« first day (2663 days earlier)      last day (2359 days later) » 

12:00 AM
I'm confused.
 
we proved even functions with a positive leading coefficient have a minimum
but thats probably not what youre looking for
 
Why do you say that? It sounds interesting.
even degree polynomials is very different from even functions. Be careful!
 
polynomials* sorry
 
even degree ... still not even.
 
i woke up from a nap only a bit ago
 
12:04 AM
LOL ... well, don't blame me :P
 
anyways, is tht fact relevant to the statement at hand at all?
 
Have you thought about it?
 
well $f + f' + \dots$ is then guaranteed a minimum
 
Say what?
Oh, you mean my function $g$.
 
@TedShifrin sure, but once I’ve got the rotation symmetry along one axis (which you were right to call me on) then the permutation symmetry generates rotations around the other axes
 
12:09 AM
Oh, ok, @Semiclassic. Still not anything to do with the tetrahedron that I can see.
It's all about $120º$ rotations, among other things.
Except for the Klein 4-group sitting in there.
 
(x,y,z)->(y,z,x) is a 120 degree rotation around the x=y=z axis
 
one thing i notice that i think might have a chance at possibly having a possible use if im correct in this case is that the minimum of two functions $f$ and $g$ is greater than or equal to the sum of their minima (provided they exist)
 
And a tetrahedron definitely had 120 degree rotations as well (wasn’t sure which object you were referencing)
 
Oh, right. But the axes for the 180º rotations don't work out right for yours compared to the tetrahedron.
 
Additionally, a regular tetrahedron also has 180 degree rotation symmetries
 
12:13 AM
So you don't mean it's the same group.
 
Yeah, but those are around totally different axes, Semiclassic.
 
I'm too free
 
@Meow: Do they have a minimum at the same point, necessarily? I'm confused.
 
no
 
12:14 AM
So you said $g$ has a minimum at some point. How do you find that point?
 
$g'(x) = 0$
solve
 
Well, I guess I’d point out here that the line segments between (1,1,1), (1.-1,-1), (-1,1,-1), (-1,-1,1) do form a regular tetrahedron
 
Now look at things and think.
 
Moreover. all four points are on that surface
 
And the 180º rotations are about axes joining pairs of opposite edges, @Semiclassic.
 
12:15 AM
@LeakyNun so you don't have any fix points?
 
@MatheinBoulomenos @_@
 
Hmm ...
 
how do you call a torus whose inner circle is a point?
 
Right. I don’t see how that differs from the 180 degree rotation symmetries of the tetrahedron
 
OK, maybe it's right after all.
 
12:16 AM
Those are also along the axes connecting opposing edges
Neat.
 
Looks right, after all.
 
I actually hadn’t reached my punchline heh
 
A symmetry of the object should, however, induce a symmetry of its tangent cone at $(1,1,1)$, too.
@Leaky: I call it a pinched torus, but there's no standard name.
 
The surface x^2+y^2+z^2=1+2xyz contains the lines between the four points I just listed
 
So it actually contains the geometric tetrahedron. OK.
 
12:19 AM
For instance, the line (x,y,z)=(t,t,1)
Yep
 
So the tangent cone at $(1,1,1)$ contains all the edges from that vertex, too.
 
So it’s like someone took a tetrahedron and infated it slightly while not allowing the edges to move
 
You should get Mathematica to draw it for you.
Easy enough with ContourPlot3D :P
 
I already did, heh
But I’m not on laptop right now
 
Ah, ok.
 
12:21 AM
One thing I don’t know for sure, and would like to be
Is that surface the boundary of a convex set?
I think it is
 
I dunno. It's definitely noncompact, I guess.
 
Derp
I said that wrong
Suppose I restrict myself to the part inside the cube [-1,1]^3
 
What's the automorphism group of a projective cone?
 
That’s the portion of this surface that I actually care about
 
If it is approximately its tangent cone at $(1,1,1)$, that cone has two nappes, so the surface will as well. But you're throwing one of them away by staying inside the cube?
 
12:25 AM
Right
 
well the $g' = f' + f'' + \dots$ right?
 
Yes, Meow.
 
The geometric tetrahedron is still inside that cube
 
so $g$ has a minimum where $f' + f'' + \dots = 0$
 
@Mathei: For starters, depends on what it's a cone over!
 
12:26 AM
or,
 
a finite field
 
is that right?
 
No, Meow. Typo?
 
remove the first f
 
And the four vertices on the surface to four non-adjacent corners of the cube
 
12:26 AM
@Mathei: I meant what curve/surface/whatever it's a cone over. Rank matters.
But I have no idea about finite field stuff, of course.
So think, @Meow.
 
so if $f' + f'' + \dots = 0$
and $f \geq 0$
 
For a not great picture see here: m.wolframalpha.com/input/…
 
then $f + f' + \dots \geq 0$, right?
at it's minimum
 
its, but, yes.
 
12:27 AM
If you want to see the other side of it, swap the sign on the right from plus to minus
 
and by definition the minimum is less than or equal to all other values that $g$ takes on
so therefore $f + f' + \dots \geq 0$ for all $x$
 
Yup, you have it, Meow. Pretty cool, eh?
 
I thiiink that stretched tetrahedron is still the boundary of a convex set
 
that wasnt so hard
 
wow I constructed a great example
 
12:28 AM
Interesting that we have destroyed the symmetry of the two parts of the cone, Semiclassic.
 
unbelievable
 
i cant believe it took me that long
 
Yeah
I was staring at that (1,1,1) and missed the symmetry of the surface as a whole
 
@Meow: Good notation is important in mathematics.
 
(I had assumed that it would only be the right surface in the positive orthant for my purposes)
(And so initially only plotted there)
 
12:31 AM
I am puzzled by what is going on at the other three points when we look at the tangent cone at $(1,1,1)$. There must be congruent cones at the other points, too.
 
by the way is there any place where right hand derivatives are useful?
or left hand
 
@TedShifrin agreed
 
Occasionally, @Meow, but they're not that crucial usually.
I mean, piecewise functions ...
@Semiclassic: What's inside all 4 cones?
Hmm, maybe nothing.
Dunno.
 
When I get a chance I’ll do another 3D contour plot but with different meshes
Just to see what curves live on that surface
But it really is the convexity I’m immediately interested in
 
btw, i made stupid mistakes at the competition
you know me
 
12:34 AM
Oh, when was the competition?
 
yesterday
 
Ah.
 
there was a sorta optimization problem on it
if you want to see it i can send email
 
Sure. I'm leaving for the evening soon, but I'll look later.
 
What’s the easiest way to prove that a given surface is a convex hull?
Something to do with the Hessian?
 
12:37 AM
You're misusing the words. The convex hull is a 3-D region.
 
I wondered if I was
 
A surface given by $f=0$ is convex \iff the Hessian of $f$ is everywhere positive definite, yeah.
 
Boundary of a convex set?
 
Right. A convex surface is one that lies on one side of each tangent plane. And it does bound a convex region if it's closed.
 
sent
 
12:39 AM
Kk
The tricky thing here may be those corners
 
I'm trying to show that $PSL(2,\Bbb F_3) \cong A_4$ geometrically. My idea is: showing that $A_4$ is the tetrahedral group is not difficult. $(1,1,1), (1,−1,−1), (−1,1,−1), (−1,−1,1)$ is a tetrahedron centered at the origin, thus we may represent $A_4$ by matrices with coefficients in $SL_3(\Bbb Z) \cap O(3)$, thus we may reduce the coefficients modulo $3$ and the reduced matrices still preserve the quadratic form $x^2+y^2+z^2$
 
LOL, you and Semi are doing the same things :P
 
So we can let $A_4$ act on the projective curve given by $x^2+y^2+z^2\neq0$
 
it's such a beautiful example that I can't fully explain it yet
 
Lol, only sorta
 
12:40 AM
lol this is gonna keep me up all night
 
@Meow: If you fix two points $AB$ and look for $P$ with $AP+BP$ constant, yes, that's an ellipse. You should prove that :)
 
We both care about that same tetrahedron though
 
@Mathei: Being $\ne 0$ is not the usual way you define projective varieties!
I mean, over $\Bbb C$, you're looking at the whole projective plane minus a projective curve. Very much bad ...
 
I guess it makes sense, in this case, as the group preserves the quadratic form
 
But it's not a curve.
It's everything but a curve. :P
 
12:42 AM
Oh, then projective thing
 
Subset of projective plane? :)
 
OK, I can live with that.
 
Hessian of f=x^2+y^2+z^2-1-2xyz would be...
 
well i mean you have foci $(h_1, k_1)$ and $(h_2, k_2)$ and you have distances (squared) of $(x-h_1)^2 + (y-k_1)^2$ and $(x-h_2)^2 + (y-k_2)^2$
 
12:46 AM
$\begin{pmatrix} 2 & -2z & -2y \\ -2z & 2 & -2x \\ -2z & -2x & 2\end{pmatrix}$
 
Ugh, @Meow. Make life easier and put the center at $(0,0)$ and the foci at $(\pm c,0)$.
 
I would like to have a pinched solid torus with the boundary identified to one point
is this still S^3? @TedShifrin @MatheinBoulomenos @BalarkaSen
 
okay okay
 
I should send you the handout I'm giving my AoPS kids this Sunday, Meow. I'll send it.
 
$(x-c)^2 + y^2$ and $(x+c)^2 + y^2$
 
12:48 AM
That matrix is singular at the corner (1,1,1) so that’s indeed an issue
 
Now you need sum of square roots, @Meow.
 
I think the Hopf map is easier there
 
@Leaky: You'll need to talk to Balarka about that one.
I don't know how you get the pinched torus from what's going on ...
 
$\sqrt{(x-c)^2 + y^2} + \sqrt{(x+c)^2 + y^2}$
 
No, @Semiclassic: That's the mistake I made earlier. It's not. It's full rank, but negative determinant.
 
12:49 AM
scratch that, the pinched torus isn't right
the boundary needs to be a circle instead of a point
 
@Meow, check your email.
 
Wait what
 
so let's say I glue the equators to one point
so that the boundary becomes S^1
 
Divide by $2$ and it's the matrix I had before ... [[1,-1,-1],[-1,1,-1],[-1,-1,1]]
 
12:50 AM
right, that should work
 
"[We’ll have a different argument for this soon using vectors.]" hey i remember that proof
 
It's not singular.
But it does have negative determinant.
 
lol @Semiclassical stop making it look like you're replying to me xD
 
Which is 2I-uu^T where u is a column of ones
 
12:51 AM
The first derivative becomes singular at those points, @Semiclassic, but that doesn't mean the second derivative does.
 
Hmm
But we’d need it to be positive definite to have things work out in the easiest way
 
Yeah, so convexity is dubious.
Signature varies in a continuous way.
You should double-check my computation, but I used Mathematica to double-check before.
 
Hmm, another case of interest is the line x=y, z=0
 
i reproved the right angle inscribed theorem thing with dot products
 
In that case the upper left minor of the Hessian vanishes
 
12:55 AM
LOL, @Meow. Sure. That problem wasn't for you. Keep going :P
 
So ... hmm
I imagine that’s because the surface contains that line in the first place
 
Don't know why I've been looking at the quasi-projective variety: is the set of all $[x:y:z] \in \Bbb F_3 \Bbb P^2$ such that $x^2+y^2+z^2=0$ a projective curve?
 
So, a surface containing a line has non-positive Gaussian curvature at those points, @Semiclassic.
So definitely not convex.
Possibly weakly convex.
 
Weakly?
 
Hessian positive semidefinite, Semiclassic
 
12:57 AM
Hmm
 
Depends if the line is a line of curvature or just an asymptotic curve.
 
Even that’s a problem at the corners, though
 
Yes, @Mathei, zero sets of homogeneous polynomials are projective varieties. :P
Right, those are definitely singular points, @Semiclassic.
 
For simplicity’s sake I’m going to ignore that factor of two overall
 
Is this thing isomorphic to $\Bbb F_3 \Bbb P^1$? They have the same number of points
 
12:59 AM
Here’s what bothers me about this
 
Nonsingular conics are isomorphic to $\Bbb P^1$, Mathei.
Projection from a point on the conic to a general line.
 
ah, great, so that actually gives a map $A_4 \to PGL(2,3)$
 
One half of an infinite cone has a singular point at its vertex, and it contains a lot of lines
 
This is like what we were trying to do ages ago (but which I've forgotten).
 
But it’s definitely the boundary of a convex set
 
1:00 AM
@Semiclassic: Cones are actually flat. Zero curvature everywhere (except the vertex).
Only if you use one nappe of the cone!
 
Nappe?
 
Consider the solid pinched torus $S: (\sqrt{x^2+y^2}-1)^2 + z^2 \le 1^2$. Its boundary is a pinched torus which can be foliated by horizontal circles. Now, I glue each circle to one point, so that the boundary becomes homeomorphic to $\Bbb S^1$. Do I get $\Bbb S^3$?
 
A cone has two nappes.
That's a pinched torus, not a torus, @Leaky.
 
Ah. That’s what I meant by half
 
Oh, OK.
And for solid, of course you need $\le ...$ not $=$, @Leaky.
 
1:02 AM
So does one nappe of a cone have positive definite Hessian?
 
thanks @TedShifrin
 
It shouldn’t since the Hessian is diag(2,2,-2) everywhere
Though
 
Thanks @TedShifrin I need to work on my projective geometry, I only know about it due to finite groups acting on things
 
@MatheinBoulomenos any idea?
 
Should I be writing that as f=x^2+y^2-z^2=0 or with the sign flipped
 
1:04 AM
lmao
 
@Meow: The circle is tangent to the angle at $P$ and the other circle at $Q$. But the line that is tangent to both circles meets the angle at $A$ and $B$, respectively.
 
In either case, though, the Hessian isn’t positive definite
 
@Semiclassic: It doesn't matter for Hessian :)
Oh.
 
And yet one nap of the curve bounds a convex set
 
Hmm, that's obviously garbage.
I never said the hypersurface had to be convex to bound a convex set, Semiclassic.
 
1:06 AM
i see
I’m interested in it bounding a convex set, not whether it is convex
 
Yeah, the sign is basically irrelevant. You just want the Hessian to be definite, not indefinite.
That's why I said weakly convex might do it.
 
Right
Yeah
 
You want no points where the Hessian is indefinite (eigenvalues of different signs).
 
@LeakyNun I have no idea, sorry
 
@BalarkaSen save me my lord
 
1:08 AM
@Leaky: For this topological stuff you should ask Mike, PVAL, or best Balarka.
 
I think I can prove it:
 
I need to get going in a few minutes.
 
@TedShifrin hmm
 
We have $S: (\sqrt{x^2+y^2}-1)^2 + z^2 \le 1^2$. Let $S(\alpha)$ be $(\sqrt{x^2+y^2}-1)^2 + z^2 = \alpha^2$ with $\alpha \in [0,1]$.
 
That fails for the cone example, thougj
 
1:10 AM
Because of the singular point, @Semiclassic, yeah.
Convexity is in general a very subtle issue, I believe.
 
Yeah
Intuitively I feel like my example should bound a convex set, but
 
$S(0)$ is the circle $x^2+y^2=1$ with $z=0$. Map $(\cos\theta,\sin\theta)$ to $(0,\exp(i\theta))$.
 
That’s not an argument
 
I don't believe you if the hessian is indefinite.
 
[Random but related]
There are hessians that are indefinite, and it corresponds to undulation points which are not extrema. For example this $x^4+x$ math.stackexchange.com/questions/1093323/…
 
1:13 AM
Again, the Hessian of the cone is indefinite
 
No, it's not.
It's semi-definite.
0 eigenvalues but not eigenvalues of different signs.
 
Actually, parametrize $S(\alpha)$. Let $x=r\cos\theta$ and $y=r\sin\theta$. Then, $z=\pm\sqrt{\alpha^2-(r-1)^2}$.
 
Oh, I see the problem. I lied.
 
Yeeah
 
1:15 AM
We need to look (locally) at $z=g(x,y)$ and look at the Hessian of $g$.
 
actually, what am I doing, why don't I just use torus coordinates
 
Hrm
Okay
 
We only need the curvature of the level set, not what's going on "orthogonal" to it.
There is a way to state this in terms of level sets, but I don't have the time to sort it out.
 
And if one insists on it one can even solve for the two branches of z in x^2+y^2+z^2=1+2xyz explicitly
Though that seems like overkill
 
1:17 AM
Hello everyone!
 
You can do implicit differentiation and not bother with that.
 
now $\alpha$ is the radial direction
@Daminark hi, do you topology?
 
Hi @Daminark
 
That's what you can do with the level set formulation. It's just that I don't remember how it comes out.
Hi Demonark. I left you a note re complex earlier.
 
1:18 AM
Right
I’m still betting on it being a convex boundary
 
weakly convex.
 
Lines, remember?
 
Convex boundary != boundary of a convex set?
 
If I parametrize $S(\alpha) : (\sqrt{x^2+y^2}-1)^2+z^2=\alpha^2$ with $x=(1+\cos\omega)\cos\theta$ and $y=(1+\cos\omega)\sin\theta$ and $z=\sin\omega$, then $\omega$ is the poloidal direction, $\alpha$ is the radial direction, and $\theta$ is the toroidal direction. am i right?
 
1:21 AM
No. We've been through this.
@Leaky: You have too many sin's.
 
@TedShifrin absolve me lord
 
Maybe.
 
Alright. I’m being misled by Wikipedia then (it has convex curve = boundary of convex set in the plane)
 
That's wrong too.
Think of the first quadrant.
 
can you check my proof for 9 Ted
 
1:24 AM
It's not too hard, @Meow.
 
I actually need to multiply every coordinate by $\alpha$
 
alright. well 8 looks like a cross section of 9
 
Yes, that, too, Leaky.
 
no
 
@Meow: We could never figure out how to do 8 with just plane geometry.
 
1:25 AM
If I parametrize $S(\alpha) : (\sqrt{x^2+y^2}-1)^2+z^2=\alpha^2$ with $x=(1+\alpha\cos\omega)\cos\theta$ and $y=(1+\alpha\cos\omega)\sin\theta$ and $z=\alpha\sin\omega$, then $\omega$ is the poloidal direction, $\alpha$ is the radial direction, and $\theta$ is the toroidal direction.
there
 
Better, Leaky.
 
i dont get how people arre this clever
 
Anyone remember which wikipedia article has a series of pictures that look something like this?
 
Which people? Which clever?
 
1:27 AM
@Secret elliptic curves
or folic curves
 
cubic curves
 
hey look its an elliptic curve
 
at least the first two
I actually made up #8, @Meow. I thought it was cute :)
 
dont they use those in cryptography
 
Yup.
 
1:27 AM
rational numbers and stuff
 
now I map $(\alpha,\theta,\omega)$ to $(\alpha \exp(i\omega), \sqrt{1-\alpha^2} \exp(i\theta))$.
 
The b=0 series looks interesting
 
does this look right to you @TedShifrin
when $\alpha=0$, we're on the circle $x^2+y^2=1$ with $z=0$, and $\omega$ does not matter
 
Sorry, Leaky, I can't pay attention. About to leave.
 
1:32 AM
when $\alpha=1$, we're on the boundary which is a pinched torus, and $\theta$ does not matter as I've glued the circles.
I've created a new visualization of $\Bbb S^3$ :D
here, every preimage of $\Bbb S^2$ is a genuine geometrical circle
including the one which is normally projected to become a line
well that's the pinched torus boundary, but let's say it's a circle
I can think of it as Villarceau circles
 
Is that the hopf fibration of the 3-sphere? (o wait, you mentioned that all circles are indeed circles and won't be projected into a line)
 
scratch that, they are vertical circles
@Secret yes
and no
it's the 3-sphere itself
visualized in such a way that the fibers of the Hopf map become genuine circles
 
I might need time to plot what is instructed by the formulae to get some idea on how it looks like to check
 
it's a solid pinched torus
think about the central horizontal circle and a bunch of (hollow) tori that wraps around the circle
and the limit being the pinched torus
with all horizontal circles on the boundary glued to become one point
that's actually way better than the current two-solid-tori model
 
by pinched torus, do you mean this one?
 
1:37 AM
or the R^3 hat model
@Secret no, not that one
 
ah I see
 
looks like the name "pinched torus" is taken
how shall I refer to this solid?
@Semiclassical
 
I’ve seen that, hmm
 
The projection is like this??
 
1:47 AM
I'm a master at drawing torus now
 
Horn torus
 
thanks
 
That’s when R=r
Usual one is a ring torus is R>r
If R<r then it’s a spindle torus
(That’s what Wikipedia says anyhow)
 
I am a master at drawing torus now
 
@LeakyNun This??
 
1:57 AM
no, Villarceau circles
 

« first day (2663 days earlier)      last day (2359 days later) »