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

23:00
@Ted Is it possible for any passenger to decide he wants to spend the rest of his lives in the elevator, and not get out on any floor?
@Kaj: Does the criterion $f$ has a double root at $x=a$ iff $f(a)=f'(a)=0$ work in characteristic $p$?
No, I interpret it that he must get out on one of the floors $1,\dots,N$, @Studentmath.
@KajHansen That was for me?
For both of us @SwapnilTripathi, if you're referring to @TedShifrin's comment. But I'm just thinking out loud right now
@DanielFischer Can you explai me how we show in this way that $Im \phi \subset \mathbb{C}$ ?
@KajHansen Haha. No, the message that this is trivial if the base field has characteristic 0. That gave me a shock!
23:04
@evinda That follows directly from $\phi \colon \mathbb{C}[x,y] \to \mathbb{C}$. By definition that means the image of $\phi$ is contained in $\mathbb{C}$.
Thinking outloud, the chance of $k$ people stopping at the same floor is $1/N^k$
@Zach: How did you do on your exam?
We just showed that @SwapnilTripathi. For any field $F \subset K$, $K$ is separable if $char(F) = 0$.
@Ted eh, not great
I'm a bad test taker
True, @Studentmath. Better to think about how many floors have no one getting off.
23:05
So consider $F \subset E \subset K$ where each individual extension is separable.
Ah, sorry, @Zach. I've had students like that ...
@Zach so am I :P I feel your pain
@DanielFischer Oh yes.. I got it.. But I still haven't understood how we conclude in tis way that $\mathbb{C} \subseteq Im \phi$. Could you explain it further to me?
ouch. I had a bad hand cramp today.
Be careful, @Kaj. You know $E/F$ Galois and $K/E$ Galois doesn't mean $K/F$ Galois :P
23:06
@KajHansen: Oh, yes! It seems I suck pretty bad at applying stuff I already know!!
Ugh, I need to look back at what a "normal" extension means @TedShifrin. One sec.
I didn't learn Galois extensions in this context.
LOL, Galois = normal + separable
Indeed. But you said Galois = $[K:F] = |Aut(K/F)|$ in your book, IIRC ;)
@Ted Did you see the nonsense update to your integral question?
I'm only doing separable stuff, @Kaj, so be careful.
23:08
Or did you? You might've said Galois = splitting field of a polynomial
I proved that as iff, @Kaj.
@Mike, which question?
@evinda $\phi(c) = c$ for constant polynomials. Hence, for every $z\in\mathbb{C}$, we know a polynomial $p$ with $\phi(p) = z$, namely $p = z + 0\cdot x + 0\cdot y = z$.
At any rate, we've already shown that all extensions of a char=0 field are separable, so what @SwapnilTripathi is now trying to prove is done except for the case of char>0.
Think I got it.. $N$ is given, right? Not distribued somehow?
yes, @Studentmath, $N$ is fixed.
<--- wishes @Studentmath were in his class
23:10
@Ted don't be so hasty - I make tons of mistakes before I get things right :P
Hi, could somebody answer my question please? It has a +50 bounty math.stackexchange.com/questions/1019464/…
So do I, @Studentmath.
Well, Human nature I guess.. anyhow just a sec
Ugh, I have to go. I've been trying to multitask too much, and now I have a meeting.
bubye, @Kaj.
23:12
I look forward to looking at this further later tonight @Studentmath
@KajHansen: Sure. Thank you so much for your help. :)
wrong person, @Kaj
@Kaj I believe you meant to tag @Swapnil
Oops, meant to ping SwapnilTripathi. Indeed I did.
@TedShifrin: You're up next for helping me out? ;)
23:15
I haven't helped you, @Swapnil :)
Don't think it matters, actually? Or does it?
@TedShifrin: So will you now? :P
No, in a moment of panic, I thought it should, but it doesn't, @Studentmath ... so I removed my comment :p
nope, @Swapnil. I'm going to dinner.
Eating infants again ? ;)
@TedShifrin Haha. See you. :)
23:18
De quoi parles-tu, @Hippa?
ah, @Hippa, your memory is so much better than mine ... worthlessly so, but so.
@TedShifrin :D
I can at least remember the first 8 Bell numbers here
well, wait 'til you're my age :D
:O long time
23:20
ok, bubye, all, for now
@TedShifrin bye. :)
@SwapnilTripathi ?
do you get pinged when someone writes half of your name! was just checking. new here. ;)
23:22
:-)
You got pinged. Say yes atleast! And lol, nice profile. :D
@hippa
Yes
:D
@SwapnilTripathi Have you seen the second half of my desc ?
So what area of mathematics do you like?
What does that mean?
desc?
Well I'm in some kind of equivalent of college (I'm french), and I like everything :D
@SwapnilTripathi Description. On my profile.
@Ted $N-N*e^{-10/N}$?
23:26
@hippa Of the photo? :P
*oh
@SwapnilTripathi :-))
@SwapnilTripathi You can edit your messages if you have made a mistake
Just press the 'up' arrow in the empty chatbox
Oh. Thanks. Yeah got it! @hippa
@Hippa. I am from India and doing my Master's.
Though here. They don't teach us much maths. I've seen people on SE who have done their bachelors and have a much more diverse knowledge of subjects.
@Ted using expectation of the conditional expecatation where I set $Y=y$
23:29
Kinda saddens me.
@hippa
@SwapnilTripathi SE isn't a good example :) lots of exceptional people here
You mean to say every second one of them? ;)
I think it's right... I can't find the question on my edition though, now to wait for Ted to return from dinner..
@DanielFischer I understand!!!! Thank you!!!! I also want to show that the radical of the ideal $I=<X=x^5,y^3>$ of the ring $\mathbb{C}[x,y]$ is $Rad(I)=<x,y>$.

So far, I have shown that $<x,y> \subset Rad(I)$.

It remains to show that $Rad(I) \subseteq <x,y>$, right? But,how can we show this?
@SwapnilTripathi I am but a banana here :)
23:32
@hippa SE will make us better soon then. :D
I hope so :)
@evinda What is the characterising property of polynomials not belonging to $\langle x,y\rangle$?
@Ted Alternatively you could view the distribution of the number of floors where you do stop as $Bin(N, (\frac{N-1}{N})^Y$, and then N-E[Bin], and run expectation over that for $Y=y$ from 0 to $\infty$
@Ted The question about integrating $w_2 \cap c_1$. If you interpret his comment the obvious way his question is now worthless...
@DanielFischer If they don't belong to $\langle x,y\rangle$, and since we are working at $\mathbb{C}[x,y]$, the polynomials have to be constants.. Or am I wrong?
23:35
If you like to think about rings, here's a question about fixing an incorrect question of Matsumura's.
@evinda They need not be constants, $1+x \notin \langle x,y\rangle$.
@DanielFischer I see.. But, how can I find a property, that must be satisfied? :/
@evinda If you write down a generic polynomial in $x,y$, which part of it is not divisible by either $x$ or $y$?
What's a good way to show that any positive symmetric matrix $A$ can be written $A=^t MM$, $M$ invertible ?
By positive matrix you mean all its eigenvalues are positive?
23:40
In $\mathcal{S}_n^+$
Bye everyone! See you tomorrow, maybe. :)
Matrix such that $^tXAX>0,\forall X$
@SwapnilTripathi See you :)
I got your email @PedroTamaroff I will have time to read it through on Wednesday or Thursday
@DanielFischer Do you mean a polynomial of the form $\sum_{i,j=0}^n x^i y^{j}$ ?
OK, good. That's equivalent to my claim.
@KarlKronenfeld Did you see my Matsumura question?
23:41
@MikeMiller Oh true
Anyway, no, I can't help you. :)
@MikeMiller Yes. Currently thinking about it.
Can't recall if I drew a similar conclusion.
I'm really offended by the close vote that just fell. Did he even read my question?
@MikeMiller Was that for me or @KarlKronenfeld ?
You, @Hippalectryon
Don't recall how the proof goes.
23:44
Ah :/
@evinda There are coefficients missing.
@DanielFischer So, it should be of the form $\sum_{i,j=0}^n a_{ij}x^i y^{j}$, right? It is not divisible by either $x$ or $y$, if the constant term $a_{00}$ is non-zero, right? How can we use this fact?
@MikeMiller In your example $X$ is a zero divisor.
Bleh.. Of course, that's your point isn't it.
(Derp)
@evinda All terms except the constant term are divisible by $x$ or $y$. Hence $p\notin \langle x,y\rangle$ if and only if it has a nonzero constant term. Or, if and only if $p(0,0) \neq 0$.
@Karl The commenter is a moron.
23:48
@DanielFischer I understand!!! And how can we use this, in order to show that $Rad(I) \subset <x,y>$ ? :/
Why "This question does not appear to be about math within the scope defined in the help center"? math.stackexchange.com/questions/1026829/…
@MikeMiller He is. It still stands that your example is problematic. Indeed $\langle X, Y\rangle$ intersects $S$. Take for example $X+Y$, a non zero-divisor.
@evinda If $p(0,0) \neq 0$, can $(p^k)(0,0) = p(0,0)^k$ be $0$?
@Karl That's pretty upsetting.
I'm definitely cross about this.
23:54
@DanielFischer Why do we take at the beginning polynomials that do not belong to $\langle x,y\rangle$ ?
I don't know how I missed this. Ugffffh
@evinda We want to show $\operatorname{Rad}(I) \subset \langle x,y\rangle$. So we want to show $p \notin \langle x,y\rangle \implies p \notin \operatorname{Rad}(I)$.
A more abstract way to see that a non-minimal prime $\mathfrak p$ intersects $S$ is to note that $S$ is the complement of the minimal primes. If $\mathfrak p$ were a union of minimal primes, then use prime avoidance to derive a contradiction.
@DanielFischer Thank you so much for your answer, it explains everything I didn't understand very clearly
@MikeMiller Well, it's a nontriviality that zero-divisors of a Noetherian ring occur only in minimal primes.
23:57
Ok, that's what I needed. I hate that that guy was right.
I need to wait 5 more minutes to give you the bounty
@Twink You're welcome.
Yes, I know. But you just provided a proof.
@MikeMiller Fortunately or unfortunately, he turns out to be an asshole who is pretty damn knowledgeable about ring theory.
@MikeMiller I don't claim to truly understand prime avoidance. :)
so it's still nontrivial in my mind

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