12:13 AM
Yes, it's very quiet.

12:32 AM
I've said it before (when it was still being tested out at meta.SO), I'll say it again: they've made things look like a nuclear dashboard...

@JM: now that you mention it, I remember. I even unconsciously copied the same expression... I had forgotten and probably I was hoping for a successful "Eeeek! My profile page looks like a nuclear dashboard..." intervention on meta.SO.

Just got Ian Stewart's letters to a young mathematician. I'll prolly read it tonight.

I envy you. Have fun!

(and by "got" I mean checked out, ofc)

12:57 AM
Hi, everybody, what is a formal way of finding the number of real roots with regard of multiplicity. Also, does the way of Ferdinand von Lindemann (1852-1939) expresses the roots of an arbitrary polynomial in terms of theta functions help with my question?

Wikipedia-ing gives en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturm%27s_theorem. No idea about the theta/hypergeometric function approach

Look up Umemura's paper for the theta function approach.
For quintics, the usual Jacobi theta functions are sufficient. For higher-order polynomials, you'll need Riemann theta functions.

@anon -it is mention in this website: library.wolfram.com/examples/quintic/timeline.html#part3 also it is in the content of this book: books.google.com/…

If you can read Mathematica code, here is the routine for expressing the roots of the reduced quintic in terms of theta functions.

@JM - no easier elemetary ways?

1:10 AM
we're talking about theta functions here...

Again, this is for the general quintic. Doesn't preclude us for being able to use easy methods for things like x^5-1 or x^5-15 x^4+85 x^3-225 x^2+274 x-120 ...
For things like x^5-x-1 ... then you need the heavy machinery.

@jm - is it possible to use hand for x^5-x-1?

@jm- is it for graduate study and what math subject is this?

"is it for graduate study" - yes.
"what math subject is this?" - "theory of equations" doesn't really cut it. Special functions, modular forms... there.

1:19 AM
@jm - thanks jm

...beautiful, yet unwieldy. *sigh*
Huh, that sum of primes question got me thinking... I don't quite understand "Analytic continuation is only one of many ways to sum divergent series."
Last I checked, it was either "only one method works" or "a bunch of methods work and give the exact same answer".

the OP might have meant there's more than just *zeta*-regularization, but in addition you can discard the function aspect and just use straight-up summability methods, which don't all give the same answer

In that case, I wonder what \sum p_n x^n (or more precisely its continuation) looks like...

@Srivatsan: thanks for cleaning up my old post
I don't know why Didier had such a hard time grokking it.

1:35 AM
@robjohn No problems.
To be frank, I am in Didier's boat really. I didn't follow the hint completely; then again I didn't pay much attention because the question is simple. =)

Okay. I thought it was pretty straightforward.

Oh, I see what happened :)
(Yes, I should've read your comment first; that puts the thing in context.)

To revive a point that was brought up earlier: are you guys also so negative towards lectures as other people earlier today?

I was negative toward video lectures in relation to other methods of self-learning.

@tb No, I like lectures. They lend a human touch. // I think I can relate to something that a person tells me better than books.

1:40 AM
(Vastly) Depends on the lecturer, I'd say.

@tb I don't mind video lectures, but as far as having someone give a text lecture online, I would rather read a paper and ask questions later.

@robjohn What's a text lecture?

At least for me, it helped that I was always a chapter ahead of the lecturer...

I am assuming that the lecture is good. Not reading out from the notes of the lecturer.

@Srivatsan Like me here in the chat room droning on and on about something that you're not interested in and perhaps going too fast and no chance for questions until the end...
:-)

1:43 AM
@robjohn :)

Well, video lectures have the huge deficit that they are not interactive. Nevertheless I like to watch talks from MSRI or the ENS or Cambridge or wherever else they have good collections.

If I didn't have time to prepare, I understood little from the lectures; if I prepared well, some lectures would be a waste of time. I agree with @robjohn, I prefer asking questions after reading.

(Also when else will I hear Gowers talk? =))
G. being just an example...

Good point. If the lecturer you like is either far away or dead, you can't do better than video...

spiritual?

1:47 AM
Okay, a séance lecture might be interesting...

I really think I had some outstanding lectures, containing stuff presented in a way that you won't find in books (some of them are books now, though). Still, I don't think the books alone could replace the lectures and my notes but rather they complement each other excellently.
2

@JM Ooh, e-Ouija

I guess I am just not up to your level yet, @tb. I feel I cannot get much from verbal communication.
But I can understand how you feel.

It only means we learn stuff differently, Tim. :)

I just don't have the attention span for a video lecture, is what it all boils down to.

1:51 AM
@anon don't dilute yourself beforehand and your concentration might be better. ;-)

I enjoy discussion more than lecture. Maybe I haven't met a good lecturer.

Also books could be too dense; I feel a lecture cannot be as fast or pack as much material. Also, the lecturer is forced to break down the contents into smaller units than usually seen in a book.
2

@anon Well, maybe it's just like watching a movie at a laptop instead of at a cinema. Somewhat unromantic, isn't it?

@anon Curious But do books require less attention span?
This is a serious question, not rhetorical.

I wouldn't describe a book as unromantic. Losing attention makes it unromantic either way. And @Sri: No, but it makes going back and forth between it and other things (on a computer) more efficient, mentally.

1:55 AM
By the way, are we all stuck with the present info pages?

Apparently so, unless maybe we complain (violently?) at meta...

I can't pause an IRL lecture and it's annoying have to skim an .avi or memorize timings rather than page numbers...

@anon Got it. (And I feel tb was referring to a video lecture as unromantic, not a book.)

Oh, right. Yes, I agree then! :) (bah, library closes now...)

1:59 AM
But the digital one isn't @anon

digital what?

Me too. Since I started earning, I used to buy books at the rate of one per month (or couple months). I stopped temporarily because of office space constraints

digital library.

don't have a laptop, that's why I'm at the library..... (bye)

See you, anon.

2:00 AM
Take care, @anon

bye, anon
I think what makes a good (mathematical) lecturer, at least those I witnessed, is that they actually think in front of the crowd. If they are good at tuning their pace to the audience, the audience can sort of witness some of the thought processes that a more advanced person has. That kind of thing is often missing in books.

@tb Ah, adaptivity. Always a good thing, I say.

I often lost the big picture. But I seldom blamed the lecturers. If I had the time to, I would rather work hard by myself. After all, learning is one's own business.

2:11 AM
Also, when asking questions in person, it really hurts being judged as if I were retarded.

@Tim I agree. On the other hand, I've found the need to develop a thick skin and a sense of humor over the years...

@JM can you take a look at this: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3222/…?
The {cases} environment--I am not sure what I am doing wrong.

@JM: I agree too. Mostly I pretend as if nothing happened, but this sometimes annoys some people.

@Srivatsan write a \\\ instead of a \\

@tb Why exactly? I haven't used \\\ till now but seen it being used.
Thanks for that, tb.

2:16 AM
@Srivatsan Check now

Yes, saw that. =) I forgot to remove the {eqnarray*} things. I added it as an experiment since I didn't what was wrong.

@Srivatsan There were several things. You nested math environments and MathJaX doesn't like it. Don't use \text{for all $x \in X$ satisfying} but rather \text{for all } x \in X \text{ satisfying} (notice the blanks that take care of proper spacing). Then doubling up backslashes is sometimes necessary because backslashes are also used for escaping things, like * to get an asterisk. I'll link to a better explanation in a moment.

@JM Now that you just edited the post, can you fix the tags as well for the math.stackexchange.com/questions/71851/…? Elementary-number-theory will do... // Thanks @J.M.

@Srivatsan Okay, but I'm not sure if Egyptian fractions are that well-known to people...

2:22 AM
@JM: I just saw your answer regarding the prime zeta function. I never knew that before. Very interesting (+1).

@JM Um, that might be true. I was judging by the difficulty of the question. May be I am wrong.

@JM Just an executioner now.

I never know what to do with all those suggested edits for posts from the last millenium. Is it really necessary to TeX them up?

Thanks for the explanation, tb. It's not penetrating me right now, I will read it when time permits.

@robjohn For a stunning display, try Plot3D[Abs[PrimeZetaP[x + I y]], {x, 0, 8}, {y, -4, 4}, PerformanceGoal -> "Quality"] ;)

2:25 AM
How old are these posts? I cannot access that link.

Well, sometime august '10

@tb The only reason I haven't been touching suggested edits lately is that I don't quite know what to say on the rejection notice...

@JM Thanks. It's chugging. I need to get a puppy to the park. bbl

hi everybody, is there any ways to find the exact number of real roots for arbitary polynomial with regards to multiplicity by hand. in the discussion above, jm have given a long yet effective way to find the roots for quintic
by hand

Just the number? You can use the Cartesian rule of signs as a start.

2:33 AM
@JM - i don't like descarte rule of sign because it only give the possibilities.

@jm - is there a PDF give complete proof and some example to your theorem?

@jm - just to make sure if there are other names...

Alright, last one: Vincent's theorem

2:43 AM
@jm - thanks, just curious about how many math magarzine and article you read each day

It depends.
Some days a lot, some none.

- which post?

This is the latest one.

@JM Very good. Thanks a lot for that!

I feel that I've asked "where?" on most of the recent notation questions...

@JM - is vicent 's theorem with regard to multiplicity of the root, that is, you should be counting the double root twice?

3:00 AM
@Victor: In the version I remember, no. There may have been modifications, but I haven't had experience with them

@JM - is that the reason that most of the math competition provide the information , for example, the polymial have a double real root and triple real root in the question?

I wouldn't know. I don't do competitions...

@JM - lol, i was half- joking, but it is funny to know that there are seem no way to know the multiplcity of the real roots
So, what is the theory of equations use for and why people have to study it?

"have"? Nobody "has" to study anything..
If things are interesting, we study them.

@jm - i mean every people have to study something, from my philsophy, if you get down a water well, but you don't know how to tie a knot, even somebody have reached you, they can't save you...

3:12 AM
Not math.
Okay, maybe arithmetic. But not math.

@Victor I'm new here but what do you mean by "no way to know the multiplcity of the real roots"? One can check the derivative of the polynomial to decide whether there is a double root at a certain point, would this suffice?

@lethe He was asking about methods that don't require knowing the actual roots.
e.g. a method that can say "this polynomial has three simple real roots, one real root of multiplicity two, and three pairs of conjugate roots."

Ahh...that's hard....

@jm - do you know how to tie knot with topology, half joking, lol

I don't remember topology being taught to Boy Scouts...
but knot-tying is de rigueur for Scouts.

3:17 AM
@jm - what is this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot_theory ?

Knot theory is trying to distinguish between knots

@lethe - is that have any help to tie a knot, but at least it prove if a knot is tie right...hahaha

...you know how to tie your shoelaces, don't you?

@JM I just got this from the Bridge in my inbox. So, apparently it's sort of a game :)

they seems only want to count how many different knots are there. But I didn't learn deep in that theory.

3:23 AM
Would've been more honest to link to this suggested edit, though...

@t.b. Odd...
Oh t.b. ... would you happen to remember offhand a reference for constructing continuous but nowhere differentiable functions like Riemann's or Weierstrass's?
Apparently it's not as simple as \sum a_n\cos(c_n x) ... for some rapidly increasing c_n .

@JM It's still chugging away. Is this going to take all night?

@rob: Wow, it's taking long? Never mind then. Just look at the pictures on MathWorld...

@JM My favorite is the Blancmange-Takagi function

Oh, yeah, batrachions. The reason I was asking is this question. It looks to me that one only has to show the fractal behavior is inherent in the components themselves...

3:34 AM
@JM I will let it run while we have dinner, and see if it completes by then. It seems a shame to kill it now when it might be almost done.

@JM Well, it looks to me as if the main point was mentioned by Henning: these functions look like very close to having the unit circle as a natural boundary (even though the usual lacunary series theorem doesn't apply), so you want the boundary to be mapped to a Jordan curve that is nowhere smooth, so in that sense yes I agree. I'm waiting for our new complex analyst mathstribble to clarify the issue...

Wait... you know who mathstribble is?

@JM No, but I've seen enough of the (excellent) answers to believe that it's the strongest complex analyst we have here along with Hans and maybe Zarrax.

@tb - why in the wikipedia i checked "hans" it came out with this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

3:50 AM
t.b. was referring to one of our members named Hans.

Hey, I upvoted before commenting, Jack. :D

good night everybody

4:48 AM
Does anyone know if it's true that, when b, a_1, . . . , a_n are not squares in Q, and \sqrt{b} cannot be expressed with the \sqrt{a_i} using only multiplication and division that

Hm. This is the kind of attitude I don't like. This user asked 16 questions (rather non-trivial ones at that, sometimes) and only cast a single vote...

And it wasn't even a vote on the answers he or she received.

yes... (no need to mention that I certainly invested two hours for answering this person).
anyway, my field theory is sort of rusty, so I don't know the answer to your question, @yunone

@tb Maybe they thought accepting an answer shows enough gratitude. No worries about the field theory, perhaps I'll post it on the main site later.

5:04 AM
@yunone But actually I don't think it's true. Isn't such a field extension always expressible by adjoining a single element?

@tb Is that the primitive root theorem?

(see the corollary to the "Existence statement")

I hope I didn't phrase my question poorly. The reason I'm curious, is for example, sqrt(5) \notin Q(sqrt(2),sqrt(3)), so it's true in this case.
I'm trying to read some Galois Theory, and for some exercises I'll say something like Q(sqrt(2),sqrt(3),sqrt(5)) has dimension 8 over Q, without actually checking that adjoining each successive root gives an extension of degree 2. So I wonder if there's a theorem that will make me more comfortable about saying things like this.

I would agree here. But I don't know how to get \sqrt{2} from \sqrt{2} + \sqrt{3} (which generates Q(\sqrt{2},\sqrt{3}) = Q(\sqrt{2} + \sqrt{3})) using multiplication and division only

Ah, that would make sense, although I don't think \sqrt{2}+\sqrt{3} has form \sqrt{a} for some integer a. I guess if I allowed elements which are sums of square roots of nonsquares, I'd have to add that \sqrt{b} cannot be gotten through basic arithmetic operations (+,-,x,/) to avoid trivial problems.

5:18 AM
Right. Your last clause now basically boils down to saying that \sqrt{b} doesn't lie in the field extension Q(\sqrt{\alpha_1},...), doesn't it?

@tb Yes, I think that's what I wanted to communicate, in hopes of an easier way to check that it's not in the field extension. In the same example, showing \sqrt{5} is not a rational linear combination of the basis elements 1,\sqrt{2},\sqrt{3},\sqrt{6} is too messy.

As I said, my field theory is very rusty (there is only little rust that can be on the little theory I ever knew). I had a horrible algebra course and I was happy with a few of the classical applications (ruler and compass constructions, testing for integrability in elementary terms), forgot about the rest and lived happily ever after in blissful ignorance...
To cut a long story short: I don't remember any generally applicable trick for that, but it sounds pretty basic and important.

Oh, I hope it didn't seem like I was badgering you. But at least it sounds like it's not completely obvious.

Oh, no, not at all! I was more like talking to myself, observing that it is a bit scary that I still have the same repulsive feelings when it comes to a subject which is certainly beautiful and very important, but whose appeal was messed up by an idiotic teacher. And this after 12 years...

5:34 AM
Has functional analysis always been your main interest?
If it even is, I just guessed based on which tags you're most active in.

I always liked analysis, yes, but not so much the computational aspects, so functional analysis fits my tastes pretty well. But I'm also very interested in geometric things, metric and differential geometry, algebraic and differential topology and the like.

Is it difficult to get by in algebraic topology with a distaste for algebra? I thought algebraic topology would require quite a bit of abstract algebra.

@tb You are the bad guy now. =)

@yunone I have absolutely nothing against abstract algebra. I don't like number theory very much, and our algebra course focused very much on that. I just couldn't get my head around all those different rings and couldn't motivate myself to look closer. If you understand abelian groups well enough that's plenty enough for most of the basic applications of algebraic topology. Of course, you need to understand the homological algebra bits, but luckily these weren't treated in my algebra course...

5:49 AM
Aw, I just noticed that Koenig unpinned a message from the board. Too kind of him.

@Srivatsan Yeah, but the wrong one...

@tb I don't remember the other message actually.

It was the codecogs thing

I see.
Here there are 10 upvotes (+13-3) for Asaf and 11 for Henning. I wonder what everyone's stand is that they can be in agreement with both... =)

6:15 AM
Interesting comment, this

And to spite Asaf he's answering in a comment :)

@JM Um, I just found it interesting. The question is welcome, of course.

I'm not objecting to the question myself. I'm just speculating on intent... :)

(if by edit icobes means the TeXifying edit and not his own)

6:21 AM
@tb I thought you were pointing to Sivaram's answer =)
Yes, that's a lie (in the absence of additional information).

6:44 AM
More questions without showing work: math.stackexchange.com/questions/84864.

6:55 AM
If I ever get a "Nice Question" from that meta thread on the new profile pages, I hope the SE overlords notice...

7:08 AM
@process: that is a nice Costa surface you have there...

7:28 AM
Yay, more answers from Pete Clark means more of his amazing notes... =)

Is there a good way of expressing the exterior algebra of a vector space? I mean: the wedge in \wedge V is too small and in \bigwedge V it is too big, especially in displayed formulas. One could go for the \Lambda V kludge but I'd prefer a sans serif version of the \Lambda.

SE has changed. Again. It's almost like facebook. It works perfectly fine but they have so much money and time that they rearrange the UI without adding new features.
4

7:46 AM
Good morning guys.

@tb May I take a guess at who messed you up or would that reveal too much personal information?

Good 'morning' Asaf.

@Matt Since you're in the third year I presume you had the joyous experience of having Algebra with the same guy.
Morning Asaf

@tb: I think your gravatar stabilized for the past two weeks or so. How is that?

@tb: You can't presume because I got so fed up after 1.5 years that I left the place for a year to recover.

7:53 AM
@Asaf: I entered an email address in the profile field.
@Matt I can presume, but then I will be wrong. Anyway, now it should be easy enough to find out.

@tb: Yes, I'm just about to verify my guess.
@tb: Haha. I'm so clever.
@tb: Makes me sad though, for you. : (

@Matt Well, it's not so bad, I exaggerated a bit. Nevertheless, there are very few persons on this planet to which I can apply such nice words with a good conscience...

@tb: Yes you tend to exaggerate, I noticed. For example "not too keen on Springer books" suddenly turned into "can't stand Springer books"...

Springer books are nice, usually.

8:07 AM
Usually... :)

@AsafKaragila I guess that was another instance of me making a general statement about something that can't be generalised.

Oh it is possible that this was the statement.

@JM : )

@JM It's still going.

Oi. If you give up on it, yet you still want to see pics, there's a notebook with the graphics at MathWorld.

8:12 AM
@JM Have you run this, or did you just pick it off the site?

I did. It took about an hour. On the other hand I did it on one of those quad-core beasties...

I am on a dual core, and it seems to be using all of one processor.

?!

I am on quadcore. Ha ha!

I don't know why, then...

8:14 AM
Maybe I should restart MMa...

@robjohn: What code are you and JM talking about?

It might have some stuff wedged.
6 hours ago, by J. M.
@robjohn For a stunning display, try Plot3D[Abs[PrimeZetaP[x + I y]], {x, 0, 8}, {y, -4, 4}, PerformanceGoal -> "Quality"] ;)

@Matt: I wanted him to see what I was talking about in this answer

Ah, Mathematica.
@robjohn: I assume you used Parallelize...

Hey! I found something strange. In the famous book L'intégration dans les groupes topologiques et ses applications, the axioms for a group do not assume that the cancellation law holds, is this not strange?

8:25 AM
Are you saying they don't assume inverses exist?

@awllower: You don't have to "assume" the cancellation laws, they follow from the group axioms.
i.e. they are not an axiom but a theorem.

But there are only two axioms, and I think they cannot guarantee the cancellation law...
I mean in the book only two axioms.

What axioms do they assume?

Firstly, the associative law

8:31 AM
Secondly, that every equation xy=z has a solution.
What? I think @J.M. is not talking to me...

@awllower: sorry, I thought we were talking about algebraic groups. Just noticed we're talking about topological groups...

OK
So maybe the typing was wrong?

@awllower No, I was making an observation.

As at the next page there is a discussion about when can a homogeneous space be a group, referring explicitly to the cancellation law.
@J.M. I see, what observation is that?

That what Jyrki was saying in that thread is true.

8:36 AM
@J.M. Oh, thanks.

In any event, since you're here @awllower: what did you mean by your comment in the Vieta answer I gave?

@awllower But Weil mentions right after stating the two axioms that they imply the usual ones. You should try to check that...

@awllower I didn't type out those matrices. :)

@t.b. Yes I know that, and I found if the statement is a unique solution, then it will be correct.
So per chance I misunderstood or misread, as the book is not around now...

8:42 AM
He doesn't require uniqueness. For the others: the first is associativity of the operation and the second axiom states for every pair x,y of elements there exist z and z' such that xz = y and z'x = y

@t.b. But then can they really imply the usual ones?
@JM Really, then I still appreciate your generousity for telling me this, haha.

I'm pretty sure they do.

But even though any element can acquire an identity, the identity for two elements can differ, or even there are two identities for an element, is it not?

Hello

Hi.

8:49 AM
Why is ◊□A→A provable from A→□◊A ?

@t.b. Can you give me a bit hint? Thanks.

I feel so stupid for not getting this :S

Il me faut aller à manger, plus tard...
I have to eat, later...

A comment from here: "I'm sorry isn't there an easier way to do this without over-complicating it? I would like to see something that is elementary and cleaner.", and I would like a six pack of beer waiting for me in the classroom today.

@Matt I am using Mma 8 and I am not using Parallelize (which is why it is using 98% of one processor)

9:01 AM
Mixed Martial Arts?

Are you about to drop the axe?

I was the guy who made the axe.

@JM Your notation for primorial primes seems puzzling.

@Srivatsan Are you suggesting he puts it on the new Area 51 proposal?

@robjohn I assumed you wanted to fix that so that it uses both processors. I know nothing about Mathematica so I don't know whether there still is a Parallelise command in M8...

9:04 AM
Then I'll drop it.

@AsafKaragila I liked Andreas' answer :)

@Daniil Yes, although the question was to make the equality true. Not the statement.

Yeah, that what makes the answer witty and funny, I guess.

And useless. This should have been made a comment.

@Matt It says that Parallelize was updated in Mma 8
@Matt I am loathe to restart the computation, but I may restart Mma to make sure it is not dealing with wedged memory from previous computations.

9:08 AM
@Srivatsan Uff, fixed.

Hmm, is there an easy way to tell which subgroups of QD_16 are normal? I know those with index 2 are normal, but I don't really want to go through and compute the left and right cosets for the rest.

@JM Er, sorry to be nitpicky, but you might want to cap the index k at some n. =)

Oh alright... :D
Picky, picky...

Good sunny morning to everybody

Hello Ilya. I almost didn't recognize you. :)

9:14 AM
By the way, congratulations to myself. I have written 200 answers in MSE. =)

High five!

Congratulations, Srivatsan

Thanks people ;)
Apparently JM just crossed his 500-answer mark...

@Srivatsan congrats! I have 178 answers only (?)
@JM I decided to keep this 'famous' blue gravatar for couple of days not to confuse people

9:20 AM
@Srivatsan I have? Wow.

It wasn't very famous, you know.

High five, @JM :)

@AsafKaragila not as famous as your orange one maybe )

Up high and down low, baby. ;)

@Srivatsan 500 is a quite high five

9:22 AM
500 is a quite high five hundred.

For various values of five hundred, of course.

Oh my, I am a damn fool. I didn't recognize Ilya till now... =)
2

@AsafKaragila C.O. ?

Carbonoxide?

nvm

9:24 AM
The cool blue gravatar should've tipped me off. :(

@JM: Carbon monoxide?

@Srivatsan What I'm interested in is whether Jonas will notice.
@AsafKaragila Yes, tailpipe exhaust. Hence the "nvm".

@JM if he hasn't stopped drinking, I guess he won't
2

So far as I can tell he wants to be through with his hooch before he starts working there... :)

I feel a bit of guilty for him since I advised one cool pub in Delft which he didn't know

9:28 AM
@Ilya You wouldn't believe the things Jonas noticed in the past few days... =)

@Srivatsan like?

You might want to ask Henning ;)

@Srivatsan thanks, if I won't forget. Did you mean smth like This whisky keeps surprising me.?

:DDD he does, by the way

9:32 AM
@Ilya Oh, tell me about it

@Srivatsan: would you stop it, please?

A beard is too high-maintenance. I'm fine with my goatee.

@JM I want a beard like Kolmogorov had

@Ilya I dunno about you but I was enjoying your little animation.

@Srivatsan I was kidding, it didn't bother me ) I see I missed some fun here, while being working on the paper. Though I'm to lazy to read it

9:35 AM
@Ilya Okay, I'm slow... :D Nice!

We should introduce a new abbreviation: RTFP

Yes indeed: "read the FABULOUS paper"...
or "FANTASTIC", if that floats your boat...

@JM if that boats your rocks

You're pulling that Soviet reversal on me, eh?

"In Soviet Russia the rocks boat you!"

9:39 AM
I'd go for the French Connection UK (in gerund form and misspelt). No need for PC

@AsafKaragila thanks, C.O. ^_^

You're most welcomed.
I am not tailpipe exhaust, though.

@AsafKaragila indeed, you're not. sometimes your statements are really hard to refute )
2

@tb I propose the RTFWP variant.

@tb Actually I've always liked that little "file system check" Unix command... :D

9:41 AM
fsck /you?

@Srivatsan reminds me RWTHA

ok, I need to go - see you all later. @tb: hi and bye )

Bye @Ilya.

@Srivatsan: it is Sauron with 6-7 typos (please, don't ask it there :-) )

9:46 AM
@Ilya You must be really trying hard to make that many typos.

@Srivatsan There's at least one user I particularly like for whom 5 typos per word would be a marked improvement.

Anyway, see you later, Ilya.
@tb No guesses.

Not necessary. MPG as the sole hint.

@tb although I guess that mp = mass point, I have no guess about g. Gortaur?

Oh no. How can Sauron have a mass point? ;)

9:52 AM
Cancer?

But methinks you now know who t.b. was referring to.

@AsafKaragila MPG cancer that is killing /mse/ ? fortunately, very slow it is

It's not like we're up to our armpits in those questions... yet. Relax. ;)

@JM just only try to take the integral over my density >;o

How? There's a nasty singularity, and even Hadamard finite-part won't do...

9:55 AM
But nowadays it's more like roots, bloody roots...

Heh. I'm not quite sure anymore what that guy actually is.

Weak allusion to a Death song. I was thinking about what kinds of references you had to crank out one after the other a few hours ago.
^ Oh, no, I'm morbid!

@Ilya No, ZALGO is the cancer that is killing /mse/.

@t.b. He had me racking my brains, yes. :D I sure hope it was convincing enough that he needed way more background that what he's shown...

"RTFBM."