« first day (2675 days earlier)      last day (2345 days later) » 

10:02 PM
hi
 
Hey @MeowMix
 
how are yall
 
Not good. I'm confusing myself with math
 
What kind of math?
Hi @Meow
 
hi alessandro
 
10:08 PM
Pretty much the kind that has been confusing me for decades. H-principles.
 
For decades? I thought you were 14
 
heya @Meow
 
Very accurate
 
rehi Balarka, Alessandro, Mathei
 
hi tedster
 
10:13 PM
rehi Ted
 
I thought you were older than 14 finally, Balarka.
 
my math teacher said something about being able to see complex roots just from the graph in $\Bbb R^2$
 
Um, I presume he/she meant you could tell whether it had any or not, @Meow. You certainly can't see what they are.
 
(of a polynomial)
 
@TedShifrin 17, yes
 
10:14 PM
Rehi Ted
 
BTW, if you've never learned/proved Descartes Law of Signs, I was very proud of myself for figuring out a proof years ago (it's in my algebra book) using basic calculus and induction.
Much more believable now, Balarka, thank you.
 
But then there's r/iam14andthisisdeep
 
no, it was finding what the actual roots are, something about superimposing the graph of $\Bbb C$ over $\Bbb R^2$
 
which is quite the reddit for me
 
the only thig i could find was for quadratics
 
10:15 PM
@Meow: I'd be very curious to see this. I don't believe it :P
 
If we graph $y=x^2+a^2$, how do we see $\pm ia$?
 
its geometrical, sorry
 
How do I see the complex roots of $x^2 + y^2 = -1$?
in R^2 that's nothingness
 
One of my classmates did something quite funny: in German, the word for field (the algebraic structure) is "Körper" which translates to body, so when we had an exercise in our ANT class which involved perfect fields, he googled for "perfekter Körper" (perfect body) and was quite surprised when the search return nothing about algebra, but a bunch of girls in revealing cloths and stuff about fitness
 
10:17 PM
I think this is an ex post facto construction. You know the answer so you figure out a construction to give it.
LOL, @Mathei. That would scar me for life ...
 
@MatheinBoulomenos Yes, I expect nothing better. You algebraists are all non-Christian
 
oh we were doing optimization problems on cubics in math the other day
too bad we just went to the calculator though :(
 
Interesting that the terminology in English aligns mostly with French ... and so much of algebra is agricultural.
 
instead of deriving and solving the quadratic
 
@Meow: Did anyone explain where the quadratic actually came from?
 
10:18 PM
"corps" is closer to "Körper" than to "field"
 
maybe MeowMix should tell me what graph of an elliptic curve looks like in $\Bbb C^2$
 
i know what it looks like in R2
 
I was thinking champs ... I guess that's for vector fields.
 
@MatheinBoulomenos That's quite fitting too. Perfect corpse - algebra, 2017
 
sorry, what do you mean? (which quadratic?)
 
10:19 PM
vector fields are "Vektorfelder" in German
I'm quite sure corps is used for the algebraic structure
 
yeah, I think you're right.
 
Hey again everyone
 
I was thinking of sheaves and germs and stalks and ....
rehi Perturb
 
Serre wrote "corps locaux" iirc
 
I'm not arguing, Mathei. I yielded immediately on that. :)
@Balarka: This looks like something we should know, but I don't know an example offhand.
 
10:21 PM
can you beat someone with a tangent bundle
 
Are you in a violent mood, Meow?
 
no, its just my morbid curiosity
 
Actually, @Balarka, I think it's a good question for any vector bundle. I don't know why the OP was doing the complexified tangent bundle in particular.
 
If two nonintegrable subbundles can direct sum to an integrable one?
That seems very possible
 
10:23 PM
@Ted :41465612 which quadratic
 
What about the distribution given by $dz = xdy$ and it's normal bundle
in R^3
 
Backwards, @Balarka.
Damn apostrophe, again!
 
What's $e_i|_{a}$ over here (this is from Lee's smooth manifolds book)
 
I think your backwards question is easy :P
 
10:24 PM
Well I don't think it's possible anymore then
@TedShifrin Well I gave an example for the backwards question
so yeah
 
The OP quotes a source as saying it is. The question is what becomes of $[H,\bar H]$.
He just means at point $a$, @Perturb. It's being pedantic. It's the standard basis vectors everywhere.
He's writing $\Bbb R^n_a$ for the tangent space of $\Bbb R^n$ at $a$.
 
'oh ted i had a stupid dumb thing i was looking at thats moderately boring
 
Hey does anyone know how to prove $p\implies q=~p+q$?
Sorry. I meant $p=>q=p'+q$
 
so i was like thinking "for any n is there a number that you can write as a sum of 1, 2, 3, all the way up to n squares?"
 
Ahhh so the standard basis vectors in $\mathbb{R}^n$? @TedShifrin
 
10:27 PM
@MrAP: I still don't understand. By $+$ you mean $\wedge$ (i.e., and)?
Yes, @Perturb.
 
so for exmaple for n=4 it would be 3^2 + 4^2 + 12^2 + 84^2 = 5^2 + 12^2 + 84^2 + 13^2 + 84^2 = 85^2 whiich is easy, since you can apply the fact that a^2 + b^2 = c^2 for some integers
 
Yes
 
but what about for cubics?
 
Do you know about truth tables, @MrAP? Write them down for both.
 
since by fermat's you can never write that a^n + b^n = c^n the logic cant follow (for n > 2)
 
10:28 PM
I want to do it using algebraic method
 
also thats supposed to say integers for both
 
@TedShifrin Hmm, so maybe something like, take the distribution $E$ given by $dz = ydx$ in $\Bbb R^3$, pick the rank 1 subbundle of that bundle consisting of fibers parallel to the y-direction. Then take it's normal bundle inside $E$. Those are both rank 1, so are integrable, right?
 
i.e. integer = sum of powers of positive integers
 
I don't know what that means, @MrAP.
 
But their direct sum is $E$
 
10:29 PM
Without using truth tables. By using the basic rules of propositional logic.
 
i havent lookeed too much into the power > 2 cases
 
@Balarka: So you're generalizing to $E$ rather than complexified tangent bundle? Also, you're sticking just to $\Bbb R$. Be careful. He's complexifying and looking at complex subbundles.
 
@TedShifrin Yep, I am answering your question for general vector bundles.
I don't know much about complex v.b's and integrability therein
 
But where are you using $H$ and $\bar H$ with complex subbundles?
I'm confuzled. You're totally abstracting beyond ...
 
Oh, I thought you were asking for two integrable subbundles which direct sum to a non-integrable one?
 
10:31 PM
Meow, I don't follow. You were talking about numbers of summands of squares. How are you putting $n$th powers?
I meant his specific case, @Balarka. $H\oplus\bar H$.
 
Ahh OK
 
sums of cubes
 
I was just generalizing to $E$ instead of $TM\otimes\Bbb C$.
 
so the extended problem was
 
Sorry, Meow. I'm too busy with too many things to pay careful attention.
 
10:31 PM
its okay
 
Where $E$ is a complex vector bundle on $M$, OK
 
im going to think about it some more
 
Right, Balarka. :)
Not so much my cup of tea, anyhow, Meow :P
Balarka used to like number theory, back when he was 13.
 
I am afraid I am not familiar enough with the conjugate subbundle to answer this.
 
I still like number theory, so feel free to state the problem @MeowMix
 
10:33 PM
It's worth thinking about. I don't see that Chern classes help because we want (non)integrability ...
 
okay
 
it's "elementary" number theory, Mathei :P
 
yeah im not a real number theorist
nor any good at it by any means
 
real numbers are not really interesting from a number theoretic perspective, anyway
 
growls
 
10:34 PM
Mathei is like German Daminark
With a drier sense of humor
 
@TedShifrin Ted I think there's something stuck in your throat
2
 
Last night dream does not have any weird maths. Just each countable ordinal up to some $\alpha > \omega$ adjoined with rational intervals $\Bbb{Q} \cap [0,1]$ to form a dense linear order e.g. $0,...,\frac{\omega}{3},...,\frac{\omega}{2},\omega$
 
for positive integer $n,m$ prove that there is some integer $q$ and sequence of $n$ positive integers $a_1, a_2, ..., a_n$ such that $a_1^m + a_2^m + \dots + a_n^m = q$
i think thats correct statement of the problem
 
Somebody help me please! I want to prove that $p=>q=p'+q$ using the basic rules of propositional logic.
 
i shouldvej ust said natural
 
10:36 PM
Heya, DogAteMy. Happy birthday :)
 
Not quite yet
Tomorrow
 
Well, store it for under 7 hours.
 
i proved it for m = 1,2 for any n, which for m=1 is trivial and for m=2 is rather easy using pythagoren triples sequentially
 
It's 00:36AM in SA, tomorrow is today
 
@MrAP: What are your definitions you're working with? I.e., what is the definition of $p\implies q$?
 
10:37 PM
So happy birthday! @AkivaWeinberger
 
wait NO that's not the correct statement
because that one is trivial.
 
Yeah I was confused your thing didn't seem to make sense
 
yeah, I was confused about that
 
@Perturbative SA?
 
It totally fried my brain
 
10:37 PM
South Africa
 
so I didn't bother to look at it
 
Presumably @Leaky, who likes logic, can help you, @MrAP, but you still need to say what you're starting with.
 
@Perturbative Ted knew that.
 
prove that for natural $m, n$, there exists a $q$ (sum) such that for every integer $a \leq n$ (length of sequence) there is a sequence of $a$ naturals who's $m$-th powers add up to $q$
 
10:39 PM
okay that's more interesting
 
You didn't use $n$? EDIT: fixed then
 
smart cookie, that DogAteMy
 
The relevant keyword to the right question should be "Waring's problem"
if Meow ever figures out the right question that is
 
ROFL
 
are you kidding me
 
10:40 PM
@Balarka: The OP told me he's thinking about CR structures on manifolds.
 
edward waring i hate you
 
I need to go but I'll think about it maybe
 
Good to know Meow hates someone other than me. :P
 
That's a lot of quantifier alternations though
 
can we take one second to appreciate the beauty of FTA
 
10:41 PM
the $m=2$ case is trivial w/ pythagorean triples
@Ted ive never hated you
 
@LeakyNun second's over
 
that was a pretty good FTA second
 
there’s absolutely no reason why the second extension of the cauchy completion of Q has to be algebraically closed
 
@TedShifrin Oh, huh
 
its a miracle
 
10:41 PM
What's a CR structure?
 
@TedShifrin, The definition i have read is that p=>q means if p=>q has a truth value of 0 iff the p has a truth value of 1 and q has a truth value of 1. I am allowed to use properties of 0, properties of 1, absorption law, involution, idempotence law, etc. (the basic laws).
 
today on: when is mom coming home with the food
 
@MeowMix do you want to say for all integers $2 \leq a \leq n$? Else this is impossible by Fermat's last theorem, as you mentioned
 
only father would come home with food
 
yes
 
10:43 PM
@MrAP just draw the truth table
 
Without using truth table i want to do it.
 
@MeowMix (I feel bad for ridiculing you with the right question thing. Here's a virtual cookie in compensation)
 
then divide into 4 cases
 
i also wonder what on earth is Cauchy-Riemann structure. I just know it can be used to describe gravitational radiation.
 
its no big deal, if anyhting itll lead me closer to the answer (or, blatantly give me the answer if its the exact problem)
 
10:46 PM
@Meow: It'll probably be unhealthful food, regardless :D
 
i had this weird fruit bowl the other day
 
The case $m=4$ is quite easy by Lagrange's four square theorem
 
it was like dragonfruit, banana, strawberry, granola and nutella
 
well I gave him the cookie
 
it was pretty good
 
10:47 PM
@MrAP what happens if p=0 and q=1? does the rhs give you 2?
 
I know nothing about that, but the easiest example, @CaptainBohemian, is to look at the sphere $S^{2n-1}$ sitting inside $\Bbb R^{2n}=\Bbb C^n$. Then there's a smoothly varying $(n-1)$-dimensional complex subspace of the tangent bundle. That's a CR structure.
 
As in, that's pretttyy goooood?
 
Hai
 
rehi Demonark
 
Hi @Daminark
 
10:48 PM
ey
 
+ stands for OR.
 
yes, exactly
 
@LeakyNun
 
Hey @Daminark
 
Not the normal addition
 
10:48 PM
i like doing the idubbbz v-neck during class
 
Anything interesting going on?
 
lmao
I love the v neck thing
 
@MrAP p=>q = not(p and not q)
= not p or q
 
@TedShifrin With regards to the geometric tangent space question, I don't see how $(a, v) = v^ie_i|_a$ if $e_i|_a = e_i$ where $e_i$ is just the standard basis vectors of $\mathbb{R}^n$
 
= p’ + q
 
10:49 PM
That's what he said originally, Leaky.
 
how is p=>q = not(p and not q)
 
well how do you define =>
@TedShifrin i’m deriving it
 
@Perturbative: You're getting lost in notation. $(a,v)$ is just talking about a vector $v$ in the tangent space at $a$. And $v=\sum v^ie_i$ is the expansion of $v$ in terms of the standard basis.
 
p=>q means if p=>q has a truth value of 0 iff the p has a truth value of 1 and q has a truth value of 0.
 
meanwhile on the meow christmas list:
- Spivak's
- pajamas?
 
10:52 PM
LOL, Meow ... don't forget math slippers.
 
lmao
quite a list you got there
 
@Ted You're right I am getting lost in notation, but in that case we'd have $(a, v) = v$
 
Math slippers... Lol
 
usually ill wear my clothes to bed when im too lazy
 
@TedShifrin I have read similar things on a paper about twistor and gravitation. but that paper presumes a lot of prequisite so I still don't have a complete understanding of Cauchy-Riemann structure. It's like I have googled about the structure but didn't find anything litearure introducing CR structure from scretch.
scratch
 
10:54 PM
@Perturbative: The $a$ is just there to remind you that you're at that tangent space.
 
@MrAP so (p=>q) is false iff p is true and q is false
so p=>q = not(p and not q)
 
Okay.
Tahnks
 
Damn I wish we had a room with chalk here that couldn't be reserved and would remain open 24/7
 
@CaptainBohemian: Typically you need to know some stuff like tangent bundles and complex structures and bundles ...
 
Just a place for people to work
 
10:55 PM
Demonark: Few universities have the liberty of having such extra space. At UCSD there isn't even room for grad student offices in the math building.
 
there was a problem on my test like "solve $x^3 = 8$" ad i wanted to use roots of unity but she said just do it normally
 
@Meow: What is normally?
 
Ahhh okay okay thanks @TedShifrin
 
Unless you're just in $\Bbb R$.
 
nah, $\Bbb C$
 
10:56 PM
@TedShifrin i know tangent bundle. as for complex structure, I know spin structure. I don't if there are other complex structures.
 
She wants you to divide $x^3-8$ by $x-2$ and use the quadratic formula.
 
move 8 to left side, differece of cubes, then quadratic formula the quadratic factor
 
Spin structure is different from complex structure.
 
@TedShifrin I think I talked about this before with Akiva, but here's an application of the holonomic approx. theorem. Suppose $A$ is the annulus of inner radius $1$ and outer radius $2$. $f_0(x, y) = x^2 + y^2$ and $f_1(x, y) = -x^2 - y^2$ be these functions on $A$. There is a homotopy $f_t$ joining these such that $\nabla f_t \neq 0$ for all time everywhere.
 
OK, Meow. I guessed it.
 
10:57 PM
I mean we do have the Barn but sometimes people reserve it an it's just like, why tho? I guess by 9-10PM everyone's out of here so the whole building is open
 
oh i watched some proof somewhere of the FTA
it wasnt a real proof
 
There are lots of proofs.
 
So that means there is a homotopy such that you'd never have to make the graph parallel to the xy-plane anywhere I guess
 
@TedShifrin spin structure is not a complex structure? then what on eath is complex structure?
 
You have to use topology or complex analysis, pretty much. The most algebraic one uses Galois theory and still the intermediate value theorem to guarantee an odd degree real polynomial has a real root.
 
10:59 PM
it was like you would evaluate the points $|z| = m$ for a very large $m$ and you knew that would be a circle
 
You have to tell me what multiplication by $i$ is on each vector space, @CaptainBohemian.
 
or, approximately a circle
around the oriign
 
And those have to fit together in a compatible way as you move the point around.
 
then for small $m$ it would be a small circle-ish loop around the constant term
 
10:59 PM
@Meow: There's topology going on with homotopy. But you still need winding numbers.
 

« first day (2675 days earlier)      last day (2345 days later) »