« first day (2784 days earlier)      last day (2244 days later) » 

9:01 AM
Well to take the example of the tangent bundle, the tangent bundle has the topology defined by... \begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\psi}_U : \pi^{-1}(U) &\to& \mathbb R^n \times \mathbb R^n \\
(p, v^\mu \partial_\mu) &\mapsto& (\phi^\mu(p), v^\mu )
\end{eqnarray}
 
But a tangent bundle is a vector bundle, not a random fiber bundle
You started with fiber bundles
 
true, but it is the tensor bundles I am most interested in
 
You'd have to reformulate the question for me then.
What are $E_1$ and $E_2$?
 
Well eventually I'd like to show how to define a metric tensor on the glued manifold
So for a start I'm trying to show that the space of metrics from the original manifold is also one on the glued manifold
 
I do not understand what this has to do with the question you're asking me, but that's simple: If $M$ and $N$ are smooth manifolds with boundary $\partial M$ and $\partial N$ then $M \cup_{\partial} N$ also gets a structure of a smooth manifold. If you have Riemannian metrics on $\text{int} M$ and $\text{int} N$ you can use a partition of unity argument to get a Riemannian metric on $M \cup_{\partial} N$ too.
 
9:07 AM
The trick is here that what I want is a metric such that $g|_M = g_M$
and same with $N$
ie the original sections must be preserved
 
Well my metric has that. It agrees with the metrics on the interiors of $M$ and $N$ outside a neighborhood of $\partial M = \partial N$
 
alright, thanks
 
You cannot hope to preserve the metrics on all of the interior of $M$ and $N$
In general I mean
 
Well there is a Trick to this
(if the boundaries are isometric, you can preserve them)
 
Let $E_n$ be the number of elements of even order in $U_n=(\Bbb Z/n\Bbb Z)^\times$ (while $|U_n|=\varphi(n)$), is it true that $\frac{E_n}{\varphi(n)}\geq\frac12$ (in particular for $n=p^\alpha$, $p$ an odd prime) and that $\limsup\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{E_n}{\varphi(n)}=1$? @Mathei
 
9:09 AM
@Slereah For sure, but you had given me no such restrictions.
 
Also things are slightly tricker because the metric is Lorentzian :p
So sections aren't guaranteed
Hm, I think I might need specific conditions on the gluing, actually
The gluing should be on the base manifold and then extended somewhat to the fibers
not sure if that's unique, though
 
@Alessandro : this problem 's your production ?
 
Yes, but it's motivated by another problem I got as homework in algebraic number theory
 
the level ?
licence or master ?
 
Third (last) year of undergrad, but the problems are meant to be challenging, the one above would be a small step in the overall proof if it's correct
 
9:23 AM
you don't know the answer ?
 
in The h Bar, 17 mins ago, by Akash. B
how did energy formed in space?
Is h bar invaded by some spiritual being?
I am seeing spiritual mumble jumble everywhere ever since he joined
 
@AlessandroCodenotti The elements of odd order form a subgroup. What will the index of this be?
 
@AlessandroCodenotti $\phi(n)=2^k \times E_n$ and $E_n \mod 2=1$
 
@TobiasKildetoft The biggest power of $2$ which divides $\varphi(n)$ I think
 
9:38 AM
right
Wow, 26 pages paper of which the final 6 are the bibliography
 
Which means if $\varphi(n)=2^sm$ with $m$ odd we have that there are $m$ elements of odd order and $\varphi(n)-m$ elements of even order, and the last one is bigger or equal than $\varphi(n)/2$ because $\varphi(n)$ is always even (for odd $n$)
 
right (you can rewrite the quotient you are looking at in a nice way using this)
 
Indeed, thanks for your help!
 
9:56 AM
How would you prove that a=4 and that x/=3?
 
Hello. On the wiki page of retract:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retract , its given that, a retraction is a continuous mapping from a topological space into a subspace which preserves the position of all points in that subspace, but the definition my professor wrote on the board included that the topological space is hausdroff. Is that compulsory?
 
$${2\over x-3} + {a\over 7} = {14 + a x -3a \over 7(x-3)} = {2+4x\over 7(x-3)}$$ so $14-3a+ax = 2+4x$ so $a=4$ by identification of the coefficients @Amorris
 
I think it's one of those things where the definition varies?
But most cases will only handle Hausdorff cases anyway
because non-Hausdorff spaces are bad
 
You don't need to ask for Hausdorfness, but if $r:X\to A$ is a retraction and $X$ is Hausdorff then $A$ is closed, which is very nice
Probably your professor just wants to avoid bad cases altogether and put Hausdorff in the definition
 
yeah, it simplifies things and doesn't really miss any important case
 
10:02 AM
yeah, just read that on wiki. Thanks guys.
 
@Astyx And how would you prove that x/=3?
 
That doesn't make much sense to me
 
@Amorris You don't prove that. You need to assume that for the expression to even make sense
 
You set $x\ne 3$ otherwise your expression cannot be computed
 
Alright, just trying to prove that x/=3 to a friend xD
 
10:07 AM
just out of curiosity, how would you go about solving, is $[0,1]$ a retract of $R$.
 
Use the arctan function?
 
Hello chat
 
Do a function that smoothly goes from the identity to arctan or something
 
hi tuki
@Slereah ok, thinking...
 
Is someone familiar with buoyancy ? (related to physics)
 
10:10 AM
Any time you deal with mapping $\mathbb R$ to $[0,1]$ it's gonna be either arctan or ln
 
You need $f:\Bbb R \to [0;1]$ that is continuous such that $f_{[0;1]} = id$ right ?
 
in The h Bar, 1 min ago, by Mikhail
I'll trade you a shinny Fourier transform of an infinite double helix
 
Well you're not gonna get such a function, since $\mathbb R$ isn't compact but $[0,1]$ is
 
yes @Astyx
 
What on earth is going on in h bar today, so many strange things and strange users
 
10:11 AM
Just take a function that's 0 before 0, 1 after 1, and the identity in $[0;1]$, no ?
 
in The h Bar, 24 secs ago, by Tuki
I guess someone here most be familiar with Buoyancy ?
3 mins ago, by Tuki
Is someone familiar with buoyancy ? (related to physics)
WTF echo?
 
oh yes @Slereah
 
I'll ask it in physics SE since not directly related to math ?
 
What's wrong with my function @Shobhit ?
 
Tuki: You are fine, it's just h bar is very strange today
 
10:14 AM
idk, i am still thinking XD
 
which is why I keep saying WTF
 
oh ok
 
I think $\Bbb R$ not being compact isn't a problem
 
Someone must have opened a portal to another dimension in h bar... :P
 
yes, it is. Since continous maps conserve compactness. @Astyx
 
10:16 AM
What ?
How ?
Constant maps are continuous
Their image is compact
 
@Shobhit but you don't have a compact domain here
 
Oh right I see the confusion
The image of a compact is compact
The contrapositive being that if the image is not compact, the preimage isn't compact either
Not that if the image is compact, the preimage also is compact
 
@Astyx @AlessandroCodenotti then this is correct?
 
imo yes
(otherwise I wouldn't have written it :p)
 
Hm
But on the other hand, arctan doesn't map to $[0,1]$ either, only $(0,1)$
So that idea doesn't work
Not a clue what function would map to that
 
10:22 AM
And $\arctan_{[0;1]} \ne id$
 
that too
 
Apart from the "boring" example Astyx gave, one can also write the reals as a (not quite disjoint) union of unit intervals, and "fold" along the intersections
 
any function $[0,1]\mapsto (0,1)$ cannot be continuous
 
There are many things one can do
 
I guess it could be something like... tophat function with a width equal to $-\ln(a) + 1$, with $a$ the parameter of the retraction?
Or something like that
 
10:24 AM
@Secret you mean there are no retraction from $[0;1]$ onto $(0;1)$
 
some variation on that
 
ok, yes we can define like this, since continuity on the real line can easily be checked, but if the question was like, is $\{(x,y): x^2+y^2=1 \}$ a retract of $R^2$ or a similar case in higher dimensions, what should be the general approach?
 
It isn't
 
In the usual topology, functions that map from [0,1] (which is closed) to (0,1) (which is open) cannot be continuous. It might still be able to map to a subspace, but that map cannot be continuous by defintion of continuity of functions in a topological space. I don't know of any topology that can make functions [0,1] to (0,1) continuous though
 
Because there is no retraction of the disk onto the circle
 
10:27 AM
You need to remove a point
In which case the retraction will just be some function sending the radius of every point to $1$
 
@Astyx i don't understand your point
 
@Secret discrete one on [0,1] works. And you're really talking about surjective functions
 
Is you have a retraction $r: R^2 \to U$ where $U$ is the unit circle
Then $r_D : D\to U$, where $D$ is the unit disk, is a retraction from the disk onto the unit circle
However one can prove that no such retraction exist
 
how? @Astyx
 
Part 2 of this
I had a nice exercise sheet about this
But I won't be able to have it until friday
If you're interrested
 
10:35 AM
we have ended retraction part of our textbook, and there was no "no-retraction theorom", i dont think i'll be able to solve that @Astyx
 
Wait a bit until I find a better proof
 
ok sure
 
@Shobhit In this case the general intuitive idea is that the center of the disc can't be mapped anywhere since essentially we need the elements in a circle around it to map surjectively to the unit circle
no idea how easy it is to make this sort of argument precise though
 
so its like for every point on the circle, you join that point to the centre of the disk, and all the points on the radius (other than the centre) is mapped to that point on the circle? @TobiasKildetoft
 
Actually I like the proof provided in the paper I linked
 
10:40 AM
@Shobhit Well, except we could also be doing a bit of twisting, with an angle that goes to zero as we approach the edge of the disc
the problem is showing that this really is the only option, which probably follows from showing that these are precisely the options when we do remove the center.
 
@Astyx i'll give it one more read then.
@TobiasKildetoft i understand what you said, and it also make sense to me, but not mathematically :P, maybe i'll understand in future
 
You suppose such a retraction exists, take two distinct points on the unit circle, notice that their preimage has to divide the disk in (at least) two parts (because the image is disconnected) and conclude that the map is not continuous because the preimages are arbitrarilly close to each other
 
@Astyx yes, thats what is written in the proof, drawing as i progress
 
Good, drawing is always a good idea
 
@Astyx i think i understand 70% of it, thank you for the pdf.
 
10:53 AM
You're welcome
 
11:12 AM
math chat is currently quite stable despite not very weird atm, I guess I can head back to h bar where it needs to be stabilised
 
11:33 AM
in The h Bar, 4 mins ago, by Emilio Pisanty
> The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. ─Carl Sagan
trying to shut the hyperactive Slereah up by telling Akash that we are lunatics to hopefully generate enough WTF to stop the very unstable h bar from progressing, result instead in Akash become cannonball dust by Emilo, bleh. I really need to research on the countermeasure against selective ignorance. This is much worst than I thought about the state of h bar
(for those who are unclear, Slereah became hyperactive a few minutes ago, as well the rest fo the h bar and messages are spawn in seconds, thus heaps of s888 is being overlooked)
Lucky Experimental Device #1 worked like a charm and h bar is restablised for now
It is clear that fallouts tend to be the most frequent between me and physicists. Why they cannot learn the way of the mathematicians and be a little bit more patient?!
 
user image
5
 
@Daminark ^^
 
Slereah: >_> o I almost forgot, you like to shitpost whenever chat atmosphere becomes too awkward
 
I do it when I damn please
 
Bleh, it does not help that your question answer pdf is full of measure zero sets -_-
 
11:49 AM
I wonder: When I get locked out from work in about 3 weeks, due to the break down in negotiations between unions and employers. How exactly do I stop working?
 
non-weirdness goes a looooonnggg way hunting those unfaithful down, you know, @skull
 
Is it possible to have an onto isometry from $R$ to $R^2$, with the usual metric. I think no, but thats just intution, how to prove it?
 
Still, we have completely underestimated that power, so it can cause political upheaval, eh? We need to pay closer attention to it
But it does not matter. The less unexplained mysteries, the BETTER
 
@Shobhit suppose you have such an isometry $f:\Bbb R^2\to \Bbb R$, pick an $x\in\Bbb R^2$ and let $y=f(x)$. How many points are there with distance $1$ from $x$? And from $y$?
 
from y, there are only two such points, and from x, its a circle. @AlessandroCodenotti
 
11:58 AM
Hmh, $f$ is bijective and preserves distances so...
 
yeah ok, i got it, ty
 
12:37 PM
@BalarkaSen do u no what theyre talking aboot in that post
 
12:51 PM
hi fellas, do any of you guys know how to create a stack exchange chat room
Do you need some really high points?
 
@hungryWolf I don't know how to do it but I created one by mistake
And now I cant find it
 
you need 100 rep to make chat rooms
 
1:18 PM
I have this question
A population of bacteria in a petri dish grows in such a way that after every passing of a minute, the
number of bacteria in the population doubles. Assume there was 1 bacterium to start with. How
many will there be after 24 hours assuming none of the bacteria dies and that the available nutrients
for the bacteria in the petri dish were unlimited.
is this the answer? 1x2^(60*24)
 
@WhatsThePoint Yup
 
I'm also asked to derive a generalised formula, would that be 1x2^m where m is the amount of minutes?
 
@WhatsThePoint Almost. What if we started with, say, $5$ bacteria?
 
@Lozansky bx2^m where m is the amount of minutes and b is the number of bacteria?
 
Better :)
 
1:36 PM
Lozansky, mind i I ask what is the story behind your username?
 
is anyone good with geometric sequences?
 
@KingTut what? haha @Secret thanks man
 
@WhatsThePoint depends on which one
 
@hungry yes it was called King Speaks, or someting like that. But its nowhere to be found
 
1:51 PM
@KingTut does stackexchange not have an option
 
hmm go to stack overflow chat page
 
for getting all your chatrooms?
 
@hungryWolf No i didnt find it
thats why its lost somewhere
 
@KingTut I can understand
 
.. the sorrow...
 
1:55 PM
yeah, that
 
Given that 2m – 8, 2m + 4 and 5m – 2 are the first three successive terms of a geometric sequence.
Find the value of m and thus the summation of the first 10 elements. I'm completely lost when it comes to geometric sequences
 
geometric sequence means they share a common ratio. Since the given three terms are successive terms, it means term 1/term 2 = term 2/term 3
 
@secret we forgot the add 3 to h
 
@KingTut I thought we include that by having h=20+3?
 
oh yeah I didnt and thought so :))
 
2:02 PM
what would be the common ratio here?
 
Guys do I need points in stack overflow or stack exchange
?
@KingTut what do you think?
 
Hmm tough question
 
what do you need points for?
 
@hungryWolf You need points in that website where you want to make chatroom
 
@WhatsThePoint (2m+4)/(2m-8)=(5m-2)/(2m+4) solve for m to get common ratio. But do you understand how I derive this formula?
 
2:08 PM
@WhatsThePoint chat room
owh cr*p, I've got none!
 
@hungryWolf like @KingTut said, you need the points in whichever site you want the room
@Secret no i don't
 
any alternatives suggested people? Any faster way to get stackexchange points? Or to create a chat room
 
Why do you need points?
 
answer questions on that site, hope the get accepted or upvoted
 
@WhatsThePoint common ratio is obtained by taking ratio of consecutive terms. You have the 3 terms 2m– 8, 2m + 4 and 5m – 2. you knew they are consecutive meaning that there are the n,n+1,n+2 th for some n to be determined, thus writing them like the above formula give the common ratio
 
2:11 PM
hmm @hungry get some points, maybe 250 or 1000 in a single site. Then in all site you will auto get 100 points then create many chatrooms as you want
 
Oh he wants to create a chatroom? What for?
 
if you need a room on stack overflow i could create one for you but i would need to know what its for
 
@anakhronizein we need the chat room for an online course
I have a friend who has 5000 points, I'll ask him tommorow, may be he can help
@KingTut if what you said is correct it will work
 
@Secret is this a general solution then (2m+4)/(2m-8)=(5m-2)/(2m+4)? like a2/a1 = a3/a2
 
anyone familiar with boolean logic? trying to understand what a linear/affine boolean function means
 
2:20 PM
bye fellas, going to sleep
 
bye
 
@Astyx o/
 
@user525966 do you know what linearity in terms of functions between vector spaces is?
 
2:39 PM
Suppose that $\{E_n\}$ is a countable collection of measurable sets contained in the measurable set $E$. I claim that $\sum_{n=1}^\infty \int_{E_n} f = \int_E f$, where $f : E \to \Bbb{R}$ is a measurable, bounded function. First, define $A_k = \bigcup_{n=1}^k E_n$, from which it follows each $A_k$ is measurable and $E = \bigcup_{k=1}^\infty A_k$. It isn't hard to show $\{f \cdot 1_{A_k} \}$ is a bounded sequence of functions converging pointwise to $f$ on $E$. Then
$$\sum_ {n=1}^\infty \int_{E_n} f = \lim_{k \to \infty} \sum_{n=1}^k \int_{E_n} f = \lim_{k \to \infty} \int_{E} f \cdot 1_{A_k} = \int_E f$$
How does this sound?
 
hmm, the problem set says "let $\ell$ be a bounded linear functional in a Hilbert space $H$ with norm $\Vert \ell \Vert = \sup_{v \in H} |\ell(v)|/\Vert v \Vert_H$", but it
doesn't say $v \ne 0$, is it implied?
i guess it wouldntmake sense to consider that case
 
@GFauxPas of course it should be there.
 
yeah I think its just an accidental omission
thanks
 
They probably just forgot to write it as $\sup_{v\in H\setminus\{0\}}$
 
is there a name for a "norm" that allows an infinite norm?
 
2:42 PM
@GFauxPas equivalently you can take the sup only on the $v\in H$ with $||v||=1$
 
hm, its not obvious to me that thats equivalent
 
@user193319 Are the $E_n$ disjoint ?
 
the idea is that the unit vectors are enough by linearity.
It's not a bad exercise.
 
I'm considering the case of $S^1$ embedded in $\mathbb C$ to try to find an intuition
anyway, ill consider that after i finish homework, thanks :)
 
@WhatsThePoint yes
 
2:51 PM
lol skipping this part of the homework:
"Is the set of linear functionals an inner product space? If so, can you write down the inner product? (It’s
not obvious to me that there’s an elementary solution to this, but I thought I’d ask to see what you think.)"
 
On a finite dimensional space it is easy.
But infinite is not obvious.
Especially without AC. ;)
 
oh were you here when I talked about that
 
Probably not.
I am not often here.
 
You don't want to deal with any kind of functional analysis without AC anyway
 
@AlessandroCodenotti I think constructive functional analysis would be super interesting.
 
2:56 PM
I think you want to work at least in $\sf ZF+BPI$ because you don't even have Hahn-Banach in $\sf ZF$
 
@anakhronizein Vector spaces are beyond my understanding currently
 
You can't even prove that the weak topology on every Banach space is Hausdorff in $\sf ZF$ alone, that's something I wondered about when learning functional analysis
 
Alright, well the idea @user525966 is that f(a + b) = f(a) + f(b).
 
my analysis II professor believes in countable choice but is agnostic WRT choice in general
first math professor I've had/met that had a problem with it
 
For affine maps between vector spaces, that is.
 
2:58 PM
how does that apply to a boolean function though?
which accepts say 2 inputs, returns one output
 
he was visibly uncomfortable constructing non-measurable sets in class and kept on saying things about how you can generally ignore the existence of these because they're not real in some sense
 
All the "big three": Hahn-Banach, Banach-Steinhaus and open mapping require some form of choice
Actually I think you might get the last two for separable space with very little or no choice because one can prove the Baire category theorem for complete, separable metric spaces in $\sf ZF$, that's actually interesting
 
@user525966 Perhaps I have jumped the gun. What exactly is your issue with linear boolean functions?
 
what's the notation for "polynomials of degree at most $n$"
considered as a Hilbert space on complex variables with complex coefficients, if that makes a difference in notation
 
@GFauxPas I'd use $\Bbb C[X]_{\leq n}$ but I don't think there's a standard one
 
3:07 PM
@Astyx Yes.
 
okay thanks
I had a professor once who always said "along with the zero polynomial" but most sources leave that as implied, I guess he wanted to be explicit because it was a beginner class
 
Likely.
 
@anakhronizein Looking into Post's Completeness Theorem
A set of operators being functionally complete or not (i.e. able to create any boolean function)
e.g. {AND, OR, NOT}
 
But what is the "problem"?
 
one of the 5 categories Post outlines is linear/affine Boolean functions
i.e. at least one of your functions must not be linear
(0-preserving, 1-preserving, linear/affine, monotone, self-dual)
i don't quite get the linear/affine case
 
3:22 PM
What about it?
 
I don't know what a linear/affine boolean function is
 
He doesn't define it there?
 
"The affine connectives, such that each connected variable either always or never affects the truth value these connectives return"
but I don't really know what that means
 
Do you know what the dot product of two vectors is?
 
no
I mean I (vaguely) know it's the sumproduct of the components but I have no idea what it does or why that's even a thing
 
3:25 PM
Well effectively an n-ary boolean function f is linear if you can find an n-tuple (a1,...,an) such that f(x1,...,xn) is the dot product of (a1,...,an) and (x1,...,xn).
 
so f(p, q) = c_1 * p + c_2 * q?
 
Yes.
That is for "linear"
For affine, it's slightly different.
 
affine i presume implies addition of a constant to this?
f(p, q) = c_1 * p + c_2 * q + c_3 ?
 
Yes, exactly.
So it's "effectively" linear, up to this translation.
 
Since this is Boolean does that mean everything has to be <= 1?
 
3:28 PM
Yes.
 
since f(p, q) is in {0, 1}
 
Well, it doesn't have to be. But you do everything mod 2 so it is (with the smallest residue classes) 0 or 1 in the end.
 
it's still considered linear/affine even mod 2?
 
Yes.
The idea is that {0,1} is a field.
So you can consider vector spaces over it. etcetera
More stuff you probably don't care to know.
 
for example I know NOT, IFF, and XOR are linear (most others aren't)
 
3:30 PM
It's just that you're looking at $(\Bbb F_2)^2$ (the cartesian square of the field of mod 2 integers)
 
XOR is just addition mod 2.
 
Where the multiplication is AND and the addition XOR
 
so i guess that one is linear for free
 
Yes.
I encourage you to learn a bit more of the algebra, it makes it a lot more simple.
 
IFF probably similar since it's true when p == q, and so p ^ q = 0 when true and 1 otherwise, so f(p,p) mod 2 = (p+q) mod 2?
I guess that's what they mean by always or never
c_3 in this case could be 1
 
3:33 PM
[Random thought]
 
It's not linear then
 
affine
like NOT is affine even though input never equals output
 
I wonder if we can proof that the hamel basis of $\Bbb{R}(\Bbb{Q})$ is itself
 
so I think for that it's f(p) = (1 * p + 1) mod 2 or something
 
Yup
 
3:35 PM
ok I think I get that much, but then why is it the case that we need at least one non-affine function?
 
But IFF(p,q) = p+q+1 however
 
yes that makes sense
 
Is OR affine ?
 
Why not ?
 
3:36 PM
Note this goes back to the quoted definition for affine.
 
OR(0, 0) = 0 = (0 + 0) mod 2, OK
OR(0, 1) = 1 = (0 + 1) mod 2, OK
OR(1, 0) = 1 = (1 + 0) mod 2, OK
OR(1, 1) = 1 != (1 + 1) mod 2, NO
 
It's weird how you put it
 
I don't know the usual/formal way (I'm just learning this for fun)
 
OR(1,1) = 1 != OR(1,0) + OR(0,1) = 1+1 = 0
 
yes
well I don't know why you're adding the two but yeah
 
3:40 PM
Because that's the only way you can compute it
 
Because of "linearity".
 
like we're basically solving a system of equations right?
 
(1,1) = (1,0) + (0,1)
 
No, we're not
 
c_1 * 0 + c_2 * 0 + c_3 = 0
c_1 * 0 + c_2 * 1 + c_3 = 1
c_1 * 1 + c_2 * 0 + c_3 = 1
c_1 * 1 + c_2 * 1 + c_3 = 1
 
3:41 PM
So apply OR to both sides, and assume it is "linear" with respect to f(a+b) = f(a) + f(b).
 
We're just checking for linearity (if it's affine it's linear since OR(0,0) = 0 )
 
Do we even need the coefficients on the p, q?
trying to think of some scenario where we'd set the c's to 0 or something
maybe a function that always returns false
i suppose that means true/false are both linear
 
No
False is linear
True isn't
 
*affine, sorry
false is linear since we could set all c's to 0, true is affine since we could set all coefficients to 0 but add a constant 1
 
Yup
@user525966 Now what did you mean by this question ?
 
3:57 PM
in Post's Completeness Theorem it basically says if all of your operations/functions are 0-preserving, or all your functions are 1-preserving, or all are affine, or all are monotone, or all are self-dual -- then under closure of composition you won't be able to get all boolean functions, i.e. your set isn't functionally complete
whereas for each category if you have at least one function outside of it, you'll be functionally complete
 
Well you only have a limited number of affine functions
 
For example {OR, NOT} is functionally complete because NOT isn't 0 or 1 preserving, OR isn't affine, NOT isn't monotone, and OR isn't self-dual
 
That is $2^{i+1}$ where $i$ is your number of unknowns
 
right
 
But there are $2^{2^{i}}$ boolean functions with $i$ unknowns
 
4:01 PM
why -1? thought it was 2^(2^i)
 
My bad
And $2^{2^i} \gt 2^{i+1}$ for $i\gt 1$
Which means not every boolean function is affine as long as you have a few unknowns
 
ah i see
i guess the classifications are tough to derive, apparently part of "Post's Lattice"
 
@TedShifrin sorry. I went to the class. Thank you very much.
 
When zorn lemma said there's a maximal element, can we show that there is a maximum? Because I will think that the largest possible hamel basis for $\Bbb{R}(\Bbb{Q})$ will be the vector space itself?
 
@Astyx So if the $E_n$ are disjoint, is my proof okay?
 
4:14 PM
I think so
I haven't done this stuff in a long time though
So I can't be sure
 
Okay. Thanks!
 
4:41 PM
I think we will have more h bar refugee now that He is activated from his dormant state
 
4:53 PM
Suppose that $f : E \to (0,\infty)$ is a bounded, measurable function, where $m(E) < \infty$, such that $\int_E f = 0$. I am trying to show that $m(E)=0$. I was told to consider the measurable sets $E_n = \{x \in E \mid f(x) > 1/n \}$, but I can't see their relevance to this problem.
I could use a hint.
 
@user193319 : use $\bigcup \limits_{n\geq 1} E_n=E$ and remarque $\forall n \in \mathbb N^*, m(E_n)=0$, then conclued.
 

« first day (2784 days earlier)      last day (2244 days later) »