« first day (2368 days earlier)      last day (2563 days later) » 

7:00 PM
$1\gg 1$. "Brilliant" is not the adjective that comes to mind :P
 
tada, Nobel prize
youre just jealous you didnt think of this before me
 
7:24 PM
@ACuriousMind What are you talking about man?
AFT is clearly one of the greatest minds of the century
 
7:47 PM
hey Balarka
 
Hi @Danu
that tgd guy is really annoying
 
Do you see any way to prove that thing about motions while leveraging the fact that the fixed point set is an affine space?
I mean proving linearlity for one that fixes 0
So if it fixes one other point it fixes that whole axis... what now?
@BalarkaSen Regarding annoying chat members: I've started simply putting on ignore a lot of people.
It's pretty helpful ^^
So this fixed point stuff proves linearity in one direction right, if it fixes that direction
 
Hmm, I am not sure.
You want to prove isometries fixing 0 are linear?
 
yeah
somehow using that previous part of the question they're asked
(so not your proof)
I guess it can't give a full proof since there are cases where there is no second fixed points (just rotations in $\Bbb R^2$)
 
Yeah I have no idea how that helps
 
7:54 PM
I wonder what their idea was...
I don't expect many people to be able to solve this question... In middle of undergrad.
Your proof has quite a few small tricks which they may not know
 
Right, it's nontrivial. I certainly read the proof at some point.
 
The Gaussian beam doesn't satisfy transversality condition $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E} = 0$
 
@BalarkaSen Even the idea of just using the fact that $O(n)$ acts transitively on bases...
or rather is the set of orthonormal bases I guess
 
${\mathbf E(r,z)} = E_0 \, \hat{x} \, \frac{w_0}{w(z)} \exp \! \left( \! \frac{-r^2}{w(z)^2}\right ) \exp \! \! \left( \! \! -i \! \left(kz +k \frac{r^2}{2R(z)} - \psi(z) \! \right) \! \! \right) $
 
So I checked out an undergrad algebra book
Russian style... "because vector addition and multiplication can be expressed geometrically, it is linear"
lol
 
7:57 PM
That's... a proof?
 
CLEAR :P
 
Vinberg is in the "graduate studies in math" series...
 
Have you read it?
I could read big parts of it without big problems, without any background knowledge of algebra. So I assumed it was undergrad.
(this was after having taken only 2 math courses in my life, so I really didn't know much)
 
I have not read it, I just find it surprising you call it an undergrad book
I have several books from that series (they are not undergrad)
 
8:14 PM
Mhm
This one starts with super basic definitions etc
 
Is "undergrad" vs. "grad" really the distinction one should make instead of "assumes substantial prior knowledge" vs. "doesn't assume prior knowledge"?
 
exactly!
I just call it undergrad if it doesn't assume anything
Also hi ACM
 
We should teach from Bourbaki then lol
 
We probably shouldn't - but it's much more useful to argue why we shouldn't instead of classifying at as "graduate".
Also hi Danu :P
 
I'm honestly confused about closing questions due to them being Homework
I thought that questions relating to homework but ones that are conceptual rather than just asking people to calculate it is fine?
 
8:25 PM
In principle something like that is true @Phase
 
@ACuriousMind could you explain to me why physics.stackexchange.com/questions/329865/… doesn't fit that criteria?
Just so I better know what not to answer
 
@Danu Maybe you've encountered someone writing $\iint_\Omega d\omega=\int_{\partial\Omega} \omega$?
Emphasis on the $\iint$
And consistently using $\iint$ throughout two books
 
@Phase I don't see a conceptual question there, nor any evidence of effort. It just poses a standard homework problem and complains about not being given the time. The solution is just to do some straightforward algebra on the standard equations for motion to eliminate time from them. Where's the conceptual question?
 
@0celouvskyopoulo7 No.
 
mb it's just because $\textrm{dim}(\Omega) = \textrm{dim}(\partial \Omega) + 1$
 
8:28 PM
@ACuriousMind I guess I just interpreted his question more as "is there a way to do A"
reading it again I misread it a bit
Thanks for clearing it up, should I delete me answer or leave it there?
 
It would be better to delete it - all you left for the user is to plug in numbers, so it's a "near-complete solution" in my eyes
 
For instance we have
But here it's only one integral.
 
Oh, are we not meant to answer questions like that? If I was just going to leave a hint for a question I'd put it in a comment, there isn't really much to leave to the imagination with algebra like that anyhoo
 
Well...you are meant to answer on-topic questions like that. But giving complete solutions to off-topic questions just encourages them to come back and ask them anyway.
 
@ACuriousMind Ok got it, what about questions like physics.stackexchange.com/questions/329871/…
Should I just flag it as unsalvageable?
 
8:35 PM
I freely admit that the written policy on the whole homework issue is a bit confusing, and that you'll learn its "actual" content much better by just observing what happens on the site. We like to say we're "in the process" of revising it, but I'm actually not sure how optimistic I am for that given what happened (or, rather, didn't happen) at this attempt to reformulate it
 
I might just operate under a rule of thumb like "if it can be written in a comment, don't answer"
 
@Phase No such flag as "unsalvagable", but "unclear what you're asking" fits perfectly.
 
That's what I flagged it as
When I wrote about unsalvageable I misunderstood the "no editing can save it" tag
 
And even if you think the question is salvagable, please either edit it to actually salvage it, or flag it anyway. If it's flaggable in its current state, it does not matter much what it "could be"
 
To be honest if I have a question i just come to the Stackexchange chats
 
8:43 PM
Sometimes that's a good move if the question doesn't fit on the main site (too homeworky, too broad, opinion based, etc.), but I'd urge you to not ask questions in chat that would actually be on-topic on the main site - it's much more useful for others there than buried here in chat
 
I'll bear that in mind
 
@Slereah What is "Bourguignon"
How does one pronounce it?
 
Flagging this just makes me feel like a bad person physics.stackexchange.com/questions/329873/…
Bore-gee-nohn? a guess
 
"We let M be a noncompact Riemannian manifold, of dimension $n\ge 2$, possibly having nonempty boundary, and possibly having compact closure."
...what does compact closure mean for a manifold?
 
@0celouvskyopoulo7 Coming from the region of Bourgogne
It is usually an adjectif for boeuf bourguignon
Beef bourguignon US /ˌbiːf ˌbʊərɡᵻnˈjɔːn/ or bœuf bourguignon (UK /ˌbɜːrf ˈbʊərɡᵻnjɔːn/; French pronunciation: ​[bœf buʁ.ɡi.ɲɔ̃]), also called beef Burgundy, and bœuf à la Bourguignonne, is a well-known, traditional French recipe. The dish originates from the Burgundy region (in French, Bourgogne) which is in the east of present-day France, as do many other dishes such as coq au vin, escargot, persillé ham, oeufs en meurette, gougères, pain d'épices, etc. It is a stew prepared with beef braised in red wine, traditionally red Burgundy, and beef broth, generally flavoured with garlic, onions and...
@0celouvskyopoulo7 If you add the points of its boundary it's compact?
 
8:52 PM
@Slereah an abstract manifold does not have a boundary.
to have a boundary in the topological sense you need to be in a bigger space
 
There are definitions of boundaries for manifolds
 
Simons donated $7 million to Hillary
Jesus
@Slereah It does not make sense to "add the boundary" then.
 
For Riemannian manifolds you can just pick the completion of sequences wrt the metric
So that every Cauchy sequences converge to a point
 
I think the completion of a manifold would not be well behaved.
 
@Slereah I would make it with potato instead carrot, but it is wonderful.
 
8:56 PM
why not
Well, it is possible that you have singularities, in which case the manifold + its boundary doesn't form a manifold anymore
at least not a Riemannian one
 
9:14 PM
I just realized that Kähler was a really terrible Nazi supporter... :\
 
If you have a wheel that isn't sliding and is rolling, the instantaneous velocity of the point of the wheel in contact with the surface is zero, but what happens if you have a disc that's spinning, and dropped from above with horizontal $v = 0$, how can you model the velocity as a function of time?
not necessarily needing an answer if people don't have time, just a link to relevant things would be great
 
@Danu hah
 
Even in 1988 he was a staunch suppporter. No shame.
That's something pretty exceptional.
 
He was captured by the allies and Cartan helped him continue studies while captured
amazing
 
@Phase Within the "pure rolling" framework, I think it would just drop and spin in place. You need to "turn on" the sliding friction, I'd say
 
9:21 PM
Sorry I forgot to say that, I meant that, without friction there would be no actual force on it so it's net linear momentum wouldn't change
How would one model the velocity or just the instantaneous force as a function of time?
 
@0celouvskyopoulo7 Yeah, it confuses me
He volunteered to be a soldier!
I wonder what Cartan thought about this
 
"That crazy German"
 
@Phase Well, the wheel drops and makes contact with the floor - the point of contact is moving when it does so, and exerts a force on the wheel that makes it start moving.
 
Yeah but I mean how would you derive an algebraic expression for the motion? Just standard friction and torque?
 
I guess? I mean, what else could you do?
 
9:24 PM
Fair, just haven't really covered Angular momentum properly in my course yet
 
@Danu haha he had a nazi flag in his office
How the fuck did he get away with that
 
9:41 PM
Everyone had a nazi flag
It was all the rage back then
Heisenberg was pretty suspiscious during the war, too
He pretended not to be a nazi afterwards but who knows
My thesis advisor once briefly mentioned material dialectism in his class on phase transitions
It was slightly odd
but I guess that is what u learn in the soviet union
 
@Slereah In the 80's!
 
yeah, that's what I meant
Glam rock, denim jackets and nazi flags
 
10:13 PM
@Slereah All physics student had to absolve some courses of dialectical materialism. It was a communist pseudoscience, a marxist phylosophy.
 
it wasn't a science, it was just a philosophical position
like how logical positivism and such were popular in Europe for scientists
 
Howdy
 
11:01 PM
The Turkish government blocked Wikipedia a few hours ago
How will middle school students plagiarize
On a serious note, the situation in Turkey has been critical for a while. I don't know what's going to happen with Erdogan.
 

« first day (2368 days earlier)      last day (2563 days later) »