« first day (2272 days earlier)      last day (2748 days later) » 

10:08 AM
Oh thank you @Fargle
 
user228700
Hi everyone :-)
 
Hi @Kaumudi
 
user228700
I've a quick geometry doubt...
 
My level isn't good enough as far as I know, but do it, test me :D
 
user228700
I'm trying to find the length of the chord of contact of a circle (ie. The length of the chord connecting two points through which, if tangents are drawn, meet at a common point P $(x_1,y_1)$. I've been given that point P, and the equation of the cir le.
 
user228700
10:16 AM
Here, I've drawn the diagram:
 
user228700
 
user228700
Oh, shucks, I forgot to label things; $L$ is the length of both tangents (equal as they are, in length) and $R$ is the radius of the circle.
 
user228700
I think it would be best to work with the general equation of a circle given by $x^2+y^2+2gx+2fy+c=0$
 
user228700
Where the center of the circle is given by $(-g,-f)$ and the radius by $\sqrt{g^2+f^2-c}=R$
 
user228700
I have to use geometry to find the length of the chord of contact, whose equation is give by $xx_1+yy_1+(x+x_1)+(y+y_1)+c=0$
 
user228700
10:24 AM
And you see, I kind of suck at geometry, so...anybody?
 
user228700
@Mahmoud: ..? (Thought u said u'd try..? :-P)
 
user228700
Sigh. Gots to try till I die, I guess...
 
10:55 AM
I wasn't able to do it @Kaumudi
 
user228700
Oh :/ Thanks for trying :-)
 
11:07 AM
Anyone able to help ?
 
12:01 PM
Anyone wanting to have a brief discussion about proofs ?
 
@Kaumudi If you know a bit about Power of a point, it should be relatively easy.
 
@MartinSleziak I'm having a math exam tomorrow, it's about Discrete Math class, and I was taught proving techniques such as proof by contradiction, contrapositive proof, proof by construction, direct proof, equivalence proof etc.
 
Basically, what is says it that if the line PS intersects the circle in the points A, B and if T is the tangent point then $|PT|^2=|PA|\cdot|PB|$.
 
I know how the proving system works and I can understand the sample proofs in my text to a sufficient extent. However, whenever I tried proving on my own, I got stuck, with no advancement of ideas in my head. How do you remedy this solution? Should i practise proving as much as possible?
 
That's difficult to say.
One thing that would be doable would be to try to write some proof and have somebody near you who can point out when you do something wrong and why it is wrong. Or who could give you small hints.
However, I am not sure whether this is doable via chat. And I do not really have that much time today. (I have stuff to do before tomorrow too.) Sorry.
Maybe you will find some posts on the might that might help you with your situation @Mahmoud.
And you can probably find more similar posts.
 
12:28 PM
Thank you @MartinSleziak
 
user228700
12:40 PM
@MartinSleziak Huh. I do know about this. Will try to do it using that concept, thanks :-)
 
1:33 PM
Hi there
 
Hello ?
 
somene can help me to understand this notation..
let $g'$ be some distribution on the sphere $C^{- \infty}(\mathbb{S}^{n-1})$
why $-\infty$¿
?*
is that mean that $g'$ is a fast decreasing function?
 
@DHMO I computed the residue in the message below the one where I pinged you, or what do you mean with "how to do the question"?
 
@s.harp i have read that, thanks
 
1:49 PM
@Kaumudi Don't you mean $xx_1 + yy_1 + g(x+x_1) + f(y+y_1) + c = 0$?
Nevermind that, I misunderstood.
 
2:11 PM
@DHMO 24/7 chatter?
 
@SimpleArt maybe
 
:D
 
:P
@Mahmoud $\aleph_\omega$?
 
I have a hard time raping my mind around that for now.
 
@Mahmoud Consider the sequence $1,2,3,\dots$
 
2:25 PM
$Aleph_0$ Is enough for now :)
Yes please
 
Then consider the sequence $1,2,3,\dots,\omega$
Similarly, consider the sequence $\aleph_0,\aleph_1,\aleph_2,\dots,\aleph_\omega$
I only know about such things to know the difference between transfinite and absolutely infinite
That is, I do believe any thing like $\aleph_{2\omega}$ is not actually larger then $\aleph_\omega$
Ofc, we have other amazing things
 
But what makes $ℵ_0 and ℵ_1$ different @SimpleArt
 
@Mahmoud That $\aleph_2$ is larger then them
$$\huge\aleph_{\omega_{\omega_{\omega_\ddots}}}$$
 
How ? they are both infinite ?
 
@Mahmoud Uh, please review what $\aleph_1$ is?
Ok, so if $\aleph_0<\aleph_1$, then $\aleph_0$ isn't infinite in the sense that nothing is bigger than it
The same argument follows to $\aleph_1<\aleph_2$
 
2:31 PM
@SimpleArt "infinite" doesn't say that "nothing is bigger than it"
 
And this ! $$\huge\aleph_{\aleph_{\aleph_{\aleph_{\aleph_{._{._{.}}}}}}}$$
 
@DHMO Ofc, it depends on your definition of infinite
 
> Infinity, most often denoted as $\infty$, is an unbounded quantity that is greater than every real number.
@SimpleArt for what I know, no mathematicians use your definition
 
@DHMO shrugs
 
2:32 PM
@DHMO Indeed, since that would mean we had no infinite things at all, which would be impractical
 
The Absolute Infinite is mathematician Georg Cantor's concept of an "infinity" that transcends the transfinite numbers. Cantor linked the Absolute Infinite with God. He held that the Absolute Infinite had various mathematical properties, including the reflection principle which says that every property of the Absolute Infinite is also held by some smaller object. == Cantor's view == Cantor said: The actual infinite was distinguished by three relations: first, as it is realized in the supreme perfection, in the completely independent, extrawordly existence, in Deo, where I call it absolute infinite...
 
George Canto did @DHMO
 
Transcends the transfinite lol
 
@Mahmoud then I take back my claim about mathematicians
 
I never find it particularly relevant what mathematicians of that long ago thought.
 
2:33 PM
@TobiasKildetoft exactly
 
@DHMO Well, that's a different area of math. We're talking set theory
 
Mathematicians at that time didn't like what Canto suggested. @DHMO
 
@SimpleArt you just said that it is not true that $\aleph_0<\aleph_1$...
 
math has evolved in the mean time, so their view of it is no longer relevant
 
They humiliated him.
 
2:34 PM
@DHMO No, I said that if $\aleph_0<\aleph_1$, then $\aleph_0$ is not infinite in that sense.
 
@SimpleArt no set is infinite in that sense, which makes it not a very useful sense
 
You imply that it is indeed infinite, thus coming to the conclusion that $\aleph_0\require{cancel}\cancel<\aleph_1$
 
Yes but what makes it different
 
@s.harp IMO, this is all just for trivia
 
2:36 PM
@SimpleArt No, we are saying that your notion of what it means to be infinite is nonsense
 
(actually Mahmoud's comment reminded me of that comic)
 
Vsause did a great video about this, anyone wanting to see it ?
 
Actual infinity is the idea that numbers, or some other type of mathematical object, can form an actual, completed totality; namely, a set. Hence, in the philosophy of mathematics, the abstraction of actual infinity involves the acceptance of infinite entities, such as the set of all natural numbers or an infinite sequence of rational numbers, as given objects. This is contrasted with potential infinity, in which a non-terminating process (such as "add 1 to the previous number") produces an unending "infinite" sequence of results, but each individual result is finite and is achieved in a finite...
:/
@Mahmoud Yeah, I like the animations
 
:D
Ok I got it now @SimpleArt
Now to the greatest unanswered problem in Mathematics...
 
@Mahmoud ?
 
2:40 PM
$$\text{Continuum hypothesis}$$
 
The greatest unanswered problem is "should I really be learning complex analysis before real analysis?"
 
@SimpleArt your point being?
 
@Mahmoud \text{Con...}
 
How is the continuum hypothesis an unanswered problem?
 
@TobiasKildetoft ......
 
2:41 PM
That was embarrassing
We can prove that :
1. We can never prove that it's true.
2. We can never prove that it's false
.
 
In mathematics, the continuum hypothesis (abbreviated CH) is a hypothesis about the possible sizes of infinite sets. It states: There is no set whose cardinality is strictly between that of the integers and the real numbers. The continuum hypothesis was advanced by Georg Cantor in 1878, and establishing its truth or falsehood is the first of Hilbert's 23 problems presented in 1900. Τhe answer to this problem is independent of ZFC set theory (that is, Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice included), so that either the continuum hypothesis or its negation can be added as an axiom to...
 
> either the continuum hypothesis or its negation can be added as an axiom to ZFC set theory, with the resulting theory being consistent if and only if ZFC is consistent
 
Can you explain it to me ?
 
Does that mean that there is no answer?
 
2:43 PM
@Mahmoud Basically, we proved that if we look at it one way, its true, but looking at it another way, its false
 
So mathematics came to a limit ?
 
by looking at it, I mean using different axioms
 
@Mahmoud look, that goes down to the essentials of what mathematics is
the difference between mathematics and science
 
Okay that's better than a contradiction.
 
@DHMO No, they only stress in that line that it is independent of ZFC
 
2:44 PM
@Mahmoud The question becomes which axioms are better, which we don't know yet.
 
Can you show me the axioms ? @SimpleArt ?
 
I.e. assuming it's true or false will not affect the consistency of ZFC..
 
@Mahmoud Not my field
But the link i gave
 
Wikipedia ?
 
wolfram
 
2:46 PM
@Studentmath uh... then what's the answer?
 
Ok then
I'll be right back.
 
@DHMO He basically said the answer doesn't have an impact of ZFC
 
@SimpleArt but wolfram also says that it is undecidable
 
@DHMO What do you mean by "answer"?
 
42
3
 
2:47 PM
@BalarkaSen touche
 
lol, @Studentmath
 
@Balarka :)
 
I should spend more time in the chat for this lol
 
I have a somewhat less philosophical question
 
The answer to every question.
 
2:48 PM
@Balarka I never had the courage to write it down in an exam where I didn't know the answer
 
lol
 
Usually it was in some literature or some other thing where I knew I could get most of the points by just writing random unrelated things that sound impressive..
 
I once trolled in an exam, but that was a political one, on a geography exam in high school.
 
hehe
 
Political geography exam? actually that makes sense, yeah
 
2:49 PM
I'm gonna try to integrate contour integrals into my improper integrals test
 
No, I mean, the exam was on geography, the troll was political.
 
@balarka lol
 
@BalarkaSen The jokes are bad
 
:D
BrB
 
@Mahmoud You keep saying that, but I don't feel like your leaving
 
2:52 PM
Say I have some field A, and its extension B. also [B:A]=3. So I know that for every $t\in B, t\notin A$ $A(t)=B$ and there is the minimal polynomial $p(x)$ of degree 3 where $p(t)=0$.
 
for the record, I marked out the bits of India which are taken by two neighboring countries (which is obviously a controversial matter).
 
Did the teacher like it?
 
Fortunately, yes, he laughed a lot. But he's a friend.
 
So, I take some member of $B$, $b$. Can I have some certain combination, using members of A, so that for every $t\in B, t\notin A$ I can express $b$ with said members and $t$?
If $b$ is a member of $A$ too, it's trivial. Assuming it's not, I am given some formula of expression that supposedly holds and I have no idea how they got to it
 
2:57 PM
@Studentmath Does that allow powers of $t$? Then that's precisely what the primitive element theorem says, i.e. pick $t$ so that $A[t] = B$.
It holds for any separable field extension of finite degree.
 
@SimpleArt it's kinda a system thing
 
creepy...
 
it is who theoretically controls the community wikis
and who marks spam answers/questions as spam
 
Hey can anyone help me with a small little thing I have to show for a proof of mine?
 
3:00 PM
@Balarka thanks, I am looking at that now.. maybe that will get me to the formula they wrote
 
Creepier yet, there is a chat-bot in the sci-fi stackexchange chat, who even posts .gif's when told to
3
 
Given group $G$, identity element $e$ and non-identity element $g$, suppose that $g^n = e$ for some integer $n$. Then the order of $G$ divides $n$
that's the question;
for my proof, i have to prove that $g^{-|g|} =e$ given that $g^{|g|} = e$
 
@user3502615 That's not true... take $\Bbb Z/2 \times \Bbb Z/2$. Any non-identity element has order $2$, but the group has order $4$.
What you probably mean is that $n$ divides $|G|$, not the other way around
 
@user3502615 multiply both sides by $g^{-|g|}$?
 
Balarka Sen what is $\mathbb{Z}/2$?
 
3:03 PM
In which case, it's Lagrange's theorem
@user3502615 cyclic group of order 2
 
yeah
wait one second
@BalarkaSen
 
Hi, are there any cases where two spaces can't be distinguished by their ordinary cohomolgy, but can by some other cohomology theory?
 
I meant the order of $g$ not $G$
 
@ShayBenMoshe What's "ordinary cohomology"?
 
H^*(X,Z)
Integer cohomology ring
atiyah hirzebruch suggests that other cohomologies are determined by ordinary cohomology, but that's not quite right since the differentials can be different for different spaces
 
3:14 PM
@ShayBenMoshe Right, things are not determined by ordinary cohomology. Depending on what you mean by 'cohomology theory', it's true but not exciting that if you have a map $f: X \to Y$ that induces an isomorphism on every cohomology theory, $f$ is a homotopy equivalence. It's also uncheckable.
 
@ShayBenMoshe Take $\Bbb{CP}^2$, glue a 3-cell by a degree $2$ map to the 1-skeleton, and take $M(\Bbb Z/2, 2)$ wedged with $S^4$.
These have isomorphic $\Bbb Z$-cohomology, but not $\Bbb Z/2$ cohomology.
 
to the 2-skeleton, not 1-skeleton
 
Sorry, yeah.
 
nice example tho
 
It's in Hatcher, I just had trouble remembering it. It's a modification of the $\Bbb{CP}^2$ and $S^2 \vee S^4$ example mod 2.
 
3:20 PM
Interesting, do you happen to remember where it is in Hatcher?
 
I can't find it anymore, unfortuntely.
It's certainly in the chapter 3 somewhere.
 
3:31 PM
Well, I've searched for the string "moore space" and didn't find it :/
 
Odd.
 
$\Sigma\Bbb{RP}^2$ is a Moore space of the type Balarka wants. So. You could just use that.
What I'd like is an example where the cohomology rings with respect to all coefficients agree but the K-theory or bordism groups or something don't. But I don't really know how to calculate the latter.
 
Are all homology spheres nullcobordant?
 
I'd like my example to be simply connected.
 
Interesting question.
 
3:45 PM
Maybe example 6 can provide an example: mathoverflow.net/q/55365/33121
(example 6 in the question itself)
 
@Balarka thanks, I think I figured it out. They claimed every member can be expressed as the division of two linear expressions of $t\in B/A$. So I think the proof is not that hard, I have the primitive element theorem stating $b=a_1t^2+a_2t+a_3$. So I have to show $(x_1+x_2t)/(x_3+x_4t)=a_1t^2+a_2t+a_3$ where $x_i,a_i\in A$
I open it up and I get a 3-variable 3-equations linear thingy. I do the det, and show it can't be 0.
 
@ShayBenMoshe Good call.
I was hoping to get examples that looked like $\Bbb{CP}^n$, but any simply connected closed manifold with the same cohomology ring as $\Bbb{CP}^n$ is homotopy equivalent to it.
(You could presumably work with things with higher-dim cells that aren't homotopy equivalent but that's not my domain.)
 
@MikeMiller I myself don't understand it :)
Do you know anything about the K theory of $B(S^1\times SU(n-1))$ there?
 
(The K theory of BU(n) is on wikipedia, though I don't know how it's derived)
 
3:55 PM
It's likely done using the Atiyah-Segal completion theorem.
That or the AHSS.
 
The completion theorem is what I'm trying to understand these days, and the AHSS is what I learned yesterday, so that's nice
What did you see in the motivation at nlab?
 
Not look at, but lol at
 
G'night, @MikeM
 
Actually, it seems reasonable that the completion theorem would differentiate them
But probably hard to calculate, maybe for n=2 or something
 
Yeah, I'm trying n=2.
But I'm a little worried that they're actually the same.
Keep in mind that there is an n-fold cover $S^1 \times SU(n) \to U(n)$. Does the representation ring differentiate between covers?
 
4:00 PM
R and S^1 have different rep rings
 
Finite covers, I mean
 
though R is not compact so...
 
Do SO(3) and SU(2) have different rep rings?
I should know this but I don't.
 
I have no idea
Well, I'll think about it too
 
In this plot I have two equations of two respective triangle sides. The equation between the blue and the red point is an altitude to side BC. The red point is the orthocenter. Point B is $(-5,4)$. How can I find side $AC$ / point $A$ / point $C$? Thanks if someone could help me!
 
4:02 PM
@ShayBenMoshe Have you been around before? I'm surprised we haven't talked.
Hi @Ted.
 
Yesterday was my first time actually
I asked for a reference for computing the cohomology of U(n) using serre ss
 
Ah, and I gave you an incorrect approach. :P
 
I've done it using U(n-1)->U(n)->S^2n-1
 
Hi someone can tell what does $g \in C^{- \infty}(\mathbb{S^{n-1}})$ mean? I was thinking that $g$ is a fast decreasing function on a sphere, but not sure..
 
Well, I'm gonna go now, see you around @MikeMiller
 
4:06 PM
@ShayBenMoshe I think they do disagree. Look at the original Atiyah-Segal paper for inspiration.
See ya.
 
I have no idea what that would mean, @Hiroto.
 
@TedShifrin alright, it's fine.. that thing that I don't understand is $- \infty$
 
Either it's a typo or there's an explanation somewhere in what you're reading.
 
4:30 PM
Hi @TedShifrin
 
Hi @Balarka
 
@MikeMiller You mentioned a map which is isomorphism on every cohomology theory is a homotopy equivalence. How does the proof go? something something Brown representability.
 
@BalarkaSen [X,Z] is a cohomology theory.
If you really want to be able to add things, [X, \Omega Z] is a cohomology theory.
 
For all Z? Hmm.
Ah, yes, it is.
 
Hi
:)
 
4:47 PM
Say, I can't necesserily claim that if $a^3=b^3$ then $a=b$ in every field, right?
 
Take the finite field of order $3$.
 
@Balarka cheers
 
Field ?
 
For positive characteristic take $\Bbb Q(\zeta)$ where $\zeta$ is one of the two complex solutions of $z^3 = 1$.
 
@Mahmoud do you know rings?
@Balarka thanks again
 
4:50 PM
Sure, no problem
 
@Studentmath No :(
They are a mathematical object just like numbers ?
 
@Mahmoud well, they are algebraic structures - Think of the Natural numbers
 
I don't get it
 
@Studentmath!
 
@TedShifrin !
 
4:53 PM
Hi @Mahmoud
 
Hi :)
 
We try to define it a bit more 'abstractly' - it's a Set of positive integers (and 0), where we have defined some operation - say addition
 
Do we add them all at once ?
 
We take things like that and we try to generalize them - then you get to algebraic structures. I think.
@Ted !!!
Nah, it's not a number or something of that sort - it's a set of numbers.
I think wikipedia actually deals with it well @mahmoud, the explanation there is nice and you can go down the rabit hole with the definitons
 
@TedShifrin I'm trying to change the path of my life and be part of the Mathematics community, the question is where do I start ?
 
4:55 PM
@Balarka sadly that makes my proof more annoying. I hate not being able to jump into false conclusions
 
Ok @Studentmath :)
 
You are in fact good at false conclusions, @Studentmath :)
 
@Studentmath Haha, I sympathize.
 
@Mahmoud: Just keep learning.
 
@Ted haha it's my specialty :)
 
4:56 PM
Well, it's hard to narrow down your specialty to just that. :P
 
Good, morning, i just want to ask quickly, does anyone here know how to find the formula for the length and width for the A series paper size? or do i have to ask it as a question.
 
What field is worth learning in my free-time @TedShifrin ?
 
Google is your friend, @Dragon.
 
@TedShifrin i can find the formula but none of the pages shows how they've got the formula.
 
user227867
Hello @TedShifrin. Do you have any book recommendation for the calculus of variations? I am thinking of getting Gelfand and Fomin.
 
4:58 PM
What do you mean by formula? It's two numbers.
I haven't studied them carefully, Jasper. There's also Bliss. I personally am partial to a little book by Phil Griffiths on Calculus of Variations and geometric problems. Of course it's all using differential forms.
 
user227867
It's one of those obscure topics not often taught in schools.
 

« first day (2272 days earlier)      last day (2748 days later) »