« first day (2766 days earlier)      last day (2260 days later) » 

12:27 AM
@0celo7 Get up there and make shit up
You don't need facts if you got charisma
"I didn't understand a word he said but damned if he didn't have something to say," they'll say
 
Hi Danimark
 
Heya Dami
 
12:47 AM
@AkivaWeinberger I found part of the notes
I'm missing the pictures
I have to get a dongle and use my laptop instead
 
What if there are blind people in the audience
In the name of accessibility you should cut them
 
a blind mathematican would have a hard go of it
 
Giroux does alright.
 
Is Morin still around
Apparently, not only is the answer yes, but he is going to your talk
Do you know what happens when you piss off Morin? I think not
 
Luckily for him there's no massive calculations here
 
12:59 AM
This f*cking figure took way too much of my time.
 
are those triangle vertices supposed to hit the tips of the curvy bit
 
@0celo7 They are not
 
ok
 
They are supposed to hit the curvy bits at the midpoints of the intervals.
the curve is the absolute value of the Dirichlet kernel $$|D_N(t)| = \left| \frac{\sin\left(\left(N+\frac{1}{2}\right)t\right)}{\sin\left(\frac{t}{2}\right)‌​} \right|$$
 
Find the stationary points of f(x, y) = (x^2-y^2)exp(-(1/2)(x^2+y^2)
I took the partial derivatives but im getting a pair of simultaneous equations which have no solutions?
 
1:03 AM
shoot
there
 
any help will be much appreciated <3
 
@JakeRose What do you mean by stationary points? As far as I can tell, $f$ maps $\mathbb{R}^2$ into $\mathbb{R}$... those aren't even the same spaces...
 
Sorry what?
 
in my world, a stationary point is a point that is fixed by a map
i.e. $f(x_0) = x_0$
if the domain and codomain of $f$ are different how can a point be stationary?
 
Its a contour plot type thing
I definitely havent typed the question wrong
Thats genuinely what we got
 
1:08 AM
I didn't say you typed the question wrong
but you have not provided any context
What do you mean by "a stationary point"?
 
@XanderHenderson Is that the sum of the first $N$ sines?
 
A point where it df=0
e.g. a saddle point
 
@AkivaWeinberger um... by first $N$, you mean $|n| \le N$, right?
if so, yes
actually
wait
no, that is a lie
 
It wouldn't be from $-N$ to $N$ because of oddness
They'd all cancel
 
$D_N(t) := \sum_{|n|\le N} \mathrm{e}^{int}$
 
1:10 AM
Er
Ah, $|n|\le N$
So it's the sum of the cosines from $-N$ to $N$
 
I totally typed that :P
 
(aka the sum of the cosines from $1$ to $N$, doubled plus 1)
 
yes, it is a bunch of cosines
if you like
 
And then you dot it with functions and get Fourier-y stuff
 
not dot
convolve
 
1:12 AM
Oh
 
the $N$-th Fourier partial sum of an $L^1$ function $f$ is $f \ast D_N$
or some such...
yes... I wrote that correctly
 
And then as $N\to\infty$
 
you get the Fourier series
 
well $D_N$ diverges but the picture from Wikipedia makes it look like it becomes a wiggly Dirac delta
 
well, $D_N$ isn't a good kernel, so it, by itself, doesn't really converge to anything
 
1:16 AM
and so convolving with $f$ gives you $f$
and therefore the Fourier series gives you $f$
or some such
 
but if you define $F_n := \frac{1}{n} \sum_{N=0}^{n-1} D_N$, then you can convolve with $f$ to get something more well behaved
or something like that
$F_n$ is the Fejer kernel, which does converge (in the distributional sense) to the Dirac delta
more or less
 
ahhhhhhhh
 
basically, $F_n$ looks like a Cesaro mean, and has nice convergence properties
 
$Pr$ is a constant
it's not $P$ times $r$
it's $Pr$
 
1:20 AM
$\mathrm{Pr}$
 
yes, that's what normal people do
 
@Xander I love that you used convolve
 
but not this book
 
your book is dumb
:P
 
I agree, clearly
 
1:20 AM
@ÍgjøgnumMeg "convolve" is a perfectly cromulent verb!
also, my people are home -> it is dinner time -> laters
 
I hear "convolute" far too often in place of convolve. hahaha
 
@ÍgjøgnumMeg derive the equation to find the velocity
 
I lied; my people are not home; the cat was being a putz
 
@0celo7 I... refuse?
 
Do wheels revolute?
 
1:22 AM
and knocking things over
 
must be a fat cat to sound like a human
 
Wheels "revolverate".
 
Wheels "go round and round"
 
I work with Lipschitzian functions
 
really? 'cause I prefer Lipschitz functions
 
1:24 AM
I do like that people refer to $A\cup B$ as "unioning" $A$ and $B$ rather than, say, uniting them
 
or 1-Hölder functions
 
@XanderHenderson the French term is Lipschitzien and this got translated incorrectly
 
I mean, "uniting" sounds weird, but it does make logical sense
 
@AkivaWeinberger I say add...
 
It's a union. They are united.
 
1:24 AM
I cup
 
Or maybe that's States
 
@0celo7 My advisor is French and says "Lipschitz functions"
 
@XanderHenderson I have one data point to support my claim, and you have one to support yours.
We seem to be at an impasse.
 
like, the guy's name is an adjective
 
@0celo7 You can, but then it might get confused with $\{a+b\mid a\in A,b\in B\}$ if they're in a vector space
or Abelian group
 
1:25 AM
@AkivaWeinberger Yes, I know.
It usually does not cause issues.
 
would you ever say that an $\alpha$-Hölder continuous function is "Hölderian"?
NEVER! You would say that it is a Hölder function
 
I say Holder
I don't even know how to do an umlaut on this keyboard
 
where the phrase is a shortened version of "Hölder continuous function"
 
Hōlder
 
1:26 AM
In German translations you almost always see (Name of mathematician)-sch+ending
 
Oh no it's got a monobrow
 
ditto Lipschitz functions; there is an elided word in there; i.e. it is really a "Lipschitz continuous function"
 
Sobolewsche Ungleichung
 
Yeeee
 
be mathematicians (like most people) are lazy, and leave out the word "continuous"
 
1:27 AM
Abelsche Gruppe
 
Hilbertian spaces?
 
no, Hilbertraum
 
Or
Hilbertscher Raum
 
could also be Hilber's dream
 
1:28 AM
@0celo7 Two doors down on the left
 
@0celo7 You are doing English wrong.
 
Hilber Traum
 
@XanderHenderson wot
 
1:29 AM
@XanderHenderson I am saying that in my experience the french people say Lipschitzien in French and sometimes that gets translated to Lipschitzian
also that's what Federer says, so I dunno
 
Gaußsche Glockenkurve
 
I heard that, in German, "[organic chemistry] teacher" and "organic [chemistry teacher]" are spelled differently
 
putting the B in Gauss is the highest form of obnioxiosity
 
like, one has a space and the other doesn't
 
French people may say "Lipschitzien" in French, but that isn't how English get's done
 
1:29 AM
Gauß?
Weierstraß
 
"Lipschitzian" is an abomination in English
 
I'm the German speaker here and I'm the only one who doesn't know how to make Umlauts
feels bad man
 
noöne feels all that sorry for you
(that isn't an umlaut, by the way)
 
That ain't no umlaut
lol
 
@ÍgjøgnumMeg You gotta wake up pretty early to correct my diareses
 
1:31 AM
Maſſachuſetts
 
how do you people remember the alt codes for this
or are you all on macs
on mac it's very easy to umlaut
 
They're on my keyboard
 
@0celo7 get a Mac :P
 
äöü
 
On an iPhone you just hold down the o and swipe
 
1:32 AM
ßßß
 
@XanderHenderson I have a mac!
I also have an iphone
I'm on a non-apple device rn
 
I don't like my current computer very much :(
 
Deutsche Tastatur :P
 
my 10 year old PowerBook^w MacBook Pro died last quarter, and I replaced it with a new one
no more magsafe, the trackbar is stupid, and the keys don't travel far enough
I want my old computer back :'(
 
I'm scared about losing magsafe when I get a new computer
 
1:34 AM
The only thing I can't do on this is Erdős
Oh, I added it as a keyboard shortcut, I forgot
 
why do you write that name enough to need a shortcut
I've never needed to write it
 
Math
And/or drugs
 
Like, for what?
 
Erdos Renyi game
 
1:35 AM
If Erdős wrote a proof
or did a drug
 
I actually have no idea what he did
Besides drugs
 
I heard
that
 
Not PDE or geometry I'll guess
 
he sat on a chair next to tao
 
My father's Erdős number was smaller than mine until after I finished my masters.
And my father is a cultural anthropologist. :'(
The fact that he even has a finite Erdős number is frightening
 
1:37 AM
hahaha
have you heard of the "imaginary Erdos number"?
 
Wait wait how?
 
what is that?
 
@ÍgjøgnumMeg How many seconds since you last imagined Erdős?
The average is 7
Fact
 
There's a numberphile video on it, but it's because someone somehow collaborated on a paper but was added into the authors after the paper was published or something, I can't quite remember
anyway that persons Erdos number was given as something like $1 + i$
 
1:39 AM
Heh what
 
quite funny
 
Demonark: Did you find out the Green's formulas?
 
I should probably go to bed
 
and there is some sportsball player that has Erdős number 1, since he and Erdős signed the same sportsball
 
1:40 AM
lol
 
:D
You can say "athlete", you know
(Er, they signed the same ath)
 
sportsball player?
 
Looked them up briefly but got distracted before I could understand them
 
@TedShifrin the integration ones?
 
They're a one-line exercise from Green's/Stokes's, Demonark, plus the definition of harmonic.
Yeah, 0celo. I wanted Demonark to understand why boundary values uniquely determine the harmonic function on the interior.
 
1:41 AM
Actually, "sportsball player" is more specific 'cause "athlete" could mean like a runner or something
 
not all athletes are sportsball players
 
I'm going to convolve with my quilt
Goodnight
 
Snipped
Night
 
g'night, @ÍgjøgnumMeg
 
@TedShifrin was morrey a madman back in the day
 
1:45 AM
I never met him. I knew Protter.
 
I know his book but I haven't looked at it in detail
 
Okay so I only really know how to execute things in forms, so we want $\psi \nabla \phi \cdot dS$ is given by a form whose exterior derivative is $(\psi \Delta \phi + \nabla \psi \cdot \nabla \psi) dV$
 
is that a $\cdot$ with the normal
 
You should figure out how to translate to forms. If $\vec F$ corresponds to the $1$-form $\omega$, then the flux of $\vec F$ across the boundary is given by integrating $\star\omega$ on the boundary.
In that formula, $dS$ should be $\vec n\,dS$.
 
I'm always surprised when I find something with my name on it
(My last name)
 
1:49 AM
$\nabla^2 f = \star d{\star}df$.
 
@TedShifrin oh lord
 
Why oh lord?
Demonark should read my book :P
 
The RHS is much worse than the LHS :P
 
DogAteMy: It's a relatively common Jewish name.
 
two derivatives on the left, a sign error waiting to happen on the right
 
1:51 AM
Not so common
 
That's because you're one of the usual Riemannian types who's scared of forms out of ignorance.
 
That's a bit presumptuous, no?
 
I'm used to that.
You started it with the "oh lord."
 
I would hardly say I'm ignorant of forms, I simply prefer the LHS.
 
Is that ignorance of forms or is it another type of ignorance that would cause such a preference?
 
1:53 AM
Demonark: You know that gradients turn into $d$ ... how does $\int\nabla\psi\cdot\nabla\phi\,dV$ turn into $\int d\psi\wedge\star d\phi$?
 
Why does a preference have to be rooted in ignorance?
 
Okay give me a few minutes while I get home so I have chalk and a computer to read the TeX
 
OK, Demonark. I'll chat with you later.
 
@TedShifrin I actually gave a GR talk using forms form half of it
 
let's say you're doing a proof
in the middle you want to inject a lemma
and then you prove the lemma
 
2:01 AM
@LeakyNun a geodesic in proof space
 
**Lemma** blah blah
**Proof** blah blah
now how do you go on proving the theorem
 
You don't do that.
 
how do you indicate that you're done proving the lemma
draw a white square?
 
Prove the lemma before or after
And preferably don't even state the lemma in the middle of the proof of the theorem
 
it's really a question I'm doing
so there's no "before" or "after"
 
2:03 AM
@LeakyNun do a Claim. then
lemmas in the middle of proofs seems to be poor style unless your theorem has multiple parts
 
Can somebod help me find the stationary points of (x-1)yexp(-1/2*((x-1)^2 +y^2)))
Im just not getting the right answers and Im definitely doing something wrong
is anybody trying it just so i know
 
There have been books I've read where, after proving several lemmas, just write: "Theorem: Blah blah. Proof: By applying Lemma 1 to the result of Lemma 2, the result follows." @LeakyNun
 
@AkivaWeinberger yes but I'm doing an assigment
 
@LeakyNun Do you have some super strict formatting or what
 
@JakeRose I'm not
 
2:08 AM
@0celo7 no
 
generally speaking, why does the prof care how you format this
 
I care
 
but I think you'd want to differentiate with respect to x, differentiate with respect to y, and set them both to 0
 
Problem statement. Lemma 1. Proof. etc. etc. Proof of Theorem.
 
Im doing that but Im only getting 3 out of the 5 points :/
anyone?
 
2:14 AM
Try Wolfram Alpha
 
Thats how I know I havent got all the points
 
2:42 AM
> For instance, the expansion of Bourbaki's original definition of the number one, using this notation, has length approximately 4.5 × 10^12
say what
 
Okay @Ted I'm back and with TeX reading abilities. So, I'll just expand things out I guess. Let's say we have $U\subset \mathbb{R}^n$, and the functions are $\psi,\phi:U\to\mathbb{R}$. Then $\nabla \psi \cdot \nabla \phi = \sum_{i=1}^n \psi_i \phi_i$
 
Isn't that just $\psi\cdot\phi$
 
I'm using $\psi_i$ to mean ith partial derivative here
Keep in mind that $\psi$ and $\phi$ map to $\mathbb{R}$
So we don't have component functions to worry about, that's why I'm willing to use this notation
 
Oh wait hold on
So $d\psi = \sum_{i=1}^n \psi_i dx_i$, $d\phi = \sum_{i=1}^n \phi_i dx_i$, and so $\star d\phi = \sum_{i=1}^n (-1)^{i-1} \phi_i dx_1 \wedge \ldots \wedge \hat{dx_i} \wedge \ldots \wedge dx_n$ with
Oh I see now
Okay so when you wedge them you multiply the partials and then you wedge $dx_i$ with $\star dx_i$ so that just gives the volume form
Now I'm happy with $\int \nabla \psi \cdot \nabla \phi dV = \int d\psi \wedge \star d\phi$
And then you have the Laplacian term, $\psi \nabla \phi = \psi \star d{\star} df$
 
3:00 AM
Could someone help me parse how to get A to equal that square root of stuff from comparison of coefficients ? I'm stuck
 
$\cos^2(\delta)+\sin^2(\delta)=1$
 
So one side of the identity is $\int_U \psi\star d{\star}df + d\psi\wedge\star d\phi$
 
Right so the second form has it as $(A\cos\delta)\cos(\omega_0t) + (A\sin\delta)\sin\omega_0t$
and then if you square the coefficients and add them, you get
 
Fudge, I forgot trig identities
aight thx fam
<3
 
$A^2\cos^2\delta+A^2\sin^2\delta$ which is $A^2$
@HsMjstyMstdn No problem
 
3:03 AM
here I am substituting t = 0 for derivatives
 
@HsMjstyMstdn It's a strange fact that if you add together a sine wave (of some amplitude and phase) plus another sine wave (of some other amplitude and phase) you get another sine wave, rather than anything weird
 
So now I want to figure out how $\int_{\partial U} \psi(\nabla \psi \cdot \textbf{n}) dS$
 
Parabolas have this property as well I think
 
@AkivaWeinberger Something to the tune of linearity or something like that
 
If you add together two sine waves of different periods (aka different frequencies aka different wavelengths), though, the result is no longer a sine wave
$\sin(x)+\sin(3x)$ does not look like a sine wave
but as long as you only change the phase and amplitude it works
 
3:07 AM
it looks like beats xD
 
So this should be $\int_{\partial U} \star \psi\nabla \phi$
Or not exactly that, $\psi \nabla \phi$ is gonna be a vector field
 
@HsMjstyMstdn Try going into a graphing calculator and typing in sin(x)-sin(3x)/9+sin(5x)/25
If you've heard of Fourier series you might already know what happens
You can continue the alternating series
 
I'm aware of the fourier series yeh
that looks like a taylor ?... or am I just missing sleep
 
Right yeah so I was just reminded of that 'cause it also happens when you add waves of different frequencies
 
haven't properly done a fourier series
 
3:18 AM
@HsMjstyMstdn Yeah, Fourier series and Taylor series look similar
Right so yeah play around with them in the graphing calculator, it could be fun
If you do sin(x)+sin(3x)/3+sin(5x)/5+… you get the square wave
(You can also get the calculator I linked to to do a summation sign, either in the menu or by typing in "sum")
 
Desmos and I frolic quite often, but assignments tend to cut into our love-time
 
Heh
Shame
 
My favourite thing was to mess around with the spherical coordinate option and try to get Lissajous curves
shame indeed
 
3:33 AM
Okay trailed off and now I'm back
So now that we're involving field I regret my earlier partial derivative notation
So I'm going back to $\partial_i f$
Okay now so we have $F = \psi \nabla \phi$ and we take the 1-form $\omega = \sum_{i=1}^n F_i dx_i = \sum_{i=1}^n \psi \partial_i\phi dx_i$
 
$dx^i$
you should pair upper and lower indices
 
I've never seen upper indices used before
 
wut
vectors have upper indices
covectors have lower indices
except for $dx^i$ and $\partial_i$
 
"Covector" uh... what?
 
elements of the cotangent space?
@Daminark What is $dx^i$ or $dx_i$ to you?
 
3:41 AM
Oh I know of the cotangent space, I've just never heard of its elements called "convectors"
 
co, not con
 
You know what I mean
 
I do not
 
they're called covectors or 1-forms
and you write one as $\omega_i\, dx^i$
 
Okay so wait I'll just say we're working in $\mathbb{R}^n$
 
3:43 AM
oh, you are? Well then you can fudge it, yeah
 
Then if we have some $v = (v_1,\ldots,v_n)$, write $dx_i(v) = v_i$
 
Because the metric is trivial
 
That's the notation I've seen there
 
I would write that as $dx^i(v)=v^i$
 
Yeah this is the first time I've ever heard of this kind of notation
 
3:44 AM
It's standard for Riemannian people
Because $v^i$ and $v_i$ are different objects
Or rather, represent different objects
 
Which one is each?
 
In RG you have an isomorphism between the tangent and cotangent spaces given by the metric at each point
So if $v$ is your vector, you write its components as $v^i$. Then $v_i$ are the components of the associated covector under the isomorphism.
It avoids a cumbersome notation for needing a second symbol for the dual of $v$
 
I see
So I've only ever looked at raw manifolds without a metric
 
@Daminark So a Riemannian geometer would write your form as $\omega=\omega_i\, dx^i$
Where $\omega_i=\psi\partial_i\phi$.
Or $\psi\phi_{,i}$ if you're feeling physical.
 
And when we talked about differential forms on a manifold, then a $p$-form on $M$ is a map that takes $x\in M$ to $\omega(x) \in \Lambda^p(T_x(X)^*)$
Lol after rather my unfortunate run in with physics first year I'm mostly not feeling physical
 
3:51 AM
@Daminark Yes, that's right.
@Daminark That's a shame, mathematical physics is top tier
@Daminark So what computation are you actually trying to do?
 
It's nifty for sure but yeah I've been burned at this point
So I'm trying to prove Green's identity
 
There's a few of those
 
The one that says $\int_U (\psi \Delta \phi + \nabla \psi \cdot \nabla \phi)dV = \int_{\partial U} \psi(\nabla \phi \cdot n) dS$
Though I'm trying to translate it through the forms world
 
All you have is Stokes theorem?
 
Yeah that's what I'm working with
 
3:56 AM
so fucking sick :(
 
Like I didn't really ever learn classical vector calc and vector fields and all that sorta thing
 
Do you know how to interpret $dS$ in terms of forms?
 
I only really know how to work with forms so I'm kinda trying to translate it there
 
Like, do you know how to relate $dS$ and $dV$?
@Daminark That seems...backwards.
 
So the way I know it is this, I'm taking $dV$ as the volume form and if you have some vector field $F = (F_1,\ldots,F_n)$, you take the form $\omega = \sum_{i=1}^n F_idx_i$, so that $\int_{\partial U} F\cdot n dS$ (whatever that means) is $\int_{\partial U} \star \omega$
 

« first day (2766 days earlier)      last day (2260 days later) »