« first day (2636 days earlier)      last day (2388 days later) » 

7:00 PM
@MatheiBoulomenos okay that's sick
 
Brilliant @BalarkaSen
 
And lol so many times I'm like "If I say something wrong, modify it to what's right and that's what I meant"
 
Last soft question: Do imaginary numbers actually exist or are they just a mathematical tool? It always makes sense to say "1 thing", "Nothing (=0)", etc..but doesn't make any sense to say "$\sqrt{-1}$ apple".
 
@Abcd I assume counting with multiplicity?
'Cause otherwise $(x-a)^2(x-b)$ has two real roots
@Abcd They exist, but they no longer make sense for counting things
 
They are a thing as much as real numbers
 
7:03 PM
They describe other things instead
Natural numbers make sense for counting things, positive numbers make sense for measuring things, real numbers make sense for measuring change
 
They can describe the geometry of a plane. Do you think that a 2d plane exists?
 
Complex numbers are good for describing wave-like phenomena
 
Nope only dimensions that are multiples of 13 exist
 
Any example which I can understand?
 
@AkivaWeinberger I was thinking about that, but I don't immediately see why the complex numbers are more interesting in that phenomenon than compactifying $(\sin(x), \cos(x))$ to $e^{ix}$, say.
I.e., where is the complex structure being used?
 
7:05 PM
Differentiation? @BalarkaSen
 
@Abcd I mean in physics you have complex wave functions.
@AkivaWeinberger Um, differentiation of what?
 
Multiplication by i is just rotation by pi/2. Now extend everything linearly, asssuming all nice properties hold
 
@BalarkaSen yes, I don't know about them therefore asked for an example which I can understand...
 
TBH I don't know enough about physics to talk about where complex numbers are used
 
hi chat
 
7:07 PM
Hi @Eric
 
what's happening
 
@Akiva My point is the complex structure on $\Bbb R^2 = \Bbb C$ is, by definition, a choice of a linear transformation $J$ of $\Bbb R^2$ such that $J^2 = -I$
Which is, of course, what we call multiplication by $i$
 
@EricSilva clouds are moving about
 
@Daminark i dont believe u
 
7:08 PM
We are contemplating the ontology of complex numbers @EricSilva
 
I don't know if that's implicitly used
anywhere
in wave function theory
 
idt there's any good justification for the complex numbers that isn't posthoc other than that they solve quadratics
 
What does $O(x)$ mean? Is it just a series expansion?
 
Complex numbers are just a quotient of a polynomial ring. Pretty intuitive to me
 
Not $O(x)$?
 
7:10 PM
whoops
Yeah O(x)
 
@MatheiBoulomenos They're only intuitive once you define each of those words
 
if it were obvious how much they mattered it wouldnt have taken so long to figure out that they weren't black magic
 
@Phase O(x) is a class of functions. (When someone says $x^2+O(x)$, they mean $x^2+\text{something in that class}$.)
The class is,
 
man bryant is a badass
 
7:12 PM
very true
 
erm, $f(x)$ is in $O(x)$ if there exists a $C$ such that $|f(x)|<Cx$ for large enough $x$.
In other words, it's eventually essentially linear.
 
all his answers on MO astound me
 
Like, $x^2+2x+5+\frac3x$ is $x^2+O(x)$
 
or rather, functions which grow at most linearly
 
If we want to ignore everything linear and smaller we can write $O(x)$
 
7:13 PM
What about when there's a superscript on the O
 
I think in High School we should only learn mathematical techniques like $i$ and develop intuition about them later..
 
I mean, complex numbers are just a subalgebra of $M_{2\times2}(\Bbb R)$. If you accept that linear transformations of a 2d real vector spaceare a thing, you already accept complex numbers in some way
 
does $O^2(x)$ mean it grows at max as fast as some x^2 function?
 
No, that would be $O(x^2)$
 
whoops
I think I meant that. Memory's a bit shakey tonight
 
7:14 PM
I don't think I've ever seen $O^2(x)$
 
Yeah that was a mistake
 
I'm just asking because I was reading materials on peturbation theory methods with ordinary diff eq
and saw the O notation
 
@Abcd Unfortunately that would result in a bunch of students memorizing various techniques and having 0 understanding of it
 
By the way, I wrote "for large enough $x$". Sometimes they mean "for small enough $x$" depending on context
 
7:15 PM
which is already happening in large proportions in the education system of India
you wouldn't want to make it larger :P
 
yeah..
 
Like, $e^x=1+x+\frac{x^2}2+O(x^3)$ for $x\approx 0$
 
tbf i think sometimes motivation is overrated @Balarka
 
how so, @Eric?
 
Ah ok I see
 
7:16 PM
It depends on whether or not you're studying behavior near $0$ or near $\infty$
 
Because anything past the 3rd order x term would nearly vanish compared to x^3
for small x right
?
 
that makes sense then thanks, I was confused with the "big enough x" and peturbation theory mix x)
Thanks Akia
*Akiva
 
You're welcome
 
God I cant even type today
 
7:17 PM
Glad I could help :)
 
Akia is a good anime nickname for @Akiva
 
@Balarka it's that sometimes you just can't motivate things well to someone who doesn't have a significant base of knowledge already because most mathematical motivation is post hoc
 
@BalarkaSen "Akiba" and "Akira" are legit Japanese names
There's an asteroid out there named Akia I think
 
i mean historically lots of math develops the reverse order of what you expect because sometimes people just do shit and then realize why it mattered later
 
The right abstract motivation for determinants involves exterior powers and the most pain free way to define the exterior algebra is as quotient of the tensor algebra
 
7:19 PM
top 10 anime conspiracies:
1) Akiva Weinberger's first name
 
@MatheiBoulomenos I find that thinking of it as the way volume changes under the transformation is fine
It's how it's used in integrals and stuff
(Jacobians)
 
determinant is just volume of the parallelpiped spanned by the columns
 
historically determinants happened before matrices so that's kind of weird
 
which is why it appears in the integrals
you distort unit cubes under change of variables
infinitisimal unit cubes
and the distortion is the det of the image parallelpiped
it's also why forms can be integrated over chains
eat parallelpiped (v1 wedge v2 wedge ... vn), spit volume
ok, I gotta go now. I'll be back in a few minutes hopefully
 
I guess when Archimedes first found the area of an ellipse he was essentially using that fact
 
7:32 PM
As we know, Archimedes had exterior algebra in mind when doing so
 
@AkivaWeinberger he did find it ?
 
Another question
My textbooks etc all just assume the RHS when it comes to peturbation theory, I get they're only meant to provide a rough idea but where does it come from?
 
@GabrielRomon I think so
 
Like with one it equates $y'' + y = -2\epsilon (y')^2$
What's the motivation for choosing that form for the RHS? Is there a way to arrive at that conclusion without just fudging it and using a known easy form for the RHS?
 
I don't like that motivation, you have to define oriented volume over an arbitrary field
How do you even define orientation without determinants?
 
7:39 PM
How do I prove that $\lVert T^k x\rVert \leq \lVert T\rVert^k \lVert x\rVert$, hold true for any positive k, where T is nxn and x is nx1
 
Ohboy, today's SMBC is quite brilliant (slightly NSFW)
 
7:52 PM
Let $\phi$ be the solution to the IVP $$\dfrac{d\phi}{dt}(t) = e^{\phi^2(t)}\sin(\phi(t)) \\ \phi(0) = -\dfrac{\pi}{2}$$
Is it true that $\lim_{t\to\infty} \phi(t) = -\pi$ and $\lim_{t\to -\infty} \phi(t) = 0$?
 
@TastyRomeo okay that's sick
Sick in the awesome way
(I say sick to mean awesome but in this context it could be interpreted in something closer to the literal form)
 
8:04 PM
$$\frac1t\dfrac{\mathrm dt}{\mathrm d\varphi} = e^{-\varphi^2} \csc(\varphi)$$
@Lozansky the initial value isn't consistent, for the LHS becomes $0$ and the right hand side becomes $-e^{\pi^2/4}$
misleading notation
I would never put $(t)$ in that position
$$\dfrac{\mathrm dt}{\mathrm d\varphi} = e^{-\varphi^2} \csc(\varphi)$$
 
It is straight from the book :P
 
$$\int_0^\infty \ \mathrm dt = \int_{-\pi/2}^{x} e^{-\varphi^2} \csc(\varphi) \ \mathrm d\varphi$$
 
@LeakyNun No no it is true or false question
It should be easy
 
I know
LHS is +infty
but RHS can't go to +infty
nvm, it can
yes, both are right
 
Okay and why?
 
8:16 PM
to go to +infty you move left (because $e^{-x^2}\csc x$ is negative)
you want to find $x$ such that the integral becomes +infty for the first case and -infty for the second case
[note the $x$ is the upper limit of my integral on the RHS in case you haven't noticed]
no, it doesn't go to infty
nvm, it does
 
8:43 PM
hey chat
 
@BalarkaSen hi
 
@Lozansky Leaky's approach is right. $\int_{x_0}^x dy/f(y)$ is the right way to approach any incompleteness problem
 
@BalarkaSen incompleteness :o
 
That's how Godel did it
 
@LeakyNun Yeah, you have an ODE $y' = f(y)$ and you're supposed to find out the maximal time domain $[t_0, t_1]$ on which the integral curve starting at $x_0$ [read: soln to the ODE w/ initial condition $y(0) = x_0$] $\phi(t)$ is defined
If the time domain is full $\Bbb R$ the initial value problem is said to be complete
That's where the idea of "complete Riemannian manifold" originate from. Geodesics are defined for all time
@Daminark the notes i sent u mentioned this
 
9:01 PM
Uh... Hello. I wonder if any of you could explain to me just how the "Axiom of Regularity" from ZFC works, because many questions like this have already been answered on the forums, but I don't get the idea behind it. Everything is a set. Okay. But how does that work when e.g. x={1,4,12} and y=4 so y={4}, then the intersection would not be the empty set?
 
@BalarkaSen I think the naming is due to Hopf-Rinow
 
@MatheiBoulomenos You mean to say it's the other way around; because R manifolds which are complete metric spaces are precisely the "complete Riemannian manifolds", name \Bbb R-maximality of integral curves of ODEs are completeness?
That could be true
But all I really meant was these are related ideas :)
Eg literally in complete Riemannian manifolds the geodesic equation is a complete ODE
 
I don't know the history of the name, but it's kind of convenient to have such suggestive terminology
 
For sure.
 
I'm quite sure that "normal" extensions were named after the fact that they correspond to normal subgroups under Galois correspondence
 
9:08 PM
Of course.
 
btw, how do you prove that the exponential map is surjective on a compact connected Lie group? Our diff geo prof mentioned that it follows from Hopf-Rinow, but she didn't explain how
 
Hi yall
I could not sleep further
._.
This is aint good
11 pm and I got exam 9 am
I think I have to take a nap after couple hours
or that nap will be taken on exam ._.
 
@KasmirKhaan Oh hey, GMT+1?
 
i dont rememeber what that is
but UTC +1
would be the correct one :D
 
Nah, I like my Greenwich mean time more :D.
 
9:12 PM
haha :D yeah that what the G stands for now I remmeber
 
Even though it's incorrect. Man, it really is too late.
 
Depends what is late for you -.-
I used to stay up very late l
but now since I have to be there at 9 am
 
@MatheiBoulomenos Hm, you mean a compact connected Lie group with a biinvariant metric?
 
this is bad for me -__-
 
I guess left invariance suffices
 
9:14 PM
@KasmirKhaan Consider yourself lucky, I need to get up at 6am.
 
I think this is related to the fact that multiplication by g is an isometry for any g
 
@TheOutrageousZwibak ow >< why so early ?
 
Erm, scrap that last thing. Let me think.
 
Sigh one year left in school, that's why.
Also, screw that question I posed earlier. I am gonna try again tomorrow.
 
@Mathei So I think I came up with a tangential thing that Lie groups (with left invariant metric) are complete.
But that's really easy
You just start off from the identity, make a small geodesic segment, transport the geodesic to the end of the original segment, and ad infinitum to make it longer and longer
 
9:21 PM
Yes, that's works
 
@TheOutrageousZwibak Oh hey
Me too
 
I wonder what's a counterexample when you lift compactness, @MatheiBoulomenos
Moreover I wonder what's an example of a complete, positively curved (positive sectional curvature everywhere) manifold such that the exp is not surjective
'Cuz eg Lie groups with biinvariant (left- does not suffice) metrics are positively curved
It feels like if you have +ve curvature the situation is going to look like S^2, where it is badly surjective
All the geodesics bump into each other because of Jacobi fields business
 
Let $f$ be a numerical function defined on $(0,1)$ by $f(x)=2x^2$, and of course $f$ is continuous. Now, how is it that the function has no maximum value on the open interval, does this mean that there is no number $\alpha\gt 0$ so small that $f(1-\alpha)$ is the maximum value ? It seems that we can always chose a smaller $\alpha$. Continuity is so strange, or am I missing something here ?
 
10:01 PM
@FuzzyPixelz why $1-\alpha$?
it means there is no $\alpha \in (0,1)$ such that $f(\alpha)$ is bigger than all other values of $f(x)$ with $x \in (0,1)$.
 
I think $SL_2(\Bbb R)$ an example. $ A = \begin{pmatrix}
-1 & 1 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{pmatrix}$ is not the matrix exponential of a real $2\times2$-matrix. Suppose $A = \operatorname{exp}(B)$, with $\operatorname{tr}(B)=0$. If $B$ is nilpotent, then $B$ is similar to $0$ or $\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 \\
\end{pmatrix}$, but the matrix exponential of that has the wrong eigenvalues. So if $B$ is not nilpotent $\operatorname{tr}(B)=0$ implies that $B$ is diagonalizable, but the matrix exponential of a diagonalizable matrix is diagonalizble, but $A$ is not diagonalizible either.
 
@LeakyNun Perhaps to make $x$ very close to the "supposed" maximum value at $1$?
 
@FuzzyPixelz they are equivalent and using $1-\alpha$ is superfluous
"there is no number $\alpha \in (0,1)$ so close to $1$ that $f(\alpha)$ is the maximum value"
does this feel better for you?
 
@MatheiBoulomenos I am not convinced that the matrix exponential on this dude agrees with the exponential map. That's only if you have a bi-invariant metric; the standard metric on SL2(R) is not bi
 
Oh, I see
 
10:06 PM
On SO(n) it is true that Riemannian exp = matrix exp
because tr(A^TB) is in fact bi-inv
 
I know there isn't, and by the way I meant to make $\alpha$ an "infinitesimally small positive number?". Not trying to prove anything here, I'm just having a hard time convincing myself that there is no maximum value @LeakyNun.
 
@FuzzyPixelz make $\alpha$ an "infinitesimally close-to-1 number" instead
 
I see.
 
you just need to convince yourself that there is no "previous number" of 1
 
This is so counter-intuitive for me...
 
10:10 PM
could anyone help me understand factoring? I have an equation and then I factored it and graphed both of them but they arent the same??
 
What kind of equation ?
 
never mind i wrote it down wrong... haha
 
@FuzzyPixelz then spend a longer time convincing yourself of that :)
if $a<b$, then there is always a middle number $c$ such that $a<c<b$, namely $c=\dfrac{a+b}2$
 
Excuse me, but I fail to see the relevance ?
 
@FuzzyPixelz if $a<1$, then there is always another number $c$ such that $a<c<1$
i.e. if $a$ is the proposed previous number of $1$, then $c$ would be closer, contradiction
 
10:17 PM
@LeakyNun Thanks for your time, that helped frame it much better $:)$
 
welcome
 
@BalarkaSen wait, don't you always have a biinvariant metric on a compact lie group? By compactness, you have a bi-invariant finite Haar measure, so you can just take any metric and take avarages by some integral?
No, I guess that only gives you left-invariance, nvm
 
@MatheiBoulomenos Ah, no you are right.
You can just pick a metric on $\mathfrak{g}$, extend by left-multiplication to a left-invariant metric all of $G$ and then pull those back by right multiplication and integrate over all of G
That dude is right-invariant
Yes, so compact is the key
@MatheiBoulomenos By the way, the proof of the original statement you quoted is actually easy, I wasn't really thinking straight. If $M$ is complete Riemannian, any two points are joined by a geodesic (which is unique if length minimizing, ofc)
That's the same thing as saying exp is surjective, so :P
 
10:34 PM
Wow, I feel dumb now. I guess the "Lie group" thing is mentioned because compactness implies biinvarariant metric which implies that Lie-theory exp is Riemannian exp?
 
hello
 
hey
 
if i have the state $\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}|H\rangle_1|H\rangle_2+\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}e^{i\phi}|V\rangle_1‌​|V\rangle_2$
and I wanted the basis to be $|H\rangle$, $|V\rangle$, where $H$ would be similar to $|0\rangle$ and $V$ to $|1\rangle$
how could I get it from bra-ket notation to a matrix?
 
10:48 PM
What does it mean when you're asked for the "second moment" of a continuous random variable $X$? I'm doing a statistics assignment and came across this question that has me puzzled.
https://imgur.com/a/ymJZC
 
@Dragneel afaik it's another term for variance, but I'm not an expert on statistics
 
It asked for the variance in the last question though.
 
okay, then I have no idea
 
I just tried submitting the variance and it's incorrect. That's really odd.
 
hi
 
10:54 PM
How can I determine the number of elements in $U(14)\times U(22)$ of order 6?
 
is there a difference between a finite dimensional subspace and a regular subspace in Linear Algebra?
 
@Argon find out the structure of both groups first
 
@LeakyNun What do you mean by the structure?
Do I literally just find all the combos that work?
 
@Argon no
@Argon it means $U(14) = U(2) \times U(7) = \Bbb Z_1 \times \Bbb Z_6$
 
Ahhh right
But isn't this just a weird combinatorial problem them now? I need to count how many $\operatorname{lcm}(|a|,|b|,|c|,|d|)=6$ where $(a,b,c,d) \in \Bbb Z_1 \times \Bbb Z_6\times\Bbb Z_2\times\Bbb Z_11$?
 
11:12 PM
dam what are we doing? its monday tomorrow! time to sleep.
 
Hi @Ted
 
@Dragneel: As far as I know, the second moment is with respect to $0$, whereas the variance is the second moment with respect to the mean.
hi @Mathei
 
@Ted since you're known for taking a geometric approach to abstract algebra$^{TM}$, do you know a geometric construction that shows that $S_5$ acts transitively on a $6$-element set?
 
@Balarka: If we rename DogAteMy Akia, we'll have to assemble him every time.
2
 
the maximum amount of tiredness allowed would be to at least not interfere with my new tuberoutingproblem.
yes, great idea, i can say that the dog ate my metro map, lol. that would totally work.
 
11:15 PM
@Mathei: I know how to do it for a $3$-element set. You mean, of course, we can define a transitive action on ... Interesting.
 
If one is allowed to use exceptional isomorphisms, then we can let $S_5 \cong \operatorname{PGL}(2,5)$ act on $\Bbb P^1 \Bbb F_5$. But I don't actually know how one proves that isomorphism
@TedShifrin you mean $S_4$ on a $3$-element set? I'm pretty sure $S_5$ doesn't act transitively on a $3$ element set
 
Are there only algebrapeople in here right now? That's great. I'm gonna need all help I can to get sleepy now.
 
I'm no algebrapeople. I just play one on TV sometimes.
 
hmm, i just realized, I should say that the unknown matrix transforms presumably the state $|\psi\rangle_0 = |V\rangle +|H\rangle$ into the state given above
 
@Mathei: I'm rusty. I thought $GL(2,5)$ had $24\cdot 20$ elements.
 
11:19 PM
@TedShifrin So, essentially, they're asking for the Median?
 
Nothing to do with median that I know of, @Dragneel.
 
well, actually, not sure that makes sense..
 
Oh, right, @Mathei, so if I projectivize, I get $24\cdot 20/4 = 5!$ elements. Duh.
 
@TedShifrin omg, are you a movie star??
 
Anon will know this in negative seconds. I have never thought about this, but it's interesting, @Mathei.
 
11:23 PM
does anyone know how to solve the bracelet problem with rep theory
 
@EricSilva: I have no idea of what you speak.
 
@Ted it might not surprise you that I prefer the Sylow approach :P
 
so like you have n beads which can be k possible colors
how many bracelets can you form
 
that's just Burnside's lemma I think
 
More interestingly at the moment, @Mathei, what is the set of 5 things on which you get the permutation representation?
 
11:24 PM
i mean, it is burnside, but im bad at counting
 
no please not interesting problems right when i should sleep
good night people
 
Oh yeah, @EricSilva, so the group is $D_n$.
 
ih chat
 
hi
 
hi Semiclassic.
 
11:25 PM
hi
 
@Ted yeah, right
there's gonna be a totient somewhere
 
@TedShifrin I figured it out. It was asking for the mean-squared value. That is, $E(X^2)$
Thanks Ted :)
 
Right, @Dragneel. That's what I told you.
Second moment about 0.
 
Yea i didn't get that at first.
 
Whereas variance is $E((X-\bar X)^2)$.
 
11:29 PM
Is there a standard notation for saying "expectation value of f(X) with respect to a particular distribution"?
 
You mean $X$ has a certain distribution?
 
right
 
What kind of distribution? normal?
 
I mean, one can always do (for instance) "If X~U(a,b) then E[X]=(b+a)/2"
 
Oh, I thought you wanted specifically $f(X)$. But, yeah, that's the notation I'm familiar with from teaching probability.
 
11:31 PM
so I guess I'm wondering if people ever use notation like E[X|X~U(a,b)]
 
god no.
 
or some variation thereof
 
You can say $X$ follows a distribution. Like, $X$~$B(n,p)$ which is binomial dist. There's $X$~$nb(r,p)$ which is negative binomial, $X$~$h(n,M,N)$ for hypergeometric etc..
 
That's totally abusive.
 
I guess that usage would conflict with E[X|H] as conditional expectation value
 
11:33 PM
Yup.
 
(I mean, X~U(a,b) is a condition, but not the kind one uses for conditional probability)
I guess the point is that in applications one is typically interested in the moments of a specific distribution, not in how the moments of different distributions differ
(with the possible exception of parametric families of distributions)
 
is anyone here good with algebraic topology?
 
@user78103 @Balarka is good with topology
 
@MatheiBoulomenos is he here today?
 
Was ealrier, havent seen anything for a bit though
 
11:38 PM
Depends what sort of alg top question ... A number of us might be able to help, depending.
 
Okay, so I'm trying to get an understanding with cycles and boundaries when the boundary map is used.
I'm struggling computing the kernel and image of the boundary
 
That's usually the difficulty. It turns into some algebra.
What specific example are you working on?
 
which homology theory are we talking about? For singular you can't really compute it by hand for anything else than stuff like a point
 
I'm looking at concrete examples from tinyurl.com/yd9l5sr8 (homology primer)
and some from Hatcher's book
 
So this is cellular.
 
11:41 PM
yes
 
I need to leave in a half hour, so name a specific example that you've tried to do and tell me where you get stuck.
 
so if we refer to the link since it does shows an example the results
how does the kernel boundary of f_2 become zero if there is a 2 cell?
is it because it's the only 2-cell present?
 
Wait. Which example in the link?
 
the first example, the 2-dimensional disk
 
That link is exceedingly annoying. It keeps skipping around.
 
11:45 PM
hi
 
Did you mean $\ker \delta_2 = 0$?
 
yes
 
OK, so $C_0 \cong\Bbb Z$, $C_1\cong\Bbb Z$ and $C_2\cong \Bbb Z$ because we have one $0$-cell, one $1$-cell, and one $2$-cell.
Oh, look, it's a Balarka.
 
@user78103 What is $\delta_2$ a map from?
(And what to?)
 
11:46 PM
Do they write $\delta_2$ rather than $\partial_2$?
 
Yeah
 
Ugh.
Yeah, they do. zap
 
@TedShifrin lol
 
from there, it's from the disk to the edge
 
@user78103 Right, it's a map $\Bbb Z \to \Bbb Z$ upto identifying $C_1$ and $C_2$ with $\Bbb Z$'s like Ted did
 
11:48 PM
And what does $1\in C_2$ map to ?
Balarka, I hope we didn't wake you up, but I pinged you earlier because of the starboard.
 
Every homomorphism $\Bbb Z \to \Bbb Z$ is either injective or trivial
 
Ah, let me scroll back.
 
Stop that, @Mathei. He needs to see this geometrically.
 
@MatheiBoulomenos so does that homomorphis make the kernal of $\partial_2$ zero?
 
@user78103 I mean, what does the homomorphism map the generator of $C_2$ to?
It's a map $C_2 \to C_1$, and you know those are cyclic groups. If you can determine what the homomorphism does to the generators, you'll be done.
 
11:51 PM
to $C_1
 
So (1) What are the cyclic generators of $C_1$, $C_2$ (2) What does $\delta_2$ do to them?
 
$C_1$ $\Bb Z$ , $C_2$ $\Bb Z $ ?
 
er, i don't understand the question, which i assume it is because you put a question mark at the end
@KevinDriscoll I was away playing minecraft
 
Blowing up sleep yet again.
 
my bad, I was responding to your (1) part
 
11:55 PM
@user78103 I don't see how that's an answer either. I asked for the generators of the groups $C_1$ and $C_2$.
@Ted Ugh, I have to go to school today
 
oh, f as the disk, e as the edge
 
@user78103 Right, good. $f$ is the generators of $C_2$, $e$ is the generator of $C_1$
What is $\delta_2(f)$?
 
from $C_2$ -> $C_1$
 
That is, once again, not an answer to my question.
(Do you have ChatJax enabled?)
 
@BalarkaSen I figured.
Did you find my earlier remark re Akia?
 
11:58 PM
Yep, I starred it :P
 
Ohhh :D
 
let me figure how to enable mathjax, thanks for being patient with me, @BalarkaSen
 
I am all over the star board. Some of you people needs to take over
 

« first day (2636 days earlier)      last day (2388 days later) »