« first day (2550 days earlier)      last day (2489 days later) » 

12:04 AM
I posted my question from earlier on MSE
0
Q: Involution that brings sets to disjoint sets

Akiva WeinbergerLet $A$ be a collection of subsets of $\{1,2,\dots,n\}$ that is closed under taking subsets (that is, if $U\in A$ and $V\subseteq U$ then $U\in A$). Is there always an involution $f:A\to A$ such that $f(V)\cap V=\emptyset$ for all $V\in A$? I'm guessing yes. Note that if $A=\mathcal P(\{1,2,\dot...

Heh, I like this
Random and possibly (probably?) relatable post:
3
Q: Suggestions for mathematical solitaire against boredom

MaudPieTheRocktorateI sometimes have to endure my parents' or teachers' endless scolding, and sometimes endure endless lectures on boring things in school, and occasionally endure really long trips. One way for me to deal with them is to do mental arithmetic, such as calculating squares and cubes, and approximatin...

 
12:20 AM
so there's a topology on a set, and then there's a topology space - why is the space necessary?
I understand what a topology is formally, and a topology space is $(X, \tau)$ for a topology $\tau$ on a set $X$
but I don't understand why the latter is necessary
 
Because that is the definition of a topological space, not a topology...
I guess you don't really need it if you don't want it
 
yeah
 
well, I know it's a separate definition, but I'm just wondering why it is needed.
 
you could always tell, given a topology, its corresponding set by finding the """""""largest"""""""" set
 
right
 
12:24 AM
note the quotations :P
 
What do you mean by needed
 
what exactly is it used for that just a topology could not be used for.
 
because youre really looking for the set $S$ such that for any set $X$ in the topology, $X \subseteq S$
it's just handy heather
instead of having to say "name a topology such that when it satisfies that above condition, $S$ is $\Bbb R$, you can just say "name a topology on $\Bbb R$
 
You normally don't think of $\mathbb{R}^2$ with standard topology as just all the open sets (or any manifold)
 
@MeowMix oh, okay ::shrugs:: i didn't know if it had a special significance or something.
 
12:26 AM
You could I guess
Also sometimes you want to talk about points, or things other than open sets. You could just always refer to the maximal element of the topology poset, but that seems annoying
 
night chat
 
A lot of times when we have an object $X$ with a certain structure $s$ on it we define it formally as $(X,s)$
but it doesn't really matter
 
@heather You could look into pointless topology\
 
(whose name is a joke)
 
Yes, but it is also a subject
And I think part of the point of pointless topology is just to not really think about the space itself
but I don't really know
 
12:35 AM
there's a point to pointless topology? =P
 
Yah think it is at the tips of $\vee$ and $\wedge$
 
1:06 AM
Hey, guys, is this description clear?
Here's a specific topology visualization puzzle: i.imgur.com/VZVP30S.jpg You have three hexagons placed on top of each other in 3D space, with six vertical rectangular faces holding them together (alternating between top and bottom). This must be homeomorphic to an $n$-genus torus with some holes punched out, but which and how many? Can you visualize the deformation that takes one to the other? — Akiva Weinberger 1 min ago
 
@AkivaWeinberger homeomorphic or homotopy equivalent?
 
hi @anon
I know it's you :)
 
@arctictern Homeomorphic
It's an orientable 2-manifold with boundary
Those are all toruses of some genus with some number of open disks removed, by the classification theorem
They're also ambiently isotopic
 
how do points on the line segments have nbds homeomorphic to the closed half-disk?
 
I haven't seen "sea turtle" for awhile?
 
1:15 AM
Add in the three hexagons @arctictern
"You have three hexagons placed on top of each other…"
 
@arctictern I know you're @anon
 
Yo @Balarka when you see this, the dynamics stuff is aggressive, the definition of a foliation came up like ffs
 
Hi pal @Twink
 
ah, I see, you're viewing hexagons as 2D, not 1D
 
Hey everyone look at this post
2
 
1:16 AM
@AkivaWeinberger no
 
OK then don't
 
I changed my mind, I'll look at it
 
Then do.
:-D
 
hi pal
what did Akiva write?
 
A song.
 
1:22 AM
okay thank you
 
(removed)
 
@skullpatrol what are other @anon's accounts?
 
[REDACTED]
 
Ask him, pal @Twink
 
1:29 AM
he won't tell me, that's why I asked you
 
@Akiva so I'm giving a lecture tomorrow which is on ridiculously dense stuff, so in particular I was told to just black box two statements
 
he hates me
 
So in the notes I wrote "Proof: [DATA EXPUNGED]"
 
@Daminark lol
Wait why are you giving a lecture
 
Bootcamp
 
1:30 AM
Then don't bug him @Twink
 
Who thought it was a good idea to What's it about
 
We're the ones giving the lectures
 
@skullpatrol I can prove he hates me
 
This one here is about $\epsilon$-orbits in hyperbolic dynamics
 
stares blankly
 
1:31 AM
That's what I've been doing all day tbh
 
@skullpatrol look at what he wrote about me math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10880/…
 
So is this about stuff bouncing around on pool tables or what
 
I have no way to connect this to the real world whatsoever
 
OK…?
 
I just know that you've got these hyperbolic sets, epsilon orbits, Anosov diffeomorphisms, foliations, whatever the fuck these are
 
1:32 AM
I read that long ago @Twink ...don't be so sensitive
Life goes on.
 
Like, I wasn't originally gonna sign up to lecture but I'm one of a small number of people in class who know about manifolds so yeah
 
I signed up Wednesday late afternoon and now I'm like wtf?
And re crossed out stuff: Schlag did. The lectures have on the whole gone moderately well
 
@skullpatrol but I reall want to be friends with @anon
 
My mind is going to that Tom Lehrer song, Lobachevsky, where the guy is given his topic
"I know this from nothing"
 
1:34 AM
he's smart and nice
 
Honestly I can relate
"Wat. I'm going. To do"
 
Do you have a friend from Minsk
who has a friend in Pinsk?
 
Whose friend in Omsk has friend in Tomsk with friend in Akmolinsk
 
You can't force anyone to like you @Twink just be yourself
 
Whose friend in Alexandrovsk has friend in Petropavlovsk, whose friend somehow is solving now the problem in Dnepropetrovsk?
 
1:38 AM
And when his work is done, HAHA begins the fun
 
Yeah but seriously do you know the topic enough to give a lecture
 
Ehhhhhh
I might be able to manage with lecture notes
The first part of it will just be a primer on Riemannian manifolds, that I can do
And I know at least two of the theorems well
 
how long is the lecture?
 
There's this juggernaut theorem that I'm learning as we speak, the statement is insane and the proof is 2 pages long
@skull I have an hour. This really needs 3
Similar to last lecture except I had more time to grapple with that stuff
 
Wow 3:1
 
1:41 AM
I mean maybe 3 was an exaggeration (maybe not tbqh)
 
@skullpatrol to be myself is all that I can do?
 
Yes @Twink
 
or force him
 
Force never works.
 
It won't be genuine if forced, and using force is just a bad thing to do
 
1:43 AM
it doesn't matter if it's not genuine
 
Genuine is real
Keep your life real @Twink
Start now.
Nah, never too late pal :-)
 
I have a philosophical question about numbers
What are numbers? What does it mean for a number to "exist"?
 
What do you mean by "exist"?
 
I do not even know.
 
Start there.
 
1:48 AM
I mean, as a highschooler I use the reals all the time but also as a math student, I know that the axioms and postulates to construct reals are much more complicated than it looks like (Dedekin cuts, Cauchy sequences etc)
 
Define: exist
 
This kind of thinking makes both imaginary and reals weird to me. Only integers aren't so weird.
 
A number is a mathematical object used to count, measure, and label. The original examples are the natural numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and so forth. A notational symbol that represents a number is called a numeral. In addition to their use in counting and measuring, numerals are often used for labels (as with telephone numbers), for ordering (as with serial numbers), and for codes (as with ISBNs). In common usage, number may refer to a symbol, a word, or a mathematical abstraction. In mathematics, the notion of number has been extended over the centuries to include 0, negative numbers, rational numbers...
 
@skullpatrol Ugh, IDK.
I mean, you postulate that such mathematical structures satisfies the properties and you call this a "thing"
I think that this question goes much further than numbers but also everything that Mathematics create.
 
What is the motivation for the postulates?
 
1:51 AM
@anon is here
@skullpatrol tell him to like me
 
Yeah the reals are weird
 
Like Twink <----there @Twink
 
$\Bbb Q[i]$ (complex numbers with rational parts) is less weird than $\Bbb R$ (reals)
 
@skullpatrol I'm not sure of how answer this question
 
It takes some thought, yes.
 
1:56 AM
but it's like the concepts are too intuitive for the human thinking, and therefore (as fundamental) we say that they're true. this way we construct consequences from those truths
 
But, there in lies the answer.
 
I miss Jasper Loy :(
 
@AkivaWeinberger $\mathbb{Q}[i]$ would just be (isomorphic to) $\mathbb{Q}[x]/(x^2+1)$, wouldn't it?
 
Did you @Semiclassical read Gowers's Blog?
 
@Semiclassical Yeah, of course, why
 
2:04 AM
hi everyone, I'm trying this out for the first time
 
Welcome @AdamP
 
Welcome! Standard protocol is that we eat your soul upon arrival
 
@skullpatrol do you like to see strong videos?
 
hmm, good luck. its got a lot of fat
;)
 
2:05 AM
Aw shucks
 
"Strong" in what sense @Twink?
 
Hey does anyone have this
Whoa I didn't know Amazon links expand in chat
 
Yeah, they're huge.
 
@skullpatrol I can't tell you here
@AkivaWeinberger is the kindle version good?
cause I got the kindle version of a math book once and it's horrible
formulas look awkward
 
I don't know I didn't buy the book
(yet?)
 
2:10 AM
I'm gonna get the free fragment on my kindle
 
Hm in the "people who bought this also bought" section, Category Theory in Context
so that's a thing that might interest me at some point in the future I guess
 
Oh look topological spaces now have vector fields...
 
Yeah and you can comb them maybe
Probably not
 
I'm just guessing here that there's no section stuff going on here, it's just a map from the space to $\mathbb{R}^n$
Wait no that can't be it
So wait we have a topological space $X$
And it's saying the space of bounded vector fields on $X$ is a Banach space under the sup norm
I don't know if that's true
 
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if there is a chat room with a group theory focus?
 
2:20 AM
Just map all of $X$ to $(1,0,\ldots,0)$, then to 2 times that, and so forth
 
@AdamP yes but there's none in there
 
Ok, thanks. Just to get an idea, how much "research level" math is done in these chat rooms? I know that is somewhat vague, but I'm just trying to get an idea of what to expect.
 
Wait no I'm dumb that's not Cauchy
 
Not much @AdamP
 
ok, fair enough
 
2:32 AM
If you want research level math go here:

 Homotopy Theory

A room for anyone interested in homotopy theory, or any nearby...
 
thanks, but I don't like snakes ;)
 
oh wait, homotopy not homology
still, no
 
That's where the "heavy weights" chat.
 
Fite me @AdamP
(actually plz don't fite I'm just a lowly undergrad)
(have mercy plx)
 
2:35 AM
No mercy
 
Okay literally the first page in this proof is setting up the stage to say "Okay this now becomes a fixed point problem"
gg no re
 
what are you proving
 
That's French for "no thank you" :-)
 
Do you know about hyperbolic dynamics at all?
If not I can give a quick rundown of the basic definitions
 
unfortunately, I don't know much outside of group theory, lattice theory and some universal algebra. I haven't seen much else in 10 years
and I'm just learning universal algebra
 
2:42 AM
I see. Well, basically you've got a Riemannian manifold $M$ and some diffeomorphism $f$ from an open subset into $M$, and you define a closed invariant set to be hyperbolic if it satisfies certain regularity properties.
 
You may find this helpful @AdamP for this room.
 
So now, for any $g:O\to M$ with $d_1(g,f)$ sufficiently small (the sup distance between their derivatives) and any homeomorphism $h$ of some topological space $X$, and any continuous map $\phi:X\to O$ such that the diagram of $\phi, g,$ and $h$ commutes up to some $\delta$ jiggling, you can find a continuous $\psi:X\to O$ which is arbitrarily close to $\phi$ and for which the associated diagram actually commutes. And that map is unique
 
thanks, reading tex is "fun"
 
Turns out the proof of this theorem basically boils down to defining the right map and turning this into a fixed point problem, and then reducing that to another fixed point problem, and then noting that the second one is a contraction map
 
[Some philosophy]
Are the concept of loops special...? Granted, it is really the only known concept that can keep infinity bounded without reducing its magnitude
 
2:52 AM
What
 
Any other operation that I knew that can make an infinite input finite, must require some notions of convergence. E.g. convergent sums, products, etc.
 
What is a loop here
 
cycles, circles, periodic, recurring, recursive etc. Anyting to do with the concept of circles and recursion (Not sure if there is an umbrella term)
 
2:56 AM
What do you mean by making an infinite input finite?
 
For example:
It is very very easy for most constructs to attach the word "endless" whenever it is made circular
because circles (and other closed manifolds) are the easiest way to make something lacking a boundary
so in theory you can walk forever on it
More generally, it seems you can make something behave like infinity by putting them into cycles
but without having anything to ever blow up
 
Yes, in a sense you are "taming" the blow-up by constructing a cycle.
 
What else, besides cycles and convergences, can tame infinity?
 
Depends on the situation.
 
These are both like functions from infinity to compact sets
Compactness is kinda like at the boundary between finite and infinite
 
3:07 AM
I see, that's an interesting insight
[More random] (Please be warned it might actually makes no sense) In the (insert object) of all possible set theories, is it provable that there can exist no set theory that allow sets with size between finite and countable.

(Answer to this question may require years and possibly centuries of studies of set theory, and it is possible it is undecidable)
> Under almost all conditions, generating questions that might be worthwhile to revisit in the future is my first priority (feel free to try to figure out what the measure zero set is : D )
 
math.stackexchange.com/questions/2374222/…. My favourite being take any mathematical structure, nuke some of its theorems and then figure out what new things pops out or what old things changed or lost
 
3:22 AM
You can build a model of ZFC in which the model's version of $\Bbb N$ is actually uncountable
I mean, you can do that with PA too
 
Hmm, an uncountable $\Bbb{N}$ sounds weird, even more weird is you don't need to throw away axiom of choice to achieve this. Perhaps I misremembered, but I think axiom of choice allows all sets to be well ordered, and thus established the $\aleph$ numbers, and thus the smallest such can be proved to biject with the naturals
 
To be clear, the definition of uncountable is "not in bijection with $\Bbb N$"
 
$\{1,2,3,4,5\}$
 
All I mean is that the version of $\Bbb N$ in the model need not be in bijection with the real, true $\Bbb N$
 
Ah I see
 
3:30 AM
The hyperintegers (the hyperreals that satisfy $x=\lfloor x\rfloor$) provides an uncountable model of PA
($\lfloor\cdot\rfloor$ here being the natural extension of the floor function to the hyperreals)
 
Hey @Ted!
 
Hi Demonark.
 
And choice has nothing to do with this. IIRC, if a theory has an infinite model, it has models of all infinite cardinalities
Hi @Ted. I need to sleep at some point.
Maybe I should do that at some point
 
Is it my fault you're awake? :D
Hi, DogAteMy.
 
3:32 AM
I wrote an answer two weeks ago that I can no longer understand. This is bad.
The person is stuck, and I am now stuck too.
 
Yeah, @PVAL.
How'd you guess?
 
I just look at your answers and guessed
Seemed like a nice waste of 2 minutes.
 
LOL ... I think I had a clear solution in mind, but now it's not making sense to me.
 
@TedShifrin I found out that I once answered a question, deleted my answer, then about a year later on a different account with <10k (so couldn't see deleted answers) answered the question again.
 
3:37 AM
LOL ... were you right the second time?
 
said the same thing both times, don't remember why I deleted in the first place
 
Ah ... smart anon/tern :)
 
Who are you
 
arctic tern's alt is anon
 
Also what's wrong with the Who's Line reference
I liked it
 
3:41 AM
twink was joking about blackmailing me, but deleting the messages before I could read them as tern
 
is twink still being troubled? :(
 
This alt exists so far back in the integral ages created by Waiting (2012-2015,2017)
We are currently in the algebra age, mostly lead by Tobias (2016-2017)
 
waiting?
 
Think I'm glad I only work with the kernel of one 1-form at a time.
 
Oh ... duh.
@PVAL: This is very similar to one of the standard proof techniques going back to Cartan (e.g., to find a mapping $M\to G$ by looking at its graph in $M\times G$ as an integral manifold of a differential system).
I don't think we're in the algebra age. Think about all the 4-manifold stuff and topology going on with Mike, PVAL, Balarka ...
 
3:45 AM
well, topology and differential geom is pretty much a constant in this chat.
 
So anyone want to talk about representation theory?
Jk I don't even know what that is
I just know Tobias does it
 
anon knows a lot of it, too
 
Ah, well, gimme until the end of this year
 
Actually, I think we might be heading to or already started the number theory age, cause I do see a surge in number theoric discussions this year
mostly lead by Akiva and Typhoon
 
In the meantime I'll pull this room ever so slightly to dynamics
 
3:46 AM
I doubt it,
 
So, Brin/Stuck is making this claim and I have no idea why they're allowed to do this
 
@Secret It's mostly Typhon's pet project at the moment
I just help out sometimes
and listen when he discovers stuff
 
well, even before he talks about the qudratic integers, you, steamy and some other users are talking about various number theoric stuff, such as division algorihtms etc. IIRC
 
3:56 AM
May 22 at 19:03, by Akiva Weinberger
The Collatz conjecture is trivial. Simply view the problem as a knot cohomotopy in the category of semistable cardinalities.
 
Say good night, DogAteMy.
 
Okay so let's say you have a topological space $X$ and $h:X\to X$ is a homeomorphism
 
Good night, DogAteMy. You have a topological space $X$ and $h:X\to X$ is a homeomorphism
 
Let $\Gamma$ be the space of bounded continuous maps from $X$ into $\mathbb{R}^N$ under the sup norm. This is a Banach space
And say you also have some $g:O\to M$ where $O$ is some open subset and $M$ is a Riemannian manifold
 
@Secret I've said it before, but my reaction to stuff about Collatz is pretty much this:
 
4:01 AM
Well, number theory is still magic to me, it will be a LONG time before it ceased being magic
In particular, the most magical of them all is WTF is the closed form of the set of prime numbers
This magic controls nearly EVERYTHING in the world of mathematics, we use them alot but we understood it fundamentally so little
 
We're looking at $O_{\alpha} = \{x: d(x,O) < \alpha\}$, and for each $y\in M$ we're letting $D_{\alpha}(y)$ be the disk of radius $\alpha$ in its normal space. Turns out there's an $\alpha \in (0,1)$ if $O$ is relatively compact such that $O_{\alpha}$ is foliated by the disks $D_{\alpha}(y)$, and we have our projection
 
ehhhh
We understand a lot.
 
So we can extend $g:O\to M$ to $\tilde{g}:O_{\alpha}\to M$. So then let $B_{\alpha}$ be the ball of radius $\alpha$ in $\Gamma$
 
I mean, we understood nearly everything about it except its closed form
and that personally bugs me
 
And define the following map from $B_{\alpha}$ to $\Gamma$:
$$\Phi(v)(x) = \tilde{g}(\phi(h^{-1}(x)) + v(h^{-1}(x))) - \phi(x)$$
Where $\phi:X\to O$ is predetermined
 
4:06 AM
For my part, the fact that the Riemann hypothesis is still open is crazy to me.
 
The idea is that if you have some fixed point $v$ of this map and let $\psi = \phi + v$, then $\psi(x) = \tilde{g}(\psi(h^{-1}(x)))$
 
Though not quite in the sense of "I can't believe no one has proven it"
 
The proof is trivial @Semiclassical
 
According to quite a lot of sources it isn't open.
 
First, assume the Riemann Hypothesis
 
4:07 AM
Now, they try to make the claim that it's possible to reduce $\tilde{g}$ to $g$, because apparently that lies in $M$. Why tho?
@PVAL are any of those sources likely to be correct?
 
Actual real good night this time
 
well no.
 
There's also a lot of people who voted ...a certain way in the last election.
 
Lolol
 
For my part, the almost-proof that always amazes me is the stuff in section 0.3 of these notes: www-users.math.umn.edu/~garrett/m/v/pseudo-cuspforms.pdf
 
4:12 AM
I'd post Scaramucci quotes but I'd get banned.
 
My overall viewpoint continues to be: If this were a comedy show, it'd be crazy and absurd and a blast. As it is it's just ...
 
4:29 AM
Oh fuck I get what Brin's doing now
UGH
 
@PVAL-inactive "It escalated from there."
 
@Fargle hey
 
Hey @Dami, I'm not sticking around but just thought I'd see what's up
 
Friggin Brin & Stuck is
I keep getting wears sunglasses at night stuck on things
 
user84215
4:52 AM
Why is the following true?: Obtaining an affine plane by removing a projective line from a projective plane depends on which line has been removed; that is, two affine planes obtained by removing two different projective lines from a projective plane may not be isomorphic
 
5:50 AM
@aminliverpool What do you mean by projective space? And what do you mean by a line? Isomorphic as what? Anyway, I don't think that is possible (except for some definition that I'm not used to), because the group of projective automorphisms acts transitively on the set of lines, and so it acts transitively on their complements - providing an explicit isomorphism between them. Other than that, two affine spaces of the same dimension (over the same base, e.g. reals) are isomorphic in general.
 
user84215
In mathematics, a projective plane is a geometric structure that extends the concept of a plane. In the ordinary Euclidean plane, two lines typically intersect in a single point, but there are some pairs of lines (namely, parallel lines) that do not intersect. A projective plane can be thought of as an ordinary plane equipped with additional "points at infinity" where parallel lines intersect. Thus any two distinct lines in a projective plane intersect in one and only one point. Renaissance artists, in developing the techniques of drawing in perspective, laid the groundwork for this mathematical...
 
user84215
In geometry, an affine plane is a system of points and lines that satisfy the following axioms: Any two distinct points lie on a unique line. Each line has at least two points. Given any line and any point not on that line there is a unique line which contains the point and does not meet the given line. (Playfair's axiom) There exist three non-collinear points (points not on a single line). In an affine plane, two lines are called parallel if they are equal or disjoint. Using this definition, Playfair's axiom above can be replaced by: Given a point and a line, there is a unique line which contains...
 
user84215
Affine Isomorphism
 
6:50 AM
I have literally one question and one question only. Suppose two odd number differ by a power of two. Must they be coprime? I know it sounds stupid but it might be very useful to me.
 
Assume $a$ and $b$ shared a common factor $k$, so that $a = ck$ and $b = dk$
Then $b-a = (d-c)k$
If they're odd, $k\ne 2$
But then $(d-c)k = 2^n$
But then $k = 1$
So yeah
@Typhon
 

« first day (2550 days earlier)      last day (2489 days later) »