« first day (2487 days earlier)      last day (2527 days later) » 

12:07 AM
Who wants to hear some sax
playing a song that was not written for sax
Well, really a medley of songs
 
12:19 AM
@TedShifrin I found your name "in the wild":
83
A: Books you would like to read (if somebody would just write them...)

gowersI don't know for certain that this doesn't exist, so I'm in a no-lose situation: if this is a rubbish answer then it means that a book that I want to exist does exist. Many mathematicians of a pure bent have taken it upon themselves to get a good understanding of theoretical physics. And many hav...

"Physics for Mathematicians: Mechanics I" is apparently a reworked and expanded version of these notes: math.uga.edu/~shifrin/Spivak_physics.pdf. Now that I know about it, I'm really looking forward to reading it!!! +1 — Vectornaut Jan 24 '11 at 15:36
 
12:35 AM
DogAteMy: Yeah, Spivak asked me to post a chapter for him when he first published his book. I didn't put that link on my updated webpage, but it's still on the old webpage if people stumble over it.
 
1:05 AM
Huh, this book sounds interesting, to say the least
 
@TedShifrin Did I ever share with you the proof of the Pythagorean theorem based on an annulus?
Wait, never mind, I don't actually know if I can explain it with words without drawing stuff
Wait, Wikipedia has a thing (that's slightly different than what I would have drawn but whatever)
There's this old puzzle that asks you to show that, if length of the "inner tangent" of an annulus (the line segment tangent to the inner circle with endpoints on the outer circle) is $d$, then the annulus has the same area as the circle of diameter $d$.
This can be shown to be equivalent to the Pythagorean theorem, through a very short calculation
So if you prove that puzzle, you've proven the Pythagorean theorem.
 
Rehi @Ted
 
Demonark, one of my former students found errors in it, but it's got interesting stuff, yeah.
 
hi folk
 
The puzzle is true for polygonal approximations of annuli (and here is where the illustrations would come in), so taking limits gives you the puzzle for actual annuli, whence comes the QED.
 
1:17 AM
The 957th proof of Pythagoras, DogAteMy?
Rehi Eric
 
Yo Eric
 
...Only 957?
 
LOL, hell if I know.
 
I feel like that's actually a plausible number for how many distinct proofs there are
not to say how many are the same with different dressing
 
Lol was about to ask
 
1:18 AM
I thought there were like 400.
 
But, like, imagine if you take a circle and divide it into $n$ sectors (in my mental image, $n\approx6$ for whatever reason)
@Dodsy Yeah, there's a book that collects 400
 
There is a book with 367
 
My favorite proof, I think, is the similar triangles proof.
 
Wai does this keep happening?
 
Hi Nate.
 
1:19 AM
@Dodsy tbf same order of magnitude so like to me it's basically the same
 
physicist intensifies
 
And then you translate each sector in the direction of one of the radii bounding it
 
Hello Ted. :)
 
@Ted did Mike show you that problem with the forms
 
DogAteMy: It's somehow related to the wonderful calculus exercise that when you drill out a cylinder of radius $r<R$ from a sphere of radius $R$ you get the volume equal to that of a sphere of radius $R-r$.
nope, Eric.
 
1:21 AM
(cont'd) so it kinda looks like the Aperture Science logo but the outer "circle" should be a lot bumpier
 
I found an article suggesting an infinite number of variations of proofs for pythagoreans theorem.
 
In any case, that has the same area as the original circle, and in the limit, it becomes the annulus, so...
 
It was to classify manifolds with $d_{\nabla}^{3} = 0$
or $F^{\nabla} \wedge d_{\nabla} = 0$ by Bianchi
 
The Pythagorean Theorem is actually a lot cleaner if you assume that $c=1$.
Which you can do, wlog.
 
n = 1
?
 
1:23 AM
Because then, dropping the altitude onto the hypotenuse divides it into two pieces of length $a^2$ and $b^2$.
 
"but for the purposes of this book on mechanics the material in *A comprehensive Introduction to Differential Geometry*, Volumes 1 and 2, will generally be regarded as prerequisite"
On second thought...
 
Without that rescaling at the start, they're $a^2/c$ and $b^2/c$, which is distinctly less pretty
 
I'm starting back on my homework tomorrow, I've been slightly depressed these past couple of days, but it's time to get going again.
 
LOL, you're not quite ready yet, Demonark, but you could read a fair amount of it, modulo notation.
What homework, Nate?
 
I have to study for exams
and finish 2 units of chemistry and 2 units of English.
 
1:25 AM
Eric, manifolds or bundles on manifolds?
 
I've only finished the bare minimum to send midterms, thus far.
 
Oh, yeah, I guess you'd better, Nate.
 
I have until august first, but the procteur only does an exam every monday.
 
I wonder if you could prove the Pythagorean theorem by first showing the equivalent in spherical geometry and then taking the limit as the radius of the sphere goes to infinity
 
Which means it will take up an entire month.
 
1:25 AM
That's not as far as it seems ...
 
I assumed on bundles
 
You are correct, Mr. Shifrin.
 
DogAteMy: it seems ridiculous to use trigonometry (needed for spherical geometry), which relies on Pythagoras rather seriously, and then "deduce" Pythagoras.
Right, @EricSilva, so I'm not sure what we're actually classifying.
 
I am hoping to hear back from the University of Western Ontario either next week or the week afterwards. I'd rather have only exams to complete. If I get accepted to Western I'll need to maintain an average of 83%.
 
So, spherical reasoning?
 
1:27 AM
smacks Demonark
 
You'll realize I completely forgot how the...
groans at Daminark
 
we should just ignore him
 
It's me, it's bundles, of course. I was thinking U(1) and SU(2).
 
...how the proof of the spherical Pythagorean theorem goes. Or even what the statement is.
 
Stop abusing Daminark, guys.
He's soft.
 
1:28 AM
I dunno. Amin, are you soft?
 
He's a sensitive soul.
 
denies being soft while a tear comes down
 
I havent thought about it much though
 
DogAteMy: It's $\cos a = \cos b\cos c$.
 
Alright, cya lads.
 
1:29 AM
So what are we classifying, @MikeM?
 
Fix a bundle E over a manifold M. There is a corresponding moduli space $F^{(2)}(E)$ of connections that satisfy $d_A^3 = 0$ modulo gauge. Tell me about that moduli space.
 
(DogAteMy: I guess I should have been consistent with the usual and written $\cos c = \cos a\cos b$.)
It depends where the right angle is, DogAteMy. Yeah.
So from Taylor polynomials you get the usual the way you suggested. But I think it's crap.
 
i've come to suspect that the tangent space defined by the linearization should be infinite-dimensional at an honest flat connection, but most of those deformations should be non-integrable. at a 2-flat but not flat guy though maybe it's actually finite dimensional
 
Oh, so the bundle is fixed and we're just studying connections on a fixed bundle. OK, that makes sense.
 
By the way, I realized something — You know how any angle on a diameter is a right angle?
 
1:31 AM
Um, yes, DogAteMy. You obviously didn't do one of my early homework problems with vectors.
 
That wasn't the finished thought
 
LOL
 
If we take a semicircle built on any line, that'll have area $Kc^2$, where $K$ is probably $\pi/8$ or something
 
Huh?
 
$c$ being the length of that line.
 
1:32 AM
Line = line segment of length $c$?
Lines are infinite.
in a pedantic mood
 
The tangent space is the set of End(E)-valued 1-forms $\eta$ such that $d_A \eta \wedge d_A \sigma + F_A \wedge \eta \cdot \sigma = 0$ (the object here is an E-valued 2-form) for every $\sigma$.
 
Dammit. So if we take any point on that semicircle, we get two new line segments with a right angle between them
 
What is $\sigma$, Mike? What does that dot mean? I'm lost.
Sure, DogAteMy.
 
section of E
 
And then we can build semicircles on those
 
1:33 AM
So dot is tensor?
 
(Preferably in such a way that they don't overlap each other)
 
The hypotenuse hasn't changed, DogAteMy. I'm confuzled.
 
I write dot to say that I'm applying $F_A \wedge \eta$, an End(E)-valued 2-form, to the E-valued $\sigma$, to get an E-valued 2-form.
 
Call the original line $AB$. Call the new point $C$.
 
I had to denote the module structure of E over End(E) somehow.
 
1:34 AM
Oh, I see, @MikeM.
 
Then $ABC$ has a right angle at $C$, since $C$ is on the semicircle built on $AB$.
 
In the first term it's hidden in the wedge product.
 
Build semicircles on $AC$ and $BC$ (and say those have lengths $b$ and $a$ respectively).
 
Oh, I see, DogAteMy. You were totally not clear the first time.
 
Then the area of those two new semicircles will be $Ka^2+Kb^2$, which equals $Kc^2$.
 
1:35 AM
Modding out by gauge amounts at the linear level to adding a Coulomb gauge fixing condition $d_A^*\eta = 0$
 
Sure.
OK, Mike.
 
So combine those two equations and tell me if the solution space is finite dimensional. :)
 
And then we can repeat this ad infinitum I guess, "popping" each semicircle into two
(not necessarily equal-size) smaller semicircles, keeping the total area the same
and I guess I don't really have anywhere else to go with this, other than to say that I think it kinda looks cool
It's fractal-y.
 
But total turns into longer sums, DogAteMy.
Yeah, I see ...
 
@TedShifrin What do you mean?
 
1:38 AM
From one stage to the next, the sum of two is one. But to keep the sum equal to $Kc^2$ you need a bunch of terms.
Like $2^k$ or something.
@MikeM: I truly haven't thought about this stuff in 30 years or so. So it's all going to depend on compact/Fredholm stuff, I assume.
 
When working with $U(1)$-bundles and a connection $A$ that is flat to start with, this reduces to "$\eta \in \Omega^1(i\Bbb R)$ such that $d^*\eta = 0$ and $d\eta \wedge d_A \sigma = 0$ for all $\sigma$"
 
Yeah, I guess. It's just the total area of the semicircles.
 
Agreed, DogAteMy, by transitivity.
 
reducing even further to the trivial bundle and trivial connection, the last equation is just $d\eta \wedge df = 0$ for every complex function $f$.
 
BTW, DogAteMy, what is the locus of points $C$ so that $\angle ACB$ is fixed? ($A,B$ fixed.)
If you're doing $U(1)$, isn't $f$ pure imaginary or something, Mike?
Do we know anything about the base manifold?
 
1:42 AM
@TedShifrin It's a larger circle, yeah? Well, more like two circles stuck together since it's symmetric about $AB$
 
A bit sloppy, DogAteMy.
Not sure exactly what you mean.
 
Angles on a chord are constant
 
When the angle is $\pi/2$, then we get a circle, I agree.
 
Draw the circle such that the angle of the line on the origin is twice the desired angle
 
I have no idea what you're telling me.
 
1:44 AM
Say $AB$ is the line.
 
segment.
Yes.
 
Choose an $O$ on the perpendicular bisector such that $\angle AOB$ is $2\theta$.
Draw the circle $OA$. (Is that the notation? Center $O$, radius $OA$.)
That should be the desired locus, except that it only works for the part of the circle that's on the same side of $AB$ as $O$
but you can mirror it across $AB$ to get the other half of the locus
 
Oh, OK. I get what you meant now, but your communication skills were weaker than usual..
 
Yup, so it's the union of two congruent arcs of circles.
When $\theta=\pi/2$ those are semicircles gluing together to give a nice circle.
Cool. I have to go cook dinner. G'night all (for now).
 
1:47 AM
And when $\theta=\pi$, it's the line segment itself.
 
2:00 AM
@TedShifrin No, eta is. f is a section of the associated complex vector bundle.
Base manifold isn't a surface.
 
 
2 hours later…
5:02 AM
Can someone help me with math
I have a test today in like 2 hours.
 
maybe
 
Could you explain why $P(a \leq X \leq b) = P( a < X < B)$?
Do you get my question. Sorry for the typo
 
presumably the probability of $X=a$ or $X=b$ is $0$
 
@arctictern Yeah, my question is why is that?
The chapter I'm looking at is probability density
 
if $X$ is a continuous random variable, the probability of $X$ being in an interval is the integral of a density function on that interval. but set with one element has measure zero, so the integral over it will be $0$
 
5:13 AM
Why does a set with one element have a measure zero?
 
what is the measure of $[0,1]$? what is the measure of $[0,1/2]$? what is the measure of $[0,1/1000000]$?
you make an interval smaller and smaller, its measure (length) gets smaller and smaller
a single point has no length
 
Well, the interval $[x- \delta x, x+\delta x] \text{ as } \lim \delta x \to 0$ has zero length. You can't really say that's no length. It's some small $dx$
 
It's zero. Don't be silly.
 
What exactly do you mean by measure? Do you mean length?
 
for real numbers, measure = length
 
5:17 AM
Ohk, the probability given by area will hence be null. I get it now.
 
more generally, "measure" is a mathematical way of assigning a number to subsets in a way that matches the properties of length / area / volume / probability / cardinality etc.
If you think $[0,0]=\{0\}$ has nonzero length $\ell>0$, then what do you think the length of $[0,\ell/2]$ is?
How can $[0,\ell/2]$ have less length than its proper subset $[0,0]$?
 
Ah, this is a nice discussion. It can't be. $$\frac{0}{n} = 0\times n = 0$$
I made a little website for my test today : goo.gl/YoIrZO
I hope editing it will help me ace the test.
 
hears measure
You call?
 
@Daminark Yeah, I need help to pass my test today. (I will also be linking the transcript to this chat on my site)
Links to good videos on each of the topics would help me a lot
 
5:28 AM
Probability, I don't know any of that unfortunately
 
@Daminark how about laplace transforms?
In mathematics the Laplace transform is an integral transform named after its discoverer Pierre-Simon Laplace (/ləˈplɑːs/). It takes a function of a real variable t (often time) to a function of a complex variable s (frequency). The Laplace transform is very similar to the Fourier transform. While the Fourier transform of a function is a complex function of a real variable (frequency), the Laplace transform of a function is a complex function of a complex variable. Laplace transforms are usually restricted to functions of t with t > 0. A consequence of this restriction is that the Laplace transform...
 
I know some stuff about it, what do you need @Nick?
 
A gist of it. Some tricks on applying it.
This is the stuff I need to go through : sites.google.com/site/ktuma202/transforms
 
What do you know so far, and what are you struggling with?
 
I just know the formulas. I haven't practiced yet.
Also, is log-normal distribution the same as exponential distribution?
yesterday, by Akiva Weinberger
"Say minus one-twelfth one more time, I dare you, I double-dare you m*therfucker"
@AkivaWeinberger Challenge Accepted : math.stackexchange.com/a/642246/60900
 
5:55 AM
that doesn't count as "one more time" since it precedes akiva's joke by years
it strikes me as strange that you haven't practiced with laplace transforms if you're being tested on it. wasn't there homework involving it or something?
 
6:07 AM
Yeah, I constantly avoided doing the hw. Now, I must pay the price.
@arctictern I guess I must have time travelled. That's not cheating ;)
 
6:33 AM
Oh just saw this @Nick, and I don't really know about Laplace either :/
 
That's okay. I don't either and my exam is just an hour away from starting. My fate is in God's hands.
 
Good luck to you
 
Zee
@Daminark I been thinking a lot lately on why people do mathematics
 
and?
 
Zee
6:37 AM
Idk
But I don't buy the usual answer
I do it couse I enjoy it
 
why do you think people climb mountains?
 
@Zee Most do it because they have to
 
Zee
That's a nice analogy
I agree with it
 
@user314159 So they can write a travel blog and monetize on ad revenue. Also, so that journalists will write articles about them. Mountain climbers have a good life and they probably make more than you.
I'm 20. I'm not sure how math is going to get me money.
 
If you want to learn about money study economics.
 
6:51 AM
No, I already learnt about Monte Carlo engines and market stock from NN Taleb in Fooled by Randomness. I'm not really interested in that.
My question is Are there any olympiads or papers I can write to get money from doing math?
 
perhaps you could tutor
 
$A=1\cdot3^0+2\cdot3^1+3\cdot3^2+\dots+21\cdot3^{20}$ Find the units digit of the $4A-1$
 
@Zee I've got a bit of a view along the lines of, I want to explore that which interests me. May sound somewhat selfish, but I dunno, while there are parts of math which don't have an immediately obvious pragmatic benefit for society, I also don't believe that the purpose of my life is to just go and provide that
 
anybody could help me on this problem?
 
7:18 AM
modular arithmetic
$3^k$ is periodic mod $10$
 
7:34 AM
I seem not to ever have an interest which can make money since childhood.
I had never thought about what to do as vocation when I was in school.
I just majored in the department I like the most and took any course interesting without considering their use to vocation opportunities.
I have never used Laplace transform in physics though I learnt it in the applied math course.
 
$3^1\equiv3, 3^1\equiv9, 3^1\equiv1$ so it repeats for every $3k$. Do i have to perform a calculation for each term @arctictern
 
8:16 AM
@Captain I've got a similar-ish sentiment modulo the fact that if your field doesn't really have any jobs, you won't be able to engage in the activity of it either
That's somewhat my concern, like, if I were to focus all on traditional math, say going real deep into algebraic geometry, only to find little opportunity for a math career, I might have just lost out on something I would like almost as much, theoretical compsci, and will find myself having to work in something just to make a living which may pay well but not be as intellectually stimulating
 
@Daminark I guess all things I have great interest can only be done in school.
 
I don't particularly like the fact that this is the case, like I want that vocational concerns just fall in line when they come, but that isn't particularly realistic so unfortunately some mindfulness is necessary
As in, academia?
 
I only feel university is an lively environment.
 
8:32 AM
Hi chat
 
ohi
 
some people, particularly philistines, think schools are for children.
but I found it's like nothing learnt outside schools are more profound than those learnt in schools
 
8:50 AM
For my question, first i calculated $A\equiv x \mod 10$ then i calculated for $y$ using $4x-1 \equiv y \mod 10$. The answer should be $y$ according to my calculations. Is these are valid for solving this problem? @arctictern
 
9:00 AM
@Abdullah Yes, these steps are valid
 
$A\equiv 7 \mod 10$ and $y=7$ i got. but book says that answer is 3. I get calculated $$\sum_{k=0}^{20}(a+1)(3^a)=...1$$ directly on wolfram. So $4A-1 \equiv 3 \mod 10$ also according to wolfram. I am confused :=
 
Perhaps you miscalculated some terms
 
maybe
When i calculte $A \equiv x \mod 10$ i used the fact $3^1 \equiv 3 \mod 10 \dots$ like this: $$1\cdot 3^0+2\cdot 3^1+3\cdot 3^2+ \dots 21\cdot 3^{20} \equiv 1\cdot 1+2\cdot 3+3\cdot 9+ \dots 21\cdot 9 \mod 10$$. Isn't this valid?
 
Well yeah, except $3^{20} \equiv 1 \pmod{10}$
 
Then i added every thing on the right side and found $70+3\cdot77+9\cdot84$
 
9:16 AM
But $3^3 \equiv 7$
 
@Balarka, is it true that $M/M' \otimes N/N' \cong (M \otimes N) / (M' \otimes N')$?
this is sort of a note to myself though (I have a feeling it's false, maybe the last otimes should be an oplus?)
 
oh, i made mistake at the beginning :( i realized that after you write $3^3 \equiv 7$
 
i'll try again
 
9:30 AM
finally success. i got also $3$ :D
 
Oops something bad happened
^Is this error showing to everyone else too ?
 
at where?
 
When you open the main site.
 
yeah
 
It's happening for you too ?
 
9:32 AM
yes, but questions section is healthy
 
Everything seems fine for me
 
@Astyx Do you think my question have also a simpler solution? this is a little bit long tor a test(i took it from a test)
 
Perhaps you could see that it's the derivative of a geometric series
So ${d\over dx} {x^{21}-1\over x-1}$ computed at 3
That is $$21\times 3^{20}\times2 - 3^{21}+1\over 4$$
 
Any1 can help !if I give an integral please give me the closed form of the integral
 
Times this by 4 and remove one to get, mod 10 : $$3^{20} (2-3)$$
 
9:43 AM
$x = \int(\frac{y}{(\sqrt{\frac{-c_{1}^2}{4.c_{2}}} + \sqrt{c_{2}}.y)^2 + (c_{3} - \frac{c_{1}^2}{4.c_{2}})}) dy + c$
 
Wait there's something I did wrong
It's 22, not 21
So $$22\times 3^{21}\times2 - 3^{22}+1\over 4$$
 
does wolfram doenot support Latex?
 
Multiply by 4 and remove one to get $3^{21} (4-3) \equiv 3\pmod 10$
@Baymax Not directly
 
then how can do it?
@Astyx
 
Do what ?
Well you still can input it in Wolfram
 
9:49 AM
like how we can render in latex there?
in wolfram
 
You can't
Well, not too easily at least
I'm not an expert on Wolfram really
 
me too
ok
 
@Abdullah See above
 
Hi guys
If you had a set {a1,...,an} (consider a relative order on that set, ai < aj iff i < j)
how can I describe
the greatest subset such that
the elements in this set
have the monotonic property?
i.e. i < j implies ai < aj
 
I don't understand what you're trying to do
 
9:55 AM
take this set
{1,7,4,2,5,6}
a monotonic subset (I don't know how else should I call it)
could be
{1,4,5,6}
or
{5,6}
or
or {1,6} or { 2,5,6} etc
how would you describe the greatest set you can build in the generic case
{a1,a2,...,an}
 
So you're not talking about sets, but about sequences
 
it's finite, it's not a sequence
 
A finite sequence, still not a set
 
I don't understand why it's not a set
 
well with sets you have for instance $\{1,2\} = \{2,1\}$
 
9:59 AM
given that I'm defining my problem in terms of a set
ah ok
well anyway
for a given finite sequence
 
What you're talking about is tuples
 

« first day (2487 days earlier)      last day (2527 days later) »