squares considered as vector spaces)
 
@anon, I have to show that group of rigid motion of a cube is isomorphic to $S_4$ and I can't figure out why map from one diagonal to other is injective, e.g. , let $\theta$ be rotation and $\theta(1)=2$ then $\theta (7)=8$ so $\theta \cdot\{1,7\}=\{2,8\}$ but if $\tau\ne\theta$ with $\tau(1)=8$, then also $\tau \cdot\{1,7\}=\{2,8\}$ I am working with this cube
 
1:55 AM
unclear if true. "exterior squares" is questionable; as a vector space it's the whole exterior algebra
 
oops, that's right. got confused.
@Silent What's confusing you?
 
i still don't really get the yoga of clifford algebras. they just seem to work. but eh
 
@anon, i cant see why the map from group of rigid motion of a cube is injective to $_4$
 
@Silent do you see that you've failed to disprove injectivity?
you found two maps that stabilize a given diagonal. that's to be expected; there are many permutations in $S_4$ that preserve a given element of $\{1,2,3,4\}$ for instance.
waiting for a confirmation or follow-up question...
 
Yoga ?
haha
 
oh ok that makes sense
Dan Petersen answer
 
2:28 AM
@anon, but theta and tau here take diagonals to same diagonal but $\theta\ne \tau$
@anon, sorry, i was drawing image first in paper and then in paint that took time
 
2:42 AM
@Silent what's your point?
 
@anon, $\theta\ne \tau$ but they both take any diagonal to the same, eg $\theta \{4,6\}=\{1,7\}=\tau \{4,6\}$
 
why don't you tell me what $\theta$ and $\tau$ actually are
like, the actual permutations of {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8}
 
oh ok! @anon $\theta$=(1 2 3 4)(5 6 7 8), $\tau$=(1 8 3 6)(2 5 4 7)
 
@Silent our symmetries of the cube are supposed to preserve orientation
you're looking at a bigger group of symmetries than the one intended
(rigid motions preserve orientation)
in particular, your $\tau$ does not preserve orientation
 
2:59 AM
Speaking of cubes:
$hairhairhair=cubic hair$
 
@anon, ok thank you!!
 
more specifically, your $\theta$ is a clockwise rotation around the vertical axis, whereas your $\tau$ is a counterclockwise rotation around the vertical axis followed by a reflection across a horizontal plane through it
 
I've been looking at this problem, but it seems poorly stated to me. If x and y are independent, don't we immediately know by definition that Pr(x|y) = Pr(x)?
 
hmm
Does anyone get the joke?
$Hair times hair \times Hair= cubic Hair$
 
$\rm hair \times hair \times hair = cubic~hair$, yes we get it
 
3:03 AM
it's a play on words
$ c \mapsto p$
 
that's amazing
@AliasUser independence is about Pr(x,y)=Pr(x)Pr(y) isn't it?
 
I have another one
 
@anon - thank you!
 
If two primes are twins.... incest?
@anon do you get it?
 
I'm not sure what sex in that metaphor is supposed to be analogous to in math.
 
3:06 AM
oh damn, that doesn't translate correctly
prime in spanish is "primo". But "primo" also means cousin.
that reminds me of the time Stephen Colbert interviewed Terence Tao
 
Tao wanted his own prime alongside Grothendieck's
 
The link starts at the funny part.
"Are cousin primes ever sexy but you're afraid to say"
 
@MikeMiller ohlawd, to get an SO(5) action we should be acting on S^4 not S^5. If I take P^1(H) (quotient H^2-{(0,0)} by the right action of (H-{0},*) and have Sp(2) act on the left) we get S^4. wonder if it works.
we can do the same for P^1(C) to get SU(2)->SO(3), I haven't checked if that matches the Sp(1)->SO(3) I know but I have stuff to consider tomorrow.
 
3:35 AM
@anon yeah, in retrospect that's obvious, the Spin(6) one is the bizarre one
 
3:54 AM
what math is that @anon, @MikeMiller
it seems like linear algebra stuff
and group actions
 
geometry and lie theory
 
I wish I could take such a course here its not offered however
 
Why does geometry always pop up?
 
Is this a room where I can ask a simple question without having to post it?
 
Yeah, go ahead
 
4:04 AM
There is a proposition in my Abstract Algebra text book on isomorphisms. It says if two groups G and G' are isomorphic, then their order tables are the same.
 
Okay, and what is unclear at the moment?
 
I can't show that two groups have the same order table then say that they must be isomorphic correct?
Its similar to saying that just cause two groups are abelian does not imply that they are isomorphic?
 
Having the same order table is much much stronger
 
So if two groups have the same order table does that mean that they must be isomorphic?
 
Basically, the only difference between groups with the same order table is the name we give to the elements.
Yes!
Although it is often not the most efficient way to show that groups are isomorphic
 
4:07 AM
order table?
as in, multiplication table?
 
I'm working with U16 (units mod 16) and the group Z4 X Z2, so the work isn't too involved
 
I hadn't even considered that you might use order table for something different, so @anon asks a very good question
 
Order table is a list of the possible orders of the elements then how many of those elements of a group have such orders
 
Ah, no, in that case it's very different indeed, sorry for that.
 
For example, in U16, there is one element of order 1, three elements of order 2, and four elements of order 4. Same goes with Z4 X Z2
 
4:13 AM
I do not know if this is true or not actually. I cannot find a simple argument that would prove it or a simple counterexample to disprove it.
 
it's not
 
So it is not a valid method two show that two groups are isomorphic, only a way to show that two groups are NOT isomorphic?
 
yes. order statistics can prove nonisomorphism but not isomorphism
 
OK, thank you very much
 
for instance Z/4Z x Z/4Z has the same order stats as Z/2Z x Q8, where Q8 is the quaternion group
 
4:18 AM
but that doesn't show that they're isomorphic, correct?
 
it can't show they're isomorphic, because they're not isomorphic
(one is abelian, the other isn't)
 
hmm, that is interesting
 
there's really no reason to expect order statistics to determine the group up to isomorphism
 
Does it hold for finite abelian groups?
I would guess so.
 
I believe so.
 
4:24 AM
It would be nice to have some property for when this holds.
 
Aren't U16 and Z4 X Z2 both finite and abelian?
 
write the number of elements of order p^r as a function of the number m(k,p) of copies of Z/p^k it has in its decomposition (as per the fundamental theorem), then solve backwards
@mathamphetamines U(16) and Z4 x Z2 are isomorphic
 
precisely, and @Krijn asked if the order statistics holds for finite abelian groups and you replied yes.
 
asked if order statistics determine isomorphism type of finite abelian groups, and I replied yes
 
Ok, I think i misunderstood completely. Sorry for the confusion on my behalf
 
4:29 AM
if you can't tell that U(16) and Z4 x Z2 are isomorphic by elementary means then you shouldn't be using anything as high-powered as "ord stats imply iso type for fin ab grps."
 
It was given as a proposition in the section that the homework problem was assigned in, so I thought I could use it
 
Ah, the beauty of mathematics.
If the group $G$ is simple, then we can determine the group by the order statistics
See also the answer to this question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/729611/…
 
Thanks for finding that very relevant question. I'll read it now. Looks very useful
 
@mathamphetamines For your exercise I would stick to using elementary methods.
So try finding an explicit isomorphism. It creates better understanding than using heavy theorems.
 
sounds like a good idea
 
4:44 AM
@anon You there?
 
yeah
 
Is the image of an ideal in its field of fractions an ideal?
 
I suppose I haven't considered fraction fields of nonunital rings before
 
anyone care to help me understand this? img.ctrlv.in/img/15/10/13/561c8b655f467.png
 
What does that mean? Or rather why is that your train of thought?
 
4:47 AM
@Anthony well, why don't you tell me what you mean
 
Yeah, sorry.
 
@JoeStavitsky Write $1$ as $\frac{x^2 + 1}{x^2 + 1}$
 
@JoeStavitsky x^2 = (x^2+1) - 1
 
I'm kind of new with this field of fractions stuff- but it seems that $\frac{a}{b}\frac{i}{1}$ with $i$ in an ideal wouldn't necessarily be in the image, because $\frac{ai}{b}$ is not an element of $\frac{i'}{1}$.
BUT can't we say that $\frac{ai}{b} = \frac{aib^{-1}}{1}$?
 
@Anthony start at the beginning and tell me what the setup to your question is
"Let R be a ring..."
you cannot expect me to read your mind from possibly thousands of miles away
 
4:49 AM
ahhh so ty
 
your latest comment uses i to refer to "an ideal" (who uses lowercase i for an ideal?) but also apparently refers to an element, then writes i' without saying what that is, et cetera
 
Sorry, I'm writing something now.
Let R be a ring, and I be some ideal of R. Consider the image of I under the map $f: i \in I\to \frac{i}{1}$. Is $f(I)$ an ideal in the field of fractions $Frac(R)$?
 
no
 
Okay, what if $R$ is commutative?
 
I thought we were assuming R was commutative, but whatever.
 
4:52 AM
Oh, okay. I just don't know what the hell is going on with algebra.
 
we take fraction fields of integral domains (commutative rings with no zero divisors)
we can also take localizations more generally
 
Okay, let me back up my tree of problems.
I was looking at Dedekind rings, and the problem I'm working on says given an ideal, consider its inverse.
But I wasn't sure why an arbitrary ideal would have an inverse.
 
assuming R is a domain, then Frac(R) is a field. the only ideals of fields are (0) and the whole field. so I remains an ideal in Frac(R) iff I=R and R is already a field.
 
I see.
Duh.
 
@Anthony would it be talking about its inverse as a fractional ideal?
 
4:55 AM
"Given an ideal $\mathfrak{a}$ let $\mathfrak{b}$ be the fractional ideal such that ab = $\mathfrak{o}$, where $\mathfrak{o}$ is a Dedekind ring."
 
right
 
Why do we have the existence of such a b?
 
that takes some work to prove
 
Oh. I didn't see it in the text, but it's probably there then.
 
but for example with Z, the inverse of nZ would be (1/n)Z inside Q
consult almost any text on algebraic number theory for discussion of fractional ideals
 
4:57 AM
You're pretty knowledgeable for an undergrad.
Or I'm pretty dumb.
Or some combination of both.
Thanks for the help.
 
I was out of school for a few years but still taught myself math.
 
Oh, I see.
Anyway at the moment I'm looking at Lang's Algebra.
But so is the existence of such a $\mathfrak{b}$ something unique to Dedekind Rings?
 
yes
 
I see- yeah it seems like he only mentions Dedekind Rings in passing...
 
a domain is dedekind iff every ideal is invertible as a fractional ideal
 
5:03 AM
I thought it was iff every nonzero fractional ideal of R is invertible.
Are those two statements equivalent?
 
probably. or I could be misremembering. (hey, if you already know the iff, then why are you asking me?)
 
Wait, sorry. I'm asking because I'm terribly confused. That said every fractional ideal is invertible.
But I was wondering why every ideal was invertible, which is what Lang seemed to be implying.
And I couldn't find that anywhere.
 
if fractional ideals are invertible then certainly normal ideals are
 
Oh, are normal ideals fractional ideals?
 
check the definitions
 
5:07 AM
On it.
Thanks.
 
heya
Extremely overworked grad student.
How do I stay sane????
 
Graduate work is insane.
 
5:36 AM
@anon Wait are you still there?
 
 
3 hours later…
8:32 AM
0
Q: Outer measure of empty set is 0 (using definition of outer measure)

Jessy CatI am trying to show rigorously that $m^{*}(\emptyset)$ is zero. I know intuitively why it makes sense, but intuitively isn't going to cut it - I need to show it rigorously where $m^{*}(A) = \inf \left\{ \sum_{k=1}^{n}l(I_{k}) | I_{1},\cdots,I_{n}\,\text{open intervals,}\,A \subseteq \cup_{k=1}^{n...

Hey
You must be Steffan ;)
Hi @DanielFischer
 
9:30 AM
@anon er? i have not been following the discussion, but it's not true that order stats determine isom type of finite abgrps. Z_4 and Z_2 x Z_2.
but i guess you had order stat of the torsion subgrps in mind when you said that?
 
10:09 AM
I have a homework in a first course in Mathematical Logic and I wonder if there's any difference between $\neg\exists x\varphi$ and $\neg(\exists x\varphi)$ because if this is the case, which I think it is, I think it's pretty weird to have the last mentioned as a homework since the first one is an example in my Logic book... It's an easy one to solve indeed if they are the same, I solved it as they did in the book but still...
Btw my goal was to derive the formula (predicate logic) forgot to mention it ;)
*Btw my goal was to derive a formula using that as an ASSUMPTION.,,
 
 
2 hours later…
12:22 PM
0
Q: Find the self-interection.Differential Geometry

Manolis LyviakisShow that the Cayley sextic $$γ(t) = \bigl(\cos^3 (t)\cos (3t), \cos^3 (t)\sin (3t)\bigr),\quad t \in \mathbb R,$$ is a closed curve which has exactly one self-intersection. What is its period? I can see $2π$ is its period.But for the self-intersection have to solve $γ(a)=γ(b)=p$ ?

help?
 
12:43 PM
What do I need to learn to do logic programming in miniKanren?
 
Hey people! Question: is -\frac{\zeta'(s)}{\zeta(s)}-\frac{1}{s-1} entire? It ought to be, since it doesn't have any poles. Amirite?
 
@TobiasShuxueLaoshi No, it has poles at the zeros of $\zeta$.
 
Check it again :)
\zeta' = g'/(s-1)-g/(s-1)^2 for g holo at 1.
zeta'/zeta = ((s-1)/g)( g'/(s-1)-g/(s-1)^2)
((s-1)/g)( g'/(s-1)-g/(s-1)^2)=g'/g-1/(s-1)
 
You can use Latex @TobiasShuxueLaoshi
 
Hence, -\frac{\zeta'(s)}{\zeta(s)}-\frac{1}{s-1} = -\frac{g'}{g}+\frac{1}{s-1}-\frac{1}{s-1}
 
12:54 PM
@TobiasShuxueLaoshi But at a zero of $\zeta$, you have $\zeta(s) = (s - z_0)^k\cdot h(s)$ with $h$ holomorphic and nonzero in a neighbourhood of $z_0$. Then $$\frac{\zeta'(s)}{\zeta(s)} = \frac{k}{s-z_0} + \frac{h'(s)}{h(s)}$$ has a simple pole with residue $k$ (the multiplicity of the zero) at $z_0$.
 
But hey hey, look at what I wrote. We rid ourselves of it.
-\frac{g'}{g}+\frac{1}{s-1}-\frac{1}{s-1}=-\frac{g'}{g}
Which is holo at $s=1$.
And hence, since the only pole of riemann zeta is the one at $s=1$. We ought to have that $\frac{g'}{g}$ is holo everywhere.
 
@TobiasShuxueLaoshi At $s = 1$, but it's not entire.
 
Because the zeros of $\zeta$ give rise to poles of $\frac{\zeta'}{\zeta}$, see above.
 
Sure, ok, the trivial zeros. And whatnot, meh.
Thanks, that was what I needed.
But it is holo to the right of one :) Right?
 
1:00 PM
@TobiasShuxueLaoshi Yes. And probably for $\operatorname{Re} s > \frac{1}{2}$.
 
@Daniel Fischer: Hey Daniel, $\zeta=g/(s-1)$ with $g$ entire, though?
 
@TobiasShuxueLaoshi Yes, $g(s) = (s-1)\zeta(s)$ is entire (after removing the removable singularity).
 
@DanielFischer: Well that's kinda nice at least :)
 
1:26 PM
Daniel, as you seem to be knowledgeable on analytic number theory, I'd like to ask; which is your favorite near but not quite graduate-level textbook on analytic number theory. I'm using Apostol's and the proofs aren't so good. Or maybe I just haven't learned to appreciate them.
But there are weird things in it. Like, he shows something super-basic from complex analysis right at the end of his proof of PNT. It kinda messes with the pace. I think.
 
Hello@Balarka
 
hi
@Remember Have you proved that exercises you were asking me about? That any two maps $f, g : Y \to CX$ are homotopic?
 
I just saw your comment. I might try it today night.
 
By the way, $X$ is connected, right? Otherwise it's not necessarily true.
Nevermind. It's of course always true. I was thinking of the suspension.
 
1:38 PM
@Remember The thing you'll need here is the following fact : $CX$ is contractible for any topological space $X$. Do you know how to prove this?
 
Are there any useful cases where we will come across expression of the form:
$$g(x)=af(x)+bf(f(x))+cf(f(f(x)))+\cdots$$?
(Something kinda like a iterative map version of a power series)
 
Well if it is contractible then I have to show there is a homotopy between the identity map and the constant map .
 
Mhm.
 
@TobiasShuxueLaoshi Not really, picked up a couple of things in passing. Don't know the literature at all.
 
This is a question in Armstrong and I don't think so it is given that X is connected
 
1:41 PM
Yes, apologies, it's true for all spaces.
 
@DanielFischer: Oh, I see. Well, I'll see what I think about all the others ones when I start going through them. Apostol has been good as a start though.
 
Well now coming back to the center question:
A loop $f$ in the center of $\pi_{1}(X,x_0)$would mean that $[f][g]=[g][f], \forall [g]\in \pi_{1}(X)$ . Now what I did till now that I have considered another at $x_0$ and in $\pi_{1}(X)$ and the trying to find a homotopy between $[f][g]$ and $[g][f]$ and also between $[g][f]$ and [f][g]$ . The thing I am thinking is that if I can somehow draw a picture of these two maps then I can find a suitable homotopy and I am done with it@Balarka
 
1:58 PM
Heya
A student i am TA for was asked to find $n$ such that the maclaurin expansion of $\sin x$ had a error of less than 0.001 at $x = \pi$.
This basically boils down to finding $n$ such that
$$ \frac{ \pi^{2n - 1} } { (2n-1)! } \leq \frac{1}{1000} $$
Is there some way to estimate this without using a calculator?
 
@N3buchadnezzar You can use $\pi \approx \sqrt{10}$ to simplify the computations when you're doing them without calculator.
 
Why it looks as if there are 3 humps here

Also if I start my initial condition at osme earlier point on the lorenz attractor, do I expect it to trace out a completely different lorenz attractor?
That is, if I start from B instead of A, since they both lie on the same trajectory, will I expect the final lorenz attractor with intial conditons A and B to be very different form each other?
@Gato @DanielFischer Which regular in this chat is good at chaos theory and dynamical systems?
 
2:22 PM
No idea, don't remember that coming up before.
 
What does $F(\alpha)$ look like, where $F$ is a field, and $\alpha$ is an adjoined root?
 
2:46 PM
What is the degree of $\alpha$?
@GaloisintheField
 
What does degree mean in this context sorry?
 
The degree of the extension $[F(\alpha) : F]$
Or equivalently the degree of the minimal polynomial $f$ such that $f(\alpha) = 0$
 
Basically my question comes down to, does $F(\alpha)=a_0+a_1\alpha+a_2\alpha^2+a_3\alpha^3+\cdots$, because $\Bbb Q(\sqrt 2) = \{a+b\sqrt{2}:a,b\in \Bbb Q\}$ but that is pretty much the reduction of:

$$a_0+a_1\sqrt{2}+2a_2+2a_3\sqrt{2}+\cdots$$
 
Basically it does, but it is the reduction exactly because $\alpha^n = \sum c_i\alpha^i$
Which we get from the minimal polynomial
(for the right $c_i$ of course with $i < n$)
 
Because $\alpha^n = \sum c_i\alpha^i$?
 
2:53 PM
We know that we have some minimal polynomial $f$ such that $f(\alpha) = 0$
 
So there is some $\sum c_i X^i$ such that $\sum c_i \alpha^i = 0$
Where the index of the sum must be finite
 
And the degree $n$ of the minimal polynomial of $\alpha$ is equal to the degree $n$ of the extension
 
is that always true?
 
2:55 PM
Which means that we would get a base of order $n$, which is exactly $\{ 1, \alpha, \alpha^2, \ldots, \alpha^{n-1} \} $
It is if it is an extenstion of adjoining only one root
Think about this for a second, I´ll be back in a minute
 
Okay I shall, I have another question when you get back
(if you are willing of course)
 
I have to find an example that the reparametrization of a closed curve is not necessarily closed.

Do you have an idea how to find such an example? @robjohn @Huy
 
3:10 PM
@Galo
@GaloisintheField Back, but gone in like 5 mins
I'm out, but if you @ me I'll respond in like an hour or so
 
3:29 PM
Do we have to use trigonometric functions? @robjohn @Huy @DanielFischer @anon
Do you maybe have an idea about my question about? @TedShifrin
 
@MaryStar what definition of a curve are you using? is it a continuous map from $[0,1]$ to $\mathbb{R}^2$?
 
In my book it is $\gamma : \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$ or a subset of $\mathbb{R}$, i.e., $\gamma : [a,b] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$. @robjohn
And we assume that the curves are smooth. @robjohn
 
@MaryStar A closed curve is usually defined as a smooth function $\gamma:[0,1]\to\mathbb{R}^n$ where $\gamma(0)=\gamma(1)$.
 
In my book there is the following definition:

Let $\textbf{$\gamma$}: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$ be a smooth curve and let $T \in \mathbb{R}$. We say that $\textbf{$\gamma$}$ is $T$-periodic if $$\textbf{$\gamma$}(t+T)=\textbf{$\gamma$}(t) \text{ for all } t \in \mathbb{R}.$$
If $\textbf{$\gamma$}$ is not constant and is $T$-periodic for some $T\neq 0$, then $\textbf{$\gamma$}$ is said to be closed.

@robjohn
 
@Krijn I have to go aswell, but I'll read whatever response you give me and appreciate it greatly.

So if I have a degree four irreducible polynomial $f(x)$ over a field $F$ and I adjoin one of its roots $F(\alpha)$ and this is the splitting field of $f(x)$.

Then $F(\alpha)$ is a $F$-vectorspace with basis $\{1,\alpha\}$. Then any $F$-vectorspace automorphisms will take $\alpha$ to the second root of $\alpha$'s minimal polynomial right?
Just trying to understand the alternative root part of this answer:

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1472951/what-is-a-k-automorphism-of-l

(to one of my questions)
 
3:43 PM
@MaryStar Unless you change the domain of the function so that the range does not cover the whole of the curve, I don't see how one could reparametrize a closed curve to a non-closed curve.
 
And if we change the domain of the function, how can the reparametrization of a closed curve be non-closed? @robjohn
 
Can we have a parametrisation that is discontinuous?
e.g. if the curve a circle, can we do this (so that point where the curve =1 is there just to make it open?)
 
Can we maybe take te curve $\gamma (t)=(\cos t, \sin t)$ and the reparametrization the $\gamma (\ln t)=(\cos \ln t, \sin \ln t)$ ? @robjohn
 
So if $\theta \in [0, 2\pi]$ then for $\theta \in [0,a]$ where $a<2\pi$, we have basically parametrised the original curve, and when $\theta=2\pi$, that point is deliberately offset so that under this parametrisation the curve becomes open at $\theta=0$? (since $\theta$ has to run from 0 to $2\pi$ to define the curve)
 
00:00 - 16:0016:00 - 00:00

« first day (1896 days earlier)      last day (3119 days later) »