« first day (2415 days earlier)      last day (2607 days later) » 

1:08 AM
If there is a user who is not there in chat rooms then is there any way I can chat with the user ?
 
1:38 AM
hi @arctictern do you know about the following proposition ?
Let M be a finitely generated A-modules, let I be an ideal of A, let I be an ideal of A and et $\phi$ be an endomorphism of M such that $\phi(M) \subset IM$. Then $\phi$ satisfies an equation of the form $\phi^n + i_1 \phi^{n-1} + .. + i_n = 0$ where $i \in I.$
 
hi adeek
 
hi @MeowMix
how are you
 
tired
shoveled snow
 
1:54 AM
oh I see that is tiring good thing I don't live in a house
 
2:05 AM
I can't get over how weird colorblindness is
Just the fact that it's possible to think that peanut butter is green until your 50s
Green peanut butter sounds so weird
 
pretty sure its caused by one of your cones not working
so you only see like red and blue and mixes of those
 
or red and green
 
2:21 AM
Its a genetic disorder, so most likely its some enzyme not being synthesised.
 
hey anyone would like to discuss commutative algebra ?
There is a proof at the end of michael atiyah which I don't understand 100 %
in michael atiyah
 
what is it
 
I don't understand this last line
By multiplying on the left by the adjoint of the matrix bla
I don't understand this last line
 
Hey guys
 
@Adeek Taking the determinant of the matrix gives a monic polynomial in $\phi$ of degree $n$. The coefficients, meanwhile, are polynomial functions of the $a_{ij}$.
So presumably the point is just that said polynomials themselves lie in the ideal of $A$.
 
2:35 AM
@Semiclassical so let me see if I am understanding this correctly. So, we have the matrix formed by $\delta_{ij}\phi - {a_{ij}}$ right ?
 
$\delta_{ij}$.
So it's of the form $\phi 1_n-A$ with $A$ a matrix with elements in the ideal.
 
right
 
(A isn't the best notation here because it overlaps with the field, but oh well)
 
right so far I agree with you yeah
 
Ok. What aren't you sure about?
 
2:37 AM
@AkivaWeinberger Wow! Visually stunning.
Also, hi chat, and happy Pi Day to those for whom that's still true.
 
@Semiclassical okay once we have that matrix is of the form $\phi 1_n - A$ Then how can we determine that determinant annhilates each $x_i$ ?
how do we know that ?
 
Don't know. I wasn't looking at the rest, just the last line.
My favorite bit of Pi Day humor: One year at my undergrad, we had a Pi Day celebration with various kinds of pie.
So I picked up a piece of apple pie, walked over to one of my profs, and said "This pie is transcendental!"
She groaned.
 
@Semiclassical How irrational of you.
 
rightt
@Semiclassical I understand I guess the gap was missing from the fact that I don't remember getting taught about adjoints
so the adjoint matrix is defined as Adj(A) such that A adj(A) = det(A) I_n
so we get that directly
 
Is that the adjoint, or the adjugate?
 
2:43 AM
I don't know I don't remember learning about them in linear algebra
 
Well, the terminology is a bit muddy.
 
yeah
 
For reference, see the first few lines of Wiki's page on the adjugate matrix: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjugate_matrix
They define that as you've done above.
 
yeah
 
Whereas the adjoint would be something different. But I"m not sure in what sense the text is using it.
Does it define it somewhere in the text? That'd help a lot
 
2:45 AM
no they don't
Michael atiyah doesn't define it anywhere @Semiclassical
 
I've seen "adjoint" in the context of functional analysis, might be what you're thinking of
 
Drat.
 
In numerical analysis, how to determine which one of two Runge-Kutta methods is better than the other one with a given linear ode
 
hi
 
I am pretty sure that is the definition because it follows right away from that
 
2:46 AM
Hmm, okay. I'll leave that to you.
 
If $T:X\to Y$, then $T^*:Y^*\to X^*$ is the adjoint, where $(T^*f)(x) = f(Tx)$. Corresponds to an adjoint matrix in terms of conjugate transpose because Hilbert spaces
That's usually what I'd expect by adjoint, but apparently adjugate is referred to as such as well
 
@Daminark I remember that adjoint yeah
but this is commutative algebra has nothing to do with functionals hehe
 
Yeah
 
repeating again
 
I've never seen adjugate used that way. But Wiki says that "classical adjoint" is occasionally used for $A^{-1}\det A$.
 
2:48 AM
If there is a user who is not there in chat rooms then is there any way I can chat with the user ?
 
@Semiclassical I actually have some gaps in my linear algebra knowledge I want to fix it over the summer. I might get some rigorous linear algebra book and read + do the problems.
not linear transformation and stuff that stuff I am super good with
but I am talking about jordan form etc
 
@BAYMAX Honestly, I'm not sure how it works if they don't use chat already.
I may take a crack at editing your question for clarity, btw.
 
To be clear --- It is like if person 'X' is not here in this room then even if $X$ is online in MSE ,I cannot talk to the user ?
 
I don't know.
 
The book I used first quarter had a chapter on rational and Jordan form
Linear Algebra, by Hoffman and Kunze
 
2:53 AM
ohk...
 
We stopped just before that chapter
@Adeek
 
Yeah I will think I will use that book @Daminark
 
Though I've got a couple bones to pick with that book
 
its so cold all I can do is
FREEZING
 
have a sip of Hot and sour soup!
 
2:59 AM
How cold is it where you are?
 
all I have is bread
so I'm gonna cook that
cause I don't want to go outside again
it's 30 but the wind makes it unbearable
 
@Daminark hehe
 
It doesn't talk at all about quotient spaces, so it was using all this annihilator and conductor stuff in order to prove that matrices over an algebraically closed field were triangularizable
In the words of my current analysis professor
"Don't give me the book that Souganidis told you to read and talk to me about conductors, this is linear algebra, not trains. I didn't tell you to compute something about Amtrak"
Also, it starts with linear equations and matrices instead of vector spaces, so our first pset was "r o w r e d u c e e v e r y t h i n g"
Beyond that, though, it's been quality in my experience
 
I've constructed my finest example yet
it's very cool
my magnum opus
 
@Semiclassical -7 C
 
3:12 AM
"But sir, what if we're doing Kirchoff's loop laws for circuit elements of known conductance?" @Daminark
"Get out."
 
So right away when I got home, I photoshopped Schlag's face onto a train, and saved all my stuff in a folder called "Schlag the insulator"
 
@Daminark My linear algebra class was in large part a study of equivalent statements to "A is invertible".
 
aka "Here's why we love nonsingular matrices."
 
Oh I remember in my REU thing, Laci went up to the board and said "Equivalent conditions for non-singularity", crazy long list
 
3:21 AM
@Daminark Yeah, we ended with about 25 by the end of my class, though I imagine your list was longer and more advanced. Most of mine were things that now seem obviously equivalent: "Ax = b has a unique solution for all x", "A is a product of elementary matrices", "Ax = 0 has only the trivial solution", "det A is non-zero"...
 
I mean we also had those as well, this was an REU course introducing us to the basics of combinatorics and linear algebra
In analysis first quarter, the linear algebra treatment was supplementing our main psets with a bunch of linear algebra problems in chapters 1-6 of Hoffman and Kunze
 
@BAYMAX Okay, just finished a substantial revision of your question for clarity/readability in English.
 
@Daminark I really need to review my linear algebra. As a number of people have told me, you can never know too much linear algebra. It's ubiquitous.
 
More is always better with linear algebra
In particular I'm gonna want to go and actually figure out about quotient spaces, I'm vaguely familiar and can translate stuff from group theory but I should get those down well
Also need to learn multilinear algebra, Jordan form, and what actually happened in chapter 6 of Hoffman and Kunze
The number of problems we were given in that chapter was completely insane, and since it was uploaded late we only had 4 days to do it. Many of us didn't actually read it much, jumped to the problems
 
3:39 AM
revision of my question@Semiclassical
 
Right. Read thorugh it, let me know if it works.
 
I don't get it , what I will try what will work?
 
Sorry. I meant, let me know if the revision I did for your question is appropriate (i.e. works for you).
 
Wow very nice edit , I hope someday I will write like this clearly! thank you very much @Semiclassical
I had not seen the notification though..
 
Really? Weird.
 
3:46 AM
see I opened only the chat scrren here so I don't know what's happening in main page and notifications shows up in main page right?
 
Right.
 
i'm the greatest
 
Ok .. @ForeverMozart be calm and have some soup ....you are great!
Great is a relative term though ... ha ha
 
my example will live throughout eternity
 
Is this function continuous at x = 0
 
3:48 AM
it took me 6 years to get here
so very emotional
 
@BAYMAX which function?
 
Nice work! I appreciate it ! and congratulations for your achievement , I hope someday I will appreciate your article...All the best... thumbs up!
$f(x) = sin(x)$ if $x \neq 0$
$f(x) = 1 $ if $x = 0$
 
of course not
what is the definition of continuous?
 
I see that $sin(x)$ must be 0 at $x = 0$ but there is a jump that is $f(x ) = 1$ and hence it's not continuous , right!
 
correct
 
3:52 AM
More formally: The limit as $x\to 0$ is clearly $0$ but $f(0)=1$.
 
Very sorry
guys i did a blunder
forget this function
will give a new one
 
if you mean sinx/x then yes
 
yea
$f(x) = \frac{sin(x)}{x}, x \neq 0$
so it is continuous at $x = 0$
and I think it is not differentiable at $x = 0$?
 
why not?
lim (xcosx-sinx)/x^2 = lim -xsinx/(2x) = lim -sinx/2 = 0
 
$f^{'}(0) = \lim_{h \rightarrow 0}\frac{f(0+h) - f(0)}{h}$
 
3:58 AM
lim ((sinh/h)-1)/h = lim (sinh-h)/h^2 = lim(cosh-1)/(2h) = lim(-sinh)/2 = 0
 
= $\lim_{h \rightarrow 0}\frac{\frac{sin(h)}{h} - 1}{h}$
ohh
i got it left a denominator somewhere
thanks
@Semiclassical just curious what's difference b/w Lorenz and Lorenz-63 ?
@dhmo is that differentiable morethan once?
 
@BAYMAX prove that the derivative of even functions at 0 is 0
it is infinitely differentiable
 
nice
also graphically the solutions come to $x = tan(x)$
and there are infinite solutions
to this
 
are you thinking about my question?
 
They're the same. But in Lorenz's original paper he had more than just the 3-variable case.
@BAYMAX Also, this paper looks relevant? (the citations may be useful, at any rate). arxiv.org/pdf/1103.1850.pdf
 
4:19 AM
sorry went for a lemonade
this paper looks nice
I see H and Lorenz
@Semiclassical
@DHMO I thought of expressing an even function as power series which must contain even powers of $x$ only and I got te derivative of any even function at 0 to be 0
but was thinking about infinite differentiability criteria
 
Can be even simpler than that. If it's even, then $\frac{1}{2h}(f(h)-f(-h))=0$. So the limit as $h\to 0$ is 0 and the derivative vanishes.
(I'm using the symmetric difference quotient here i.e. $f'(x)=\displaystyle \lim_{h\to 0}\frac{f(x+h)-f(x-h)}{2h}$.)
 
nice1
Ok
But Symmetric difference maynot imply differentiabilty ?
 
That may be true. I don't remember properly.
 
In mathematics, the symmetric derivative is an operation generalizing the ordinary derivative. It is defined as: lim h → 0 f ( x + h ) − f ( x − h ) 2 h . {\displaystyle \lim...
 
@Semiclassical I feel like you could also use Rolle's Theorem and say that since every open interval (-a,a) : a > 0 of an even function must contain a point with zero derivative, x = 0 must satisfy this, being the intersection of these intervals.
 
4:29 AM
Sounds reasonable. I don't properly remember.
 
sounds nice idea
 
@Semiclassical I don't see a problem with it, but there may be a context where it doesn't work. As long as it's differentiable in a neighborhood of 0, Rolle's theorem holds, and certainly, f(-a) = f(a) by definition.
 
you are taking intersections of $(-a,a)$ right
 
@BAYMAX Yes.
 
so finally you will end up at point0
yeah I think it is a nice idea!
@Fargle
 
4:32 AM
Thanks, @BAYMAX. It has the added bonus of not relying on smoothness (infinite differentiability) or on the symmetric derivative, though both of those ideas work too for more specific types of problems.
 
yes!
 
4:47 AM
oh my
 
5:02 AM
oh
 
5:15 AM
?
 
 
1 hour later…
6:40 AM
@ForeverMozart Always liked Moroder.
 
6:57 AM
@Fargle its good
"super cool" lol
 
lol
Definitely different from my listening habits lately, but I dig it.
I always enjoyed the late 70s/early 80s futurist aesthetic, especially as it was explored in European circles.
 
too bad it's not in english :(
 
its very aggressive
 
7:12 AM
but good
 
what can be said about the first derivative of a convex function
 
It is nondecreasing
 
about it's sign ?
 
Nothing, unless you have an initial value
f(x) >= f(y) whenever x >= y
It's never going down, but it may be above or below the x axis
 
nice,thanks!
 
7:54 AM
@BAYMAX none of the answers mentioned is what i want
to clarify my question, I change it to: "prove that the derivative of an even function differentiable at 0 is 0 at 0.
or, let f(x) be an even function which is differentiable at 0. prove that f'(0) = 0.
 
@DHMO My answer does prove it, though I left in the legwork
 
I don't see any wrong in @Fargle answer
 
@Fargle you used a stronger theorem right
 
@DHMO You never said not to! >_>
 
I don't know that theorem, but I would like to have an answer from the first principles
 
8:00 AM
It's the mean value theorem.
 
or else what's the point
 
Also I think my approach of power series may be violated for some functions...any say on it!
 
oh, then of course you don't need MVT to prove it
@BAYMAX nothing is given about the analyticity of the function
 
Ok
 
@DHMO I think this question is honestly a little advanced for a calculus student to try to prove from first principles. I don't know how I'd do it myself without MVT.
 
8:01 AM
me too @dhmo
 
@Fargle it is actually quite simple
 
Granted I don't know the context of the conversation.
@DHMO: if you know the trick.
 
@Fargle what context? just use the limit definition of derivative
 
calculus :(
 
Ah. I see it now. But even so.
 
8:04 AM
@BAYMAX so have we given up?
 
Nope!
 
good
 
I think we can get it by equating the left and right derivative
yes
 
how?
 
that is the point !
$\lim_{h \rightarrow 0} \frac{f(0+h) - f(0)}{h} = \lim_{h \rightarrow 0} \frac{f(0-h) - f(0)}{-h} $
 
8:08 AM
why?
 
@BAYMAX none of the answers mentioned is what i want
to clarify my question, I change it to: "prove that the derivative of an even function differentiable at 0 is 0 at 0.
derivative of an even function differentiable at 0 is 0 at 0
it is differentiable at 0 ,you have given that
 
how does that equality follow?
 
LHS is right derivative and RHS is left derivative
in LHS $h \rightarrow 0+$
in RHS $h \rightarrow 0-$
anything wrong here!
 
nothing wrong
 
[Some update on the previous random investigation] We can perhaps define

$$\frac{d}{dn}f^n(x)=f^{n+1}(x)-f^n(x)$$

and for continuous $n$

$$\frac{d}{dn}f^n(x)=\lim_{h\to 0}\frac{f^{n+h}(x)-f^n(x)}{h}$$
In mathematics, an iterated function is a function X → X (that is, a function from some set X to itself) which is obtained by composing another function f : X → X with itself a certain number of times. The process of repeatedly applying the same function is called iteration. In this process, starting from some initial number, the result of applying a given function is fed again in the function as input, and this process is repeated. Iterated functions are objects of study in computer science, fractals, dynamical systems, mathematics and renormalization group physics. == Definition == The formal...
Don't know why we cannot go beyond fractions, though, as given all sequence of fractions, you can reach any real number
 
8:17 AM
so @dhmo it will be 0 right!
 
why?
@Secret how do you iterate a function 0.5 times?
 
$f(-h) = f(h)$ as $f$ is even!
so basically @dhmo its like $D = -D $ so $D =0$
 
@BAYMAX wonderful
 
@DHMO It is common in dynamical systems. But basically the same way one define square root, a function $g$ such that $g^2=f$
 
thanks@DHMO
 
8:19 AM
@Secret but it wouldn't be unique
 
@secret you familiar in dynamical system
 
http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/36050726#36050726

This is a typo, cause wikipedia said: This idea can be generalized so that the iteration count n becomes a continuous parameter
 
??
Any body interested in Dynamical systems,Chaos theory,Chaotic systems please join this room - chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/55403/…
 
@BAYMAX Not terribly really, but I do tried to read about the logistic map 2 years ago, and back in UNSW I have sat through and chat with some of my classmates about dynamical system courses. It also helps that the professor who taught us DE methods is also a dynamical mathematician
 
nice though
 
8:22 AM
I mean, yes, just like most of my studies, in situations I can understand enough terminology to make people to misunderstood me as an expert while my understanding is usually half baked. That's why I am still learning actively and trying to nuke all my mistakes
 
@BAYMAX are you familiar with the definition of limit?
 
Yes,but not a master in that!
 
f(x) = x for rational x and 0 for irrational x.
show that f is continuous at 0
and level 2: show that f is discontinuous at other points
 
The logistic map investigation leads to this question some years ago
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1435217/logistic-map-chaos-theory-experiment-need-advice-on-interpretation-of-results

Meanwhile, I only read very little about Lyapunov exponents so far, before get dragged into group theory and then topology
 
@dhmo
sequences definition
I mean you can apply sequences
like $f$ is continuous at $x$ and there exists sequence $a_{n} \rightarrow x $ then $f(a_{n}) \rightarrow f(x)$
then you can take a sequence like this a sequence of rationals converging to an irrational
and you can do that
always
 
8:30 AM
@BalarkaSen @AlessandroCodenotti am i correct that the topological definition of continuous does not account for pointwise continuity?
 
it would be nice if you construxct a sequence of irrationals converging to rationals
thenyou can proceed
 
$f$ is continuous at $x_0$ if for every nbhd $V$ of $f(x_0)$ there is a nbhd $U$ of $x_0$ with $f(U)\subseteq V$
I don't know how useful that is outside of metric spaces, where it is the same as $\epsilon-\delta$
 
@BAYMAX why not?
@AlessandroCodenotti I mean, the open set -> open set thing
is only applicable to not pointwise continuity?
thanks for your definition though
 
 
1 hour later…
9:56 AM
hello
if i have that U and V are open, such that $U\cap V=\emptyset$
 
@Vrouvrou bonjour
 
i want to prove that $\overset{\circ}{\overline{U}}\cap \overset{\circ}{\overline{V}}=\emptyet$
@DHMO bonjour
 
$\overset{\circ}{\overline{S}}$ veut dire quoi?
 
interior of closure
 
@SteamyRoot ich frage dich nicht
 
9:59 AM
l'intérieur de l'dhérence
 
(entschuldigung)
 
can i say $\overset{\circ}{\overline{U}}\cap \overset{\circ}{\overline{V}}\subset \overline{U}\cap\overline{V}$ and $U\cap V\subset \overline{U}\cap \overline{V}$
$U\cap V$ is open
and $\overset{\circ}{\overline{U}}\cap \overset{\circ}{\overline{V}}$ is smallest open
 
@AkivaWeinberger hola
 
then $ \overset{\circ}{\overline{U}}\cap \overset{\circ}{\overline{V}}\subset U\cap V=\emptyet
then i deduce that $\overset{\circ}{\overline{U}}\cap \overset{\circ}{\overline{V}}=\emptyset$
is it right ?
 
Hmmm...
I agree until you claim "smallest open" :P
 
10:03 AM
yest because $\overset{\circ}{\overline{U}\cap \overline{V}}=\overset{\circ}{\overline{U}}\cap \overset{\circ}{\overline{V}}$
 
honestly I don't know how to prove it
 
The interior of a set is the largest open inside the set, not the smallest
 
what do you think @SteamyRoot
 
but, yes, the interior of a finite intersection is the intersection of the interiors
 
ahhh ok you are right
thank you
 
10:06 AM
@SteamyRoot oh, that's a nice property
 
@DHMO Good morning
 
@AkivaWeinberger do you have questions to share?
 
<-- wants to sleep for another four hours
no
 
You need to learn either the technique of stealthily taking short naps during lectures; or to get by with less sleep
 
I also have two tests today and I don't think I'm prepared for either of them :(
 
10:09 AM
@SteamyRoot does that property generalize to "union" and "closed set"?
 
@DHMO What do you mean exactly? The interior of a union need not be the union of the interiors.
The closure of a finite intersection is the intersection of the closures, though.
 
@SteamyRoot so we have "the interior of a finite intersection is the intersection of the interiors" and "the closure of a finite intersection is the intersection of the closures"
 
@Vrouvrou I'm actually a bit unsure whether the statement is true at all, to be honest (my topology is really rusty)
 
and nothing can be said about unions?
 
There are plenty of examples where the interior of a closure is larger than the original set
 
10:12 AM
@SteamyRoot i find proof in a book thank you
 
but usually the "extra point(s)" really lie in some way that I can't take an empty intersection with another open set
Mkay :)
 
if you want i can write the proof after
 
Nah, it's okay - I'll read up on it in Munkres when I finish correcting these "science communication" papers
 
@DHMO Take the rationals and the irrationals. The union of the interiors is the empty set, but the interior of the union is all of $\Bbb R$.
 
@AkivaWeinberger thanks
 
10:16 AM
@SteamyRoot can't you have an ugly space which is a disjoint union of dense open sets?
 
Hmmm... maybe :/
But I really need to get back to grading these damn papers, so I don't really have time to think on this much longer, sadly :(
 
Proofwiki confirms that interior and finite intersection commute and that closure and finite union commute
 
hey guys, anyone want to do an experiment with me? I would like some of you to hide my posts for 10 seconds, and within that time, ping me some random message and then unhide me afterwards
 
How do I hide a post
 
@AkivaWeinberger ok thanks
@AkivaWeinberger "ignore this user"
@Secret random message (I couldn't tag you; your name wouldn't show up)
 
10:20 AM
@Secret Potato
 
@DHMO That's one way to do, it but it apleis SE wide, another way to do it which applies locally is to click the gravatar, and then hide post
 
unhidden
 
ok thanks, hmmm... it seems any pings sent during hidden will not show up in the inbox even after unhiding
 
pings generally don't show up
unless you ignored it for like 15 mins or so
 
Ah I see
 
10:26 AM
If $E$ is connected by arc anf $f:E\rightarrow F$ is continuous and surjective, can i say E is connected by arc then it is connected and as f is continuous f(E) is connected, so F is connected ?
 
@BAYMAX interested to know what the hard question for my ODE midterm is?
 
@DHMO what do you think ?
 
@Vrouvrou j'ai aucune idee
 
ok
and @SteamyRoot ?
 
Probability density question. Suppose I had the following joint probability density of N random variables $f(x_1,x_2,\dots, x_N)$. It is easy to see that if I integrate all variables I get $P(\{x_i\})$ within some infinitesimal volume.

Now suppose if I want to calculate $P(\{x_j\})$ for $j\neq 3,4,5$, is the correct way to do it is to simply leave out $dx_3,dx_4,dx_5$ in the integration?
 
10:34 AM
@Secret I don't understand the meaning of P({x_i})
 
Hello!!

I want to find the critical points of the function $f(x_1, x_2)=x_1x_2$ under the constraint $2x_1+x_2=b$. Using the method of Lagrange multipliers I got the following:
$$L(x_1,x_2,\lambda )=x_1x_2-\lambda \cdot \left (2x_1+x_2-b\right )$$

$$L_{x_1}(x_1,x_2,\lambda)=0 \Rightarrow x_2-2\lambda=0 \\ L_{x_2}(x_1,x_2,\lambda)=0 \Rightarrow x_1-\lambda=0 \\ L_{\lambda}(x_1,x_2,\lambda)=0 \Rightarrow -\left (2x_1+x_2-b\right )=0$$

Solving this system we get the critical point $\left (\frac{b}{4}, \frac{b}{2}\right )$.
 
@DHMO $P(\{x_i\})$ is the probability of the random variable being some given $x_1,x_2,x_3 ...$ within the given infintesimal volume
 
 
1 hour later…
11:53 AM
@MaryStar If you get < 0 for second derivative test at a stationary point, it is a saddle
 
12:27 PM
"Li(x) - pi(x) switches sign infinitely many times". But on the figure itself, Li(x) - pi(x) appears to be always positive. What am I misunderstanding?
(Okay, that's a log-log plot so it cannot show sign. But if I do some quick calculations with Mathematica, I only see positive differences.)
The answer is here:
In number theory, the prime number theorem (PNT) describes the asymptotic distribution of the prime numbers among the positive integers. It formalizes the intuitive idea that primes become less common as they become larger by precisely quantifying the rate at which this occurs. The theorem was proved independently by Jacques Hadamard and Charles Jean de la Vallée-Poussin in 1896 using ideas introduced by Bernhard Riemann (in particular, the Riemann zeta function). The first such distribution found is π(N) ~ N/log(N), where π(N) is the prime-counting function and log(N) is the natural logarithm...
"The first value of x where π(x) exceeds li(x) is probably around x = 10^316;"
 
12:43 PM
@Szabolcs You may find the Wiki page on Skewes' number of interest: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skewes'_number
 
@dhmo
@BAYMAX why not?
@LittleRookie sure i want to know ,kindly tell!
 
Hi @Balarka
 

« first day (2415 days earlier)      last day (2607 days later) »