« first day (2675 days earlier)      last day (2346 days later) » 

3:00 AM
yes it should be 12
 
Well, finite abelian groups are kinda boring
 
a fundamental flaw, in my opinion, is that you can get something non-abelian from abelian groups... i.e. automorphism
 
I like non-abelian groups as well
 
but that can't compare to the greatest flaw of maths
or rather, limit
i.e. the incompleteness theorems
 
but yeah modules over PIDs tend to behave quite nicely
 
3:00 AM
we'll never know if our system is consistent
 
$\frac{1}{n} + 12 \leq n^2 + 12n^3$
$\frac{1}{5000} + 12 \leq 5000^2 + 12(5000)^3$
 
@ErikHumphrey What are you trying to do?
 
4 mins ago, by anon
in any case if $n>1$ then $A\le B$ implies $An^3\le Bn^3$ so indeed $1/n+12\le (1/n+12)n^3$ if that's what you mean
yes
 
I've definitely had a lot of fun with algebra so far, though I've found my favorite parts to be the conceptual bits, as well as counting-type problems
 
$12.0002 \leq 1500025000000$
evaluates to True
 
3:01 AM
showing $1/n+12$ is $O(n^3)$
simplest to observe $1/n+12\le 1+12=13\le 13n^3$ is $O(n^3)$
 
$\frac{1}{n} + 12$ is $O(n^3)$
QED
 
Moreso than playing with cycles, and especially more than playing with $D_n$
 
I've heard that cohomology algebra is nice
 
I hear calculus is amazing
 
I never hear about cohomology algebra, perhaps you mean homological algebra
 
3:03 AM
/s
 
Okay, 7 more to do like this.
 
@TedShifrin what was the greatest news in maths throughout your entire career?
 
I have calculus next semester, but I doubt it includes big O notation
 
@orbit-stabilizer ewwwwww
 
it's super elementary
 
3:03 AM
@Daminark differential geometry isn't nice?
 
@Daminark manifolds are cool
I swear
 
Differential geometry is confusing
 
@ErikHumphrey wait, you haven't taken differential calculus?
 
Differential topology is aight but my experience with geometry was just not fun
 
yeah, that was my experience as well
 
3:05 AM
I can't process the geometric bits and the calculus computations are just no fun
 
differential calculus? what's that?
 
I'd rather every manifold was assumed a submanifold of euclidean space for proving purposes.
 
In Canada, you only take one math course in high schools with a breadth of units
they don't have specific titles like "probability and statistics I"
 
then just keep the fact the abstract manifolds are realizable as submanifolds of euclidean in the background
 
I took "Calculus and Vectors"
 
3:05 AM
Ah, you're in high school
 
uniformaskdjf theorem is dank
 
No
First year university
 
uniformization?
 
The calculus course I will take is "Calculus I"
I have yet to take any other calculus in university
perhaps that will include differential calculus?
 
Calc I = differential calc
 
3:06 AM
@anon my difftop course did assume everything was a submanifold of R^n
 
is that where 2x -> 2 and 4x3 = 12x2?
derivatives?
 
No, it's moreso limits
 
I know some limits though this part of asymptotic analysis does not seem to invovle it
 
$\mathcal I (\mathbf V (I)) = \sqrt I$
 
3:08 AM
I will solve the rest of the questions and ask if they are right
 
ah, the Nullstellensatz
 
yeah no worries i got the splitscreen thing going on
 
@MatheinBoulomenos ja, der Nullstellensatz
 
If |f(n)|/|g(n)| -> 0 as n-> inf then f(n) = O(g(n)). Pretty sure that's right
 
3:08 AM
der Null stellt
 
So, you can use your limit knowledge to solve these questions
 
Nullstellensatz is an established term in English :P
 
@MatheinBoulomenos sure
 
"Null" is feminine in German
don't ask me why
 
I struggle to understand why there is another function g(n) involved
 
3:09 AM
der die Null stellt
 
That's your n^3
 
That you were looking at previously
 
der Nullstellensatz, der die Null stellt
 
then...then what's f(n)
 
3:09 AM
that's your 1\n + 12
 
i see
i will save this for later and try to make sense of it
 
50 mins ago, by Leaky Nun
@TedShifrin is there a polynomial map $\Bbb C^n \to \Bbb C^n$ which is easy to check injective but not surjective?
 
$\sum n+1/12$ is $O(0)$ tho
5
 
@MatheinBoulomenos
@anon lol
 
@LeakyNun I heard there's a simple proof of the Nullstellensatz using the completeness of algebraically closed fields of a certain characteristic
 
3:11 AM
0
Q: Is it ever possible to have Big O less than O(1)?

Ben Lakey Possible Duplicate: are there any O(1/n) algorithms? Is it ever possible for your code to be Big O less than O(1)?

cool embed
 
@anon haha
he's making a joke
 
@MatheinBoulomenos :o
 
@anon, don't you mean 1/n?
 
but I don't know the actual proof
 
@MatheinBoulomenos but you can't state it in first-order crap
 
3:12 AM
we proved it -without model theory- in our algebra lectures
 
i forget the -1/12 thing
analytic continuation of some function?
Ah it is n, mb
 
Zeta function
 
analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty 1/n^s$ from its abscissa of convergence ${\rm Re}(s)>1$ to $\Bbb C\setminus\{1\}$ yielding $\zeta(-1)=-1/12$
 
wait
is this a typo
 
no
 
3:14 AM
> abscissa
 
shouldn't it say n^2 + 42n + 7 = O(n^2)
 
when you're trying to use professional words
 
@ErikHumphrey did you read the second bullet point?
 
@LeakyNun there are several forms of the Nullstellensatz
 
3:15 AM
unless that's the last bullet point on the slide, I guess it should say $n^2+42n+7$ in that case
 
yes
the last line should be what you're proving, shouldn't it?
 
IIRC I saw strong null proved using weak null elegantly, and weak null proved very inelegantly
@ErikHumphrey eh, it's a pp slide
 
why does it matter how a theorem is proved?
 
there's the "weak Nullstellensatz" which states that if $f_1, \dots f_n$ don't generate unit ideal, then they have common zero in $K^n$, (K algebraically closed)
that's first-order
 
What is the number below my username on the left?
 
3:16 AM
@LeakyNun mathematical morality
 
@anon proof irrelevance
 
@ErikHumphrey 465
 
Thanks. How was this number determined?
 
@ErikHumphrey rep(utation)
 
the div class is "Flair"
ah yes, I thought I saw it change
 
3:17 AM
@LeakyNun different proofs may yield different insights. Also elegant proofs are a thing of beauty
 
chat has its own rep separate from Math.SE?
465 seems like a lot to already have
 
@MatheinBoulomenos unit ideal?
 
@LeakyNun I mean the whole ring
 
@ErikHumphrey it's the sum of all the reps in your different sites
 
I don't think it's the sum, it's the max
 
3:18 AM
@MatheinBoulomenos how do you state that in first-order?
it's the sum
 
I think it's the max
 
It is the max
 
nvm
 
This makes sense, as you could join all the sites and get rep bonus from having rep on other sites
 
I clearly don't have 49k on any sites
 
3:19 AM
It also shows the icon for Arqade
because that's where my max rep is
 
huh
Erik's seems to be the max but Leaky's is the sum
 
where do you view another person's number in the chat?
 
click their name, then user profile
 
@TedShifrin I think the fact I need is that at x=y=z=1/2 the matrix Ax+By+Cz+D has positive eigenvalues. So the set of (x,y,z) in [0,1]^3 such the f(x,y,z)>0 corresponds to the set of positive semidefinite matrices
 
That's weird
Maybe my chat isn't merged with the others
If it's max, Leaky's should be 36,039 from pcg
 
3:21 AM
> Despite the unusual nomenclature, the strong and weak
Nullstellensatze are actually equivalent!
@MatheinBoulomenos the plural @_@
 
@LeakyNun too lazy to write out, you just state that $1\neq$ any linear combination of the polynomials
 
@MatheinBoulomenos I see
 
Yeah, the Nullstellensätze are equivalent
 
@MatheinBoulomenos either you do the umlaut or you use the English plural
right
 
Nullstellensatzs looks horrible
 
3:23 AM
then just leave it at the singular
 
you mean the theorem, or the word
 
@Semiclassical the word
 
I mean, technically, all true statements are equivalent :P
 
@MatheinBoulomenos exactly
 
I find Positivstellensätze even worse
 
thanks
 
Anonymous
3:38 AM
0
Q: Maximum and minimum values of $x^2+y^2+z^2$ subject to the condition $x+y+z=1$ and $xyz+1=0$

BlueUsing the method of Lagrange Multipliers I get the equations as: $1) 2x=\lambda (1)+\mu (yz)$ $2) 2y=\lambda (1)+\mu (xz)$ $ 3) 2z=\lambda (1) + \mu (xy)$ Multiplying $(1)$ by $x$, $(2)$ by $y$ and , $(3)$ by $z$ I get: $2(x^2+y^2+z^2)=\lambda(1)+\mu(3xyz)$ [Using $3xyz=-3$] $2u=\lambda-3\...

 
Anonymous
Any ideas about this?
 
Anonymous
The algebra gets too complicated if I try to solve directly
 
well, x+y+z=1 is a plane, and intersecting with xyz+1=0 is a weird curve in that plane, and you want to figure out which point on that curve is closest to its "center" (because that's how you minimize distance from the origin to points on the plane)
 
Anonymous
@anon Yep, that's true
 
Anonymous
Cardinal mentions KKT
 
Anonymous
3:42 AM
Isn't KKT similar to what I did?
 
I dunno what kkt is
 
Anonymous
In mathematical optimization, the Karush–Kuhn–Tucker (KKT) conditions, also known as the Kuhn–Tucker conditions, are first-order necessary conditions for a solution in nonlinear programming to be optimal, provided that some regularity conditions are satisfied. Allowing inequality constraints, the KKT approach to nonlinear programming generalizes the method of Lagrange multipliers, which allows only equality constraints. The system of equations and inequalities corresponding to the KKT conditions is usually not solved directly, except in the few special cases where a closed-form solution can be...
 
Anonymous
It looks similar to what I did
 
Anonymous
I don't know if it helps to simplify things
 
Prove whether $3n \: log_{10} \: n$ is $\text{O}(n^2)$
uhhh, true?
 
3:46 AM
indeed, it's true
cuz $\log n\le n$ for big enough $n$
 
for all n >= 1
as usual it seems that the difference is 0 if n = 1
so true
 
the difference being 0 when n=1 isn't relevant
 
@blue you've also got $2=2x+2y+2z=3\lambda+\mu(xy+yz+zx)$ fwiw
 
Anonymous
@Semiclassical Yup
 
Anonymous
But is that $xy+yz+zx$ useful to simplify things
 
Anonymous
3:51 AM
That's what I was wondering...
 
I guess one thing you can also say is that one of x,y,z is negative since xyz=-1
 
Anonymous
Okay, that is reasonable
 
$9n^2 + 3n^3 + n \: \text{log} \: n$ is $\Omega(n^3)$
False
 
Anonymous
$2s=\lambda + \mu (-1/s)$. The roots of this equation are $x,y,z$
 
Anonymous
Does this help anyway? :/
 
Anonymous
3:56 AM
Some quadratic equation roots trick might be there
 
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Anonymous
$2s^2=\lambda (s) - \mu$
 
Anonymous
Wait, this equation has three roots
 
Anonymous
It should be an identity, no?
 
Anonymous
A quadratic can have at max 2 roots
 
Anonymous
3:58 AM
Or am I speaking nonsense...
 
hmm, there's actually a much easier approach
 
Anonymous
@Semiclassical Which?
 
you can solve $x+y+z=1,xyz=-1$ for $x,y$ in terms of $z$
and then plug that into x^2+y^2+z^2
should end up with $x^2+y^2+z^2=2z^{-1} + 1 - 2 z + 2 z^2$
differentiating that gives a cubic equation for the critical points, etc.
 
Anonymous
@Semiclassical mmhmm
 
Anonymous
4:04 AM
Then?
 
then you're doing one-variable optimization
 
Anonymous
Oooo
 
Anonymous
Great
 
Anonymous
Lemme try
 
Anonymous
1
A: Maximum or minimum values of $x^2+y^2+z^2$ subject to the condition $x+y+z=1$ and $xyz+1=0$

Doug M$2x - \mu yz = \lambda = 2y - \mu xz\\ 2(x-y) = \mu z (y-x)\\ \mu z = -2, \text{ or } x= y$ And we can do similar algebra to show that $\mu x (y-z) = 2(z-y)$ and $\mu y (z-x) = 2(x-z)$ Either $x = y$ or $y = z$ or $x = z$ If we assume that all are different we would come to the conclusion tha...

 
Anonymous
4:09 AM
There's an answer, but I'm having trouble understanding how they got "Either x=y, or y=z, or x=z"
 
"If we assume that all are different we would come to the conclusion that μx=μy=μz=−2 creating a contradiction."
 
Anonymous
What if we consider $x=y=z$ ?
 
it's not an exclusive OR
actually
if all were equal, then xyz=x^3=-1 would require x=-1
but then x+y+z=3x=-3 != 1
 
Anonymous
Oh, makes sense
 
Anonymous
Thanks @Semiclassical!
 
4:15 AM
np
 
4:53 AM
ohhhh I got the MVT question @TedShifrin
 
5:03 AM
Hmm
trying to decide if this is too broad or not: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2542962/…
(it is a big-list question, so that's perhaps more understandable)
@EricSilva Oh, I found a proof of convexity I like
 
If the partial sums are bounded and the sequence goes to 0, then the sum must converge, right?
 
for that one surface?
 
yeah
and hilariously enough it's a linear algebra proof :)
Let $f(x,y,z)=4xyz-(x+y+z-1)^2$. There's a connected component of the positive set for $f(x,y,z)$ which lies in $[0,1]^3$ and it's this one I want.
The trick is that this has a determinantal representation:
7 hours ago, by Semiclassical
$$f(x,y,z)=4xyz-(x+y+z-1)^2= \frac{1}{4}\begin{vmatrix} 1 & 2x-1 & 2y-1 \\ 2x-1 & 1 & 2z-1 \\ 2y-1 & 2z-1 & 1\end{vmatrix}$$
What's more, that matrix is actually positive semidefinite on the set of interest!
 
Well, I'm definitely semi-positive.
 
the diagonal elements are positive, and the leading principal minors are 1-(2x-1)^2=4x(1-x), 4y(1-y), 4z(1-z). These are positive only on (0,1)^3, so the matrix will be PSD so long as the determinant is positive.
hence my set of interest corresponds to a set of PSD matrices and these are known to be convex. done
 
5:17 AM
oh sweet
 
that's p quality
 
it is. what's fun is that this is some classical algebraic geometry right here
the surface itself is a cubic surface containing 4 double points. there's only one such cubic up to projective isomorphism, which cayley discovered back in 1844
 
o shit that's rad
 
yeah
i mean, the fact that there's only one such cubic means all of this was rather inevitable
 
5:20 AM
right
how did this arise again? wasn't it a trig thing
 
and where did the trig come from
 
heh, that's the fun part
it's actually coming from quantum mechanics stuff, albeit a very simple scenario
with the geometry of cayley's cubic---specifically, the fact that it contains a 3-simplex as a proper set---corresponding to a version of Bell's inequality
I'm not saying that quite right: It's not Cayley's cubic that does that, but it plus everything inside it
 
oh dope I love when these seemingly random connections seem to pop up
 
with the points on the cubic corresponding to certain experimental conditions (choices of how to orient certain magnets) for making measurements on a spin-1/2 particle
the points inside the embedded 3-simplex would correspond to experimental results which could be generated by statistical mixtures of classical 2-state systems
so the fact that the cubic is bigger than the simplex means that there are quantum results which can't be simulated classically :)
I didn't come up with all of this, but I did come up with all of the parametrization stuff
so that's something I can claim entirely for myself :>
One thing I don't have, which I'd like, goes back to trig/geometry stuff
If I plug $(x,y,z)=(\cos^2\alpha,\cos^2\beta,\cos^2\gamma)$ into the above
 
5:33 AM
@orbit-stabilizer That's one of my favorite questions. Wrong. But that's all I'z sayin'.
 
the condition $f(x,y,z)=0$ is equivalent to $$\begin{vmatrix} 1 & -\cos 2\alpha & -\cos 2\beta \\ -\cos 2\alpha & 1 & -\cos 2\gamma \\ -\cos 2\beta & -\cos 2\gamma & 1\end{vmatrix}=0$$
 
Yes, @Semiclassic — this is really cool that you've tumbled into this.
 
math seems cool sometimes
 
You think?
 
maybe ill learn some someday
 
5:34 AM
But from prior considerations that last condition should hold whenever $\gamma=\alpha+\beta$
 
I wonder if Demonark is going to explain multiplication to me in terms of category theory.
@Semiclassic: I thought that was $-\gamma = \dots$.
 
Oh no but if I'm ever teaching a kindergarten class I'll try that
 
Maybe you'd better explain it to me first, Demonark.
 
$\cos 2\gamma$ doesn't change if you flip the sign of $\gamma$
so the angles are only determined up to sign.
 
True.
 
5:37 AM
Lolol, I still haven't gotten around to looking at that yet
 
that said, this isn't working out how it should (according to mathematica)
 
Well, I think I trust Mathematica for this.
 
man i want some scallion pancake
 
@TedShifrin huh, that's totally unintuitive
 
woops. the minus signs evidently shouldn't be there.
 
5:38 AM
Scalli... what?
 
Classic Chinese, Demonark.
 
once I change that, though, mathematica verifies that the determinant vanishes identically when $\gamma=\alpha+\beta$
so...why?
 
@orbit — it's only intuitive (and correct) if you add a hypothesis.
 
I mean, algebraically I can buy that it works out
 
Right, the terms need to be non-negative.
 
5:40 AM
but it's such a simple result that it seems like there should be a better explanation
 
I'm trying to come up with an example with negative terms that has a sequence that goes to 0, and is bounded, but diverges.
 
Well, if the partial sums form a bounded sequence, how do you make it diverge = not converge?
 
Keep it oscillating
 
OK, go for it.
 
But the problem is that the oscillations die out as n -> inf.
 
5:43 AM
Keep what oscillating?
 
So the sum stabilizes
The sum
 
Nope.
 
i mean they dont have to die out
 
the partial sums
 
Right.
Don't give it away, Mr. Eric.
 
5:43 AM
Hmmmmm. Okay, I'll think about it some more.
 
i wont i wont
 
I used to love it when my Spivak students puzzled over this one for hours :)
 
this is a good problem
 
this was on a past final
sigh
 
PDEs are 2 hard
 
5:47 AM
It's a good analysis question, orbit. Stop sighing.
 
Only 2?
 
Demonark: He used ellipticity to get regularity and then it was 2.
 
lmao
I give that joke a 9/10
solid performance, bravo
 
I usually get sneers or ignores.
 
i like pde jokes
 
5:49 AM
Wait what? I'm pretty sure you probably have more puts ____ on ignore posts than anyone
 
Okay, I think I have an example, yet I'm unsure how to prove it.
Consider $a_n = (-1)^{3n}\frac{1}{log(n)}$.
 
Demonark/Eric: Do you know how to prove that if two annuli are conformally equivalent, then the ratios of their inner/outer radii are the same?
Wow, orbit. First, the 3 is irrelephant.
That is convergent by Leibniz.
I suggest you write down actual numbers for your series ... and play.
 
Alternating series test?
 
the example i had in mind is p simple
 
I haven't seen this fact before, let's see
 
5:52 AM
But not easy to write an explicit formula for ...
Demonark: The converse is of course very easy.
 
Yeah, you're right. The 3 doesn't do anything.
 
Yeah, and Nori gave that to us on a pset
Okay so for this direction
 
This direction requires cleverness and tools.
 
Because you know the reverse you can just say $1 < |z| < R_1$ for the first annulus and $1 < |z| < R_2$ for the second
 
OK.
It might help to assume the map extends continuously to the closed annulus. I'm not sure if I know (at this state of my knowledge) whether that can be proved. Agh.
 
5:58 AM
i have never seen this fact
 
The big question I posed, or what I just mumbled?
 
big
 
Oh, it's a standard grad complex exercise. I've assigned it when I've taught the course.
 
maybe use some harmonic stuff
 

« first day (2675 days earlier)      last day (2346 days later) »