« first day (2787 days earlier)      last day (2531 days later) » 

00:00
Prove that its area (or volume) is${}\le2^n$.
but $\prod_{i\in I}V_i$ and $\bigoplus_{i\in I}V_i$ are not isomorphic that way if $I$ is infinite (i.e. if there are infinitely many vector spaces)
@AlessandroCodenotti Example: $(-1,1)^n$
hmm neat
I dont understand fully why tho >< if we had that map (a,b) --> a+b
that works for all n finite
yes it does
doesn't work if |I| is infinite tho since you can't add infinitely many vectors
okay :D
I havent dealt alot with infinity in this sense
00:03
(unless you topologize your vector space and consider limits of partial sums, in which case you can add infinitely many vectors sometimes)
so I think Ill keep reading my book :D thanks alot anon :D
mmhmm
am not ready for that yet !
my plan now is to do linear algebra properly , so i can start with modules and tensors
also other stuff of that nature ._.
I want to get a better basis in algebra
Read Aluffi
I hear it's good
@anon any book recommandation btw anon ? :D if one wants to do algebra properly
@orbit-stabilizer it uses category theory ><
but thanks :D
00:05
So?
What's wrong with category theory? It doesn't just throw you into the weeds
I did not give it a try tbh,but hmm right now am working on 3 books, serge lang , artin and steven roman
planning to finish those :D
maybe under summer i give that book a try =p
@AkivaWeinberger intuitively that has to be true! I'll think about this though
It's better for self study than Lang, that's for sure
hmm ._.
Lang is a bible
Don't think I'd enjoy actually studying from Lang
00:16
@ÍgjøgnumMeg i find it usefull =p its a taste thing :D
I use it as a reference book rather than for studying new material lol
a first treatment from Lang is inhumane
i had linear algebra before but not properly
iam reading the book as review and to be able to go further in more complex topics
like tensor products and modules and bilinear forms ect :D
if you have anotheer good book id be happy to read it as well :D
My favourite is Dummit and Foote
I have that too ! :D
00:19
but i want to read it after artin
Fair, Dummit and Foote is stacked with examples and has like a trillion exercises
:D
okay ! thanks for the talk ! i need a to keep study now
but i hope we can talk more other time ! see ya yall:D
(Y)
enjoy
thanks !:)
00:41
gnight @KasmirKhaan
01:12
is there a good canonical answer for book recommendations
@Faust gnight faust7 ! :D
@user525966 no.
but both books suggested are good ^^
@ÍgjøgnumMeg legend has it that Dummit and Foote cured insomnia
it wasnt that bad...
hey yall ._.
how to show lin independance over R , is also lin independance over C
seems like trivial thing ._.
01:16
is trivial
over C implies over R is trivial
but otherway around hmm
let v= u+iw
we know u is LI over R
so u is LI over C
w =0
that was a terrible explanation
i got it :D
haha thanks =p
we assume that zv_1+....+zv_n = 0
z=x+iy
then we can show seperatly that x_i must be 0 for all i
and y_i = 0 also :D
^^
wierd question
@Faust I literally fell asleep reading it, at least the group theory bit. I get the vibe that it's better for ring theory
01:21
@Daminark ive fallen asleep while doing lots of things so im not sure if that means the same for you and me. it dry so dont get me wrong i could use it as a sleep aid...
also i only used it for ring theory +
never did group theory in it cause i already learned it
Fair, when I tried reading it for group theory I just got so bored and dozed off, which never happens to me in daytime
@Daminark get out
haha :D
well said leaky :D
I missed leaky :D
i used to use math videos to put my gf to sleep
one set of analysis videos would knock her out instantly
@KasmirKhaan but I'm here
01:24
@LeakyNun leaky ! one more "get out" for faust and i can call this happy night :D
Ehm i did not see you for a long while ._.
we are on different time then !
i thought you were busy with your study
i havent seen leaky ina while eaithier but i havent been on much been really sick
@Faust I hope you are better now faust!
01:26
@DarkVampiricAbstractArtist your soltuioon looks waaay to complicated
I'm using the definition of the limit, which is what the question suggests.
@KasmirKhaan hell no just got out on the hospital last night they got me ona ton of morphine and i might be going back
:(
what is it that you got ? if you dotn mind me asking
@DarkVampiricAbstractArtist you know that it converges so for any eplsion you can find a capital N s.t $u_n < \epsilon $ for all n> N
so pick $ \epsilon' = \frac{ \epsilon }{ 2n} $
then for any $\epsilon ' $ your new sequence converges by the convergence of your old sequence
thats not to say what you did isnt correct it could be completely correct but its too long for me to read.
01:31
old and new sequence? are you saying that it converges by the subsequential limit theorem?
you know that the sequence $(u_n)$ converges
My concern of sequence is the one with $u_{2n}$
so use that sequence convergence to construct your new epsilon
you know each term bigger than N is less than epsilon clearly is n>N then 2n>N
Rehi @Semiclassic
Hi @Faust @Kasmir
01:33
@TedShifrin Ted :D
Missed ya as well :D
Rehi Ted
Would 2n change my epsilon definition?
so you know each $u_{N+I} < epsilon $ so sum all those epsilons together
Re Demonark
you have $u_n, \cdots u_{2n} $ terms but each is less than epsilon
01:34
$\epsilon/2+ \epsilon/2 = \epsilon$
You can't have an $n$ in your $\epsilon$, @Faust.
Only fixed things can appear.
What's going on here?
but your dividing by n
I don't care.
You can only use constants.
And you'd better not tell me you used my videos to put your gf to sleep :P
01:36
@TedShifrin no lol
@TedShifrin I smell fire
i dont understand why u use the fact that you have $ u_1, ... u_2n $ terms where each is less than epsilon to define a new epsilon?
cant*
You don't need anything tricky for that question, @DarkVampiricAbstractArtist. If $|u_k|<\epsilon$ for all $k\ge N$, then you'll have $|x_k|<\epsilon$ for all $k\ge N$.
thats not entirely true ted
let epsilon =1
Because $|x_n| = \left|\frac{u_n+\dots+u_{2n}}n\right| \le \frac{|u_n|+\dots+|u_{2n}|}n < \frac{n\epsilon}n = \epsilon$ for $n\ge N$.
@Faust: You need to understand the definition of limit.
01:39
u1 = 3/4 u2=1/2 then x2 = 1.25 which not less than 1
@TedShifrin thats what i was saying.......
You were using $n$ in redefining an epsilon. You can't do that, as $n$ is varying.
the exact thing i was saying where u said u couldnt use n
no i was just trying to use n as the number of terms
When you picked $\epsilon' = \epsilon/(2n)$, that makes no sense.
You can't. It's varying.
right, that makes no sense
your right that makes no sense but it wasnt what i was trying to say...
01:41
LOL, but you said it.
what i was trying to say is what you wrote down
you have n epsilons over n
OK, but don't confuse the newbie :)
i wasnt trying to... i was trying to help did you look at his solution?
01:43
Nope.
I know you always have good intentions.
just terribru communication skillz
why did i pick math :(
The linked answer is for a harder question, actually. That's about the Cesaró limit.
There you actually have to do something trickier.
reminds me of what I like to say when asked why I'm a theorist: "because if you put me in a lab I'd probably have burnt it down by the end of the day"
takes away Semiclassic's bunsen burner
my gf needed to learn descriptive words
01:45
lol. I don't think i've touched a bunsen burner since gen chem
needs*
most 'heat' you get in physics courses is typically a hot plate for thermodynamics stuff (and that's just one experiment in the semester)
$x_n = \dfrac {u_n + \cdots + u_{2n}} n$
$u_n \to 0$, so for every $\varepsilon > 0$ there is $N$ such that for every $n>N$ we have $|u_n| < \varepsilon$.
For every $\varepsilon > 0$, use (1) on $\varepsilon/2$ to get such an $N$.
Then whenever $n>N$, $x_n = \dfrac {u_n + \cdots + u_{2n}} n < \dfrac {\varepsilon/2 + \cdots + \varepsilon/2} n = \dfrac{n+1}{2n}\varepsilon < \varepsilon$. Similarly, $x_n > -\varepsilon$. Therefore, $|x_n| < \varepsilon$. $\square$
I say, nobody here can count :P
Is my solution alright, Ted? All I've just done was apply the definition of a limit: mathb.in/23637 however I'm concern when the sequence ends with $u_{2n}$ do I need to do anything different?
OK, good point, @Leaky. I didn't count correctly. Let's do $u_{n+1}+\dots+u_{2n}$ instead.
@DarkVampiricAbstractArtist: You're doing a harder problem there than you're posing here.
@Leaky: Don't avoid absolute values.
01:47
@TedShifrin well
good point
@DarkVampiricAbstractArtist the entire solution is as leaky posted coherently just above
@DarkVampiricAbstractArtist: The problem in that link is a harder problem. I'm confused.
$x_n = \dfrac {u_n + \cdots + u_{2n}} n$
$u_n \to 0$, so for every $\varepsilon > 0$ there is $N$ such that for every $n>N$ we have $|u_n| < \varepsilon$.
For every $\varepsilon > 0$, use (1) on $\varepsilon/2$ to get such an $N$.
Then whenever $n>N$, $|x_n| = \left|\dfrac {u_n + \cdots + u_{2n}} n\right| < \dfrac {\varepsilon/2 + \cdots + \varepsilon/2} n = \dfrac{n+1}{2n}\varepsilon \le \varepsilon$. $\square$
I got an inequality sign error in my previous attempt
how u get the proof box outside of a latex editor?
In the linked problem, we're considering Cesaró sums $x_n = \frac{u_1+\dots+u_n}n$.
01:49
I think SLT is required.
$\square$ \square
hmm
tnks
Cesaro mean and yeah that ends with u_n.
however the question ends with u_2n lol.
Thanks, Leaky.
01:50
@DarkVampiricAbstractArtist what is SLT?
These are different questions, @DarkVampiricAbstractArtist.
subsequential limit theorem.
Which question are we actually trying to do?
2
@TedShifrin have you seen Demonark's contribution to the starboard?
We're trying to prove that x_n converges to 0, as n goes to infinity.
01:51
I'm also accenting incorrectly.
@TedShifrin lol
Nothing to do with the Cesàro sum question?
Let $a, b, c, d \in \Bbb R$ be such that $ad − bc \neq 0$. Let $\mathcal R$ be the region in the plane bounded by
$|ax + by| \leq \alpha $ and $|cx + dy| \leq \beta$. Prove that the area of $\mathcal R $ is $\frac{4\alpha \beta }{|ad − bc|} $
any hints for me ted?
@Faust it's just a quadrilateral :P
where? where? lol
01:52
Those two inequalities.
thats a terribru hint.
the region
No, it's not. Think about how determinant gives the fudge factor for how area changes
huh?
Can you map the unit square (or some convenient rectangle) to that region by a linear map?
01:54
change of variables with $u=ax+by,v=cx+dy$. (how do we go between the rectangle in the $uv$-plane to the region in the $xy$-plane?)
SSShhhh, @anon.
/:
Good thing I'm about to leave for the evening.
I'll be having to move residences next week, so I won't be on line for a few days, i bet.
@TedShifrin residences what are you a dorm student?
where the 4 come from?
LOL, hardly.
$2\times 2$.
Rehi DogAteMy.
01:56
lol dorm student
@TedShifrin never heard anyone call them residences cept ESL and dorm students
(My landlord decided he wanted to sell the condo I'm living in.)
maybe its a merica thing?
I figured it was less bother than saying rented condo.
OK, Faust. Think of me as ESL.
your guys houseing market as retarded as ours?
@TedShifrin cant heard you speak remember?
01:58
@anon how to overkill, part 13765734685761
Faust, I'm reasonably fluent in English. Also in French. Not so fluent in German.
not overkill
agrees with Leaky ... it's just a linear mapping problem.
any method using calculus is overkill
@TedShifrin for once, lol
Yup. Don't get spoiled.
01:59
@TedShifrin hmm, your surname is Yiddish
@LeakyNun @TedShifrin it showed up in my analytic number theory course
Not Yiddish. But I am of Russian Jewish origin, yes.
apperntatly is something obvious im supposed to know
wasn't thinking with calculus, only linear algebra (+ geometry)
@Faust: Maybe not know, but figure out in 5-10 minutes, yes. Now do it.
01:59
@TedShifrin do you speak Russian or Hebrew?

« first day (2787 days earlier)      last day (2531 days later) »