« first day (1642 days earlier)      last day (3378 days later) » 

5:00 PM
Can someone answer me graph theory question
 
Hi @robjohn. Can you help me please with another integer factorization question?
 
@infinitesimal I live my life being surrounded by the little mathematical miracles every day. So, I'm on the latter side. :-) I call them miracles because I understand them deeply and know they express the beauty of the absolute.
4
 
@Karlo Since you have a similar name, sure.
 
@Chris'ssis wise choice :-)
 
haha well
 
5:04 PM
@infinitesimal :-)
 
@KarlKronenfeld Is the Prim algorithm the same as the In depth algorithm but with the difference when an verticie has more than 2 edges we just pick the one with less/greater value because of our purposies
 
@Ilya_Gazman ask the question. If I can't perhaps someone else can.
 
@robjohn this one
 
@Ilya_Gazman Ah, better to simply provide a link
 
5:10 PM
thanks @user153330 :-)
 
@infinitesimal =)
 
Is someone familiar with prime ideals??
 
@Karlo lol idk. I searched Prim's algorithm and I understand it. What's the in depth algorithm?
@MaryStar Yes
 
DFS algorithm
@KarlKronenfeld DFS algorithm
 
@KarlKronenfeld Could you take a look at this: math.stackexchange.com/questions/1128394/… ??
 
5:16 PM
@Karlo Don't quote me on this, but I suspect a DFS is a possible implementation of Prim's algorithm.
@MaryStar A wall of math. Could you tell me your basic idea?
(Looks like the codomain of $\phi$ should be $\mathbb C$ rather than $\mathbb Z$ btw)
 
Hi, would anyone on here be able to help with something dealing with statistics? Its about calculating the power of a test?
 
@MaryStar Ok, I've read your post anyway.
 
@KarlKronenfeld Yes, it should be $\mathbb{C}$. We have this homomorphism and then we take a polynomial of $\mathbb{C}[x, y, z]$ and we want to show that if $p \in ker \phi$ then $p \in \langle y-x^2, z-x^3\rangle$. My question is : Is the step :

If $p(x, y, z) \in ker \phi$, $$\phi(p(x, y, z))=0 \Rightarrow \phi(g(x, y, z)(y-x^2)+(z-x^3)a(x, z)+b(x))=0 \Rightarrow \phi(g(x, y, z)) \phi((y-x^2))+\phi((z-x^3))\phi(a(x, z))+\phi(b(x))=0\Rightarrow \phi(b(x))=0 \Rightarrow b(\phi(x))=0 \Rightarrow b(x)=0$$
 
Yes, it's correct.
You didn't do any geometry though, which isn't fun. Perhaps there is a cleverer way to do that.
 
@KarlKronenfeld What is the difference between finding the shortest path and having weights on edges?
 
5:24 PM
@KarlKronenfeld Does it stand that $\phi(b(x))=0 \Rightarrow b(\phi(x))=0 $ because $\phi$ is an homomorphism and so $\phi(a \cdot b)=\phi(a) \cdot \phi(b)$ and $\phi(a+b)=\phi(a)+\phi(b)$ ??

Which is an other way??
 
Derp, I mistyped my correction to your mistake above @Mary. Codomain should be $\mathbb C[x]$.
 
What are the conditions to prove that a sequence of functions $\sum_{n=0} ^{+\infty}f_n$ is uniformly convergent?
 
@Karlo shortest path uses fewest edges, right? Using the weights to find a minimal path may end up with more, cheaper edges.
@MaryStar Yeah, in other words, ring homomorphisms preserve these meta polynomial expressions.
 
@KarlKronenfeld so in Path algorithm we don't care how many edges we care minimum sum?
 
@MaryStar I was thinking about proving that $\langle y-x^2,z-x^3\rangle$ is prime and then arguing using dimensions to prove that it is the kernel.
The first part of my idea would take kinda the same proof you used, though.
 
5:34 PM
Is my solution here good?
0
A: Show that $\int^\infty_0$ $\int^\infty_0$ sin($x^2$+$y^2$) dxdy value is $\frac{\pi}{4}$

Chris's sisDoes it work like that? $$\int_{0}^{\infty}\int_{0}^{\infty} \sin(x^{2}+y^{2}) \,dx\ dy=\Im\left\{\int_{0}^{\infty}\int_{0}^{\infty} e^{i(x^2+y^2)} \ dx \ dy\right\}=\Im\left\{\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{i x^2} \ dx\int_{0}^{\infty} e^{i y^2} \ dy\right\}=\frac{\pi}{4}$$

Maybe I missed something. I hope all is just fine.
brb (back to my limits)
 
@KarlKronenfeld Ok... How would you use dimensions to prove that it is the kernel?? After having proven that this ideal is the kernel of the homomorphism we use the isomorphism theorem, right??
 
For the second part, recall the definition of ideal of a variety. I don't think we need to use any isomorphism theorems--though after enough experience they become slightly second-nature.
 
@robjohn This question indeed. I'm aware that this kind of result is not well knows, since I'm probably the only one working on this formula for now :D. Anyway, do you know some of those "tools" that could help me prove the existence of the interval and/or the divergence of its bounds to $\pm\infty$ ? Since I haven't really managed to find anything, that could only help :-)
 
For the first part, you can show that the height of the ideal $\langle y-x^2,z-x^3\rangle$ is at least $2$ based on the fact that height $1$ ideals are principal.
 
@Hippalectryon why don't you tell chris's sis?
2 hours ago, by Hippalectryon
@user159870 Please don't barge in and post a question here...
 
5:43 PM
@infinitesimal About what ?
@infinitesimal He's not just coming in and posting one of his question's link, he's posting one of his answer's link, stating clearly that he needs it to be checked.
The only think we could tell her is that it's better to use [text](link), as it takes less space.
 
@Hippalectryon I would first note that this is an out of bounds convex combination of the values of $\left(1+\frac1n\right)^n$. That is, the coefficients sum to $1$, but not all of them are in $[0,1]$. We actually know the sum of the absolute values of the coefficients from the formula I gave in the earlier answer
@Chris'ssis You can do that by conversion to polar coordinates
 
I need to determine the interior, closure and boundary of the set (0,1) in $\mathbb{R}$ under the discrete topology. Am I correct in saying that these are just (0, 1), $\phi$ and {0, 1} respectively?
 
@Chris'ssis I see that is what sys440 did
 
@robjohn Yeah. But my answer seems pretty straightforward & easy to understand.
 
@user112495 If I am not mistaken, in the order given, those should be $(0,1)$, $(0,1)$, and $\emptyset$
 
5:51 PM
@robjohn If you're in $\mathbb{R}$, then isn't the boundary of (a, b) just {a, b}?
 
@user112495 @robjohn Whis is $\phi$?
 
@robjohn And we're told that in the discrete topology, every subset is open. So wouldn't that mean the closure would have to be $\phi$?
@KevinDriscoll Sorry, I'm using it to denote the empty set.
 
@user112495 Okay that's what I thought. In that case, the closure of any nonempty set must be nonempty, because the closure always contains the set itself as a subset.
 
@robjohn You mean, using $(6)$ from this one ? With that expression, the only way I would see to get the sum of the abs value of the coefficients would be $\displaystyle\prod_{k=1}^n-\frac{c^k+1}{c^k-1}=$
 
@KevinDriscoll But isn't every subset under the discrete topology open? So how can I find the closure? Unless it is $\mathbb{R}$?
 
5:54 PM
@user112495 You are not in the $\mathbb{R}$ that you are used to. You are in $\mathbb{R}$ under the discrete topology. Every point is a basic open set.
 
@user112495 Just because a set is open does not mean it is also closed.
 
@robjohn I don't see how you can find the closure then?
 
@user112495 In particular, the complement of $(0,1)$ is also a subset of $\mathbb{R}$ which is open, so $(0,1)$ is the complement of an open set, so it is closed. (gosh I hope this is right)
 
@Chris'ssis I am not so sure I am comfortable with the change of order of integration since the integrals are not absolutely integrable.
 
@KevinDriscoll Oh. That makes sense actually!
Thanks.
 
5:57 PM
@user112495 So since its a closed set, it is equal to its cosure
 
@Hippalectryon That is the formula. It gives the sum of the absolute values, but since $c\gt1$, the minus should not be there.
 
@robjohn Bu how about this from sos's answer? It's that more comfortable? :-)$$\lim_{\epsilon \downarrow 0} \int_{0}^{\infty}\int_{0}^{\infty} \sin(x^{2}+y^{2})e^{-\epsilon(x^{2}+y^{2})} \,dxdy$$ I remember that once I played with such operations (I refer to the limit inside-outside the double integral) while working on Au-Yeung series and I got a very wrong result.
 
@user112495 In regard to the boundary, the discrete metric says that the distance is 1 if the 2 points are not equal, and 0 otherwise. So the point $0$ is just as far from every point in your interval as say, the point $867$
 
@Chris'ssis Yes, he shows how he is regularizing the integral to make it converge. Conversion to polar coordinates also shows that we are limiting the integral over disks. I guess yours would be okay if you say we are integrating over squares.
 
@KevinDriscoll Wait, so is the boundary $\mathbb{R}$?
 
6:02 PM
@Chris'ssis Since the integral is not absolutely convergent, the way that we approach the whole plane will change the limit.
 
In my lecture notes, after the Bezout theorem there is the following collary:

If the plane projective curves, $x=V(F), y=V(G)$, intersect at exactly $m \cdot n$ discrete points, then the intersection multiplicity is at each point one. (the points are simple)


Can you explain to me this collary??
 
@robjohn Well, actually I work on a similar integral.
 
@user112495 oops mad ea mistake
 
@Chris'ssis This is just an integral reformulation of the Riemann Series Theorem
 
@user112495 I meant to say the boundary of a set are the points in the closure of the set which are not in the interior of the set. So, which of the point in $(0,1)$ are interior in the discrete topology?
 
6:06 PM
@KevinDriscoll Well $(0, 1)$ is the interior. So would the boundary be the empty set?
 
@Chris'ssis The double integral in that form is the integral over infinitely wide rectangles whose height tends to infinity. Your integral is the integral over squares whose sides tend to infinity. As long as you can show that the difference between the square and the associated rectangle vanishes, that would show equality
 
@user112495 Yes. Every point in that interval is interior, so the boundary is empty.
@user112495 The intuition hereis that in the discrete topology, no point is 'close' to any other, except itself. There's no boundary because there are no point which are not in a set $S$ which are 'close' to $S$. Everyone not in $S$ is equally far away.
 
@Chris'ssis I believe that both your and sos440's answer need to show the same thing to show that they are equal to that double integral.
 
@KevinDriscoll Thanks. I think I'm slowly beginning to get my head round this now.
 
@Chris'ssis That is, the difference between your integral and his is demonstrably $0$
 
6:11 PM
@robjohn let me think a bit ...
 
@Chris'ssis Now, the question is: how did you evaluate $\int_0^\infty e^{ix^2}\,\mathrm{d}x$?
 
@robjohn Very easy ... $$I(a)=\int_0^{\infty} e^{-a x^2} \ dx=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{a}}$$
 
@Chris'ssis and you compute that by polar coordinates?
 
@robjohn use variable change and then replace $a$ ...
@robjohn My way is flawless.
 
@Chris'ssis Yes, you reduce it to the form I asked about without the $a$ but then to get the square root of $\pi$, you do convert to polar coordinates.
@Chris'ssis I am not saying your answer is wrong, I am simply saying that you do use polar coordinates at some point.
 
6:18 PM
Are the terms affines curves and algebraic curves the same?
 
@robjohn Isn't the formula $(6)$ for $x=-1$, since the highest coefficient is positive ?
 
@robjohn No need for poolar coordinates. Well, I was thinking it's not necessary to compute the Gaussian integral since it's well-known. Yes, for a fast approach, I agree with you.
 
@Hippalectryon Yes, but all the terms are negative.
 
Oh ok I see now, thanks @robjohn
 
@Chris'ssis Oh, I would like to see a way to evaluate $\int_{-\infty}^\infty e^{-x^2}\,\mathrm{d}x=\sqrt\pi$ without using polar coordinates. That is the only one I know. Can you show me?
 
6:21 PM
@robjohn You can use the gamma function (and you can prove that without using polar co-ordinates).
 
@robjohn This is funny @robjohn. There a lots, tons of proofs to it.
@robjohn You can use Gamma function and get immediately the needed answer with some identities of beta function and Euler's reflection formula.
$$B(1/2,1/2)=\Gamma(1/2)^2=\pi$$ and hence you have that $$\Gamma(1/2)=\sqrt{\pi}$$
Or by using gamma function
 
@Chris'ssis I think the proof for the reflection formula I know uses the result that $\Gamma(1/2)=\sqrt\pi$ and that is gotten using the integral we are looking for.
 
$$\int_0^{\infty} x^{-1/2} e^{-x} \ dx =\sqrt{\pi}$$ the rest reduced to the substitution $x=t^2$.
Q.E.D.
@robjohn I think you wanna see something new.
 
@robjohn You can use the beta function relation to evaluate $\Gamma(\frac{1}{2})$. You can prove this using Laplace transforms or the Bohr-Mollerup theorem (or a number of other methods).
 
Back a bit later (I wanna finish some proofs).
 
6:29 PM
Okay, I do have this proof of the Reflection Formula that does avoid reference to polar coordinates.
@Chris'ssis I know that $\int_0^\infty e^{-x^2}\,\mathrm{d}x=\frac12\Gamma\left(\frac12\right)$, but the question was how to get $\Gamma\left(\frac12\right)$, but I see that I do have a proof not using polar coordinates that $\Gamma\left(\frac12\right)=\sqrt\pi$
 
@robjohn You don't need the reflection formula at all. You can use $B(x, y) = 2\int_0^{\frac{\pi}{2}} sin^{2p-1}xcos^{2q-1}x dx$
 
@robjohn Just look at my answer above.
 
@robjohn And then derive the relation between that and the gamma function. Although I guess that would take just as long as deriving Euler's reflection formula.
 
@robjohn Besides that, one can get $B(1/2,1/2)$ in a very clever way.
One needs to start with the simple integral $$\int_0^1 \sqrt{x-x^2} \ dx$$ that can be done geometrically. Then, using the properties of the beta function, one can show that $B(3/2,3/2)=1/8 B(1/2,1/2)$.
 
Quick terminology question. Let $F$ be a field. I'm asked to find an "$F$-basis" for the polynomial ring $F[u_1,\dots,u_n]$. In my understanding, the $F$ in $F$-basis simply refers to the field in question, or is it some specific type of basis with special properties like Grobner bases or orthonormal bases?
 
6:39 PM
@JMoravitz means "basis ... as a vector space over F"
cuz sometimes the base field can be varied in certain contexts
 
@anon!
 
aye
 
i am trying to understand chain homotopies. you familiar with those?
 
@robjohn I think the work in the paper I gave you is simply amazing. You can use that too.
 
@KevinDriscoll I need to prove whether or not a map $f:(M, d) \rightarrow (M, d_1)$ is a homeomorphism, where $f(x)=x$ and $d_1(x, y) = min(1, d(x, y))$.
@KevinDriscoll Can we just take $\delta = min(1, \epsilon)$
 
6:46 PM
@user112495 Which things are you trying to rpove continuity for?
with that $\delta$ (at least thats what I assume you mean)\
 
Wait, how would it be homeomorphic? Consider $\varepsilon > 1$
 
Ya my intuition is that its not homeomorphic
 
@KevinDriscoll To prove that f is a homeomorphism, I need to prove that $f$ and $f^{-1}$ are continuous. But $f=f^{-1}$
 
@BalarkaSen nope
 
@KevinDriscoll Wait yeah.
 
6:49 PM
@user112495 Oh yes, I didn't consider that $f$ and its inverse are the same
 
isn't it possible for the set-theoretic identity map $(X, \tau_1) \to (X, \tau_2)$ to be continuous but not the inverse?
 
@user112495 In this case, you have $f(x) = x$ which is the identity function. Don't you already have that?
 
@Axoren Yeah. That was in the question.
 
@Axoren Have what, that the function is continuous?
 
@user112495 @KevinDriscoll That it is both continuous and it's own inverse.
 
6:52 PM
@Axoren Wait, so it is continuous? Didn't we just show that it wasn't?
 
@Axoren I don't think its continuous. If $d_1(x,y) = 1$ then yo could be anywhere in the range. There's no $\delta$ in the domain that could possibly correspond to that whole region
 
@robjohn You should also see the proof of Paul Nahin in his book, Inside Interesting Integrals. It's amazingly nice! No need for any kind of polar coordinates applications. He uses the differentiation under the integral sign in a very clever way. He starts with $$I(t)=\left(\int_0^t e^{-x^2/2} \ dx\right)^2$$
 
Any $\delta$ you give me, I can always find a point that is distance $1$ from $f(x)$ but whose preimage is more than $\delta$ away from $x$
 
Hmm, you're right. I was only considering positives. But we have a whole $(-\infty, 1]$ that satisfies that.
Rather, doesn't satisfy that.
 
Hey @Axoren!!! Are you familiar with singular points of an affine curve?
 
6:56 PM
I don't think I've every done anything fancy with affine geometry before. That doesn't sound familiar.
 
A ok...
 
@Chris'ssis did you see above that I mentioned I found a couple of proofs that I had posted where I didn't use polar coordinates?
 
@robjohn Sorry, no.
@robjohn You didn't say that or?
 
@robjohn Would you be able to take a look at this question at some point? math.stackexchange.com/questions/1128485/…
Yesterday, we managed to prove that it wasn't always $0$, so it does not converge to the function $g(x) = 0$.
 
@robjohn here? math.stackexchange.com/questions/110457/… I saw that in the past and upvoted. Nice way!
 
7:06 PM
He's probably AFK for a bit.
 
@robjohn I'm back in 30-45 min.
Need to measure BP to someone.
 
Brownie Points?
 
Did anything happen to Tanya Khovanova ?
She hasn't updated her blog for a month.
 
@hippa what's the link
 
7:14 PM
what a weird website...
 
It's a personal website, Ramanewbie. It's actually quite normal.
 
@Axoren ok...
 
@Chris'ssis I'm off to the store for a while... BBL
 
Bezout's theorem: K is algebraic closed.
Let $X=V(F), y=V(G)$ two projective curves of $\mathbb{P}^2(K)$ with degree $m$ and $n$ respectively that do not have a common component.
Then $$\sum_{P \in \mathbb{P}^2(\mathbb{C}) I(P, F \cap G)}=mn$$
We have two curves X,y but find the intersection multiplicity of F and G. Why? What does it mean?
 
7:55 PM
Is anyone familiar with singular points of affine curves? math.stackexchange.com/questions/1129091/…
 
8:32 PM
@Raman Don't you get tired of managing a second account?
 
@Sawarnik whuut ?? @hippa have you made me a second account ?
 
@Ramanewbie yes .. and it seems that it has an avatar with '42' on it
 
@Sawarnik oh yeah... -_- but I only have this one !
 
oOo
 
OoO
@TedShifrin Hello
 
8:39 PM
@hippa hi back, did you see my last post ?
 
I might have. It was of no interest.
 
@hippa but do you know why sawarnik thinks I have 2 accounts ?
 
@evinda I don't know anything on the topic, but you can use this instead of the image in your question $$\begin{cases}
f(x,y)=0\implies(1+x^2)^2-xy^2=0\\
\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}(x,y)=0\implies 4x+4x^3-y^2=0\\
\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}(x,y)=0\implies -2xy=0\implies x=0\quad \mathrm{OR}\quad y=0
\end{cases}
$$
 
I couldn't care less. @Ramanewbie
 
@hippa so it's not you... ok, then
 
8:44 PM
What is an irreducible conic projective curve???
 
@robjohn Back. OK.
 
GRR ... A newbie posts a question, is unhappy that we don't post him a solution when he doesn't even understand his own question, and then posts the same question again. GRR.
hi @Hippa
 
@TedShifrin Such a beautiful paint skill
 
@user159870: Why do you not learn this stuff in your course?
Yes, @Hippa, it is worthy of your art diplôme.
 
Great, I don't have any :D
 
8:47 PM
@Hippa: Perhaps you have the patience to help him. I don't, when he doesn't even understand his own question at all.
 
I had the patience to flag
 
I.e., he wants us to do his homework and he doesn't even know the notation.
I voted to close, obviously.
 
What is more, the (a) at the beginning clearly denotes a copy/paste or just a copy of his homework, yeah
 
@TedShifrin I have exams and I have stress
That's why I have forgotten a lot of it :(
 
Well, seriously, you need to get help from your professor. We can't teach you your course here.
I've explained irreducible to you several times and if you don't know what a conic is, google and find out.
 
8:52 PM
@user159870 I agree with @TedShifrin. If you're having trouble with content that your course should have prepared you for, the course's instructor is the person you should be approaching.
It'll lead to meaningful feedback because his responses will be in the context of the classes in which you learned it.
While here, other perspectives may be used and less patience will be guaranteed.
 
I try to be helpful, but we have too many people coming to this chatroom for us to teach them courses for which they do not have the background. So I apologize that I've run out of patience, @user159870.
 
A collary of the Bezut's theorem is the following:

Let $C_F=V(F)$ and $C_G=V(G)$ two algebraic curves of degree $n$ and that the two curves intersect in $n^2$ points. We suppose that exactly $m \cdot n$ from these belong to an irreducible curve of degree $m<n$. Then the remaining $n(n-m)$ belong to a curve of degree $n-m$.




What does it mean that "$m \cdot n$ from these belong to an irreducible " ???
 
Morning, @Ted
 
@Hippa: That newbie's problem, I'm realizing, comes because he can't tell the difference between $(x,y)\in\Bbb R^2$ and $(x,y) = ]x,y[\subset\Bbb R$. Unfortunate notation. But still ...
good night, @Mike. I'm retiring.
 
Retiring in what sense?
 
8:56 PM
@TedShifrin That's most funny
 
Fed up with this site as well as my own students, @Mike.
 
So you're retiring from MSE as well as UGA? Sad...
 
Well, you knew the former. But I'm running out of patience here ...
So I should probably lie low.
Cool that you might get another MSE recruit at UCLA, @Mike :P
 
UCLA seems to be the hip spot to use MSE.
 
Eric posted another question, but I didn't bother to answer.
 
8:58 PM
@TedShifrin If you change your MSE name to "Tod Shefren", no one will know it's you.
 
The way I avoid people who frustrate me is to remember their names, and avoid their questions.
Quite right, @Axoren, everyone will assume it's Hippa.
3
 
^
 
I've started doing that, @Mike. ... That's the first thing I think I've starred in here, ever. :P
I'm beginning to wonder how the world ever passed math courses before MSE was there to do their homework and study for their tests for them.
 
@TedShifrin Slide rules and recurrent, back-breaking disappointment.
 
Of course, some of my diff geo students are stubbornly refusing to come get help from me, and it's highly unlikely that they'll pass at the rate things are going.
Hey, @Axoren, I took physics and p chem in the slide rule days. Never used them in math, though.
 
9:00 PM
Ah, Eric was talking to Kevin and I about this last night. I don't think we were quite capable of thinking clearly at that point, and we said some silly things.
 
I = me, @Mike.
Yes, you must have been drunk, @Mike, because I would hope you'd be able to utter correct things about $(\otimes A)^* \cong \otimes A^*$. :P
 
Language changes to serve its purpose, which is communication, rather than pedantry.
 
I don't view direct objects as pedantry.
More reason to disappear.
 
Oh, it worked fine when we were just talking about dualizing. I made this point. But Eric was interested in something of the form $\text{Hom}(\Lambda^k V, W) \cong \Lambda^k \text{Hom}(V,W)$ (which isn't always true by dimension counting). I said something like "Well, it's true for $W=\Bbb R$, so it's true for all finite $W$..."
Quite sad, quite sad.
 
Oh, so that's why he got on the dimension counting kick :(
 
9:04 PM
I blame Kevin. I was whining about various things being noncanonical, but the louts didn't care.
 
hi @Alessandro ... wie geht's?
You were probably whining in the nominative case, @Mike.
 
"The whining. The whining!"
 
Speaking of whining, I can't believe Pedro had to rescue me on the zeta function. I thought of it and then it evaporated from my mind. :( Stupidity is ubiquitous.
 
Yeah, I was there when he posted it.
 
I've even explained that to people before. shakes head
 
9:09 PM
I still can't think of a way to extend the reasoning for anything past $x = 1$, though.
That's just where they intersect, but their behavior differs past that point.
 
Hmm, there should be something to say.
 
Well, if my function is lebesgue integrable, then shouldn't the inverse of the Zeta function be?
Because my function becomes an upper bound for it :P
Well, on the reals.
 
Oh, you're talking about your product over $1-1/p^2$, @Ted?
 
Well, it was not mine, @Mike, but yes.
 
I assumed you were looking for something simpler, analytic, rather than expanding the product.
Like taking logs and looking at a sum, e.g.
 
9:12 PM
@Chris'ssis back from the store.
 
Well, we were trying to determine whether the product was $0$ or not, @Mike. I was being dumb.
 
Oh well.
 
But I agree, @Axoren, that there doesn't seem to be any way to plug in the $x$.
 
Actually...
 
hi @robjohn
 
9:14 PM
Wait... the inverse zeta function would be the upper-bound, not my function.
 
@TedShifrin Hey, Ted...
 
@Axoren, but the $2$ is fixed in your function and becomes the $s$ in the zeta function, @Axoren.
 
@robjohn OK. hehe, I was just thinking that the most beautiful period of my life have been the one when studying mathematics intensively.
 
Is the inverse zeta function Lebesgue Integrable for $p = 1 \text{ or } 2$?
Over the reals.
 
That doesn't make any sense.
 
9:16 PM
I guess it wouldn't. It's divergent in way too many places.
 
No, constants are becoming variables and vice versa.
Unless I misunderstand you.
Which is highly likely these days.
 
The variable in the inverse Zeta function is the $s$.
And the variable in the primes-are-zero function is the $x$.
 
@Chris'ssis I like all my hobbies, but the top two are math and astronomy/astrophotography
 
Oh, I see...
 
Right, so $s=2$
@robjohn: I trust menageries count as one of the hobbies :P
 
9:18 PM
@robjohn Despite the fact that I do poor at languages, I like foreign languages pretty much too. I have fun learning new things.
 
I thought they intersected at $x = s = 1$, but it's $x = 1, s = 2$.
 
Hey, @TedShifrin, are you the same Ted Shifrin who wrote Multivariable Mathematics‌​?
 
LOL, oh oh, another hater :P Yes.
 
Lots of fans lately.
 
Haha, I'm not here to hate. I actually really want to get my hands on a copy of your book, but I can't afford the $200 that Wiley wants.
 
9:20 PM
Book prices are obscene.
 
Do you have anything like a preliminary version of the book you'd be willing to distribute for free?
 
If I compose my function with $g(x) = 2x$, then it intersects the inverse zeta function at $x = s = 1$.
 
When I negotiated with my second two publishers, I made them promise to keep prices down to be better than competitive. A lot of good that did.
 
And it "should" still have the same properties, except that it's zero at the "doubles" of every prime and their negatives.
 
@robjohn and I need to mention I also love the risks analysis very much (FMEA). I was pretty good at that.
 
9:21 PM
Various people have whispered in here that bootlegged copies are out there, @David. I'm not going to contribute to make it worse :P
But I will say that I'm keeping my differential geometry notes free on my website, even after I retire, despite various people's insisting that I should publish those traditionally.
OK, @Axoren, but I don't see how a single intersection point gets us anything :(
But I'm thinking this sort of stuff may well be known to analytic number theory types, @Axoren.
 
@TedShifrin Yeah, I had forgotten that the inverse Zeta function was a ridiculous function, while mine is rather tame in comparison.
 
@TedShifrin Cambridge is good about allowing people to keep their books freely, publicly available
 
I know of two cases, @Mike. Are there more?
Note those are graduate texts, not undergraduate.
 
What are your two?
 
Hatcher and Dave Benson's Math & Music text.
well, Dave's is an unusual "topics" undergraduate text, I suppose.
 
9:24 PM
@TedShifrin I understand. Do you know of any freely available texts which cover similar material?
 
Emily Riehl has a book Cambridge is letting her keep freely available. I think a recent conference precedings was just published by CUP, with the proceedings available online, etc.
 
No, @David, generally you get what you pay for with free stuff, unfortunately.
 
@robjohn The funny part is that as long as I attended a position that was related to FMEA, I actually didn't go to my work, but to my hobby. I turned my job into a hobby. People were amazed by my love to this kind of technique since many of them considered it terribly disgusting. :-)))
 
Is Riehl's an advanced text, @Mike? Undergraduate texts just don't work that way, typically.
 
Is there any real reason Wikipedia doesn't support LaTeX and forces articles to use "images" of formulas instead?
 
9:26 PM
Probably a Microsoft product, @Axoren :D
 
Yes, @Ted, a graduate topics course.
 
@TedShifrin That's a shame. Thanks, anyway
 
@David: What I can say is that my course lectures for that text are now available on YouTube. Not the same as a book with all the exercises, but it's something.
 
Wait a minute...
 
@robjohn most of the days there I used to feel those 8 hours or more like half an hour. Time was running very fast. Honestly speaking!
 
9:29 PM
I think I could rewrite my function as an infinite root of an infinite product of itself...
In a meaningful way...
 
@robjohn It's like mathematics, while doing it time is running amazingly fast. I perceive the hours like a just few minutes.
 
Yuck @Axoren
 
I know, the way I'm picturing it, I'll have an infinite grid of multiplication of factors $\left(1 - \frac{x^2}{p_{i,j}^2}\right)$. Maybe there are some properties I can find in that grid.
 
@induktio, if you are here, thanks for the warning.
 
Why should a lazy undergraduate need a warning? :D
 
9:45 PM
Because he is new on SE. Btw, there are no way of hiding text in an answer? Like [spoiler] on forums.
 
Yes, there is a way to do spoilers. I've done it.
Hold on a sec.
 
@Marco Put a >! at the beginning of the line.
Evening @Ted.
 
Ah, @DanielF to the rescue, as always. Thanks.
hi @DanielF
Things I hardly ever use I forget :( I guess that comes of old age.
 
Thanks.
 
Just don't post homework questions with no effort, @Marco :)
@Marco: When people ask just for hints, using a spoiler alert isn't appropriate, IMHO. Although there will always be people who can't help showing off and putting up a solution. Anyhow, this is a source of great controversy here. :D
 
9:55 PM
hellllllllllooooooooooooo
 
Morning, @DanielF.
 
anyone know how to nondimensionalize an equation (different from what I posted earlier) I almost got it really, but I'm stuck at one tiny part omg help me D:
 
Deleted definitively :)
 
@MikeMiller Good appetite.
 
Decidedly deleted definitively?
 
9:56 PM
Thanks, I've been working on it.
 
nargh
$\frac{d \theta}{dt} = \frac{q}{mc}-\frac{k}{mc}(\theta-T)$

where

theta, t - degrees and time
q - energy absorbed per time
k - energy/degrees x time
T - degrees
m - mass
c - ?,
yayyyyyy.........
 

« first day (1642 days earlier)      last day (3378 days later) »