« first day (2477 days earlier)      last day (2559 days later) » 

12:00 AM
The only way there could be more than one intersection would be if $a = 0$, but then everything's negligible.
Yeah, the right $k$ is $\frac{b}{\|a\|^2}$.
 
holy cr@p, \iff is a command?!
I did not know that.
 
What exactly do you want @Fargle?
 
lol
 
@Danu it isn't one that should be used.
 
oh?
 
12:01 AM
One of the archaic ones?
 
@PVAL-inactive Ted hinted at that $a \cdot x = b$, $a \times x = c$ might have more than one solution $x$. I want to find all cases when this can happen.
It seems to me the only case is when $a = \vec 0$.
 
I mean generally placing logical symbols in the middle of math writing is bad practice.
 
oh
can the plane ever contain the line?
 
One should try to use complete sentences for statements.
 
nope, guess not
 
12:02 AM
@PVAL-inactive Unless you are writing about logic itself, lol.
 
Yeah technical logic papers where the statements are the objects being studied
 
eh, a chain of iffs can be illustrated quite nicely with displaystyle equations. would take too long to digest if written as a run-on sentence.
 
are not something I would suggest doing it for.
Maybe in a talk or a lecture.
In writing its not so nice.
 
It's nice that Enderton's Computability Theory does mention the P vs NP problem
 
@Ted: I think the only way there are multiple solutions is for $\vec a$ to be $\vec 0$.
There. Now I'll find out if I'm wrong.
 
12:04 AM
@PVAL-inactive Yeah, I'd never actually use it like that. But it's interesting that it's even an option.
also I think there is some use in elementary point-set topology.
 
well the solutions of a \cdot x =b are a plane paralell to $a^{\perp}$.
and the solutions of a \times x = c are a line parallel to $a$.
 
Agreed.
They must intersect, exactly once.
Except when $a = 0$.
 
Does anyone know if there is a difference between 'point-set topology' and 'set-theoretic topology'?
 
So if the line were inside the plane $a$ would have to live inside $a^\perp$
 
@JasonBourne I don't think there is usually, but there is a "pointless" formulation of topology, the name due to von Neumann.
In mathematics, pointless topology (also called point-free or pointfree topology, or locale theory) is an approach to topology that avoids mentioning points. The name 'pointless topology' is due to John von Neumann. The ideas of pointless topology are closely related to mereotopologies in which regions (sets) are treated as foundational without explicit reference to underlying point sets. == General concepts == Traditionally, a topological space consists of a set of points together with a topology, a system of subsets called open sets that with the operations of intersection and union for...
@PVAL-inactive Exactly. Impossible for a nonzero vector.
 
12:07 AM
@Fargle There is this article but I don't know if I can trust it.
In mathematics, set-theoretic topology is a subject that combines set theory and general topology. It focuses on topological questions that are independent of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (ZFC). == Objects studied in set-theoretic topology == === Dowker spaces === In the mathematical field of general topology, a Dowker space is a topological space that is T4 but not countably paracompact. Dowker conjectured that there were no Dowker spaces, and the conjecture was not resolved until M.E. Rudin constructed one in 1971. Rudin's counterexample is a very large space (of cardinality ...
 
I will tentatively stand corrected then.
 
I've never heard of set theoretic topology.
 
I have seen one book with this title which is what made me ask
 
I'd assume all topology with the notable exception of homotopy type theory is set theoretic.
That wikipedia article seems to be highly suspect.
 
@PVAL-inactive I think it's about a different kind of axiomatization... I remember reading about it on MO a while back.
Someone mentioned it as a formulation where weird stuff like Banach-Tarski is made impossible
 
12:12 AM
Well there's definitely type theorists
who try and avoid sets.
 
Something that should somehow correspond more to our geometrical intuition
29
Q: Locales and Topology.

Michael BlackmonAs someone more used to point-set topology, who is unfamiliar with the inner workings of lattice theory, I am looking to learn about the localic interpretation of topology, of which I only have a limited understanding. As such, I have some questions: What are some accessible texts or online ref...

 
but I'd assume set-theoretic topologists are ones working from the basis of set theory.
@danu not the article @fargle linked
the second one.
 
@PVAL-inactive Ohhh. Sorry, I don't see all the messages that are being sent in this room.
I only saw Fargle's message
 
" It focuses on topological questions that are independent of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (ZFC)." All of the questions that they are talking about are intimately related to foundations of set theory, so this statement is completely antithetical to the results they are talking about.
 
I have no comment regarding "set-theoretic topology" :P
 
12:16 AM
I must be too irritating to be ignored. =)
I will try to talk less crap. =)
 
Where are the physicists?
Well, I guess my question is more mathematical than physical
 
This article/obit might shed some light auburn.edu/~gruengf/papers/zolimem.pdf
 
I have begun to appreciate the power of cardinality arguments
 
The author above has a nice moustache.
 
> in 1976 [...] he introduces the concept of relative compactness
say what
 
12:19 AM
shit
stupid internet
Could someone explain to me why the charge of a uniformly charged solid sphere has to be zero at the surface? I'm guessing I should be considering a Gaussian surface around a patch of the surface of the sphere, and then let the limit of the thinness go to zero.
However, why should the charge then go to zero? Why can't the surface of the solid sphere not be the same as the surface of an ideal hollow charged sphere (whose charge density can be represented by the Delta function)? My guess is that our solid sphere wouldn't be uniformly charged anymore, but I wouldn't know how to show this (or at least make it intuitive).
(btw, I'm not looking for a "computational" answer; I can show it using the formula of the electric field, however I'm looking for a more intuitive answer)
 
shrugs in physics
2
 
@Daminark I thought of a new name for you. amininthedarkark
 
Oh wow, that's a cool name! How'd you think of it?
 
Well, now that I know you are Amin, I just try to duplicate some of the existing letters in daminark.
 
why @dami why...
 
12:28 AM
What'd I do?
 
not helping me X'D
sorry I was just being a bit theatrical
it's 2.30 here:'(
and I think I won't find an answer to the question tonight
which means going to bed with an unresolved question:l but I guess that's life
 
See I'm actually surprised by your result as well
 
@ShaVuklia You need to go to sleep and the answer will come in your dreams.
 
Like normally I'd think the charge should be mainly on the surface
 
I've been having dreams about physics and maths almost on a nightly basis @Jason
I wake up every night in the middle of the night with a headache
I can actually see my brain processing all this stuff :P
 
12:30 AM
@Jason I know someone who took an IBL calculus class and actually dreamt the proof of pigeonhole which had previously been evading him
 
but I guess that's life
 
@ShaVuklia Then you need to see a doctor.
 
no, I just study a lot :P it's not a disease
 
@Daminark Yes, when you study a lot, the brain might reveal the truth to you in a dream. It is not uncommon.
 
so our solid sphere will just have to have zero charge at the surface for no intuitive/geometrical reason for tonight?:(
 
12:32 AM
I forgot all my physics. Only did it in high school.
 
this is technically maths
I don't want to post on the main forum, because the physics forum sucks at times.
people don't respond often enough
maybe @Semi knows, if he's will to look at it tomorrow
 
@Jason I wouldn't go so far as saying that this is not uncommon, but it happens
 
@JasonBourne tells the Ouroboros story for the umpteenth time
 
I am googling ouroboros now...
 
@Sha A conducting ball, presumably? Like right now I'm really not seeing why this result isn't necessarily false
Assuming there's a total net charge you'd think that the charges are trying to separate as much as possible, which would mean moving to the surface of the sphere
 
12:38 AM
mhm
true
 
Not knowing what anything physics means
 
The field inside the sphere is zero, that much I know
 
I'm pretty sure this is the fact that a closed 1-form on the 2-sphere is exact.
 
yea
 
(Not sure why but dinosaur noises)
 
12:39 AM
Gauss' law can explain it
you just make a spherical (Gaussian) surface within your sphere, such that the electric field on each point of the surface is equal (by symmetry), and since your enclosed charge is 0, you can conclude that the electric field is zero
 
I shall roll with that lmao
 
@PVAL Maybe I should try to learn physics via differential forms, it might make more sense
Probably should just do everything via differential forms tbh
 
@Demonark: Along those lines, allow me to suggest a wonderful mathy physicsy book by Bamberg and Sternberg (a course they taught at Harvard): A course in mathematics for students of physics.
@Sha: Didn't you mistype your question? The charge isn't 0 on the surface. It's the field, right? I haven't thought about this stuff in over 40 years :(
 
oh right
I confuse those two eternally
 
12:47 AM
Will check it out @Ted
 
It's really quite good, Demonark, and they have exercises, too. And yes, they do differential forms.
(I actually held onto those books when I gave away my office.)
 
Oh wait the field, maybe I can see why that's the case. There should be a kind of charge symmetry going on? Like everything sorta cancels around?
 
oh lol I first misread your question, and I thought you said "I thought about this stuff over 40 years" :P
 
It's past your bedtime, @Sha.
 
Soon we'll all be on Balarka's schedule
 
12:50 AM
No, I won't.
 
hi chat
 
Oh, here's Semiclassic to save the charge/field day.
 
HI @SEMI
 
12:51 AM
it's a miracle
IT'S A MIRACLE!!!!
 
LOL
 
SEMIIIIIIIIIIIIII.
 
TROLOLOLOL
 
THE POWER OF CAPS LOCK
 
XDXD
 
12:51 AM
What's the question again?
 
smacks all the yellers
 
0
Q: Why is the charge of a solid sphere zero at the surface? (using Dirac delta function)

Sha VukliaCould someone explain to me why the electric field of a uniformly charged solid sphere has to be zero at the surface? I'm guessing I should be considering a Gaussian surface around a patch of the surface of the sphere, and then let the limit of the thinness go to zero. However, why should the ele...

 
@Sha: Your title is stated wrong. Same confusion of charge/field.
 
yes I know, I edited it, but my internet broke
 
@TedShifrin So is my hunch correct, that $a \cdot x = b$, $a \times x = c$ only has multiple solutions when $a = 0$?
 
12:52 AM
sorry it should be fixed now
 
You're stressing it out, @Sha :P
 
press F to pay respects to Sha's internet
 
Right, @Fargle, and $\vec a=\vec 0$ is truly not allowed.
 
If you're assuming that it's a uniformly charged sphere, then as such it can't have a net surface charge.
Since the volume of the surface area is...well, zero.
 
12:53 AM
@TedShifrin Right.
 
and zero volume * finite density = zero charge.
 
that sounds very counter-physical, since we also assume point charges and the like?
 
So you pretend that charge density is constant on the open ball and jumps to 0 at the boundary, rather than outside the closed ball? I don't think that way.
 
oh wait
I see
it's the finiteness that does it
right
 
Eh, it's a model.
 
12:54 AM
I make it constant on the closed ball and 0 outside :P
 
lol
 
Just like gravitational density in the earth. Hell, maybe it's half dense on the surface.
By the Radon-Nikodym derivative definition of density, I guess it's half on the surface.
 
Well, to be fair, what I have in mind would be to consider a thin Gaussian shell.
That would enclose a finite charge.
But as you make it thinner and thinner the charge clearly must go towards zero.
By contrast, you could instead consider a spherical shell of some thickness.
 
but if we consider an ideal shell, how can that have a finite charge then? oh, it's because it's on the volume-ness surface, so the Gaussian shell can never "eat off" the charge
 
@Fargle: I hope you get to the more interesting chapters eventually :)
 
12:58 AM
oh,,, and by Gauss' law, if the enclosed charge goes to zero, then evidently our field goes to zero
 
not so fast
 
Yeah, that's too fast.
 
flux 0 does not mean field is 0
 
@TedShifrin I'm working on it, picking the hard stuff out of your exercises.
 
unless you have symmetry (like spherical symmetry).
 
12:58 AM
All you're guaranteed in that case is that the inner surface and the outer surface coincide in that instance, in which case the fluxes must match.
 
tfw physical values are hyperreal
 
muzzles Demonark
 
mmph
 
@Daminark Conway intensifies
 
sorry, how do the inner and outer surface coincide?
you mean in the "instance" of the limit?
 
12:59 AM
Right.
 

« first day (2477 days earlier)      last day (2559 days later) »