« first day (1566 days earlier)      last day (3752 days later) » 

22:00
Why would a sockpuppet favorite?
Out of stupidity.
It does not make sense
God. Be better at this you guys!
hello. I'm trying to find the limit as h goes to 0 of: [ 1 - cos (3h) ] / [ cos^2 (5h) - 1 ] .... I tried applying the identity sin^2 x + cos^2 x = 1 but I do not seem to be arriving anywhere. Could someone please give me a nudge in the right direction?
The harmful thing is here: two answers by clones get upvotes from other clones. Their score grows gradually, in unison.
I recall @MikeMiller flagged that post for mod attention, but apparently the evidence wasn't conclusive?
It hasn't been denied yet.
22:02
Hmmm.
I will flag as well.
For Completion.
@Rafflesiaarnoldii Has sufficient evidence.
I reckon @Rafflesiaarnoldii would be like supernanny as a mod.
@Rafflesiaarnoldii You should participate more on HSM
maybe you could run for mod.
He made an argument against being mod earlier that I don't disagree with.
SE is eating far too much of my time as is. Especially now that I got to downvoting on SO...
@Rafflesiaarnoldii Oh no. You started downvoting on SO?
It will not end
those 13k review queues
22:07
Now that I object to.
Heh, 8 out of 10 most recent answers on meta are by me. Maybe someone else here has an opinion on something, too.
@MikeMiller What is the objection?
We need you here! StackOverflow can sink.
@MikeMiller They have 40 reviews per day.
But I'm not doing reviews with my 130-something rep... Besides, my review extension page has no limit. :)
Holy crap @Rafflesiaarnoldii. Nearly 11,000 downvotes, and just 6 upvotes :O
22:11
@Rafflesiaarnoldii I am scared to press it.
@KajHansen It is not hard when there is a lot of crap coming in all the time.
@Alizter, that's true. I rarely downvote, and instead upvote whenever I see lots of effort on behalf of the OP.
@KajHansen Downvoting questions does not cost one rep.
It is good to get rid of low quality questions quickly so that the high quality ones can be answered.
I vote up and down. Mainly on questions.
@Alizter, I should spend a little time thinking about my philosophy RE: my interaction with this site.
I vote up usually on answers.
I downvote unsalvageable questions.
22:14
@MikeMiller That seems to be about 25% these days sadly.
I downvote salvageable questions that nobody jd going to salvage either.
I also downvote people who answer PSQs...
My breakdown is 434 up / 34 down
Doesn't seem to discourage them.
PSQ? @MikeMiller
905 up, 268 down
22:16
@KajHansen I have a doubt in field theory..
separability..
@KajHansen "Problem Statement Question", a copy-pasted homework assignment.
Sure @SwapnilTripathi
No promises though :P
i have to show that an irreducible polynomial over a field of characteristic 0 is separable
22:17
In this answer http://mathoverflow.net/a/65441/50868, why can we say that $X$ is diagonal, and why can we say that $\prod_{i=1}^{n}(1 + \lambda_{i})
\geq 1 + \prod_{i=1}^{n} \lambda_{i}$ ?
@SwapnilTripathi Ooo field theory. Mum get the popcorn!
i know the definition of separability. and some conditions.
@KajHansen
@Swapnil Think about the relationship between $f$ and $f'$.
Oh that's not bad @SwapnilTripathi
@Alizter haha
22:18
@Hippalectryon that product is the determinant
the second one
You just need to show that $f$ is irreducible $\implies$ $f$ has no repeated root.
they don't have any common factors?
Two people are separable is they talk too much during class
Where $f$ is a polynomial over either $\mathbb{Q}$ or some extension of $\mathbb{Q}$.
@Alizter I don't get why the inequality hold.
22:19
@Hippalectryon What does playing with eigenvalues do?
Think about it
@KajHansen yes!! is that some hint?
the determinant of a matrix with larger eigen values
What do you mean 'playing with evalues' ?
larger than what ?
These hints should suffice @Swapnil. Think about them for a bit.
is $\lambda$ not eigen value
22:19
the lambdas are eigenvalues of X
right
the product is $\det X$
what will happen to the matrix if the eigenvalues increase by 1?
Because that is the det of $X_\text{new}$
Each diagonal term will increase by 1
Since it's diagonal
and so on and so on
so the det will be different no?
or in this case larger by at least 1
22:22
Well I get that the first one will be greater than the second of the lambdas are positive (are they?)
I don't get why the diff is >1
What does the det tell you?
back to basics
If it's invertible ?
area of palleppepeld
nailed it
We never learn it that way
If the "sides" increase by 1
22:23
@KajHansen I am not able to figure that out. I didn't post it as a question because I know it is a silly question.
the area increases by at least 1
intuitionally
@KajHansen anything more? :/
@Alizter Oj=k i got that one point
@Alizter Now, why are the lambdas positive ?
(X is defined positive)
@SwapnilTripathi, try to prove that a polynomial $f$ is separable $\iff$ $f$ and $f'$ have distinct roots. That is, $f$ and $f'$ are relatively prime to each other.
22:24
@Hippalectryon It is something like taht
I have done that @KajHansen
@Alizter Like what 'that' xD
@Hippalectryon I am in one of those moods where I can't write things down. (I am not high).
@Alizter Oh wait
@Alizter It's obvious
Clcik
22:26
@Alizter Still one last question
@Alizter Why can we say that X is like a diag matrix ?
Did you not say X was
'It suffices to prove that if X is positive definite and Hermitian, then det(I+X)≥(1+detX). We may conjugate X by a unitary matrix U and assume that X is diagonal.'
@Hippalectryon You should ask an expert. I am merely selling you organs in an alley way.
Insta-star
POLICE POLICE
That's most of the work, then. So our given $f$ is irreducible @SwapnilTripathi. What if $f'$ were not relatively prime to $f$?
Think about it for a little bit :)
22:29
@Alizter I guess I have to wait for Ted :)
I feel lonely without @Chris'ssis :/
blows horn
@TedShifrin
@Hippalectryon Where is she?
@Alizter Gone, I hope not forever ..
It would be very very sad ...
Maybe she will increase productivity and finally publish?
@DanielFischer I have to show that $<x-1,y+x^2-1>$ is a maximal ideal.
Now we have shown, that $ker(\phi)=<x-1,y>$
22:34
@DanielFischer How can we continue?
#
@KajHansen I am just making a wild guess as it is all that comes to my mind. f and f' are both polynomials over some field K. So their gcd is also a polynomial over K? And that makes f reducible.
@evinda Do you remember the $\phi$ from above?
@Hippalectryon Oh my.
OR!
You're close @SwapnilTripathi
@Alizter Now read her profile
22:36
@DanielFischer It was $\phi(z)=z, \forall z \in \mathbb{C}$, $\phi(x)=1, \phi(y)=0$
How can we use this? :)
@KajHansen You can't be serious!! Let me think..
Actually, I should say that you're finished if you can show that the two polynomials is $1$. Suppose that the gcd were not $1$ @SwapnilTripathi
I.e. a nontrivial GCD.
@Hippalectryon I liked the sky one better
@Alizter :/
@evinda That's a homomorphism with kernel $\langle x-1,y\rangle = \langle x-1, y+x^2-1\rangle$. What is $\operatorname{im} \phi$?
22:38
@DanielFischer How can we find this?
@evinda Considering how $\phi$ acts on $\mathbb{C}$, there's not much room for choice.
Then it would have a root 'a' and (x-a) would be a factor? And $a\in\K$? Contradiction if $\gcd\ne 1$?
@Alizter That being said, @Chris'ssis promised me she would tell me when her books comes out, so she has to come back here !!!
@KajHansen
I'm here
22:40
@KajHansen i wrote something and forgot to tag.
@Hippalectryon I hate to break it to you, but promises can be broken.
check my answer ^^
Oh oops
@DanielFischer (҂ಥ◇ಥ҂)
cries in a corner
@DanielFischer I haven't understood how we could find $\operatorname{im} \phi$.. Could you explain it further to me? :/
22:41
@Hippalectryon But usually, Chris'sis came back after a few days, so you can still hope.
@DanielFischer I do hope !!!!
You're getting warmer @SwapnilTripathi. GCD $\neq 1$ literally means that there is a nonconstant $h(x)$ such that $h(x)|f(x)$ and $h(x)|f'(x)$
@DanielFischer I have about 150 screenshots of her awesome results
@evinda $\phi \colon \mathbb{C}[x,y] \to \mathbb{C}$, so the image is a $\mathbb{C}$-subalgebra of $\mathbb{C}$. There aren't many.
@Hippalectryon Eh. (S)he can do what (s)he likes. For the time being do not worry or waste time. Traces and Determinants boy.
22:44
@DanielFischer I haven't got taught subalgebras.. Is this the only way to find the image?
@TedShifrin :DDD
@Hippa @Alizter \o
Qu'est-ce que tu fais là, @Hippa?
@Studentmath \o
@Studentmath What happened to your other arm?
22:44
@TedShifrin J'ai besoin d'aide :/
Bonsoir @TedShifrin
Hi @TedShifrin Hippa can't matrix without you.
@Alizter it's hiding\
hi @DanielF, @Studentmath, @Kaj, @Alizter ...
@Ted !
22:45
@evinda Well, it's a subset of $\mathbb{C}$, and $\phi(c) = c$ for constants, so ...?
@Alizter!
damn
@KajHansen Yes, I know that. It was used while proving the theorem by contraposition too. The root 'a' I talk about is a root of h(x).
I like this question I assigned this week, @Studentmath:
Hi @Ted. Good start of the week?
@TedShifrin Could you tell me why in mathoverflow.net/a/65441/50868 we can say that $X$ is diagonal ? 't suffices to prove that if X is positive definite and Hermitian, then det(I+X)≥(1+detX). We may conjugate X by a unitary matrix U and assume that X is diagonal.'
22:45
@Studentmath: The number of people $Y$ who enter an elevator on the ground floor is a Poisson random variable with mean $10$. If there are $N$ floors above the ground floor and if each person is equally likely to get off at any one of those $N$ floors, independently of all the others, what is the expected number of stops that the elevator will make before discharging all its passengers?
I know. But what does that tell you @SwapnilTripathi? Look closer. If you are supposing for contradiction that the GCD is nontrivial, then what must $h$ be?
not really, @DanielF: 1/3 of my students, including several of the best, "skipped" class today in probability. Very pissed off.
Remember, $h \in F[x]$, over your base field.
Hai yall all alls
stop trying to sound Southern, @Pedro
22:46
@Ted that's awesome
@TedShifrin I start probabilities tomorrow :D
@TedShifrin Uh, was there something special yesterday?
Let me work it out, need to refresh my mind from these random graphs..
@Studentmath can help you, @Hippa :P I'm done learning.
@ted but but but
22:47
@DanielFischer Pancakes day probably :)
@KajHansen h(x) is irreducible?
@TedShifrin You should calculate the probability of students skipping class
Maybe! Remember our $f$ is irreducible...
That way you won't be surprised :p
@Hippalectryon 1/3 apparently
22:47
Probably $1$, @Hippa. Grumph.
@TedShifrin On a more serious basis, it would be great if you could see my question above :-)
So, h(x)=f(x) and h(x)|f'(x). That's a contradiction!!!! @KajHansen
There we go! @SwapnilTripathi
@DanielFischer Do we conclude from $\phi: \mathbb{C}[x,y] \to \mathbb{C}$, that $\im \phi \subseteq \mathbb{C}$ ? How could we show this?

What can we conclude from the fact that $\phi(c) = c$ for constants? :/
@Hippa: Hermitian matrices are unitarily diagonalizable?
22:49
Technically, it's possible if $f'(x) = 0$ @SwapnilTripathi, but that'll never happen for nonconstant polynomials :)
@TedShifrin What does that exactly mean ? (btw I'm working on the real case, so I don't even have to worry about the Hermitian property)
@TedShifrin I tried to intuition it with parapillipilipilids but no luck.
Spectral theorem, @Hippa. Any real symmetric matrix can be diagonalized by an orthonormal change of basis.
What are you talking about, @Alizter?
@TedShifrin Oh thanks
Goes back in hole
22:50
@evinda If the codomain is $\mathbb{C}$, the image is trivially contained in $\mathbb{C}$. The fact about the constants tells you that $\operatorname{im} \phi = \mathbb{C}$.
@Pedro Don't bother with that problem I gave you. It's wrong.
You should never tell him that, @Mike.
So by the so-and-so-many-th isomorphism theorem, $$\mathbb{C}[x,y]/\ker \phi \cong \mathbb{C}.$$
Keep bothering with that problem I gave you, @Pedro. It's right.
@KajHansen Thank you so much!! And thanks for clarifying this too, I hadn't thought of it. I read this somewhere as a remark below a corollary"f(x) is separable iff f'(x)\ne 0 over a field of characteristic 0". I didn't quite get where should f'(x) be non zero. On whole field? Guess not. If we consider g(x)=x^2-2. Then g'(0)=0 but g is irreducible.
22:52
@MikeMiller to me iys k x k
I wonder if @Studentmath is bothering with the problem I gave him :D
I am now :P
It's fun
The hardest part is recognizing which "standard" problem it builds on.
@TedShifrin By the way I have another unsolved question that might interest you
@DanielFischer I see why the image is trivially contained in $\mathbb{C}$.
How could we prove it, that if $\phi(z)=z \forall z \in \mathbb{C}$, that $\operatorname{im} \phi = \mathbb{C}$?
22:53
Nothing interests me, @Hippa.
4
Q: Maximum dimension of a nilpotent vector space

HippalectryonWhat is the maximum dimension of a vector space of $\mathcal{M}_n(\mathbb{R})$ containing only nilpotent matrices ? ($\mathcal{M}_n(\mathbb{R})$ : matrices $n\times n$ with coefficients in $\mathbb{R}$) I don't really know how to solve this problem.There must be a way to give some good upper b...

@TedShifrin :/
@Pedro I based it on a problem out of Matsumura I was having a hard time with. I was having a hard time because the problem was wrong.
Oh no @SwapnilTripathi. It means literally the zero polynomial. I.e. $f'(x) = 0$ for all $x$.
@evinda Given any $z\in \mathbb{C}$, you have an element of $\mathbb{C}[x,y]$ that is mapped to $z$ written right there.
@Ted if we look at one person, we can mark as success when he gets out, failure otherwise. We are looking for the first time of success, with $p=1/n$. So it's like Geometric distribution with $p=1/n$. I think.
Besides the fact that we are capped with $n$ trials
22:55
That's a good start, @Studentmath.
Not a geometric distribution, because we're looking for the number of different floors that people leave at.
@DanielFischer Doesn't this mean that $\phi$ is surjective? Or am I wrong?
Oh. I searched many websites which stated f'(x)\ne 0 for irreducible polynomials and used this corollary. Now I know why. :) Thanks! I've been stuck on many problems since the past few days and no one interested in this topic came online on chat. So I have one last problem too. Give hints on this too. "Separable extension of separable extension is separable."
@KajHansen
@evinda Yes, it means that $\phi$ is surjective.
How be you, @DanielF?
Hmmm. Surely we can use the thing we just proved. Let me think for a sec @SwapnilTripathi
22:58
watches smoke coming out of @Kaj's ears
@TedShifrin Not bad. I have caught a small cold, as usual in autumn.
Hi @JasperLoy Lol
This is trivial if the base field has characteristic $0$. Are things easier in Char = p?
@Ted Oh right. Even more interesting.
Yeah, here the weather goes up and down, down and up, and I have had students coughing all through class for the last month. :(

« first day (1566 days earlier)      last day (3752 days later) »