« first day (1698 days earlier)      last day (3314 days later) » 

12:08 AM
what is your other account @Committingtoachallenge
 
@KarimMansour I have a few other accounts haha
 
haha :D
 
@KarimMansour They have never come on chat though
 
me 2 xD
 
@KarimMansour I have 28 in total
 
12:09 AM
yeah one must have few other accounts for trivial questions xD
subgroup xD
 
xD definitely haha
I don't know what to do now... You can do mobius transforms on $\Bbb C \to \Bbb C$ and extended to extended, I guess I have to do both for my assignment, since the lecturer clearly doesn't give a crap about notation
 
Mobius transformations are typically viewed as being $\hat{\Bbb C} \to \hat{\Bbb C}$
why? because if $f(z) = \dfrac{az+b}{cz + d}$, at $z = -\dfrac{d}{c}$ the function is undefined, and does not have domain $\Bbb C$
 
@JasperLoy Next time when you feel depressed look at that (with the music you like)
 
The point being, if we extend the domain, and co-domain, the function is defined everywhere
 
So if I take $\Bbb C^* \to \Bbb C^*$ where I define $C^*=C\backslash \{-\frac{d}{c}\}$, I can sort of have $\Bbb C \to \Bbb C$?
 
12:26 AM
No, because the image of $f$ might include $\frac{-d}{c}$.@Committingtoachallenge
The value that cannot be reached is $\frac{a}{c}$. So $f:\mathbb C\setminus\{\frac{-d}{c}\}\to \mathbb C\setminus\{\frac{a}{c}\}$
 
And why we want the domain to equal the co-domain, is to get an automorphism group.
 
It's so you can talk about composing them more easily, @DavidWheeler
 
that's what I said.
 
No, you said an automorphism group. That's something you get, but you can't compose them anyway, even if they weren't automorphisms of something.
 
Too many double negatives in that sentence for me to parse.
 
12:31 AM
There is no double negative in there. There might be a lot of negatives, but they don't apply to the same thing.
 
Composability = submonoid of the monoid of transformations of domain/co-domain.
it so happens we get a bijection, which is nice.
 
@ThomasAndrews Okay I see
Yes that makes sense, thank you
 
But the real reason is that it is related to the complex projective line, and the idea can be extended to any field.
And in that context, you see why composition is related to multiplication of $2\times 2$ matrces.
While the complex projective line, $\mathbb CP^1$, can be seen as $\mathbb C\cup\{\infty\}$, there is a better view that makes the geometry of Mobius transforms more clear.
Specifically, $\mathbb CP^1$ is $(\mathbb C^2\setminus\{(0,0)\})/\sim$ where $(x_1,y_1)\sim(x_2,y_2)$ if $\exist z\neq 0$ so that $(x_1z,y_1z)=(x_2,y_2)$. So then $w\in\mathbb C$ corresponds to the equivalence class of $(w,1)$ and $\infty$ corresponds to the class of $(1,0)$, and these are all the points.
 
If I have three known mappings of my mobius transformation, 0 to 2, i to 3/2 and -2i to 0 , will it matter if I am on $f:\mathbb C\setminus\{\frac{-d}{c}\}\to \mathbb C\setminus\{\frac{a}{c}\}$ or $f:\hat{\Bbb C} \to \hat{\Bbb C}$?
I will try to understand those comments, but I haven't got very far into complex analysis yet(even though this seems almost algebraic)
 
12:46 AM
Then the Mobius transform corresponds to the linear transform $(x,y)\to(ax+by,cx+dy)$ in $\mathbb C^2$. This makes clear why you can't have $ad-bc=0$ -since it can't send any non-zero vectors to $0$.
No, that won't matter. MTs are entirely determined by giving three values.
It's not a big deal dealing with the as functions on punctured complex planes, if you want. You can think of them as direct limits of functions on co-finite subsets of the complex plane. It's just irritating when looking at it that way.
 
Direct limits on a co-finite subset? That doesn't make sense to me unless co-finite isn't finite haha, never seen co-finite before
 
Co-finite just means the complement is finite.
But you really don't need to know this idea. Just explaining that there is a reason it works.
 
That makes sense
 
It's more useful when dealing with rational functions.
No, I was right. My brain hurts. It is a direct limit.
It turns out the co-finite sets of the projective line over a field are the open sets of the Zariski topology on that projective line. This is the start of algebraic geometry.
So there are reallly really really deep reasons it makes sense to treat Mobius transformations as acting on $\mathbb CP^1\cong \hat{\mathbb C}$.
 
1:16 AM
I totally did not know this, and a bit surprised: if $$\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix}$$ has integral coefficients, determinant 1, and has finite order then its order is 2,3,4, or 6.
 
@Marystar How much rep have you given out in bounties?
 
It says right there 950
 
It doesn't for me, must be a 2k rep thing
 
Ah maybe
 
950 @Committingtoachallenge
 
1:25 AM
Oh wait, the offered was off the screen and it was defaulted on active
@MaryStar Almost as much rep as I am worth haha
 
:p @Committingtoachallenge
 
1:47 AM
Hello.
 
1:57 AM
Finite order means the eigenvalues have to be roots of unity. But they also have to be of the form $\frac{a+\sqrt{b}}{2}$, with $a,b$ integers. So you just have to prove that the only roots of unity of that form are the 2nd, 3rd, fourth, and sixth roots of unity. @DiscipleofBarney
That can be seen, in turn, with the cyclotomic polynomials, which are of degree $\leq 2$ only when $n=2,3,4,6$.
 
I saw a real slick proof of that somewhere, but it was phrased in terms of groups of finite order in $GL_2(\Bbb Z)$
 
class equation and sylow theorems are very nice
 
ya, using the class equation you can show the center of poor people is non-trivial. wait, that's not right...
 
$p$-groups, alright? think that's it. $p$-groups, poor people...same diff.
 
2:07 AM
yeh
actually you know this thing or the idea is very nice we represent partition of G in different way and relate it to partition formed by coset and we get some relation
that is the idea of the proof
very nice idea
like mainly we just cut our set into different way of representing it
 
you can actually use that idea to show $A_5$ is simple.
 
yeah I saw pretty neat
 
you can do some interesting things with the right kind of action on a set.
 
yeah
the way I imagine it in my head is you know the right way to poke the set so we get its treasures :D
haha
 
@ThomasAndrews @DavidWheeler Nice. I will have to look for that slick proof. It seems like a results that would have a couple of interesting consequences involving geometry, number theory, and maybe even analysis.
 
2:14 AM
which proof @DiscipleofBarney
 
@KarimMansour Just the result, but the proofs seem like they can come from multiple places drawing some interesting connections
 
interesting
 
@KarimMansour The proof David mentioned
(I misunderstood what you were talking about)
 
It T(z)=z, then $cz^2 + (d-a)z-b=0$ means that $T(z)$ has at most two fixed points. Is this because of it being of degree two, meaning $z$ has two roots in terms of the a,b,c,d?
T is a mobius transformation
(from complex ended to complex ended is fine)
 
I was just wondering @Committingtoachallenge do you read the text along with doing problems or only reading the books?
 
2:28 AM
Remember when I said knowing the value at three points determines a Mobius function? So if there are three fixed points, the MF agrees with three points with $T(z)=z$, so it is equal everywhere to $T(z)=z$. @Committingtoachallenge
 
@KarimMansour Both, but in this case I am doing an assignment that I don't have time to appreciate until after it is handed in
 
oh I see
yeah I hate that for you know high level math I like to read before the class starts
so I know what happens in class not just problem solving I like to also have understanding
 
@ThomasAndrews I know, but I was trying to prove this
I was thinking I could use the transformation and the reverse transformation, to show that they are equal and thus it is its own inverse and thus it is the identity mapping
 
Well, the quadratic equation does show that there can be at most $2$ fixed points unless $c=0$ and $d=a$ and $b=0$. But that case is $T(z)=z$.
 
I'll be back in ~30 I think, but yeah I think I can see the argument
I just wasn't sure about the $c=0$ since it makes the quadratic equation divide by $0$, and maybe I don't understand what is going on there. But I'll be back in 30 and I'll see
 
2:36 AM
No, it makes the equation linear, not a quadratic equation at all. @Committingtoachallenge
Is $3x-1=0$ a quadratic equation?
If $c=0$ and $a-d\neq 0$, there is $1$ fixed point. If $c=0$ and $a-d=0$ and $b\neq 0$, then there is no fixed point. This coincides with $T(z)=z+b$. Finally, if $c=b=a-d=0$, then $T(z)=z$ and all points are fixed points. @Committingtoachallenge
Hey, back in my grad school days, I saw a film of a proof that any set of polygons could be cut up with straight cuts and put together to get any other set of polygons of equal area. Does anybody know the name of this theorem and/or the video?
Hmm, I might have remembered a stronger but false theorem. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
 
2:56 AM
I am doing project in number theory about gold bach conjecture
it will be so nice
I will do some coding in it too
just to verify the elements
 
hello
 
3:11 AM
Hi @MikeMiller
 
3:23 AM
Hi @ᴇʏᴇs, I am feeling not good. =(
@Chris'ssis Is that woman you? =)
 
3:39 AM
Does anyone know an online resource for the proof of the equality of the various Laplacians on Kahler manifolds?
 
3:51 AM
Hey, given the lexicographical ordering on $\mathbb N^2$ (that is, $(a,b)<(A,B)$ iff $a<A\text{ or }(a=a\text{ and }b<B)$), how can you prove rigorously that it's well-ordered? ("Well-ordered" means that there are no infinite descending sequences.)
I mean, you can construct an order isomorphism into $\omega^2$ fairly easily, but that requires knowledge of ordinals.
 
That's not what well-ordered means - you have to also add that it is linear-ordered.
 
> "Well-ordered" means that any two elements can be compared, and that there are no infinite descending sequences.
@ThomasAndrews Better?
You know what, this is a stupid question, I think I can do it easily.
 
Given any sequence of descending $(a_i,b_i)$, then $a_i$ is descending in $\mathbb N$, so it can't descend infinitely, so there must be a least $a_i$ in the sequence, since $\mathbb N$ is well-ordered. Then take the smallest $b$ such that $(a,b)$ is in the sequence.
The better definition of well-ordered is that any non-empty subset has a least element in the order. That implies linear order since $\{a,b\}$ has to have a least element.
 
@ThomasAndrews Wait, we could start of with $(1,3)>(1,2)$, and then the $a_i$s aren't descending. Or, at least, they're not strictly descending, but there are infinite "non-strictly descending" sequences in $\mathbb N$.
(Ex: $1,1,1,1,1,\dots$)
 
Sorry, by "descending" I mean "non-increasing." Basically, the $a_i$ has to stop eventually.
So, take the subset of the $a_i$ that are distinct. There can only be finitely many such values.
 
3:58 AM
1 min ago, by Thomas Andrews
The better definition of well-ordered is that any non-empty subset has a least element in the order. That implies linear order since $\{a,b\}$ has to have a least element.
Isn't my thing equivalent?
 
Of course they are equivalent, but one is easier to use in this sort of thing than the other.
And yours requires the additional statement about every pair of elements being comparable.
 
(I feel like Asaf Karagila is going to come on here and say that the equivalence between the two definitions requires the Axiom of Choice.)
 
You also have to define "infinite" and "sequence."
 
(I'm not sure if that's true, but I feel like it's going to happen.)
In any case, remind me: Is it true that you can't prove that $\varepsilon_0$ is well-ordered in Peano Arithmetic?
($\varepsilon_0$ is the order-type of rooted trees, with a certain ordering whose details I forgot, but you probably know that.)
 
No idea.
 
4:04 AM
I found a link saying that any proof technique that can prove that the Hydra game is un-lose-able can prove that PA is consistent. I guess that, since the proof hinges on $\varepsilon_0$ being well-ordered, it can prove that PA is consistent, which means that it's not provable due to Gödel.
TL;DR: Yes.
 
My "well-ordered" axiom makes this theorem much easier. If $X\subseteq \mathbb N\times\mathbb N$ is non-empty. Consider $X_1=\{a:\exists b((a,b)\in X)\}$. Then $X_1$ has a least element, $a_0$. Then let $X_2=\{b:(a_0,b)\in X\}$. Then $X_2$ is non-empty so has a least element, $b_0$, and $(a_0,b_0)\in X$ is the least element of $X$.
 
peeks in Anyone by chance familiar with Conway's Cosmological theorem? (From the look and say sequence)
 
No, but I think he may have mentioned it to me once.
(I met him over the summer. He came to my camp!)
 
Neat!
I'm trying to make my way through the paper, and having trouble with the notation
 
I can't help you there.
 
4:06 AM
skims the prior chat Yeah, the condition that any two sets are comparable in cardinality is one of the equivalents of the axiom of choice. (In set theory now, whee!)
 
Nice! Not what we were discussing, per se, but nice!
We had two different definitions of "well-ordering."
Mine involved infinite descending sequences, and his involved least members of sets.
 
nod Pretty sure those are equivalent.
 
How can you prove Mine$\implies$His?
(I'm saying "His" because his name is Thomas. Otherwise I wouldn't be so sure. EDIT: Also the photo.)
Oh, no, we do need Choice. (Or, at least, the weaker Dependent Choice.) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-order#Equivalent_formulations
 
nod
Well, off to bash my head against notation again.
 
But since His$\implies$Mine, his proof works to show that there is no infinitely descending sequence, so I'm good.
 
4:12 AM
Sounds good! Have a good night
 
50 secs ago, by Alan
Well, off to bash my head against notation again.
Can't help you there. I can, however, prove that $\varepsilon_0$ is well-ordered using ZFC. I can't do it just with PA, though.
 
Basically, a simple definition of not having an infinite-descending sequence is that if $f:\mathbb N\to X$, with $X$ is your ordered set, which is non-increasing, then $\exists N$ such that $\forall m,n>N(f(m)=f(n)$. Then my first proof above works with that definition.
So it depends on how you define "no infinite descending sequence."
 
You know, it's interesting to find subsets of $\mathbb Q$ which are order isomorphic to various ordinals.
$\{x\in\mathbb Q\cup(0,1)|$ $x$'s decimal expansion consists entirely of $1$s and at most one $0\}$ works for $\omega^2$, for example.
$\{0,0.01,0.011,0.0111,\dots,0.1,0.101,0.1011,\dots,0.11,0.1101, \dots0.111,\dots\}$
(Map $0.\underbrace{11\dots11}_a0\underbrace{11\dots11}_b$ to $\omega a+b$)
$\omega^\omega$ is harder, but an easy one, I found, is mapping $0.\underbrace{11\dots11}_n0\underbrace {11\dots11}_{a_n}0\underbrace{11\dots11}_ {a_{n-1}}0\dots0\underbrace{11\dots11}_{a_1}0 \underbrace{11\dots11}_{a_0}$ to $\omega^na_n+\omega^{n-1}a_{n-1}+\dotsb+\omega a_1+a_0$.
The set with order-type $\omega^\omega$ would be the set of all numbers that can be mapped into $\omega^\omega$ in that way.
After that I kind of gave up, but I know I could theoretically do it if I tried.
 
4:35 AM
You can just take $a-\frac{1}{b+1}$ for that order, of course.
 
So, what about a subset of $\Bbb Q$ corresponding to $\omega_1$?
 
(Assuming $\mathbb N$ does not contain zero. If zero is in $\mathbb N$, then $a-\frac{1}{b+2}$.
All countable ordinal can be found in the rationals. math.stackexchange.com/questions/408300/…
It's relatively easy via transfinite induction, since if $X$ is well-ordered in $\mathbb Q^+$, then the image of $X$ under $x\mapsto \frac{x^2}{1+x^2}$ isorder-isomorphic with $X$, and bounded above.
 
@DavidWheeler I am not sure if you are asking this as a leading question but $\mathbb{Q}$ is countable and $\omega_1$ is uncountable so there isn't one.
 
4:56 AM
@MikeMiller Hatcher in 2.2.13 (b) asks to prove that the cell complex obtained from attaching two 2-cells to the circle via a degree 2 and a degree 3 map respectively is homotopy equivalent to S^2. I am not sure how I'd go about proving this.
I initially skipped this as it was seemingly a bit hard, but now that I came back to it, I have no idea how to visualize the homotopy equivalence.
 
One does not simply visualize homotopy equivalence
 
That same old meme.
 
Dank meme
 
5:12 AM
off topic -- In $SL(2,3)$, why do we need to include matrices with negative coefficients? For example, why is the matrix $-I$ where $I$ is the identity 2x2 matrix included when this matrix is really just $2I$, which has determinant 4? Doesn't it just suffice to look at coefficients $0,1,2$ as entries?
 
@DiscipleofBarney i was being sassy
 
@DavidWheeler
 
@BalarkaSen: Attaching just a 2-cell gets you a mobius strip, with your starting circle as its boundary. Start with that.
 
5:27 AM
there is one thing I don't understand in the proof of first sylow theorem
 
@TheSubstitute yes, you can do that-but it makes multiplication easier to view $\Bbb Z_3$ as $\{-1,0,1\}$.
 
1 moment let me type it down
 
@TheSubstitute Also, there is no "4" in $\Bbb Z_3$, that would be... 1.
 
@BalarkaSen: I'm sorry, I misspoke. You get $\Bbb{RP}^2$.
 
Yes. I was wondering how the moebius strip comes into play.
 
5:32 AM
The proof is by induction on the order of G. If |G| = 1, then $p^0$ is the only prime power that divides |G|, and G itself is a subgroup of order $p^0$. Suppose |G| > 1 and assume inductively that the theorem is true for all groups of order less than |G|. By class equation we have |G| = |Z(G)| + [G: C($a_1$)] + .... + [G: C($a_r$)], where for each i, [G: C($a_i$)] > 1. Furthermore , |Z(G)| $\geq$ 1 and |C($a_i$)| < |G|.

Suppose there is an index j such p doesn't divide [G:($a_j$)]. Then by theorem $p^k$ must divide |C($a_j$)| because $p^k$ !!!**divides |G| by hypothesis*!!!
@DavidWheeler I don't see wht hypothesis is he talking about
we are assuming the theorem is true for all subgroup less than |G|
so what is that !?
I don't understand that line given by !!!** *!!!
 
I no longer have a strategy for solving this in mind.
 
Yes, RP^2 is messy.
 
@DavidWheeler I am a bit confused when we can mod out. For example, in the integers modulo 3, the polynomial $x^5$ is not the same as $x^2$ since $2^5=32=2$ whereas $2^2=4=1$ (so we can't mod out the exponent). So I am not exactly sure when I can mod out. If the determinant is 1, how do we know whether it should be 1 as viewed in the integers or once I mod out?
 
nvm
its the hypothesis of our theorem
omg !!! that is so stupid ...
I guess doing math all day can make you not think logically sometimes xD
 
eh, well, @Mike, this cell complex is a compact 2-manifold with fundamental group trivial. there is not many such 2-manifolds...
 
5:36 AM
@BalarkaSen How is it a 2-manifold?
That would imply $\Bbb{RP}^2$ is a subspace of $S^2$.
 
it isn't?
 
which are you asking about
 
@DavidWheeler Ahh, so you are a sassy pants
 
the cell complex
 
0
Q: What to do with the automorphism group of a string in a formal language.

Enjoys MathSee this question for background. Let $G$ be the automorphism group of $s \in \Sigma^*$. Say for example $s = abcd\cdot abcd \cdot cdcdcd$, the dot added for readability. Clearly the group is generated by $\{ (1,5), (2,6), (3,7), (4,8), (3,9), (4,10), (3,11),(4,12), (3,13),(4,14)\}$. Or simply t...

 
5:39 AM
if it was a compact surface, it would be, as you mentioned, $S^2$. but it has a subcomplex $\Bbb{RP}^2$. this is not a subspace of $S^2$, so your cell complex is not $S^2$ at all.
 
RP^2 is a 2-manifold though. not sure what happens when we attach the second cell
ok, fair enough.
 
that might be a good hint on how to approach this: the image of $\Bbb{RP}^2$ under the homotopy equivalence is going to get messed up quite a bit
no particular ideas of my own beyond that
it's usually pretty painful to verify that something is a homotopy equivalence, unless you have more tools which you'll get later. i doubt $S^2$ is a deformation retract so once you write down the right map... you'll have to write down a homotopy inverse. ouch.
 
well, everything is kind of easy with a combination of hurewicz and whitehead, i wouldn't count that very visual (though they are very nice theorems)
 
You still need to write down the map you claim is a homotopy equivalence before you can use them.
 
5:55 AM
We can punch the equator to get a map $X \to S^2 \vee S^2$ but that doesn't help much.
 
Wedging the identity maps $S^2 \to S^2$ will give you the desired homotopy equivalence.
 
hm? oh, you mean composing with the map that sends both of the $S^2$s to a single $S^2$ by identity?
 
yes
 
well, it's certainly a map, but not sure about homotopy equivalence
 
not that I know the homotopy inverse; i just checked what happens to second homology.
 
6:00 AM
this map has a weird fiber. can't imagine what'd be the homotopy inverse.
 
unpleasant problem
not really sure what the point was
 
well, it certainly doesn't relate to homology in the slightest
 
@TheSubstitute Makes no difference, 1 is 1.
@KarimMansour Note $|G| = [G:C(a_j)]|C(a_j)|$. If $p\not\mid [G:C(a_j)]$ then all the $p$-factors must be in $|C(a_j)|$
 
yeh
I understood it
nice proof
want to finish understanding proof of sylow 2 theorem and 3 then call it a day for algebra then do the assignment for algebra and call it a day !
 
6:21 AM
@BalarkaSen can you help me with metric spaces
 
why are you doing metric spaces? shouldn't you be doing calculus and set theory?
 
@BalarkaSen in a question in simmons its given that let d be a real function on the nonempty set X which satisfies the three conditions that are
$d(x,y)>0$ and equal to 0 when x=y.
$d(x,y)=d(y,x)
d(x,y)<d(x,z)+d(z,y)and also equal to.
then it is called a pseudo metric but arent these conditions same as we have in a metric
 
i told you not to start Simmons till you learned set theory can calculus well.
 
well atleast help with the question
 
trust me, you wouldn't understand half the things in metric topology if you don't know either of these well. there is no rigorous need to know calculus to understand topology, but the motivation behind these lie in analysis.
@SayanChattopadhyay not going to. if you're not going to take my advise seriously, i am not gonna help you.
 
6:30 AM
i can understand really what they are trying to tell me
 
you can understand the basic definitions, but you'll soon get stuck when they start on abstract definitions of continuity, etc.
 
well i understand continuity thouroughly
 
anyway, i can't stop you to do what you want, but don't expect help from me.
@SayanChattopadhyay you understand continuity in the context of topological spaces?
 
they havent told us anything about it yet
 
Simmons has it. My point was that you won't be able to understand those concepts if you don't know basic calculus very well.
 
6:33 AM
i am telling you i know the basics of calculus
and i am able to solve questions of it easily
 
You told me only a few days ago that you don't know what partial derivatives are. And you also struggled a lot with continuity of tan(x).
Either way, you need practice on set theory also. Recall that you weren't able to do the problem of dearrangements I gave you.
 
yup partial derivates....fine then i wont do metric spaces
 
Good decision.
 
well @BalarkaSen then when can i start with topology
or metric spaces
 
@Sayan my advice: study well the functions $\Bbb R^2 \to \Bbb R$
get real comfortable with them, it's good practice.
 
6:42 AM
from the square of all real numbers to real numbers....hmmm
 
not the "square of all numbers"....from the PLANE
 
@SayanChattopadhyay You'll have to wait for a few years. Study set theory and calculus really well before anything.
 
not years ...months
@BalarkaSen topology requires multivariable calculus?
 
Well, it took me a few years. If you think you can master set theory and calculus well in a few months, then it's ok.
@SayanChattopadhyay not particularly. topology doesn't require any calculus at all. but you've to understand that the ideas of topology are motivated from the ideas of analysis.
after studying all the to cohomology, I am wishing that I knew a bit of multivariable calculus at this point, for example.
 
so what do you suggest i finished differentiation,continuity,limits,a bit of integration so after i finish with partial derivatives,sequences and differential equations can i start topology or i should multivariable
 
6:56 AM
abstractions in mathematics are understandable without any background, but i'll make zero sense if you don't know the motivations behind the abstraction.
 
for example the real function d on a nonempty set right
 
@SayanChattopadhyay ?
 
oh i mean the metric d on a non empty set
 
@SayanChattopadhyay no, study set theory, calculus and then we'll talk about topology. i'd recommend studying a bit linear algebra before doing topology.
@SayanChattopadhyay metrics are just abstraction of distance. i think you have figured that much out.
 
oh apostol has linear algebra just after calculus
d(x,y)=|x-y| for a pair of elements in a nonempty set X
 
7:03 AM
that's good.
@SayanChattopadhyay x - y for arbitrary set elements x, y in X doesn't make sense.
d(x, y) = |x - y| is just an example of a metric, in the set of reals.
 
basically d(x,y) is called the distance between x and y
 
anyway, forget about topology for now.
 
7:56 AM
Greetings
@JasperLoy Not really ;)
 
@Committingtoachallenge I think MK has a new account for Lie algebras, unless it is you...
 
8:59 AM
It would be funny if two people in that one class had 30 accounts. Or maybe everyone on math.se is you! All the closes, reopen, down votes, upvotes, mods, drama is because of you!
 
@Chris'ssis Hello, I feel bad today, just talked to my mum and cried.
 
@JasperLoy Hi. Well, there are bad days sometimes. Don't focus on that.
 
@Chris'ssis I said I wanted to resolve 99 per cent of my OCD in April. I don't think I am ready to do that mentally now. I will wait till May.
 
@JasperLoy I don't think that is a problem you can resolve with your bare hands. I'd try to live with it as if it didn't exist.
 
@Chris'ssis Hmm, I think I can do it, just need some luck and some effort.
 
9:05 AM
@JasperLoy Did you start going jogging?
 
@Chris'ssis No, but I went out walking a few times.
 
@JasperLoy I see. Doing some sport makes you feel far more better.
@JasperLoy You cannot become stronger in the blink of an eye. You need time for this, sometimes a lot of time. Your Will it's important, if you really wanna do someting and put effort, then things will go in the desired direction.
 
@Chris'ssis I really want to resolve 99 per cent of my OCD in May. Pray for me. I believe I can do it this time. I wanted to do it in April, but many bad things happened this month which made me worse, so I need a little more time.
@Chris'ssis Yes, I have taken a lot of time, many years in fact. I feel guilty about taking so long, but it is the best I can do, and I will keep trying.
 
@JasperLoy Guilty for what?
 
@Chris'ssis Guilty that I have taken so long and still not resolved my mental problems so that I can live a normal life. Sometimes, I feel that if only I did this, if only I did not do that, things would be fine, but it did not happen that way, and then I just keep blaming myself.
 
9:22 AM
@JasperLoy I don't know if such things are possible, autohealing or somethign like that. Are you a guru healer? :-)
@JasperLoy Be serious, you cannot blame yourself for that.
 
@Chris'ssis Autohealing? My method of healing is to sort out my thoughts in various ways, not doing nothing. Every day, I spend time trying to sort out my thoughts.
 
@JasperLoy You sort them, but others might come in place. Is this a solution?
 
@Chris'ssis Well, it might lead to the solution eventually.
 
@JasperLoy Your doctor recommended you this way?
 
@Chris'ssis No, but their ways don't really work for me either. For example, just ignore this or that and not think about it, but I just can't. Just an example you know.
 
9:27 AM
@JasperLoy How about if you tried to focus on other activities and have little time with other thoughts? You might even like to play some games on PC, or something like that.
 
@Chris'ssis I just can't. I won't be able to do well enough.
 
@JasperLoy But you focus less on the undesired things.
 
@Chris'ssis Let me give you an analogy. Maybe I need ten things to go right to solve this problem. But sometimes nine things go right and one thing goes wrong, then the problem is not solved. It's that hard. OCD sucks. I don't want to be like that, but I am like that, unfortunately. I can change some ways of thinking, but some just can't be changed.
 
@JasperLoy I see.
 
@Chris'ssis I think if I explain more to you about my OCD, you will understand. But it takes very very long to describe it in detail.
 
9:40 AM
@JasperLoy I read some on wiki.
 
@Chris'ssis That will give you some idea, but I think only a sufferer will truly know what it feels.
 
@JasperLoy Does OCD usually disappear after a while? I mean after some long treatment.
 
@Chris'ssis It can get better, it can get worse. I am trying to make it better to a point where I can function well and then prevent it from getting worse.
 
@JasperLoy I suppose it also depends much on the treatment you take (medication compliance).
 
@Chris'ssis In my case now, I will take the meds, put in the effort to change my thinking, but I also need some luck. The first two I will do, but I really need the third as well, because there are some external factors not in my control.
@Chris'ssis There is another thing worrying me. Sometimes I am not ready to solve a certain part of my problem, and if I try to do it when I am not ready it might get worse. But if I wait longer, it might become much harder to solve, so I need to make difficult decisions like this.
 
10:01 AM
@JasperLoy Make the right decision. I don't think it's a good idea to wait for too long.
 
@Chris'ssis But like I said, it might get worse if I act when not ready, so it is hard to decide.
@Chris'ssis I am going to take a nap, bbl.
 
@JasperLoy OK
 
10:21 AM
@Chris'ssis I am back now, it was a short nap, LOL.
 
@JasperLoy :D
 
10:33 AM
Morning @mikemiller
@BalarkaSen He just doesn't listen to our advice.
 

« first day (1698 days earlier)      last day (3314 days later) »