« first day (2853 days earlier)      last day (2161 days later) » 

12:00 AM
Well, yeah, they're projective tori :)
 
we work toward classifying reductive groups over an algebraically closed field
 
I took a year-long course on Lie groups and Lie algebras in grad school, but I've forgotten most of it.
I've taught bits and pieces as they were necessary for grad diff geo.
 
it's the same root system Dynkin diagram stuff for that, I think
 
I actually don’t know what reductive groups are (or rather I read some definition at some point but forgot) - my memory says that they have ‘nice representations’ or something
 
I do remember that Lawson showed us a super cool proof of the maximal torus theorem using the Lefschetz Fixed Point Theorem.
 
12:02 AM
how should I think about them?
 
@loch we defined them as algebraic groups which don't have a nontrivial normal unipotent connected closed subgroup
 
That's a mouthful.
 
but you can show that this is equivalent to the existence of a representation with finite kernel that splits as a direct sum of irreducibles
@TedShifrin do you know the proof of the fundamental theorem of algebra via abelian Lie groups?
 
Not that I recall.
 
One can show that every connected abelian lie group over $\Bbb R$ is isomorphic to $\Bbb R^n \oplus (S^1)^k$ (probably some exponantial map and maximal torus things involved here)
 
12:11 AM
I know reductive from the homogeneous space setting. If you can split $\mathfrak g =\mathfrak h \oplus \mathfrak m$ so that $\mathfrak m$ is $\text{ad}(H)$-invariant, then $G/H$ is reductive.
 
If one looks at quadratics over $\Bbb R$, it's obvious that $\Bbb C$ is the only quadratic extension of $\Bbb R$
(if you want to be fancy, $\Bbb R^\times/(\Bbb R^\times)^2 \cong \Bbb Z/2\Bbb Z$ )
so it suffices to show that every non-trivial finite field extension of $\Bbb R$ has degree 2. Let $K / \Bbb R$ be a finite nontrivial field extension. Then $K ^\times$ is a connected, abelian Lie group, so $K^\times \cong \Bbb R^d \oplus (S^1)^k$ of some $d$ and $k$ such that $d+k=[K:\Bbb R]$. Note that $k\geq 1$, since $K^\times$ has torsion, e.g. $-1$. Thus $\pi_1(K^\times) = (\Bbb Z)^k \neq 0$.
But $K^\times = \Bbb R^n \setminus \{0\}$, so the only way that this is not simply connected is $n=2$
I like this proof
(not as much as the Galois + Sylow theory proof, of course)
 
I see. Cool.
 
I want to learn Lie groups at some point
 
@MatheinBoulomenos yeah that's what i was thinking
 
seems cool. Especially since Lie algebras are purely algebraic
 
12:19 AM
Well, you can't know absolutely everything as an undergrad :P
 
this proof is pretty cool
 
@TedShifrin I probably won't get to Lie groups as an undergrad
but presumably the classification of Dynkin diagrams I learn in alg groups will be helpful there as well
 
more for Lie algebras, yeah
 
Somehow I would have guessed that the Weyl group's nature as a reflection group makes the Lie algebra story inherently real/complex
 
Any books that contain that proof?
 
12:21 AM
not sure
our alg top proof showed us that (only mentioning the results on Lie groups)
@MikeMiller there's some stuff on reflection groups over finite fields (char not 2)
In Heidelberg, there are more people using p-adic Lie groups in their research than real or complex ones
@MikeMiller afaik, the classification for complex lie algebras carries over to any algebraically closed field
 
Well that's convenient
 
@Daminark which book/notes are you using?
 
It's by Neukirch
 
great choice
but some exercises are pretty hard
I think Neukirch writes something in the preface along the lines of "yeah, you probably won't be able to solve some exercises directly, some of them are more as directions for further studies"
The majority are not like that, though
 
12:38 AM
It's just bad when the first bunch of exercises have traps in them. I'm fine with the last exercise or two being essentially unsolvable. The trouble with stars and double-stars is that students give up before they try.
 
there's one exercise in the first chapter which asks you to show that the Pell equation has infinitely solutions
this follows by continued fractions or Dirichlet's unit theorem, but how would anyone come up with that?
 
@Mathei interesting, I take your word for the Lie alg stuff
 
@Daminark if you want to something similar to the computations you did with $\Bbb Z[i]$, try working out that if $d \in \Bbb Z$ is square-free and not $1$. Then the set of elements in $\Bbb Q(\sqrt{d})$ that satisfy a monic quadratic in $\Bbb Z[x]$ is $\Bbb Z[\sqrt{d}]$ if $d \equiv 2,3 \pmod{4}$ and $\Bbb Z[\frac{1+\sqrt{d}}{2}]$ if $d \equiv 1 \pmod{4}$
that's one exercise that anyone who learns ANT has to do at some point
ah sure
thanks
@TedShifrin this reminds me, Donald Knuth rates the problems in "The Art of Computer Programming" on a difficulty scale from 1 to 50. In the earlier editions, Fermat's last theorem was given as a 50 exercise . After Wiles found a proof, Knuth demoted it to a 45 problem.
 
LOL ... ass.
 
lool
 
12:44 AM
So these guys do something a bit strange, maybe I'm being an idiot here but they say well, if $b$ is integral over $A$, find some $f$ such that $f(b) = 0$, then if $g\in A[x]$, we write $g(x) = f(x)q(x) + r(x)$ where where $\deg(r) < \deg(f)$. That feels like it's saying $A[x]$ is Euclidean
 
waits to be kicked out of the room
 
Wait that's pure gold
 
@Daminark of course $A[x]$ is not Euclidean
it's a shame that people don't usually prove polynomial divison in sufficient generality for this
 
Yeah that's the problem, something's fishy
 
Monic wins.
hi @Semiclassic
 
12:46 AM
Right
Monic
I'm blind
 
Nah.
 
Monica always wins
5
 
Just Monika
 
@MatheinBoulomenos i think you might need semisimple + char 0? (or at least this is the only case i know :p)
 
12:47 AM
Aight now I buy that
 
So if $A$ is any commutative ring and $f$ is a polynomial in $A[x]$ such that the leading coefficient is a unit in $A$, then for any $g \in A[x]$, you can write $g=fq+r$ with $\operatorname{deg}(r) < \operatorname{deg}(f)$
and the proof is the same
 
@Mathein: You need to edit again.
Never mind :P
 
you only ever need to divide by the leading coefficient of $f$
 
Pedagogically, I don't know where the right place to introduce this generalization is, @Mathein. I wouldn't do it when I'm starting polynomials and the division algorithm, but it sure should be a comment later on in a serious course.
 
first course in algebra?
when you do groups, rings, fields
 
12:49 AM
In a first course (as I taught it), most of the students have their hands full.
But by the time you get to Dummit & Foote (which is supposed to be a graduate text) or A&M, it should be an easy exercise that's pointed out.
 
you're going to talk about rings anyway when you do minimal polymials etc.
I don't think it adds difficulty
 
but anyway the classification of semisimple lie alg over alg closed field of char 0 really comes down to getting a root system (by finding a maximal toral subalgebra) which is some subset of a finite dim eucliean space over $\mathbb{Q}$, and the whole thing is algebraic, so it should be clear that there's no analytic input from $\mathbb{C}$
 
But the application doesn't show up in a first course, typically, Mathein.
 
We didn't really prove the division algorithm at all, we were just like yeah you guys aren't gonna make me prove this, you should know it already right? Right yeah okay moving on...
 
we had exercises about $\Bbb Z[i]$ in our first course
 
12:51 AM
It's just hard when books start out with generalities. Makes you kind of miss the trees for the forest.
 
and $\Bbb Z[\sqrt{n}]$
 
Or the other way round, forgot the expression.
 
I discussed the Gaussian integers in my course, in fact. And we showed it was a Euclidean domain.
I totally agree, @Symposium. I hate teaching that way.
 
yes, but polynomial divison in $\Bbb Z[x]$ could be useful, depending on what things about $\Bbb Z[i]$ you talk about
 
I'd have to go back and look to see if I had an exercise with that, in fact, @Mathein.
 
12:53 AM
why is $\Bbb Z[x]/(x^2+1) \cong \Bbb Z[i]$, for example?
kinda hard to compute the kernel of the map $\Bbb Z[x] \to \Bbb Z[i]$ without polynomial division
 
Well, I did the division algorithm in $\Bbb Z[i]$ directly.
And interpreted it geometrically, of course.
 
but that's not what I'm talking about
we did that too in exercises (geometric interpretation optional), we actually even proved Fermat's two-square theorem in a series of exercises
 
Ah, @Mathein, I did have an exercise, even in my lame book, saying precisely that if the leading coeff is a unit, we win.
 
proving my point
 
Not sure I assigned it. :)
 
12:56 AM
Asking if $\{f \in \Bbb Z[x] \mid f(i)=0\} = (x^2+1)$ seems like a natural question after you talked about minimal polynomials over fields
 
Well, pass to $\Bbb Q[x]$.
 
doesn't really work
 
Why not?
 
If you know that $x^2+1 \in \Bbb Z[x]$ divides $f$ in $\Bbb Q[x]$, so $g(x^2+1)=f$ where $g \in \Bbb Q[x]$, how do go back to $\Bbb Z[x]$? Gauss's lemma doesn't help either, since neither $f$ nor $g$ are assume to be monic and if you normalize them, $f$ might no longer be in $\Bbb Z[x]$
 
@Mathein: Did I ever give you my question about an easy ring in which $\langle a\rangle =\langle b \rangle$ where $a$ and $b$ are not associates?
 
1:00 AM
$k[x,y,z,w]/(xy-zw)$
 
Hmm, my example is one step easier.
But no "down-to-earth" example :P
 
@TedShifrin Thank you :)
 
Sure, @Evinda.
@Mathein: I used $k[x,y,z]/\langle z(1-xy)\rangle$.
 
@TedShifrin my example is the homogenous coordinate ring of the image of the Segre embedding $P^1\times P^1 \to P^3$, I thought you'd like that
 
LOL, yes, I recognize that. I didn't see the geometry in the question, though, when it came up. I had a false counterexample in my book.
Let's see. What are $a$ and $b$ with your ring?
 
1:06 AM
I think $x$ and $z$
it's been a while since I worked through that
 
I doubt that. Probably $xy$ and $zw$.
No, that's wrong.
 
How do you derive $(\nabla w_0,\sum c_j\nabla w_j)$? which is an inner product. Should I take $\nabla w_0$ as a constant?
 
No, @Alt. Is it a constant vector?
 
@TedShifrin nop, it's a function, but it's fixed.
 
So you're going to have to get a mess with second derivatives. Just use the product rule.
 
1:12 AM
@Ted $\dfrac {x \sin (1/x)}{\sqrt{|x|}}$ as $x \to 0$
 
@TedShifrin but how to do it? $\nabla w_0$ doesn't have size n, thus how will I apply inner product to then derivate? Inner product says $(x_i,y_i)=x_1y_1+\dots +x_ny_n$
 
@GFauxPas ew
 
lol, Ted was asking for a case where the limit is of the form $0/0$ but LHR doesn't work
but the limit exists
took me a few hours of thinking about it
 
@Alt. Sure, it is a vector with $n$ components.
@GFauxPas: L'Hôpital assumes $\lim f'(x)/g'(x)$ exists.
That seems like a good example.
 
1:15 AM
:) took me a while of playing around
 
Mine is slightly easier, I guess.
 
thanks for the brain food. what were you thinking of
 
I did $x^2\sin(1/x)$ over $x$.
 
@TedShifrin will I get this: $\nabla w_0c_1\nabla w_1+\dots+\nabla w_0c_n\nabla w_n$?
 
You need a sum of inner products, @Alt, but yes.
 
1:16 AM
The goal was to find $f,g$ such that $\lim_{x\to 0} f(x)/g(x)$ exists but not $\lim_{x\to 0} f'(x)/g'(x)$?
 
$\sum c_j(\nabla w_0,\nabla w_j)$.
 
well its the same idea
 
But then differentiating will bring in a horrible mess of second-order partials.
Yup, @GFauxPas. Good example :)
 
Your derivatives both blow up, mine don't.
 
1:17 AM
@TedShifrin $(\nabla w_0c_1\nabla w_1)+\dots+(\nabla w_0c_n\nabla w_n)$?
didn't see your comment above
 
Ah.
I'd rather use pencil and paper, @GFauxPas.
 
@TedShifrin but it's derivation respect to $c_j$
 
Say what?
 
it sounded weird to me too, but the solution says that
 
Well, that's pretty stoopid. The partial derivative of $\sum c_j f_j(x)$ with respect to $c_j$ is just $f_j(x)$.
The solution to what? What's the actual question?
 
1:21 AM
:D
stoopid ahahah
0
Q: Solution of Dirichlet problem and the minimization of energy

Al t. Could someone explain why can we have $\frac{\partial}{\partial c_k}E(w)=0?$ Why the author can derive respect to constants $c_k$? Also I don't understand the rest of the solution, it's supposed to use green first identity: $$\int\int_A v\nabla u\cdot \overrightarrow n dA=\int\int\int_V\n...

 
I wonder if my monster expression has a $\limsup$ and $\liminf$, WA suggests it does but that could just be technology having ahard time with it
 
Oh, we're trying to minimize something by choosing the right constants. This is like doing least-squares fits.
Do it with paper and pencil, @GFauxPas. Forget WA.
 
graph it?
 
The governing term will be $\frac1{\sqrt x}\cos(1/x)$ (for $x>0$).
No, work out the damned derivatives.
 
oh sure I can do that
 
1:24 AM
@TedShifrin I think I confused some stuff, the coordinate ring of the Segre embedding was a counterexample for some other stuff. But can't you use $k[x,y]/(x-xy^2)$? $x$ and $xy$ generate the same ideal, but I have the feeling they might not be associate
probably not very different from your example
 
I was pretty sure I couldn't get away with fewer than 3 variables, @Mathein.
Not sure what the units in your ring are, @Mathein.
Maybe $\bar y$ is a unit.
 
there's a ring homomorphism $k[x,y]/(x-xy^2) \to k$ that maps both $\overline{x}$ and $\overline{y}$ to $0$
 
@TedShifrin why $f_j(x)$? shouldn't be $nf_j(x)$?
 
Huh? How @Alt.
 
@TedShifrin $\sum c_j f_j(x)=c_1f_1(x)+\dots+c_nf_n(x)$. If you take the derivative respect to $c_j$ you get $f_1(x)+\dots+f_n(x)=\sum f_j(x)$ actually, I was wrong before.
 
1:33 AM
No, you're still wrong.
You're confusing yourself. Set $j=1$, for example. Then the derivative is just $f_1(x)$.
You can't use a dummy variable as a variable to differentiate with respect to.
@Mathein: I guess you're right.
DogAteMy !!
 
!!!
 
You done graduated yet?
 
Nah but soon
 
:( I dont get it
 
1:35 AM
Wow ... and I remember you when you were a total kidlet :P
 
Aw
I'm actually in the wrong time zone, and it's 3:45am, but I couldn't sleep
 
@Alt: Use your sum with no $j$ in it. $c_1f_1(x)+\dots+c_nf_n(x)$. What's the derivative with respect to $c_1$?
Wait, DogAteMy. You've already gone eastward?
 
In Poland for a Holocaust heritage trip with half my grade
 
Ohhhh
No better way to celebrate your graduation than to do Holocaust as the US reverts to the late 30's.
 
1:37 AM
i think the picture here is if the vanishing locus of $g$ is contained in the vanishing locus of $f$, then $(f) = (fg)$ (maybe after taking radicals)

since $V(f) = V(fg) \implies \sqrt{(f)} = \sqrt{(fg)}$ (let's suppose we're working over an alg closed field)

so you just want to pick $g$ that does actually vanish so that it's not a unit
 
Yeah, stand for the national anthem, or else...
 
Among other issues, yes, skull.
 
>8(
 
@loch: But it's tricky to do that and be sure the ideals are the same.
 
Compared to the country with the mass grave of hundreds of babies, I think our stuff is pretty tame tbh
I think we visit Auschwitz tomorrow
 
1:39 AM
Yeah, I lost plenty of relatives in Auschwitz.
 
are you Jewish, Ted?
 
But the direction we're headed is going to take generations to undo.
Yes.
But not religious.
 
Ah okay
 
Luckily all my grandparents came to the Western Hemisphere before the war
 
My grandparents, too, but you're way younger than me :)
 
1:41 AM
@TedShifrin only $f_1 or only f_2\dots$, got it. Thank you!
 
My grandparents fled Russia during the revolution in the 1910's.
OK, @Alt. ;) Sometimes notation messes one up.
 
yeah
 
@AkivaWeinberger how do the holocaust numbers compare to the number of native Indians slaughtered?
 
I don't know the answer to that, but I suspect the Holocaust far surpasses our sins. Great question.
 
Total, or over an equivalent time period?
 
1:45 AM
Total.
 
Over hundreds of years, then? Probably native Americans would be more
 
"While it is difficult to determine exactly how many Natives lived in North America before Columbus, estimates range from a low of 2.1 million to 7 million people to a high of 18 million." (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…)
 
I don't think there's a literal mass grave of eight hundred babies near a small town somewhere in the middle of the US though
 
@Semiclassic: How many did the white men kill off?
 
regardless of the total number of Native Americans killed, I think the Holocaust would beat it for the sheer terrible pace of it
 
1:48 AM
And the method
 
There's a mass grave in las vegas
 
Agreed, but that has an inherent white-man bias a priori.
 
@TedShifrin Directly killed vs. killed by disease?
 
Yes, @Semiclassic.
 
1:49 AM
@skull Google isn't helping
 
Write $k[X,Y]/(X-XY^2)=R$ and by abuse of notation let $x$ and $y$ be the residue classes of $X$ and $Y$. Suppose $xy=ux$, for a unit $u$ with inverse $v$. Let $u$ and $v$ be the residue classes of $U$ and $V$ in $k[X,Y]$, then $UV-1=(X-XY^2)A$ and $UX-XY=(X-XY^2)B$. The second equation implies $U-Y=(1-Y^2)B$. Now set $X=0$, so that we work in $k[X,Y]/(X) = k[Y]$.
Then the equation $UV-1=(X-XY^2)A$ implies $U(0,Y)V(0,Y)=1$, so that $U(0,Y) \in k^\times$. But from the equation $U-Y=(1-Y^2)B$, we get $U(0,Y)=(1-Y^2)B(0,Y)+Y$. The RHS is certainly not constant in $Y$
 
I think the usual consensus is that most of the deaths of the native American population were due to European diseases
 
yeah, tried too @AkivaWeinberger
 
that's pretty horrific.
 
@Mathein: Without having worked your argument out myself, that reminds me of my argument in the example I had.
 
1:50 AM
:O
 
yeah, but I need less variables
But I guess it's similar
 
the pace implied by that graph is pretty hard for me to wrap my head around
 
Yeah, yeah, I'm fine with that. Somehow I thought the units issue was a bit clearer in my case, but you've convinced me. ... After I constructed my example, I asked an algebraic number theorist friend for an example, and he immediately gave me my example. So I assumed it was "easiest." :P
Interesting moral question, @Semiclassic et al ... Had the Europeans not invaded, then, the diseases would not have propagated amongst the westerners. So is their having invaded not tantamount to killing them?
 
So what's the geometric interpretation of this all? In $k[X,Y]/(X(1-Y^2))$, we're taking the union of the $X$-axis and the axes $Y=1$ and $Y=-1$
 
I'm not sure i follow.
Oh, westerners as in natives?
 
1:53 AM
If I show up and transmit a disease to you or I shoot you, is there a big difference?
Yes, @Semiclassic.
Yeah, @Mathein, I haven't grokked that.
 
gotcha.
 
So @Mathein, you had $x$ and $xy$ as giving the same ideal (but not associates).
 
Very, very different from the Holocaust though, in method
 
Intent.
 
Agreed, DogAteMy.
 
1:55 AM
eh. I think that, to the extent that Europeans were ignorant of how disease transmission worked, it's not something that can be directly imputed
on the other hand, I think that if you told them that's what would happen, they'd have been quite happy about it
 
@Mathein, $X=0$ is the $Y$ axis, not the $X$-axis.
 
oh right
geometry is 2 hard 4 me
 
smack
So we have three disjoint lines.
 
they may not have intended to cause that to happen, but they certainly intended to conquer the region
 
Are they really disjoint?
$X=0$, $Y=1$, $Y=-1$, these intersect
 
1:56 AM
(c.f. Columbus and Hispaniola)
 
Oh, I'm too distracted. Right. One vertical line, two horizontal lines.
 
The statement $V(X)=V(XY)=V(X) \cup V(Y)$ is obvious since $V(Y) \subset V(X)$, as the only point in $V(Y)$ on our variety is the origin
 
Good point @Semiclassical
 
I do wonder to what extent the Europeans were ignorant of that effect, though. Certainly they became aware of it eventually, e.g. the use of smallpox blankets as biological warfare by the British in the 1760s
 
and these ideals are reduced
 
1:58 AM
Yes
 
So how do we see associates geometrically?
 
So why is there no regular function $f$ that vanishes nowhere on these three axes such that $fX=XY$?
 
There's evidence that the Cherokee tribe didn't use to exist, IIRC. That they formed during the chaos resulting from the plagues, before they even met white men.
But there's no written history (the Cherokee writing system was invented in the 1800s).
 
So $f(X,0) = 0$, but $f(X,\pm 1)\ne 0$.
 
I wonder why there's no massive Native American diaspora abroad
 
2:01 AM
That's not right, @Mathein. Just take $f=Y$.
Did the Native Americans ever flee off our continent?
 
heya @Antonios
 
this vanishes at the point $(0,0)$ which is on our variety @Ted
 
i think there was some westward flight
 
Like, Jews went lots of places to avoid persecution, hence American Jews
(and also the Argentinian town my grandfather was raised in)
 
2:02 AM
just dropped in to see how things are going
 
Talkin' bout Holocaust and Native Americans
 
but, the only continent any native north americans could flee to would be south america
 
Right, @Mathein.
 
@Semiclassical During 1800s maybe, though
 
by vanishing on the three axes, I mean pointwise
 
2:03 AM
I was thinking of North and South America as the same continents. :P
 
and as we've established, central america in that time was as bad as anywhere
 
Right, @Mathein.
 
not just non-vanishing when restricted to an axis
 
the comparison that comes to mind is Liberia
 
Ooh, that's a point, too
 
2:04 AM
with it being thought of as a place for enslaved Africans and their descendants to resettle
 
That reminds me of the Uganda plan
 
As problematic as that was, you can see the logic insofar as they originated from Africa initially
 
Well, $f-Y$ then would have to vanish on our variety with your conditions, @Mathein, and surely that can't happen.
 
(Early Zionism was weird)
 
there's really not an analogue for native migration, though.
 
2:06 AM
I think at one point Hitler wanted to send all the Jews to Zimbabwe, also, I think
 
doesn't $f-Y$ only need to vanish at those points where $X \neq 0$? @TedShifrin
 
Or was it Tanzania? I don't remember
 
I think the closest you'll find really is that some tribes did move westward in response to European colonization
 
@Mathein: But by continuity ...
 
Nope, it was Madagascar
 
2:07 AM
Zariski topology is not Hausdorff
but yeah, you can use separatedness (in the geometric sense)
 
in any case, there's a reason why there's been efforts in the US to turn Colombus Day to Indigenous People's Day
 
^
 
I saw scheme and thought of AG ...
 
OK, @Mathein, so where are we now?
 
2:09 AM
^The thing about early Zionism and (what was then called) Uganda
 
(Nowadays part of Kenya)
 
anyways
 
(Not the whole country, just the place in the country)
 
OK, I need to go cook dinner. I'll ponder more later.
 
2:10 AM
Uganda had their own dictator
cya prof
 
later @TedShifrin
 
@TedShifrin in your argument, does this work although the set of points with $X \neq 0$ is not dense?
@TedShifrin Bon appétit, Monsieur Approche Géométrique!
2
 
I'm confused. $1-Y^2$ vanishes on $X\ne 0$, but doesn't vanish on the variety $X(1-Y^2)=0$.
(If that's what you guys are talking about lol)
 
true
so it doesn't work so simply
somehow, the algebraic proof makes me think that it's not so easy to do geometrically. I lifted to $k[X,Y]$ (so extended to the affine plane) and then performed some cancellation that doesn't work in the quotient
If this can be done geometrically just working on the variety itself, it should also be possible to do it in the coordinate ring without lifting something to $k[X,Y]$
Anyway, I'm off. Bye all!
 
2:57 AM
I know there are typos
 

« first day (2853 days earlier)      last day (2161 days later) »