« first day (1668 days earlier)      last day (3347 days later) » 

12:01 AM
Okay, no problem, @user. Just concentrate on the definition, what is the definition of the $T_{3.5}$ separation axiom? How can you get that situation with an indiscrete space?
 
look
the last sentence says what I told you
"any trivial space of more than point illustrates"
 
"Whenever $A$ is a closed set and $x \not\in A$..." What pairs $(A,x)$ are there for a set with the trivial topology?
 
none?
I don't know
the only nonempty closed set is $X$
but there is not $x \notin X$
 
Right. So the only pairs are $(\varnothing, x)$.
So you need to show there's a map $f: X \to I$ such that $f(x) = 0$, and $f(\varnothing) \subset \{1\}$.
(i.e., you just need a continuous map with $f(x) = 0$.)
(Their definition slightly blows because $f(\varnothing) = 1$ is nonsensical.)
 
Who is the author
 
12:18 AM
So $f(y)=1$ for all $y \in \emptyset$ because $\emptyset$ has no elements?
do we need more than one point to say it's not hausdorff?
@user130018 Willard
 
yes and yes
 
what if it has only one point?
is it hausdorff?
 
what topologies are there on the set of one point?
 
can i use the same argument of the emptyset?
 
12:20 AM
just the trivial topology
 
yes, which in this case is the same as the discrete topology
 
if a space has just one point it is hausdorff because every two elements have disjoint neighborhoods
because there are not two elements
 
right
 
that's weird
 
When two planes have the same perpendicular vector $\overrightarrow{v}$, then they are parallel, right??
 
12:21 AM
i guess it's more understandable if i say its hausdorff because every single point is closed
 
points are closed is not equivalent to hausdorff
it's equivalent to T1
 
ah yes
sorry
 
no worries
 
@DanielFischer We have the cardioid
$z(t)=(1+ \cos t) (\sin t-i \cos t), 0 \leq t \leq 2\pi$
The lngth of the curve is given by $\int_a^b |z'(t)| dt$

There is a subsequence $ \frac{k^{\sin k}}{\sqrt{k}}$ such that $ \frac{k^{\sin k}}{\sqrt{k}} \to 0$ and a subsequence $ \frac{k^{\sin k}}{\sqrt{k}}$ such that $ \frac{k^{\sin k}}{\sqrt{k}} \to \sqrt{n} \to =\infty$
How can we find the perimeter of the cardioid curve?
 
hausdorff is equivalent to saying that the diagonal in $X \times X$ (the points of the form $(x,x)$) is closed, IIRC
 
12:23 AM
then it keeps strange to me to use the definition
 
and in this case that's obviously true :)
 
yes i remembered
or that limits are unique
thank you @MikeMiller
 
have a good day
 
12:40 AM
Could someone take a look at:
0
Q: Two parallel planes

Mary StarWhen two planes have the same perpendicular vector $\overrightarrow{v}$, then they are parallel, right?? We have that the two planes $Ax+By+Cz+D_1=0$ and $Ax+By+Cz+D_2=0$ are parallel, since they have the same perpendicular vector $\overrightarrow{v}=(A, B, C)$. The line that contains $\ove...

??
 
How to get 1+tan(-Θ)/tan(-Θ) to = -cot(Θ)+1?
I get as far as cosΘ-sinΘ/-sinΘ
Pull the negative out, then make tan to sinΘ/cosΘ
 
Apostol writes the second fundamental theorem of calculus as $P(x) = P(c) + \int^{x}_{c} f(t)dt$. Does it matter which side of the equation you put the primitives? Intuitively, I would think not.
 
I need to notice these patters better
 
But I just wanted to make sure in case there is a reason he wrote it that way.
 
sinΘ/sinΘ=1,cosΘ/-sinΘ=-cotΘ, and then the correct answer.
 
12:50 AM
Can I ask a question here?
 
Askaway
:-)
 
This is something that we're supposed to prove and the hint given is to only show E(X) is continuous
 
cos^2Θ*cos^2Θ=cos^4Θ?
 
Anyone here?
 
I am but I'm looking for help as well:P
But ask away
 
12:59 AM
Oh ok thanks. The question is in the image i just uploaded just a few minutes before
what do you need help with?
 
Oh, Im in Trigonometry so I really wouldn't know how to answer that:P
But my question was if cos^2(x)*cos^2(x)=cos^4(x)
The problem is 1-cos^2(-Θ)/1+tan^2(-Θ) and to get it in terms of sine and cosine
So I took the - out of Θ to make it 1-cos^2(Θ)/1-tan^2(Θ)
and then made tan^2(Θ) to sin^2(Θ)/cos^2(Θ), then multiplied by cos^2(Θ) to get rid of the fraction
but I can't get the final correct answer
 
Try substituting the numerator with sin^2(-Θ)
the denominator with the tan and sec identity
 
Hmmm? -sin^2(Θ) to sin^2(-Θ)?
can I do cos^2(Θ)+sin^2(-Θ) = -1?
 
what's the final ans?
 
sin^2(Θ)cos^2(Θ)
 
1:10 AM
you could do that only if you had that in the numerator. So simply use the trigonometric identities of sin and cos for the numerator, and sec and tan for the denominator and your final answer will come out to be
sin^2(Θ)cos^2(Θ)
 
Ok thanks!
 
@Paradox101 what's your question?
 
You're welcome
This is something that we're supposed to prove and the hint given is to only show E(X) is continuous
 
Oops, bit stuck again. bit I'm so close
I got sin^2(Θ)cos^2(Θ)/(cos^2(Θ)-sin^2(Θ))
if it was a + it would then be 1 and I would have my answer?
Maybe I messed up before and it should be +?
 
No I read it. But what is your question? Generally speaking people have a specific question, they aren't asking for a proof od a whole lemma.
Of*
 
1:17 AM
Looks like I did, does tan^2(-Θ)=tan^2(Θ) and not -tan^2(Θ)?
 
How is polynomial equality defined (I'm guessing iff their corresponding coefficients are qual)
 
That would only make sense I think
Because tan(-Θ)=-tan(Θ) but its ^2 so its + still?
 
tan^2(Θ) + 1 = sec^2(Θ)
use this and the sin cos identity. you will get the answer easily
 
@Paradox101 Did you have a specific question?
Presumably you didn't want someone to just prove that lemma
 
? I haven't learned that one in this chapter yet, and theres no other secants?
 
1:20 AM
@StanShunpike I kind of am? Because i'm not sure about a lot of things. Are we supposed to write this in the inequality form and the epsilon delta definition?
 
If i did what I did I got the answer correctly
I just don't know if thats possible
1+tan^2(-Θ) = 1+tan^2(Θ)
 
secant is basically the inverse of cos
Erm no, you're gonna have to use the basic identities
 
@Paradox101 what is the domain of the functions you are considering?
 
ah I see, so you made it a sec and then 1/cos and then put the cos on top:P
I guess I did that but the long way, I got it though from what the book gave me
Well.. finally done with that chapter:/
5.1 of my book took hours longer than 4.1-4.4 lol.
 
@StanShunpike the domain isn't mentioned specifically but I guess it's real numbers
@Maximilian Ok that's great. If you have another problem ask away :)
 
1:25 AM
Hello everyone. I have a question regarding systems of dynamical systems and basic finance models- like, mortgage problems
I have a 30-year mortgage worth $300k with monthly interest at 1%
I need to create a dynamical system model in terms of some monthly payment "p" that allows for my mortgage to be paid in 30 years
So far, I have this:
$$b_{t+1} = b_t(1.01)-p$$
I believe it is correct, if not, let me know
 
does 0.5 round up or down?
 
@Paradox101 what book is this from?
 
anyway, then I have to modify the model to find the maximum amount I can borrow during these 30 years if I plan to make a payment of $2000/mo
the last part is what i'm unsure about
any help?
 
@Paradox101 Ya ill be back later! I have to do english now before class, but Ill be here a lot because Im skipping ahead of my math class and going to finish the book:P
Only 3 chapters left.. not very hard
 
@Paradox101 to me, it looks like a vector calculus equation in which case you'd be differentiating using vectors
 
1:30 AM
@DanielFischer The more I look at the plots in robjohn's answer to my question, the more confused I get. Maybe I'm spatially challenged. His conclusion that $W_{1}$ and $W_{-1}$ touch at $z = - \frac{1}{e}$ is what I had originally surmised. But I still can't wrap my head around why the behavior depicted is consistent with the behavior of a square-root singularity.
 
@StanShunpike It's from introduction to real analysis by W.F.trench
 
@Paradox101 try looking at page 261 of Apostol's Calculus Vol II. It should be google able. That has a similar proof there
 
anyone..?
 
@StanShunpike That proof's more complicated. We were told that it was simple
 
@Paradox101 if you dont get a reply here, I would recommend writing down a question about what step you think you need to take to solve this. For example, if this derivative is simply the real numbers, why use this notation
Then I would post it as a question
 
1:43 AM
Ok
In this question $a_n$ in increasing and $b_n$ is decreasing, but as the intersection is a null set, the only intersection will be an irrational number
So basically here we have to find any rational increasing and decreasing sequences?
@StanShunpike what significance does the limit being zero have in this question?
 
@Paradox101 Presumably, since the rational numbers are not complete, as we take the limit between a and b, then you should get the empty set.
 
@StanShunpike what significance does the limit being zero have in this question?
 
Like think about it. If there are gaps in between and you shrink all the way to the gap, you find there's nothing there, which is the empty set
 
Yeah but all that the limit part states is the obvious no?
Basically the same kind of info that we're getting from the intersection being a null set?
 
2:08 AM
One llama is gold and white, the other is blue and black.
 
2:29 AM
Hello, can anyone help me?
 
 
2 hours later…
4:05 AM
@daOnlyBG What with?
 
 
1 hour later…
5:10 AM
in The h Bar, 28 mins ago, by Stan Shunpike
@DavidZ I thought that dress thing you posted was a joke. But they just mentioned it on Sportscenter lol.
@ThomasAndrews^
:-)
 
Yeah, I was sure that someone was joking around. I see white and gold.
 
6:22 AM
3
Q: A discrepancy in the total number of conjunctive normal forms and the number of distinct boolean functions.

AxorenConsider a set of truth literals $C$. The set $\{\text T, \text F\}^{C}$ is the set of all boolean functions over $C$. This comes from the notation $\mathcal{Y}^\mathcal{X}$ which is the set of all functions $f : \mathcal{X} \to \mathcal{Y}$. The set of all conjugations will be a subset of $\{...

 
 
1 hour later…
7:45 AM
I see blue/black @ThomasAndrews
 
8:11 AM
how to declare the set without one element
for example i want b to z
without a
or all character without 'a'
how to declare mathematic sets for it?
L = {b...z} ?
oh found it A={.......}, 1 ∉ A
how to declare all element in set?
 
 
2 hours later…
10:00 AM
in Calculus and real analysis, 3 hours ago, by Stan Shunpike
Is there such a thing as covariant integration? If not, why is there only covariant differentiation?
 
Hi @Ramanewbie
 
 
2 hours later…
11:41 AM
Is it true that $ 18! \equiv -1 \pmod{23}$? How to prove it?
@robjohn @Daniel ^
 
@MartinSleziak @StanShunpike covariant integration is something that arises naturally in General Relativity when you want to set up an action that looks the same under all coordinate transformations, it's described in the appendix here sites.google.com/site/winitzki/index/… and here books.google.ie/…
 
@Sawarnik Do you know Wilson's theorem?
 
@DanielFischer Yes.
How does it apply here? :/
 
@Sawarnik Okay, $$\begin{aligned}22! &= 18! \cdot 19 \cdot 20 \cdot 21 \cdot 22\\ &= 18!\cdot (23-4)\cdot(23-3)\cdot(23-2)\cdot(23-1)\\ &\equiv 18!\cdot (-4)(-3)(-2)(-1)\\ &= (-1)^4\cdot 18!\cdot 4! \pmod{23}.\end{aligned}$$
 
Oo.
 
12:01 PM
Hi @Jack
 
Hi @Sawarnik, how do you do?
 
:)
Did you give olympiads when you were young?
 
Yes, I took part in the national olympiads from 2000 to 2003,
in 2003 I also took part to IMO-Japan.
 
I thought :D
that is why you are so good in problem solving.
@JackD'Aurizio Does those olympiad skills come to use today? :)
 
Not very proud of my performances in that edition (just a honourable mention), but olympiads have been a very good training to math in my life.
Sometimes. I think to be more willing to find useful "tricks" in some situations.
 
12:06 PM
Oo.
Also can you suggest some resources from where i can learn about trilinear coordinates and such stuff?
 
I was quite a self-learner for such stuff, I just spent many nights on Mathworld
by learning theorems and useful facts in geometry.
The website of Alexander Bogomolny, cut-the-knot, is also a very interesting resource.
 
Yup, Cut-the-knot is awesome.
But Mathworld doesn't teach me about it first, it assumes you know and then it gives the theorems.. i need some introduction.
 
I remember a dutch site that was publishing a geometry bulletin from time to time
it was frequented by many (olympic) guys interested in geometry, Darij Grinberg for first
 
hmm.
 
it was also a very good resource for learning facts from the basics
 
12:12 PM
Which site?
 
I am just trying to find it back, I can't remember its name
 
Ok, no problem :)
 
Hello
Is 9.53 prime number?
 
@JackD'Aurizio Thanks, it looks great :D ... have to go, byes.
 
12:17 PM
Can a floating point number be a prime?
 
Primes are by definition positive integers
>1
 
ahh ok. thanks
 
@Sawarnik: have a good day, bye!
 
12:56 PM
Hello @user130018
 
@JasperLoy Have you slept yet
 
I just woke up, thanks.
 
Cool, me too
 
My sleep is not regular. I just think of what I want to think about, get tired, then sleep for a while, then think again. But I am trying to make progress.
I have many disturbing thoughts I need to make sense of. That is how I am going to get well.
 
12:58 PM
I know it's been a long time, but these years, many bad things happened, which is why I am taking so long. My mind is fucked, and healing takes a long time.
@user130018 Do you have any encouraging words to say to me?
 
@JackD'Aurizio: you might find this funny---there was a question I asked a while back (which you answered) regarding the Fourier series of the sq. root of a simple trig polynomial.
When I asked that, it was purely a matter of curiousity
But it's since shown up in my physics research calculations :)
 
What did you think of my last @ message to you @ABeautifulMind?
 
@infinitesimal I agree with you.
 
@Semiclassical: it's a true pleasure when something posted on MSE becomes useful "in the daily life" :)
 
Yep. Sadly that ended up being more of a side case rather than the main event of what I've been doing, but it was still funny to see it showing up
(Speaking of which, I don't think you ever went back and fleshed out the details of that answer :P )
 
2:09 PM
The virus has officially entered the second half of the chessboard :-)
Just in time for the weekend!
 
@infinitesimal Vich Virus?
 
The dress color.
 
@infinitesimal What with it?
 
in The h Bar, 11 hours ago, by David Z
Some people say that dress looks white and gold, others say it looks blue and black
 
Looks more brown than black.
 
2:21 PM
It's a color filter trick.
 
2:36 PM
hello
 
hi pal :-)
 
if $x\in \mathbb{R}^N$ what is the partial derivative of the composition f(tx) what is $\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i} f(tx)$
when $x\in \mathbb{R}$ i know that $\frac{d}{dx} f(tx)= t f'(tx}$
what about $x\in \mathbb{R}^N$
please
 
Looks blue-black to me, @infinitesimal
 
Me too. @BalarkaSen
But I'm r/g color blind
 
How do you make the dress color look like white and gold?
 
2:45 PM
It doesn't look white-gold from any point of view.
Sure, I see bits of white and bits of gold on the dress (look at the lightened bit of the dress), but majority is blue-black.
 
How do you see it from every point of view
 
With different backgrounds and color filters you can make it look any color you want.
 
Oh I thought it was one of those optical illusions where you can make your brain see something different
 
can someone help me ?
 
I kind of want to learn French
 
2:52 PM
Integrate $1/(2\sqrt{x^2-1})$ ?
Is it possible without using sec x substitution or hyperbolic substitution?
 
@N3buchadnezzar can you help me on partial derivative ?
 
@Vrouvrou To your question above, it is the same as in the one dimensional case.
 
$\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}f(tx)= t \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i} f(tx)$ ?
 
@N3buchadnezzar Well, you can pull $\log (x + \sqrt{x^2-1})$ out of your sleeve without that.
 
3:03 PM
@DanielFischer How?
 
@N3buchadnezzar thank you
 
@N3buchadnezzar Just pull it out of your sleeve ;) It may be kind of cheating, since you basically have to know in advance that it appears, but well.
 
@DanielFischer Yeah. But correct me here say I have $\int_1^t \frac{1}{2\sqrt{x^2-1}}\,\mathrm{d}x$. Then I can not use $x \mapsto \sec u$ right? Since we do not know the sign of $|\sec u|$, or is there any away to avoid this ambiguity without involving hyperbolic trig functions (which are one-to-one and all that good jazz)?
 
@robjohn Does it suffice to say that f is a Moebius transformation, that maps circles to circles? Or do we have to explain it further?
 
This question is really interesting: math.stackexchange.com/questions/1167832/…
probably it will become an MSE milestone after someone finds an easier proof, just like for related questions.
 
3:11 PM
@N3buchadnezzar I don't see the problem with using $\sec u$ (though prefer hyperbolic functions here). Just choose $0 \leqslant u < \pi/2$.
 
@DanielFischer But t can be huge, does that not affect things?
 
@N3buchadnezzar Then $u$ comes close to $\pi/2$, $1 \leqslant x \leqslant t \iff 0 \leqslant u \leqslant \arccos \frac{1}{t}$.
 
@DanielFischer Many proofs I read seem to pull something out of nowhere too, hmm.
 
@DanielFischer Yeah, that makes sense thank you.
 
@N3buchadnezzar No meat no pudding.
 
3:23 PM
banana banana
 
3:39 PM
Cayley-Hamilton Theorem is amazing.
 
hello, if $d(A,B)=\inf_{a\in A, b\in B} d(a,b)=0$ how to prove the existence of two sequenses $(a_n), (b_n)$ such that $d(a_n,b_n)\rightarrow 0$ ?
 
Think for a few hours first.
 
@ABeautifulMind you speak with me ?
 
@Vrouvrou Yes. It is not too hard.
 
i know at first i thinked that is trivial but now i want to write a small prove i don't know how i can do this
 
3:50 PM
@Vrouvrou rhetorical question: what does $\inf d(a,b)=0$ mean?
 
@Vrouvrou Assume there is no such sequence. What does that mean?
@anon!
Nice old avatar.
 
@anon!!
hi @Balarka, Jasper
 
hi @Ted.
 
anon has always been here.
NO need to use !
 
you guys and your exclamation points
 
3:53 PM
LOL
 
But use it when you see me.
 
fine, I'll be unenthusiastic and insulting to everyone, instead
 
grumpycat.jpeg
 
Lalo Shiffrin is not Ted Shifrin.
 
3:56 PM
not related, Jasper
 
Yeah, different number of f's.
 
Loads of proofs of Brouwer can be devised using homology, @Ted.
 
inf d(a,b)=0 means that there for all $\varepsilon >0, $\exists a,b$ such that $d(a,b)<\inf d(a,b)+\varepsilon$ @anon
 
you mean <epsilon since we've agreed that inf d(a,b)=0
 
yes
 
4:00 PM
so for every epsilon you can think of, you can pick out a,b which are within epsilon of each other.
now use this to form a sequence of a,b's for which d(a,b) converges to 0
 
A particularly classic generalization comes from exercise 2.2.3 of Hatcher, where we prove that every nonzero vector field on $D^n$ points radially inward and radially outward at some point on $\partial D^n$, which can be proved by composing $f : \partial D^n \cong S^n \to \Bbb R^n - \{0\}$ with the retract $\Bbb R^n - \{0\} \to S^n$ and noting that this has degree $0$ @Ted
 
I need to go teach. Back later.
 
@anon for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$ there exists $a_n, b_n$ such that $d(a_n,b_n)<\frac1n $
 
yes
 
morning
 
4:05 PM
hi @Mike
 
I assure you Ted knows there are lots of proofs of Brouwer, and doesn't need the histor lesson :P
 
@anon thank you
 
@MikeMiller i didn't mean to imply Ted doesn't know that there are lots of proofs of Brouwer fixed point theorem. i was merely stating my realization.
don't make completely different meaning out of my statements, now. i am just being overenthusiastic since i am studying a completely new subject. if it's getting a bit annoying, i'll desist. i am sorry.
 
I wasn't annoyed by that one, just misread. I left the room 'cuz my internet died is all.
 
4:33 PM
@BalarkaSen I got how to prove there are infinitely many real positive numbers
 
nice.
 
@BalarkaSen how do I write that some number occurs even times or odd times
 
if x occurs even times, write "x occurs even times", i guess
 
How using mathematical symbols
 
no idea
 
4:36 PM
Wait I am coming back after dinner...many doubts to ask
 
I should probably write this down in a file somewhere so I can just paste it from now on:
Why do you want to write it in terms of symbols? The point of symbols is to simplify communication, and what you said is already perfectly concise and clear.
 
copy to clipboard, maybe.
come to think of it,i should do it too.
 
I usually like to write in symbols because it looks fancy in LaTeX and I feel cool like I've written a magic spell or something
 
i usually just try to write stuff in plain words. some people (set theorists, analysts) use $\exists$ and $\forall$ so often, that it just gets hard to read.
 
I just took a look at the Harvard graduate past exams and I can do TWO problems!
Lol. But the rest are beyond me.
 
4:45 PM
topology, @Julian?
 
And there are like for sections: Algebra, Algebraic Geometry and Topology, Complex Analysis, and Differential Geometry!
@Balarka yes. And one analysis
 
I can't do any
 
Hi Bart.
 
it's surprising you can do any. they're supposed to be difficult for someone with a solid undergraduate education...
 
I would be soo screwed if I took it.
The only section I have completed is real analysis.
 
4:48 PM
well, yes... but you also haven't been admitted to graduate school at harvard yet, so I wouldn't worry so much
 
Hi @JasperLoy
@MikeMiller You already passed all your quals?
 
yeah
 
Were they hard for you
 
@Mike haha. I am just worried that I will end up taking any graduate exam and like get a barely passing.
 
why is that a situation you're thinking about...?
 
4:50 PM
Passing the quals is nothing. It's what happens after that that is hard.
 
Ugh! Now this really widens my spectrum because I was so into algebra and Topology. But now I have to learn all!
 
I wonder how many people actually fail their quals
 
are you looking at the quals papers, @Julian?
they're supposed to be super-hard.
 
@ABeautifulMind I understand.
@Balarka yes
 
I thought Julian is in high school? Why is he looking at such things now?
 
4:51 PM
Ya they are super-hard. You have to do 6 problems from 6 different subjects for 3 days!
 
can you give me a link?
 
@ABeautifulMind yes. I am in high school. I just came across it after looking for a book for abstract algebra.
 
Hi @JulianRachman
 
[off-topic : try dummit-foote. standard book on abstract algebra]
 
4:53 PM
Math.harvard.edu/quals/index.html
 
@user130018 at UCLA, it's common not to pass on your first go. it's very rare that someone doesn't pass all of them eventually, but it happens. elsewhere, where it's a 1-shot thing, it's usually super rare not to pass. usually one passes, provided one works hard enough.
 
@Balarka k
@Sayan hi
 
@MikeMiller What's a reasonable amount of time since admittance to the UCLA program for someone to pass all their quals
 
standard is to pass the basic exam on entrance, and then to pass the area exams at the end of the first year
 
it's barely recently i got to know about hopf fibration :P
 
4:54 PM
Dude, grad school though..... #thestress
#thefutureisscary
 
the future is like ten years out
stop worrying
@BalarkaSen I wonder if they expect one to do that without knowing the LES in homotopy of a fibration
 
It's Harvard
 
@Balarka I still have soooooo much to study!
 
Harvard? Just a name, no big deal.
 
A lot......
 
4:56 PM
you also have so long to study it
 
@ABeautifulMind Ya. I know
 
Ecole Polytechnic is good for maths I think
 
I don't know why people are so obsessed with Harvard, LOL.
 
@MikeMiller you don't really need the long exact sequence though
 
so what do you have in mind
there are a couple ways I can compute it, and everything but the LES is way too high-falutin
 
4:57 PM
@Mike I know. 12 years
 
Yea @JulianRachman You got so much time, I'm on my last year of my math degree and I don't even know calculus
 
@MikeMiller the long exact sequence is the easiest, of course, once you know the hopf fibration. but i guess you can also do it by the fact that n-th htpy of X is \cong (n+1)-th htpy of SX
at least i think so.
 
@user130018 why
 
@Sayan Why what
 
that's only true for good situations
and that's hard to prove
 

« first day (1668 days earlier)      last day (3347 days later) »