« first day (483 days earlier)      last day (4533 days later) » 

12:07 AM
@mixedmath i bashed my skull in and i can still laugh.
 
12:18 AM
It's late; I'm off. Goodnight to whomever is out there.
 
12:52 AM
Goodnight Henning
oh - I'm way late
 
c98... c97...
c7... your system had a kernel failure... c96... c87...
stream of consciousness innit
c14... d78...
hurray, i just finished finding and replacing the regex i could not be bothered to figure out how to write
whoever's listening, i have this question> has studying a particular branch of mathematics ever made your dreams more vivid?
 
1:10 AM
I used to get algebra nightmares every now and then
but I don't think that's quite what you meant
 
not really, but sorta. i guess that's the opposite of the sort of dream i'm talking about
this is a 'WOW' sorta dream
could be intricate visual detail
could be you on a stage directing an entire orchestra for 8 hours with music that just comes out of your head
i guess (a la das Parfum) also some very complex smells
 
2:04 AM
@anon Henning did it for one of those deleted questions he asked about.
 
 
1 hour later…
3:29 AM
Hi. I guess stack exchange locks threads for comments after they become old, is that so?
Is it possible to unlock them?
 
i've haven't heard about any such thing
 
Well uh
here is a question from the top of the pile:
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/86935/homotopy-of-singular-n-simplices

Notice that each "answer" (there is only one) has a link for "add comment"
here is a question from 6 weeks ago or so:
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/70938/coordinate-free-definition-for-the-riemannian-volume-form

the "add comment" link is not there. It seems that I can still answer the question, but if I want to engage in discussion via comments, I cannot.
or am I missing something? Is it still open for comments and I'm just not seeing it?
are you able to comment on that old thread?
 
@ziggu : I am able to find add comment button in both of the questions you have mentioned !
 
3:45 AM
really?
that's weird.
hmmm
you know what.
for some reason I'm not logged in on that window
I reload in a new window and everything works
mystery solved!
thank you, Rajesh!
 
ok
i happened to me sometimes
 
@ziggurism Do you see an "add/show 1 more comment" link?
below the comments.
 
@robjohn: I do, yes. Actually I see the "comment" link too now. Problem was that I wasn't logged in (in another tab)
 
Ah, okay.
 
but thank you, sir!
 
3:54 AM
hi @rob
howz the day goin
 
Rajesh
you could look at jump discontinuities with respect to a directional derivative
but I don't think it really makes sense to extend the concept
 
4:26 AM
Becaue you can create a function which jumps different amounts and in different directions in each of the straight lines approaching your point. I don't think the idea is as simple. – Alex Youcis
@Jacob : in this case (different amount of jumps in different directions)...for the function to be continuous in some neighborhood (except at that point) of the given point, do we need any restrictions on the amounts of jumps in different directions ?
except at that point
 
4:40 AM
So you'd say a function has a jump discontinuity
if it has a jump discontinuity
at each directional derivative?
 
 
3 hours later…
7:29 AM
hello there
 
7:49 AM
Good morning.
 
7:59 AM
good afternoon Matt
 
Hi guys.
 
hi
 
8:46 AM
hello there
 
Hi
 
hi matt
what are you interests ?
 
Mathematically or in general?
 
math first !
 
I like topology, algebraic topology, functional analysis and algebra. So far : ) You?
 
8:55 AM
Do you like Sober spaces?
 
i love geometry but i am an absolute beginner
 
@AsafKaragila Did you mean Sobolev spaces?
 
No. I meant Sober spaces.
In mathematics, a sober space is a topological space such that every irreducible closed subset of X is the closure of exactly one point of X: that is, has a unique generic point. Properties and examples Any Hausdorff (T2) space is sober (the only irreducible subsets being points), and all sober spaces are Kolmogorov (T0). Sobriety is not comparable to the T1 condition. Moreover T2 is stronger than T1 and sober, i.e., while every T2 space is at once T1 and sober, there exist spaces that are simultaneously T1 and sober, but not T2. One such example is the following: let X be the se...
 
Not heard of it before.
 
Were you drunk?
 
8:57 AM
Probably. : )
 
heh
How many beginner Go players does it take to change a lightbulb? - None, they don't see ladders.
 
Do questions about matrix-based coordinate transformations go here?
 
Here in the chat? Probably not.
 
Well, it feels a bit short for a full-fledged question.
 
Then you can try.
It's the lack of LaTeX which makes matrices impossible.
 
9:04 AM
Hello, how can I show a negation of a property in LaTeX?
 
It's really just a question of wether a torus can have its radius and thickness adjusted separately using matrix transformations.
 
@Gigili \neg ?
 
@Gigili Huh??
\lnot > \neg :-)
 
Like B and B prim
 
I am not sure what you are trying to do.
 
9:06 AM
@Daniil Um, not that one .. I don't what it's called =\
 
Can you give us an example of what are you trying to do?
 
$ A=(A\cap B)\cup(A\cap \primB) $
I want to prove this
First one is B, the second one is (M - B)
 
LaTeX is just a typeset, you cannot "show a negation of a property" in it.
 
Or (S -B)
 
What do you want to typeset tho?
 
9:08 AM
(S-B)
 
S\setminus B
 
i.imgur.com/Qxeh3.jpg what is this D8
Uh, I really should stop browsing reddit
 
@AsafKaragila Do we have in mathematics something like "van" or "wan"?
 
=\
Van diagram
Or something like that
 
9:21 AM
Venn?
 
@AsafKaragila Exactly, thank you.
According to that, I need to write B prim,
Like this , if B was the white circle
The red part
 
coset of B?
 
In LaTeX?
 
B' ??
 
Yes :D
Sorry for being extremely silly.
 
9:31 AM
Was there someone here that wanted to do a PhD in Louvain-La-Neuve? I have a guy from there sitting in my office :-). So if there are any questions...
 
So if I have x_n -> x weakly implies Tx_n -> Tx weakly, where T : X -> Y is a linear map and X,Y are normed spaces, how can I show that T is continuous?
 
You can force it to be.
 
: P
 
What does x_n -> x weakly mean?
(to you)
 
For all phi in X^*: phi(x_n) -> phi(x)
 
9:35 AM
It barely gets there... it takes forever!
 
I guess I need to do something with phi(Tx_n) -> phi(Tx)...
To show that it's continuous, do I try to show that it's bounded or use the epsilon delta definition?
 
Did you already try any of them? :-).
I would suggest that you just try and see if it works, that will help you more. If you get stuck you can ask for help (unless you're already stuck of course).
 
I thought I was stuck already.
It's homework so I have basically zero energy to try stuff. Must be psychological.
 
Do you know PUB?
 
The place you go to drink?
 
9:48 AM
So then you know that weakly convergent sequences are bounded.
Principle of uniform boundedness.
 
@JonasTeuwen I only know Pubs...
Uniform boundedness principle? I tried that already
I don't think it fits here
@JonasTeuwen: Thanks, I'll try again!
 
Assume T is unbounded, then there exists a sequence x_n converging weakly to 0 such that ||T(x_n)|| -> infty.
 
@Matt: If pubs won't do the work, try pubes.
 
kinky
 
(And what do you know about convergent real sequences?)
 
9:54 AM
@JonasTeuwen I think your previous comment answers the question. Or am I missing something?
 
Well, those are bounded hence Tx_n cannot converge weakly.
 
I think I'm confused.
 
Dazed and Confused?
 
Possibly.
 
I don't know whether adding a verification as I did in this answer is useful enough to justify the extra length of the post.
 
: )
 
@JonasTeuwen sounds about right.
 
Damn :D.
 
10:18 AM
@Daniil That is hilarious!
 
At first I thought this was not satirical and got really anxious
 
: D
 
That doesn't seem real.
 
10:27 AM
haha
 
@Daniil The author is strangely familiar...
 
8D
 
I wonder how the other students cope with all the homework. Maybe I'm just infinitely slow compared to others.
 
Well no.
I'm correcting FA homework. They suck mighty at making homework.
You just want to do it right, I suppose.
2
 
Do you have the same system as ETH? Need to show "effort" and then get score and if score is high enough be admitted to the exam?
As opposed to getting it right?
 
10:35 AM
No. The homework counts for 50%.
No, you want to get it right too :-).
 
@JonasTeuwen Yes I do. Very much so. But most of the time the questions are just so many and so difficult that I have to write something to show "effort". It's very depressing.
Here they figured that they can't require people to get it right because the questions are too difficult. So instead of making the questions easier they require you to write something and you get points for it even if it's wrong.
Really, it's hard to find words to convey to you just how depressing it is.
 
I can imagine :-).
 
Well, this makes sense to me. Even if you fail they can show your mistakes and might help you better.
But it does sound depressing
 
@Matt So both you and t.b. are in Zurich? Is he one of your teachers?
 
@MartinSleziak Yes and no, unfortunately not. I think I would like him very much, he seems to have infinite patience and is very gentle.
 
10:43 AM
Well, at least we can say that he teaches you FA here at MSE.
 
@MartinSleziak Yes, lucky me : )
 
I believe he posted answers or comments to most of your FA questions...
 
Yes. And he's had a huge influence on me. I'm not sure he's aware of that.
Oh, pup needs a stroll, brb
 
Hi everyone. I'm having an "applied mathematics" problem, in the form of what I can most precisely describe as bilinear regression, but a special case of that. Anyone feel like helping?
 
"bilinear" - two independent variables, then?
 
10:57 AM
I'm trying to fit a Dirac probability density j^0 (from relativistic QM) to a step function, where each basis spinor is a bunch of BesselJ functions
so I have say, 10 coefficients for 10 basis spinors, and the density I'm fitting is 1x4-vector times a 4x1 vector, resulting in a bilinear form as math describes them.
so, say, psi = a1 psi1 + a2 psi2, and j0 = psi^\dagger psi
which results in the density j^0 being of the form: sum_(i,j) a_i a_j psi_i' psi_j
so, it's not the general bilinear form, as the coefficients are a mixture of the underlying coefficients, greatly reducing the amount.
I've tried a brute-force function minimalization (Matlab's fminsearch), but the result is not good :(
I hope my explanation is somewhat clear...
I could formulate/write up a proper question?
 
Back.
 
I've found this, but it's too general and maybe not exactly the same: cs.duke.edu/~tomasi/papers/cohen/cohenTr97a.pdf
 
11:14 AM
"I've tried a brute-force function minimalization" - and you don't have good starting points, then?
 
@Martin: you've been busy on the main site.
All but 4 of the entries are modified last by you.
 
@robjohn Twice a week, approximately 10 question from algebra tag.
I've discussed it with Willie Wong, we agreed that this is a reasonable rate: meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1363/…
Srivatsan plans to eradicate , see this meta post: meta.math.stackexchange.com/a/2755/8297
 
Still, it is daunting to see all the questions with the same avatar underneath.
 
But we discussed it on chat and we agreed not doing the algebra retagging and number retaggin on same days.
 
Why would that be a problem?
 
11:21 AM
BTW do wa have meta post concerning metapost?
@robjohn Too many old questions bumped on the main site.
Originally I started retagging algebra at the rate cca 10-15 post per day. That was really too much.
 
Ah, so people don't have to scroll down many pages to get to true new problems.
It's too bad that there isn't a way to adjust a post without adjusting the date (mod power).
 
When we already discuss tags, is intended for questions about equivalence relations, partial orders and similar. Basically thing from the first course in discrete math or elementary set theory.
I would even say that it is subset of .
Does it sound right?
(At least this is what I would guess when I look at the questions tagged relations.)
 
I don't know. relation seems more far reaching than simply set-theory
 
Do we really need to have ?
 
that is a good question, too.
 
11:26 AM
I'd prefer it be subsumed, but maybe you guys can convince me differently?
 
I'd have to look to see what kinds of problems are in it.
 
Ok, I asked this because I wanted a tag wiki+tag excerpt to indicate what kind of questions should belong there.
I was under the impression that this was the intended use. (I even added this tag to some questions about equivalence relations.)
 
There are many posts I can see just skimming that I would not know where to put, if not relation, and relation is the only tag they have.
or relation and reference-request...
etc
 
My first draft for tag wiki was this
A *relation* $R$ on a set $A$ is any subset of $A\times A$. Often we write $xRy$ instead of $(x,y)\in R$.

This tag is intended for questions concerning partial orders, equivalence relations, properties of relations (transitive, symmetric,...), composition of relations and similar stuff. More-or-less the things about relations

For more information see e.g. [wikipedia article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relation_%28mathematics%29).
*******
But maybe I misunderstood the intended use of the tag.
 
@JM do you have a suggestion where to subsume ?
 
11:30 AM
Sorry I mean .
 
@MartinSleziak so did I :-)
 
It looks as if most of what's in there can fold into
 
J.M. wrote relation not relations above.
But that one is empty.
 
@MartinSleziak I know. but there is no relation tag as far as I can see.
 
oops, I forgot to pluralize. :D
 
11:31 AM
@JM I would prefer having both e-s-t and relations for such questions.
 
Ah, it is empty.
 
But that's just my opinion.
 
Maybe post in that long thread, Martin. :)
 
what about this suggestion
 
11:33 AM
e-s-t shortcut of elementary-set-theory
 
@AsafKaragila: Ok. I'm back to set theory now. And I have entertainment for you: if p in P is a condition and P is a poset and dot(p) denotes the canonical p-name of p and dot(p)[G] is the interpretation map of dot(p) into G then what is dot(p)[{p}]?
 
I know, I was just funnin' ya
 
@JM My suggestion: I will write tag wiki and tag excerpt indicating what is recommended use of that tag.
If you feel strongly about removing it, post in the long thread.
(I will probably vote agains removing it.)
Is it ok for you?
 
11:45 AM
I don't feel that strongly about it... :)
 
ok, so I'll try to add tag wiki - so that at least people know how to use it.
And if somebody will come up with the suggestion to remove the tag, we can discuss it on meta.
 
I just fooled myself. I hate induction.
Does anyone know what the sum over i 2^{i - 1} should sum to?
 
Wolfram Alpha knows: n 2^n -2^n + 1
 
Wasn't that asked here before?
 
11:51 AM
Possibly. I don't know.
 
@JM : no I don't have good starting points :(
 
@rubenvb Your problem is then exceedingly hard. Doesn't the underlying theory allow you to estimate good starting values?
@MartinSleziak Likely, it has. Sadly searching math is tough.
 
Or at least sums of similar kind like k*4^k.
I have feeling that I saw something like that.
 
@JM Damn, that's what I feared. I need to simulate a near-constant density. I tried only using the "large" component of the spinor, but the deviation at the edges is unacceptable.
That's the flattest I get is by experimenting with fitting the large component. this is j^0 vs r
notice the high peaks at the end. The center dip is supposed to be there
I'm currently attempting to extend plain linear regression for my purposes, but I hoped someone knew of an existing method. I guess mathematics is failing me here :)
 
phew. Fixed.
 
12:00 PM
@rubenvb As it stands, every iterative method ever made demands a starting point from its users. More often than not, the whole business is GIGO.
 
garbage indeed. I was looking for a non-iterative method...
 
hi @JM
 
hi
@rubenvb The Bessels make things quite complicated, too. Solving transcendental equations is often a pain.
 
@JM did you see this
 
@JM but the Bessels really are only numbers. It's like fitting a linear combination of arbitrary functions to a curve defined by data points, linear regression (ie: Ax=b => x=b\A) works just fine. Now, I have a bilinear combination of arbitrary functions.
I'll write up a decent question that might make everything more clear
 
12:32 PM
Off to torture class. Be seeing you!
 
1:01 PM
Hmm, torture class... They have very unconventional curriculum.
2
 
1:16 PM
@MartinSleziak Wanna hear a math joke?
 
An engineer, a physicist and a mathematician are driving along the county side and they see a black sheep on the side of the road; the engineer says "ALL sheep are black" the physicist says "Nonsense, only some sheep are black" the mathematician ponders for awhile and finally says "All we know is at least ONE sheep is black and it is black on at least ONE side."
 
Well, it's quite famous one I guess.
At least I heard this one before.
 
I don't really get it?
 
Well it's about the level of precision.
Mathematicians are trying to express themselves very precise.
 
1:19 PM
precision?
 
At least they are supposed to.
 
@Skullpatrol Engineers make blatant assumptions, Physicists assume logical things (most of the time ;-)) and Mathematicians don't make any assumptions at all.
 
If you hear: Let us choose any x,y \in [0,1].
Any normal person would assume that x and y are two different numbers.
 
@rubenvb How true is "Mathematicians don't make any assumptions at all."
 
Mathematician would say "Let us choose x,y \in [0,1] such that x!=y" to stress that they are different.
@rubenvb I think adding mathjax support for chat was asked before at meta. And it was declined.
 
1:22 PM
Well, that's the limit of the joke, really. The mathematicians I know shudder when we juggle with partial differential equations, or implicitely assume some angle is small. They would go all-in to solve it analytically.
@MartinSleziak probably performance related?
 
@MartinSleziak Hey Martin, which browser do you use? FF or Chrome?
 
But you might be interested in this question, if you want find some different possibilities for chat using TeX: math.stackexchange.com/questions/81365/…
@Gigili Firefox
 
I installed a very useful Chrome extension about German, wanted to know if you want to use it as well ..
 
@rubenvb Thanks for the explanation
 
Well, I'm not planing to switching from Firefox.
 
1:25 PM
I see
 
@Skullpatrol I've always assumed that.
 
Then :|
 
@robjohn Assumed what?
 
Asaf mentioned this in chat.
But I guess you'll get some pointers in your question at meta.
 
1:26 PM
@Skullpatrol That "Mathematicians don't make any assumptions at all."
 
@rubenvb This question is related to yours, but not much was said there: meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1088/…
 
@robjohn But some assumptions are needed to make any progress, isn't it?
 
@MartinSleziak thanks, strange silence. I'm surprised the math chat is as active as the SO C++ chat. It's nice to know :)
 
@Skullpatrol It was a joke... I've always assumed that Mathematicians never make assumptions.
 
@rubenvb This is actually a slow day. :)
 
1:30 PM
@rubenvb It might have something to do with the timezone in which the chatters live.
@JM That, too.
 
@rob: I have a feeling your solution in that thread can be recast to use Chebyshev... :) but I haven't thought about it thoroughly.
 
@JM Oh, I'm sure you're right, but I usually do my variational methods a bit strangely. :-)
 
@robjohn then you cannot be a mathematician?
 
@rubenvb If you are to assume that I believe that mathematicians never make assumptions.
 
@robjohn Is that really what the joke is about?
@rubenvb Are you a mathematician?
 
1:36 PM
@Skullpatrol I assume so ;-)
 
@Skullpatrol nope, physicist (second year master student, so not quite yet)
 
@robjohn When you said "I assume" were you playing with words
 
@Skullpatrol Yes.
 
implying that you're not a mathematician
because they don't like to assume
 
or trying to parody the statement, because I don't think it is true...
There are many explanations. :-)
 
1:41 PM
@robjohn I agree
thanks for the explanation
@rubenvb Good luck with your physics
 
@Skullpatrol Thanks, I'll need it :)
I have a f-ugly expression for a special-case bilinear regression. Ugh
 
1:56 PM
I'm getting some odd results here…
Please confirm: A line defined by two points can be transformed by transforming each point using a transformation matrix, correct?
 
@WillihamTotland yes
At least if the transformation is affine.
 
Good.
Ah.
That may or may not be the case.
Scaling and translation are both affine, right?
 

« first day (483 days earlier)      last day (4533 days later) »