Conversation started Mar 22, 2012 at 21:00.
Mar 22, 2012 21:00
@MattN this doesn't seem to be what you write at all.
@BrianMScott Ouch! and I thought I was doing bad at 800K.
@Skullpatrol Not hard to find so much as hard to get into.
@tb I wrote it in a clumsy way.
The rest is ok?
@N3buchadnezzar Fubini?
@MattN The kernel of the homomorphism $x \mapsto e^{ix}$ is $2\pi \mathbb{Z}$. Now the kernel of the homomorphism $x \mapsto \varphi(e^{i x})$ is a closed subgroup of $\mathbb{R}$ and it contains $2\pi \mathbb{Z}$. Moreover $x \mapsto \varphi(e^{ix})$ is of the form $x \mapsto e^{\lambda i x}$ for some $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$ because you know what the homomorphisms $\mathbb{R} \to S^1$ are. What possibilities for $\lambda$ do you have?
Mar 22, 2012 21:02
A few off the top of my head: Pomona, Oberlin, Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore.
Hi Brian, how are you feeling?
Whooooh! Flamewar in the gameroom. Puts marshmallows on the stick
That's exactly what you're trying to do in your proof.
@AsafKaragila Honestly? Pretty shitty.
Oh, still feverish?
Mar 22, 2012 21:04
@BrianMScott Sorry =(
@BrianMScott With the popularity of the internet on the rise do you think independent self-study will eventually take over?
Still hungover from that cold, eh?
@tb I don't see where mine goes wrong and why it has to be so complicated.
@tb For the third day. And I’m being forced to waste summer weather that’s unaccountably appeared in March!
@MattN There's nothing complicated about this! Your proof goes wrong because you claim something that you don't justify in the middle of it (just before "We claim"). I'm providing the reason for it.
Mar 22, 2012 21:07
@tb It's ok. I'll read this and understand it.
 
Conversation ended Mar 22, 2012 at 21:07.