« first day (2313 days earlier)      last day (2709 days later) » 

6:00 PM
dual numbers are just $\Lambda \Bbb R^1$. :-)
 
One interesting shape that can be used to get an intuition on what "shape" the number system look like are n-spheres. I have no idea however how a circle look like for p adic numbers, though
 
p-adic balls have centres everywhere in the ball
 
p-adic balls are either disjoint or one contains the other
the topology of p-adics is just an infinite p-ary tree (see e.g. this)
 
Indeed. $p$-adics are cool. Their topology is isomorphic to the cantor-like set with p choices.
 
p adic numbers are a pain to visualise to me because it is an example of a number system that is incompatible to "drawing on paper". According to wikipedia, the further apart two numbers are , the "closer" they actually are. In a sense zooming and scaling is inverted
 
6:04 PM
which doesn't depend on p, @Kaj
 
it's like the further you zoom in, the further apart things are
 
@Secret: there are plenty of common visualizations of p-adics
 
@Secret more accurately, the closer two (normal) integers are with respect to the p-adic metric (without being equal), the farther they are with respect to the Euclidean one. (the converse is not true)
this repulsion property is part of $\prod_v |x|_v=1$ I think
 
I remember p-adic integers having neat topological properties that you just can't get out of a donut
 
@AliCaglayan Talk about what so much?
 
6:08 PM
The metric induced by the p-adic norm is an example of a en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrametric_space. There're a number of weird consequences of ultrametrics, like the one arctic mentioned above.
 
@TedShifrin Well I say "talk about so much" but I remember you mentioning a matrix exercise, something like (a, 0, b, a)
for 2x2 matricies
that was just dual numbers or something
 
I don't think I had anything with the dual numbers. I did stuff with the affine group.
 
@TedShifrin you never called it dual numbers tho, it was purely a lin alg point of view
 
$x\mod3=0\wedge x\mod10=3$ Can you write this shorter?
 
In my opinion, the repulsion property make it hard to draw the plane of the whole number system onto a piece of paper. Even hyperbolic planes seemed rather tame in comparision. But there's a possibility that might be because I am nto famialr enough with trees
 
6:10 PM
I think one of the weirdest properties of p-adics is making them algebraically complete, then metrically complete gives you a space isomorphic to $\Bbb C$
 
@NaCl yes, as x = ? mod 30 (figure out what ? is)
 
I don't know
3?
 
For example, how would one drew a line in p adic space?
 
yep
@Secret well, a line in $\Bbb Q_p^n$ will just look like $\Bbb Q_p$ itself right? (although how it's embedded in $\Bbb Q_p^n$ would be interesting)
 
What about $x\mod3=0\vee x\mod10=3$?
 
6:13 PM
that one does not have a compact notation
 
I mean, we can easily embed/immerse a line in hyperbolic space into eucliedian space (basically what a paper is) thus it will look curved in it (and this shape reflects the hyperbolic geometry). But I ahve no idea whether it is possible to do that for p adics
 
That's what I guessed
Quite sad, actually. But thank you very much for helping me out!
 
@Secret curvature requires a riemannian metric, which is not present in the p-adic world (which is totally disconnected). p-adic stuff is just topological, or at best p-adic analytic, no?
 
yeah, I guess I need to spice up my topology a bit more to better understand them
Most p adic illustrations do look like fractals though
 
another basic math check: If I have (c,d)-(crazy polynomial vector), is the new vector just (c-crazy, d-crazy) or do I need to distribute the minus sign to all terms in crazy?
 
6:20 PM
all terms in crazy. It's like $(c, d) + (-1)(crazy vector)
 
is (c,d) a two dimensional vector?, thus crazy is also a two dimensional vector?
 
(I hope I interpreted question correctly)
 
@KajHansen thats what i though
@Secret yes
 
well then, yes, all terms in crazy gain a - sign since polynomials are vectors themselves (abeit live in a different vector space)
 
this is the same darn question i was working on last night and this morning. SHould be simple but the definition we were given is making it insane
 
6:24 PM
[Weird question] Given that rationals can be extended to the reals via the eucledian metric, and p adics via a ultrametric. Can we construct an interesting extension of rationals via extending with something in between (e.g. a constant metric)?
 
the only normed structures on the rationals are (up to appropriate notion of equivalence) the euclidean and p-adic norms
 
@Secret euclidean and p-adic are the only types of absolute values on the rationals (and this generalizes to all number fields) so you'd need some other type of metric
 
gotcha
 
"screw it, may as well press enter now"
 
I am thinking something like <x,y>=constant for all x,y. But perhaps based on what mike said it might be ruled out for rationals
 
6:28 PM
that won't give you a normed algebra
 
that isn't a metric unless a set has only one element
since d(x,x)=0 but d(x,y)>0 when x=/=y
 
$L^p$ and p-adic are the only norms on $\mathbb{Q}$
 
euclidean and p-adic
L^p is for function spaces
 
They are the only non trivial norms on Q
 
Yeah
 
6:30 PM
any way to simplify the following? I still have to normalize them and this terrifies me...$\frac{c-ca^2-\frac 12 acb-\frac12 da^2-adb}{a^2+ab+b^2}$
and
$\frac{d-bca-\frac12 cb^2-\frac12 bda-db^2}{a^2+ab+b^2}$
 
@Kaj what are you upto these days?
 
Attempt at crazy norm:
|x|=1>0 x=/=0
|0|=0
|x||y|=11=1
|xy|=1
|x+y|=1
|x|+|y|=1+1>1
|x+y|=1=max(|x|,|y|)
Looks really trivial (and possibly discontinous...)
 
Thats just the trivial norm
 
I see
 
I think you can impose that norm onto a lot of things
it seems to me it doesn't make too much sense relaxing it past integral domains
 
6:44 PM
Nothing particularly interesting at the moment @Ali. I just finished up my undergrad stuff over the summer. I'm taking a short break from things because my depression recently flared up to a severe degree. Doing some tutoring right now and just starting to self-study representation theory along with daily exercise, meditation and that sort of self-maintenance stuff.
 
@AliCaglayan the trivial norm induces a discrete topology, which means every element in the set are open, thus all elements will be disconnected from each other (if I understood correctly)
not sure what that means in the context of numbers...
 
@Kaj I'm sorry to hear that, I hope things work out for you. I must say, I do enjoy your Ramsey theory lectures.
 
Thanks! I'm glad you paid them a visit :)
 
@Secret clearly its the 1-adic norm
 
@Secret That norm is complete on Q (or on any field).
 
6:51 PM
or any integral domain
@TedShifrin how have you been this week
 
I see
in that case it is already part of the p adic norms
 
Doing OK, @Ali, thanks. Soon have to go fix lunch for a friend who broke his hip.
 
Hope he gets better
 
Takes time ...
 
Anyway it's 5:55 here and I am heading to sleep. They are too many interesting maths problems on the maths chat today causing a lot of maths procrastination and going over the usual sleep time
 
6:56 PM
Good night @Secret
 
Is it possible to integrate the Riemann zeta function on the critical line effectively?
The real part.
I tried the usual analytic continuation with the Dirichlet eta function but with logarithms in the denominators it does not seem to work. What should I do?
Has it ever been done? Integrating the zeta function that is.
 
is zeta even bounded on the critical line?
 
@arctictern Does it have to be bounded in order to integrate the function?
 
I don't think so, for an unbounded function to be integrable on an unbounded domain would require highly dense zeros
 
7:14 PM
Main getting close to 700k questions
 
so about 100k if we don't count duplicates with multiplicity
 
LOL
 
could someone here help me decide which book to read for getting started with Galois theory?
 
@SoumyoB most abstract algebra texts touch the subject
for example Anderson and Feil
 
@AliCaglayan thanks I'm trying it out then this winter vacation
just finished downloadi... err buying it
 
7:27 PM
haha there should be plenty of free online resources
 
I learned most of my Galois theory from Artin's Algebra, so I'm partial towards that text
 
@SoumyoB also check this out
 
Fairly approachable for an undergrad
 
Anyone know good mnemonics for remembering the difference between join and meet of a lattice?
 
Agreed with Ragib's recommendation of Keith Conrad's notes in Ali's link. They're supplementary though.
 
7:40 PM
I just remember that join goes up and meer goes down
I just remember that join goes up and meet goes down
Or think about the standard powerset example, if you join 2 sets you put their elements together, so join is the union and it goes up
 
@kaj what representation theory book are you reading?
 
Barrow's "Representation Theory of Finite Groups". I just started
 
@KajHansen Do you mean Burrow?
 
Have you looked at the book by Serre?
 
Oops, yes I do @Tobias
I don't have a copy @s.harp; do you recommend?
 
7:49 PM
Yes :)
 
I'm currently reading James&Liebecks representations and characters of groups
 
@Alessandro I find the symbols confusing. ^ for the meet below
 
It is very short and starts very elementary before becoming more advanced and then becoming especially advanced :)
 
haha
 
@KajHansen That one seems to take an interesting approach to the subject
@AliCaglayan That was the one I learned from originally too
 
7:52 PM
Also SML vol 59
 
SML?
 
student mathematical library
 
@zach i agree with you there, it seems to be backward, I don't know why those symbols were chosen though
 
ams
Introduction to Representation theory
 
@AliCaglayan Which authors?
 
7:53 PM
a few let me write them out
 
@ZachGershkoff Think of the meet as the intersection, which you get by making the symbol rounder
 
Pavel Etingof, Oleg Golberg, Sabastian Hensel, Tiankai Liu, Alex Schwendner, Dimitry Vaintrob, Elena Yudovina with historical interludes by Slava Gerovitch
Apparently SML is the incorrect accronym
STML is more correct
 
Anybody acquainted with simple properties of viscosity solutions (e.g. in stochastic optimal control)? I have a simple issue: a viscosity solution with continuous initial data is continuous everywhere? It seems to follow immediately from comparison results. But nobody states it this way, so I'm wondering...
 
@Corn seems quite a strong statement
 
@AliCaglayan That AMS one does seem interesting (just read the full review on MathSciNet)
 
8:00 PM
@Tobias yeah its a kind of "here is the good stuff" book
 
@AliCaglayan It does seem to cover a fairly broad range of topics, and being fairly new is a good thing because that means it has the benefit of the modern ways of thinking about these things
 
yeah it studies representation theory of associative algebras
then takes quivers, lie algebras and groups as special cases
 
@AliCaglayan. Yep. So I guess I got the inequalities wrong. But comparison (of course in a setting where it holds) tells me that if $v^* \le v_*$ on the boundary, then the same holds everywhere. This seems to be equivalent to stating that v is continuous, as long as the boundary conditions are continuous.
 
@AliCaglayan Hmm, I wonder what the relation is to the arXiv one (same name and authors, fewer pages)
 
Do you have a link?
 
8:03 PM
Certainly it is missing the historical remarks. Not sure how much else is missing
Ahh, the arXiv version arose from lecture notes, and the book was probably then expanded from the arXiv notes
 
Yeah its identical
The book is half the size twice the pages
minus the historical remarks you have the book
 
@AliCaglayan Ahh, neat.
So one can get it for free, which is always good (also fits Etingof's style to make it freely available)
 
@SoumyoB Emil Artin wrote a short book on Galois theory which is quite good. Similarly, Ian Stewart has a beautiful book (with plenty of examples) entitled Galois Theory.
 
@Ted is right, Stewart's Galois Theory is a beautiful book
 
@TedShifrin Interesting. I have never actually read any of Ian Stewarts actual math work, only his pieces in the Science of Discworld books
 
8:08 PM
Is that the same Stewart of calculus text fame @Ted?
 
NOOOOOO
That's James.
 
hahahaha
 
Ian Stewart is a wonderful mathematical expositor ... over a dozen books written to explain math to the semi-layman.
BTW, @Kaj, James Stewart was quite a pianist and gave tons of money (from his book) to serious musical endeavors.
 
Author of Does God play dice?
 
I don't know that one.
 
8:09 PM
I didn't know that
 
@TedShifrin Just got my latest paper accepted for publication in Algebras and Representation Theory btw. Handling editor was your former colleague Jon Carlson (or is that former former colleague and now closer to being a colleague again that you are both emeritus?)
 
LOL, @Tobias. Congrats. Jon retired well over a decade ago.
 
@TedShifrin Yeah, it doesn't seem to have slowed him down that much.
 
Dave Benson hasn't exactly slowed down, either.
 
8:11 PM
I'm just fine being a turtle on antihistamines. :)
 
Lets come up with a list of good introductory texts
 
Anyway, the reviewer was very positive about the paper and had clearly read it very thoroughly given the large number of small suggestions. They also mentioned what they felt was the biggest contribution of the paper, and that agreed with my own assessment.
 
I'll start with Mendelson's introduction to Topology
and Reid's Undergraduate Algebraic Geometry
@TobiasKildetoft have you got a preprint?
 
That's very satisfying, @Tobias. Congrats again.
 
hey @TedShifrin what do you think of the following arguments ?
Suppose that $\mathbb{F}$ is a finite field with $|F| = p^n$. Prove that $F = F_p(\alpha)$ for some $\alpha \in \mathbb{F}$.
 
8:22 PM
@TedShifrin Thanks
@AliCaglayan Sure, it's at arxiv.org/abs/1606.06080
 
Consider $\mathbb{F}^{\times}$ since it is cyclic there exists a generator $\alpha$ that generates this group. Then, the field $\mathbb{F}_p(\alpha)$ must be subfield of F, but since both F and $F_p(\alpha)$ has the same size $\implies F = F_p(\alpha)$
what do you think ?
congrats @TobiasKildetoft
 
@Adeek Thanks
 
Why does generating the multiplicative group have to do with being a primitive element for the field extension?
Oh, I see. Yeah, it works.
 
@TobiasKildetoft thanks
 
oke good.
 
8:24 PM
Good to finally have a solid accepted publication without coauthors (my other two solo papers are not nearly as strong)
 
Alternatively, it suffices to show that there exists an irreducible polynomial of degree $n$ over $F$ @Adeek.
 
Yes, Karim, what @Kaj just said is the way I would have approached it.
 
@KajHansen oh I see
 
I need to head off now. There are plenty of algebra experts here. I'll come back later when geometry reappears :P
 
triangle
 
8:27 PM
pshaw @Ali ...
 
Prove that there exists an irreducible polynomial of degree n over $\mathbb{F}_p$ for every $n \geq 1$.

Proof:

from the proof earlier $F_{p^n}$ can be realized as $F_p(\alpha)$ where $\alpha$ is the generator of $F_{p^n}$. That is teh extension $F_{p^n}$ is a simple extension, since $[F_{p^n} : F_p] = n \implies$ The irreducible polynomial that generate $F_p(\alpha)$ must have degree n.
 
fine
simplex
 
what do you think @KajHansen
 
Karim: A way with a cannon is the primitive element theorem. Do you know that?
 
@Adeek How do you even show that the field with $p^n$ elements exist without first showing that those polynomials exist?
 
8:29 PM
we showed it exist in class @TobiasKildetoft
 
@Adeek But how?
 
the splitting field of $x^{p^n} - x$
sorryedited it
@TedShifrin primitive element theorem ?
 
@Adeek, primitive element theorem is that every finite extension of a field $F$ can be realized as $F[\alpha]$ for some $\alpha \in \overline{F}$.
 
oh yeah
book doesn't call this primitive element theorem
 
probably it does, just the special case of finite fields is a lot simpler so shouldn't be called PET
 
8:32 PM
hello @BalarkaSen
sorry @bolbteppa for pinging you then and now
 
Hi @Ali
also everyone else
 
@BalarkaSen Hi
 
8:47 PM
@TobiasKildetoft hello i have two questions can you help me please ?
 
@Vrouvrou Hard to say without knowing more
 
@Vrouvrou Why would I know anything about that?
 
i just ask
 
@Vrouvrou Please don't ping me if I am just some random person
 
8:52 PM
okkk
 
Ugh. Numberphile did mathematics a disservice releasing that one video
-1
Q: An unusual limit that if I understand correctly gives a counter-intuituive answer...

TheGreatDuckI recently saw somewhere that $$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} (n) = -\frac {1}{12}$$ Now I do not want to go over the proof of that. I accept that the justification I saw was satisfactory for my taste (although incredibly mind boggling). That got me thinking. I can rewrite that sum as the following: $$...

 
@KajHansen It should in general be treated as good example of garbage mathematics.
As in, not wrong, just garbage.
 
@kaj that user has a lot of 'interesting' questions
So I don't think this is your usual -1/12 user
 
hey @KajHansen do you want to discuss this problem. $Fix n \geq 1.$ Prove that $x^{p^n} - x$ is the product of all distinict irreducible polynomials over $\mathbb{F}_p$ of degree d for every divisor d of n.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww
It has 4.6 million views @BalarkaSen. It's so obnoxious :(
 
9:01 PM
Here is my proof:
 
@AliCaglayan, I wasn't claiming the asker to be any particular kind of user. I'm just lamenting on how popular, yet how misleading that video is.
Sure @Adeek
 
Yeah it seems 2 years ago when it came out I had similar feelings for it judging by the dislike I have seem to have given it.
 
$F_{p^n}$ can be realized as $F_p(\alpha)$ where $\alpha$ is generator of $F_{p^n}^{\times}$. Since $\alpha$ is a root of $x^{p^n} - x$, then the minimal polynomial of $\alpha$ divides $x^{p^n} - x$.

Suppose that $g(x)$ is irreducible polynomial polynomial of degree d dividing n. If $\eta$ is a root of g(x), then $F_p(\eta)$ is a subfield of $F_{p^n}$ of degree d. Since d | n so $F_p(\eta) = F_{p^d}$ so the roots of g(x) is $F_{p^n}$.

The elements of $F_p^n$ are roots of $x^{p^n} - x$. If we collect the factors of $x - \eta$ of this polynomial according to the degree of the minimal polyno
 
I have drank over 6 litres of ice tea in the last 2 days
 
Ice tea is great stuff
 
9:09 PM
what do you think @KajHansen
 
the roots of $g(x)$ is $F_{p^d}$ you mean?
@Adeek
 
yes
 
@KajHansen I had never seen it before. I enjoyed reading the comments.
 
It was spread like wildfire in the US when it was released @BalarkaSen
 
I guess it gives us another thing to blame physicists for...
 
9:18 PM
@KajHansen at least people got to know that mathematics is a thing.
Maybe some even went down the rabbit hole, asking questions on MSE and elsewhere or surfing through wikipedia, why it's nonsense and exactly what sense can be made out of it.
so, well, maybe not that bad.
 
A publicity stunt of sorts
 
we should youtube more mathematical nonsense for publicity. :P
 
Is the argument that $F_{p^d} \subset F_{p^n}$ so the minimal polynomial for the generator of $F_{p^d}$ must divide $x^{p^n} - x$ @Adeek ?
Any ideas @BalarkaSen ?
 
First I am showing that if some irreducible polynomial of degree d divides $x^{p^n} - x$ then $F_p(\alpha)$ contains all the roots.
 
@BalarkaSen numberphile?
 
9:24 PM
Conversely, if we have a minimal polynomial for a root of $x^{p^n} - x$ then that minimal polynomial must be a divisor of $x^{p^n} - x$.
 
I agree. That'd be because there's a unique finite field of degree $p^m$ for each $m$
 
yeah.
then after that I collect all the linear factors for each minimal polynomial of degree d and I obtain the result
 
@KajHansen Not off the top of my head. There's just so many mathematically correct but attractive things I'd want to youbtube up if I wanted more publicity for mathematics.
 
And the "conversely" fact comes from polynomial rings over fields being principal ideal domains. If $f(x)$ has a root $\alpha$, it's the case that the minimal polynomial of $\alpha$ divides $f(x)$
mathematically incorrect you mean @Balarka?
 
yeah
 
9:28 PM
@BalarkaSen make a video about the field with 1 element
 
Nope, I meant correct. i.e. the suggestions I have are mostly mathematically correct, not incorrect
@Ali ah hah
there you go
but it's too technical even to be crankishly presented anyway
 
literally a video of you walking in a field
 
Ah. That was the motivation for my Ramsey theory stuff @BalarkaSen. Fairly accessible to a general audience, esp. the first video. I also wanted to do them because texts on Ramsey theory are a real pain to follow. All the concepts need colors and graphics laid out to truly grasp, but most of the material on the subject is black-and-white text and little-to-no pictures.
 
yup
 
@KajHansen you are doing everybody a favour with those videos btw
 
9:32 PM
I never found video to be a very good medium for mathematics
But that might just be my personal preference
 
@Tobias if the video is of a lecture then no
but video allows you to do other things
 
Thanks @AliCaglayan. I wanted to do more, but got bogged down with other stuff at the time. Perhaps I'll revisit that project in the near-ish future
@Tobias, I generally agree
 
For example there is a great channel called 3blue1brown
 
@AliCaglayan For any purpose really. I like to be able to read selected things twice without having to rewind a video
 
I find it easier to be lazy and watch a video than be lazy and read a book
 
9:34 PM
One frustration I have with videos is they tend to take too much time in parts that I could easily skip over, but I can't skip over them without potentially skipping something important.
 
So as a medium of getting some points across videos excel in that area
 
@TobiasKildetoft Me too. I like reading stuff.
But a part of me is becoming more and more idiosyncratic about technology so that might just be that part.
 
I think, on the whole, the technology craze is doing mathematics education a dis-service.
But maybe that's just me
 
What works best for me is discussing things with people in real life. Waving some hands helps me understand what other people's intuition on something is.
@KajHansen It seems to me that it's doing more bad than good for everything in general.
 
IRL discussion is important. It's a lot harder for me to learn alone.
 
9:38 PM
But again, I have slowly garnered a rather idiosyncratic view about this so stay away from me
 
In even more generality @BalarkaSen, I often opine that $\strikethrough{technology}$ the internet is rapidly accelerating all the good things about humanity along with all the bad.
 
technology
ah, there. --- (blah) ---
without spaces
 
Thanks!
 
I kind of agree with what you said.
@KajHansen I think the reason is precisely that: I think everyone who does mathematics have his own personal intuition about some things which helps him doing it. Talking to people enriches that intuition, at least for myself. Here's a nice MO post on that note : mathoverflow.net/questions/38639/thinking-and-explaining
For a simple example I more or less think of a tower of field extensions as a stack of records lying on top of each other, and Galois groups of the respective extensions rotating the corresponding disks.
This was further enriched when I learnt covering space theory.
 
That looks like a wonderful thread @BalarkaSen. I'll read it further in a bit
 
9:53 PM
A more vivid example is thinking of holomorphic functions as "rigid"; if you perturb the graph (it lives in C^2 but eh you just visualize it) a bit it might not be holomorphic anymore; this is actually a very great intuition and helps in proving stuff.
 
That's interesting. I feel like I have a fairly intuitive feel for field extensions and Galois groups, but I resort to a more linear-algebraic "visualization"
 
Sounds interesting. Can you give an example?
 
It's not so much of a visualization, but I think of field extensions almost exclusively as vector spaces and think of isomorphisms between them almost exclusively as their action on basis elements
And I'm sort of thinking about the $\mathbb{R}^n$ vector space the entire time, drawing on my intuition from there
Not really anything particularly special about it, but it works for me
 
Ah. It looks like a fine intuition to me.
 
If I'm trying to determine specific Galois groups, I'll have a fairly geometric visualization as well
 
9:59 PM
@KajHansen Yep. Mines sometimes don't even work all the time. It's something dumb likev visualizing abstract topological spaces in point-set topology as R^2 :P
 
Like cubics with $S_3$ Galois group, I envision the triangle in $\mathbb{C}$ with the one generator rotating it and the other flipping it
 
interesting; I have never thought about it like that
 
As often as possible, I'll try to get the geometric visualization going if it's helpful. Like $S_3$ is the triangle symmetry group, $A_4$ the tetrahedron rotational symmetry group, $S_4$ the cube's, $A_5$ the icosahedron's, etc
 
good evening
 
Hey there @meow-mix
 
10:02 PM
yeah i like the icosahedron picture a lot but i never familiarized myself with the polyhedral symmetry group visualization to be a lot helpful for me
 
Ted's probably responsible for a lot of that, lol
 
Heh. Ted's responsible for a lot of my intuitions.
 
I've even built myself 3D models of that stuff. I have a tetrahedron inscribed in a cube, a cube inscribed in a dodeca, etc
 
hah
 
The tetrahedron inside of a cube is really nice for demonstrating the idea of both a symmetry group and a subgroup to laypersons
 
10:05 PM
@kaj oh because its inside
 
I love introducing people to groups with that example
Yeah @AliCaglayan
 
yep
 
Equilateral triangle inside of a hexagon would work too, but not as cool :P
 
So in spirit of -1/12 i can fit a football in a room so SO(3) is a subgroup of cube symmetries
 
I like the duality picture; eg octahedron being dual to cube. the icosahedron being dual to dodecahedron is a proof of the isomorphism PSL2(5) = A_5.
 
10:07 PM
That's really cool @BalarkaSen
 
SU(n) is life
:<
 
heh no one said Sp(n) is love
 
@GPhy no Spin(n)
 
specifically Spin(7) is interesting
especially manifolds with Spin(7) holonomy
 
why're they interesting?
 
10:11 PM
They are not as interesting as g2 manifolds tho
but they are the "exceptional" cases
 
Oh man, Ted covered holonomy in our differential geometry course. I never did quite wrap my head around it.
 
I've never really messed with Sp(n)
 
@KajHansen Holonomy is fun.
 
I think somebody mentioned it's connected with canonical transformations when we did that in mechanics
 
I hardly ever consider any specific groups except $GL_n$ and $SL_n$
 
10:13 PM
MAYBE
 
Though I do consider type $B$ quite a bit
 
what is type B?
 
My problem with differential geometry is that my ability to visualize stuff is horrible. My "minds eye" is super weak. I always need mathematica or a physical model to really "see" what's happening.
Hence, I like algebra :P
 
I cut out a cone out of a pacman shape to see holonomy happening myself once.
 
@AliCaglayan The root system of type $B_n$. I can never recall which Lie algebra that corresponds to
 
10:15 PM
Ted gave us that problem @BalarkaSen, haha
 
@KajHansen you can do that in diff geo, especially higher dimensional stuff
 
well
 
Right :)
 
I've repeatedly had SU(2) and SU(3) shoved into my face
 
well isn't that what physics is?
 
10:16 PM
and in the physical sense, maybe you have too ;)
@AliCaglayan Yeah, QFT
 
QFT is like a Dr Seuss book
 
I have to say
I seriously underestimated the difficulty of the mathematical foundations of even basic quantum mechanics
(non-QFT)
although it's not so hard if you stick to something like a griffiths approach
and of course every graduate book has their own version of Dirac notation
 
10:36 PM
Depends on what you're doing, of course
For finite-dimensional operators, it's just matrices and eigenvslues
For infinite-dimensional operators things get more delicate and one should have some functional analysis knowledge
 
I like that Spin(n) is the double cover of SO(n) means that the double cover of O(n) must be Pin(n)
Infact wikipedia even made this lovely image
 
mhm
even though SO(2) is iso to Spin(2), O(2) is not iso to Pin(2)
 
10:57 PM
good evening
 
heyo
 
Good night, @Balarka
 
Well, look at the time, man!
 
Go to bed, @Ted.
 
10:58 PM
hi @Alessandro
 
hi @ted
 
Any further suggestions, @MikeM? :D
 
Nah.
 
Thanks, @MikeM.
 
Don't fall for believing that I did that for you.
 
10:59 PM
Hi @TedShifrin
 
I somehow knew you'd say that.
 
Tsundere Mike.
 

« first day (2313 days earlier)      last day (2709 days later) »