« first day (308 days earlier)      last day (3764 days later) » 

15:06
.... I am too afraid to type in here.
@Nick OK. First I'm going to ask if you know what "solution by radicals" mean.\
In particular, have you heard of Abel-Ruffini theorem?
@BalarkaSen: I've always assumed it meant some answer expressible with a $\sqrt[N] {\dots}$ but upon some quick research, that wasn't at all what it meant
@BalarkaSen: Oddly, Yes, I've heard the name "Abel-Ruffini"
@Nick No, what you said is correct.
@BalarkaSen: ... then I can't read papers for shizzle.
"radical expression" is an expression which contains a bunch of plus, minus, dot, fractions and roots.
@Nick They're formalizing the notion. Forget about it.
15:12
Ofcourse, I have :D
Like $\sqrt{\sqrt[3]{1 + \sqrt[5]{2}}} + \sqrt[3]{8}$ is a radical expression
Very Gnarly Radical, dude.
Sure is :P
@Nick You know how to solve a quadratic?
@BalarkaSen: ... Let us assume so, for my sake.
@Nick Is the solution of a quadratic a radical expression, in terms of the coefs of the polynomials?
15:15
@BalarkaSen: Yes. It is. Always!
Right.
@Nick I am sure then you are familiar with Cardano's method of solving a cubic?
@BalarkaSen: We met at a dinner party, he seemed rude and mysterious, he had hidden some of his roots from me.
=P
@Nick What do you think about a root of a cubic? Is it a radical expression?
The roots I can solve for, yes. Yes they are.
Indeed.
@Nick Same happens for quartics. If you know Ferrari's method, you'll see it.
Here is the link but my brain hurts whenever I take a look at that ugly mugdugly formula.
@Nick So now, let us get back to the point. We have a lot of examples of "radical expressions", correct?
15:22
eww... Usually I find Ferrari's to be cool. That equation was a bitter gourd.
@BalarkaSen: sure, we have.
@Nick Here's something for you to think : Can you give me something which cannot be expressed by radicals, i.e., not a "radical expression"?
Note that radical expressions consists of rational numbers, their addition, multiplication, division, subtraction and their roots (and composition of all of those).
Think about it. It's not hard, just takes a little bit of thinking.
nah...
I didn't see that.
;) No, you didn't :D
um, ok let me get my lemons and try again.
@Nick OK, let's see. How about $\pi$?
15:32
I thought about that
Why do you think it is not radical?
But there exists an $x \in \mathbb R$ defined as $x = \pi^2$ such that $\pi = \sqrt{x}$
10 mins ago, by Balarka Sen
Note that radical expressions consists of rational numbers, their addition, multiplication, division, subtraction and their roots (and composition of all of those).
$\pi^2$ is not a rational.
;)
Ah.
In fact, that definition automatically implies that all radical expressions (on rationals) are algebraics.
15:36
ooooh, what are algebraics?
Roots of polynomial equations with coefficients being rational.
The set of radical expressions is a subset of the set of algebraics.
oh like a$\sqrt{\pi}$ where $a$ is rational? Is that algebraic?
Nope. $a \sqrt{\pi}$ is a root of $x^2 - a^2 \pi$ but $\pi$ times a rational is not rational.
4 mins ago, by Balarka Sen
Roots of polynomial equations with coefficients being rational.
I am talking about algebraic numbers over rationals.
OK, I am going to go for a few hours or so until you digest that. When you do, here's another question for you : Every radical is an algebraic but is every algebraic a radical?
Well,the theory sounds immensely interesting. But.. by gosh, thinking of examples is murder...
Turns out it's not. That is precisely Abel-Ruffini theorem : Quintics cannot be solved by radicals.
15:45
@BalarkaSen: What is this bluesky you once kept talking about?
Bluesky?
(A conversation I forgot we had)
Blue sky quintics
Oh OK. Quintics are polynomials of degree 5.
$x^5 - x - 1$, for example.
yah, I know. What is blue sky?
The solutions of that are algebraic, by definition. But Abel and Ruffini claimed that they are not radical.
15:47
Go Abel and Ruffini :D
There is a very elementary explanation of that phenomenon. Have you ever used GeoGebra?
Yes. Yes, I have.
Open it up if you have it on your machine.
No, I don't have it on this machine.
Try this then : web.geogebra.org/app
It'll take some time to load, though.
15:55
--___-- i've spent the past 2 weeks trying to open that in my browser. It didn't work last thursday, last saturday or even today morning. It's not going to open now.
Such pity. Hopefully I'll catch you sometime on the other machine someday.
@Nick I have some snapshots though... and a little bit of time at hand. Interested?
@BalarkaSen: always :D
(Sorry, the net is fuzzy on my end. Please do not be discouraged by any lack of response from my part)
@BalarkaSen: what is that?
The point $z$ is a complex number at the vertical line $\Re[s] = -2$
$w_1 = \sqrt{z}$ (the positive root)
If you move around $z$ on the complex plane $\sqrt{z}$ would move too. Do you agree?
16:07
yes, I do agee but before you proceed, what is $\Re[s]$... (do not facepalm)
the real part.
i.e., $z$ is on the line perpendicular to the real axis at $-2$
ohk
Also, it should be expected that moving of $z$ in the complex plane continuously would also make $\sqrt{z}$ move continuously too, right?
naturally. (I expect that in the real plane, I have no reason not to expect it in the complex plane)
Let's see : pull $z$ down near to $-2$ :
Pull it down further so to make it go to the opposite coordinate
Ba dum tss. $w_1 = \sqrt{z}$ loses continuity.
16:11
O-o what?
what just happened?
that was my question when i first saw it LOL
@Nick more fun : add a point $w_2 = -\sqrt{z}$ in the complex plane. naturally, $w_1$ and $w_2$ would sit on the opposite side of the unit sphere around them :
So, rather, $w_1$ and $w_2$ are "exchanged" while $z$ moves from the +- coordinate to -- coordinate.
@Nick I have just taught you fundamentals of geometric galois actions. :D
I'll let you digest what I said above, perhaps trying it by your own hands in geogebra would be better when you get time. Think about it, and let me know later if you want to see more of this fun stuff.
@BalarkaSen: ... My Spider sense is tingling...
this is insanely weird to explain.
i know, i have gone through this before.
... I'll let you know when i figure it out. You can, hopefully, guide me from any pithole I may fall into.
@Nick just to make you a bit more satisfied, note that continuity of $\sqrt{z}$ is preserved if you define $\text{Sqrt}(z)$ to be the piece-wise function which is $\sqrt{z}$ while $z$ is on the +1 coordinate, and $-\sqrt{z}$ when in the other coordinate.
Now take two sheets of papers, one called "$\sqrt{z}$" and one called "-\sqrt{z}".
By the construction above we have taken to preserve continuity, the two sheets are cut along the negative real axis and pasted criss-crossed.
16:19
ok, $\sqrt{\dots}$ is no longer a function...
It looks like this :
Yes, yes, that is my sketch alright and somewhat crappy. Deal with it and have fun digesting.
Byes.
Wow.
Just to let you know, I have shown you very advanced stuff found by V. I. Arnold formalized by world-famous mathematician Grothendeick in elementary high-school mathematics. Of course, this is just a scratch on the surface.
A Nick on the surface :D
 
6 hours later…
22:01
@Alizter
22:46
@BalarkaSen
@Alizter Have a look at the discussion above. I can't explain, gotta sleep.
@BalarkaSen Ok. Good night.
@Alizter I wonder how could you take that much bluff?
'Course I am not gonna sleep.
@BalarkaSen Too tired at the moment. I maybe will look at it later.
Oh OK. Bubyes.
22:55
Bye

« first day (308 days earlier)      last day (3764 days later) »