« first day (2939 days earlier)      last day (2069 days later) » 

12:00 AM
yes sure
 
that you can do just with an $L^2$ argument and standard $\Bbb C$ stuff.
 
very few of them have responded to my emails though so it may end up all falling through :/
 
Im off,. gn8 all.
 
i dont wanna do a lecture for like 2 people
 
night, @quallenjäger.
If they're feeling like so much stuff snowed them already, they might be burnt out (like you with SPDE).
 
12:01 AM
this is a fair point
 
Teachers are often way more enthusiastic than the students can stand :P
Well, and then there are the teachers who don't give a s**t.
 
yeah i like have to slam the breaks with my remarks during the lectures
 
or brakes :P
 
but grading these psets just depresses me
yeah brakes lol
there'll be things i emphasize and then all the students im grading just all get it wrong
it's disheartening
 
I spent a career grading homeworks and tests and often being saddened.
 
12:03 AM
yeah it's really depressing :/
 
I remember when I taught algebra my 2nd year at UGA (and used Artin) ... I did the generalized Chinese Remainder Theorem (rings/ideals), put it on the 2nd quarter final. Only a few got it. I went over it beginning of 3rd quarter and even wrote it up. I then put it on the first exam 3rd quarter. Only the folks that had gotten it previously got it. I was so pissed.
 
oof
 
To me that's a fundamental proof and it's not that hard. Sigh.
 
i spent a good thirty minutes in my last office hours having to go over how to write the matrix representation of the second fund. form in the basis given by a parametrization and it really saddened me
 
In my algebra course I wrote my book for and taught a dozen times, I would always do concrete $\Bbb Z$ and $F[x]$ versions of the general ring result that if $a\in R$ and $(a)+I = R$, then $\bar a\in R/I$ is a unit. I wanted them to understand the concrete cases and then be able to write correctly the abstract proof.
 
12:06 AM
really it made me mad cause the student who made me do it consistently puts in like 0 effort
 
Well, I think this bootcamp idea has its weaknesses, @Eric.
 
i mean i think we agree about this
and i have been vocal about it for a long time
 
General weakness being UC's being over the top with abstraction and not making people learn concrete stuff.
 
Yeah I think I remember at least a few people my year as well who seemed to just come because of the money and didn't really care enough to work
 
That's real life, sadly.
 
12:08 AM
id be so much happier if it was just 2 topics like probability and diff geo that are hard to see at UC and like only a small group that takes it seriously
alas it's dead and wont happen again
so i guess it doesnt matter
 
I was criticized a lot for pushing students hard and covering the syllabus consistently at UGA. Many faculty sold out cuz it was easier, and they didn't cover 2/3 the syllabus and didn't have standards.
Well, Eric, it's a learning experience for you in the future as a mentor and teacher.
 
yeah ive learned that i do think i really like
teaching and stuff
i hate the drama tho lol
 
LOL @stuff
I got furious with a guy on main who totally changed his question after I'd answered it and he'd accepted the answer. He then revoked his acceptance because he had a totally different question. I cussed him out. I won't answer any more of his questions. Drama. Yes.
The worst thing is that he really doesn't understand much of anything he posts about. I think he's a grad student, too.
 
lol what even
 
happens @ted
 
12:12 AM
why not just write a different question
 
yes, but it's not supposed to
he already had written a different question and no one had replied to it ...
 
he sounds like me. give my homie a pass.
 
no, I'm fed up with him.
If he understood anything he writes about, I'd be more sympathetic.
He has no clue.
Just copies stuff from other answers or Wiki.
 
perhaps, this is where SE needs Githubs forking feature.
 
LOL, @Nick, I don't know you well enough to blame you :P
 
12:13 AM
@TedShifrin I wish u would put some of that effort into my questions :P
 
@More: If you ask questions about things I know something about, I might.
 
@TedShifrin i'll stay here long enough so you can :P
 
Besides, I'm retired. I'm supposed to be lazy.
 
well u can think of this as integrating a discontinuous one form ... math.stackexchange.com/questions/2888976/…
@TedShifrin
I feel like many issues regarding the proof a swept under a rug
 
I know analysis, so that's ok. But, damn, it's way long.
 
12:16 AM
Small price to pay for the infinitesimal :P
 
It's more than I can deal with at this point. And you always have to be super careful with double summations and sleight of hand.
 
I mean non-infinitesimal math works pretty well so I dunno how many people are really begging for it back, but also you should look up hyperreal analysis, it's a thing that was apparently invented to rigorously define infinitesimals
 
I ignore things like "infinitesimals"
But, yes, Demonark, that's correct.
 
the only thing nonstandard analysis has going for it is that Terry Tao likes it
 
@MoreAnonymous Give me a pdf, a paper with today's date, on all the stuff in that question so I can mail it to my 11 year brother to answer.
 
12:18 AM
LOL
 
Someone told me that it's interesting from a logic point of view, not sure exactly why
 
@Nick can u just give him the link
 
I took the graduate logic course far enough to get to that stuff, Demonark. The compactness theorem. It was totally fascinating, actually.
 
ive heard this too but for some reason it actually makes me care LESS
 
The very first line of the question $$\lim_{k \to \infty} \lim_{n \to \infty}\ \sum_{r=1}^n d_r \left( f(\frac{k}{n}r)\frac{k}{n} \right) = \lim_{s \to 1} \! \underbrace{\frac{1}{\zeta(s)} \sum_{r=1}^\infty \frac{d_r}{r^s}}_{\text{removable singularity}} \int_0^\infty f(x) \, dx$$
 
12:19 AM
im sure people have good reasons to care though :)
 
It basically says that stuff you have that works with certain games in your model will continue to work when you add stuff to your model.
 
Well, I don't know what that means well enough to "discover" it the way he has.
 
So, @Nick, why're you hanging around math more? You seem a super computer type. :)
 
@Nick whats the question?
 
Look, I'm done with school. The last bit of math I have left is cryptography (for networksec) and digital image processing (not even using MATLAB) for my seventh semester of college... I don't what the future holds but in all this time, I still have pieced together no clue of what Math.SE is asking for.
I mean, what exotic utopian math destination do you people live in to ask these sort of questions.
 
12:22 AM
Crypto is cool stuff. A lot of the questions on MSE are totally plebian. But there are some interesting ones. And then there are cranks. @More's stuff is so complicated that he may be one of the angle-trisecting cranks. I can't tell.
 
math is a dystopia my dude
 
@TedShifrin I'll try to take that as a compliment
 
You might have to try hard.
 
like should I go through the syllabus of what BSc and MSc Mathematics students learn. Is that the starting point for all this steaming pile of artificial logic and computational fantasy to be answered.
@TedShifrin np-hard
 
LOL
 
12:25 AM
@TedShifrin can't u just read the proof and then give an answer :/
 
@More. That's almost impossible to read.
 
which part I'll help?
 
And there are so many places, just at a casual glance, where there are suspicious things.
 
I thought the only "magic" trick was the resummation
 
Like there's one point where you switched the limit as $s\to 1^-$ from outside two other limits to inside them both. How the hell?
 
12:26 AM
@MoreAnonymous please just make a seperate document to elaborate on everything. Additional literature will be really helpful. Or consider migrating your question to MathOverflow.
 
@Nick: Is your 11-year old brother super into math?
Or was that a joke?
 
MathOverflow does not like proofs :/
 
@TedShifrin No, he's grossed out by even fractions. His level right now is calculating gcd and lcm of number series.
 
oh, @Nick. Poor dear :P
 
@TedShifrin ... U can think of doing the zeroth order ... for certain functions (not all)
 
12:28 AM
That makes no sense.
 
the fuck is a $d_{r}$
 
its a constant
 
I worked hard enough today doing Mike's homework.
And he hasn't graded it yet.
 
maybe another day?
@Ted
 
oh are you indexing a sequence of numbers by r
 
12:29 AM
Posts that go on for pages and pages are not going to get much response.
 
Yes, @Eric.
 
@TedShifrin I swap the limits
for some functions I should be able to do that
 
You can't do that, @More, without a BUNCH of justification.
"should"?
That kind of thing makes me say, "Oh well. Who cares."
How much mathematics have you actually studied?
 
Im a physicist by training
post grduate
 
12:31 AM
Oy.
And did you take a real analysis class, for example?
 
yea ... ur gonna talk about convergences
arent u?
 
sounding very condescending and pompous
 
@MoreAnonymous Yes, $d_r$ can be thought as of the number of infinitesimals localised to $x$ ... and real analysis steps in.
 
well, you're messing with a bunch of stuff which is why Cauchy and many others developed serious tools in analysis.
 
@TedShifrin sorrt my bad
 
12:32 AM
no, I'm the one sounding condescending, not you
But there's so much crap that looks OK and just isn't.
And you have layers and layers of this complicated, subtle stuff, piled on top of one another.
 
But even if u treat the answer as a conjecture (the final answer) ... u b able to prove it
it gives sensible answers
 
Your "removable singularity" thing also makes me think of physicists' renormalization. Which I've never seen made remotely rigorous.
 
Its not
 
the limit in s leaves me wary
such things are not usually immediate
 
Yeah, that was the first thing that jumped out at me a while ago, Eric.
 
12:35 AM
If u put $d_r = 1$ u get ... the riemannian limit of a sum
 
yeah
 
well we could perhaps taylor expand in $s$?
and then take $s$ to $0$?
sorry I mean $1$
 
Can you give a rigorous justification even that the double limit is the improper integral when all the $d_r=1$? That's not obvious to me yet.
2
 
oh ...
 
That's the place to start, for sure.
 
12:37 AM
this is hurting my eyes
 
$$ lim_{k \to \infty} int_0^k f(x) dx $$
 
ima leave and do something more fun
 
LOL, bye Eric.
 
then using limit of a sum formula of riemann ...
 
OK, so if the improper integral exists, that should be OK.
 
12:39 AM
$$ lim_{k \to \infty} \sum_0^n f((k-0)r/n) k/n$$
yea
 
I don't even see why absolute is necessary doing Riemann stuff.
 
because I use the property of abosulte convergence
 
Oh now Donaldson is starting to do some ODEs
 
OK, that may come in later .... all this limit swapping is VERY subtle. And your $s$ limit is the biggest stumbling block before you go further.
You're in his book, Demonark?
 
@Daminark wait wut r u reading
 
12:41 AM
Can't I taylor expand in $s$?
 
Yeah, this first chapter seems to be using analytic continuation of algebraic functions and of ODEs (details to come soon as to what that entails) as motivation
@Eric Donaldson's book on Riemann Surfaces
 
ayyyy
 
Then you have yet another limit going on, @More. So now it's three.
 
ive been meaning to read that
 
Oh, Demonark, that kind of stuff is the reason that Semiclassic was interested in Riemann surfaces.
Monodromy of ODEs.
@More: Even with complex analytic functions on the unit disk, when you can take the limit as you go to the boundary is very subtle. Look up Abel's Theorem.
 
12:43 AM
He seems like he writes well, and approaches more from analysis/topology, which is probably healthy to contrast AG a bit (also the other book I was told about, Miranda, has a marginally less pleasant pdf, but shhh)
 
Miranda big
 
I know Miranda, too. He was a student of Mike Artin's. But I don't know his book.
 
yea ... but the first term of the taylor expansion will go to zero as long as the other stuff when evaluated does not diverge
I'll just look it up
sorry it wont go to zero (the first term will be free of s)
 
Oh I guess there's also the one Balarka used, Forster
Anyway yeah the content seems fun
 
ok im actually leaving now
have fun chatizens
 
12:46 AM
Peace
 
@EricSilva cya!
@TedShifrin also I thought it was quite common physicsits come up with formulas through crude methods which mathematicians then figure out
@TedShifrin am I still making sense or still crank?
 
1:13 AM
@Secret
hey!
 
C*-algebra is not even algebra.
I don't know why I was surprised by reading that. The sigma-algebras I've learned in probability are not related to abstract algebra either; boolean algebra is another one.
 
@TedShifrin I left to do AoPS.
@EricSilva i like talking about connections
@Daminark niiiice
 
1:29 AM
I remember when that used to be mathlinks.ro
I still type that when visiting that site; it works.
 
@MikeMiller ... Mind giving ur 2 cents on a proof of mine?
 
1:58 AM
Aug 13 at 10:10, by Tobias Kildetoft
@Secret Please stop or go make a new room then. I am fairly certain nobody is reading any of that stuff, and it takes up a ton of space
> You know what sheeple, if I had not starred this in the first place, it won't get that many stars
and no I am terrible at analysis, I cannot help there
 
2:25 AM
What is analysis?
 
2:37 AM
Mathematical analysis is the branch of mathematics dealing with limits and related theories, such as differentiation, integration, measure, infinite series, and analytic functions.These theories are usually studied in the context of real and complex numbers and functions. Analysis evolved from calculus, which involves the elementary concepts and techniques of analysis. Analysis may be distinguished from geometry; however, it can be applied to any space of mathematical objects that has a definition of nearness (a topological space) or specific distances between objects (a metric space). =...
It makes pretty things, but the proofs are hard to weite
 
3:25 AM
Does anyone know a discord chat room for analysis? or proof collaboration? OR any platform of that kind in general?
 
4:16 AM
insert chat appropriate statement
 
 
1 hour later…
 
3 hours later…
8:00 AM
@MoreAnonymous Sad reality is that mathematicians really don't care about formulas that came from crude methods ...
@MoreAnonymous no matter how they look and what they contain. I bet if someone ever came up with an explicit "formula" for the Riemann zeta zeros they wouldn't give a shit. Its all about the structures and relations between sets (or categories) for them. About existence and uniqueness...
@MoreAnonymous People interested in nature (call them scientists and subsume mathematicians under humanities) like formulas but not them...
 
@Rudi_Birnbaum Well, a formula for the Riemann zeroes would be of great interest, assuming it says something non-trivial about them (or just says whether RH is true)
 
@TobiasKildetoft (was (slightly) exaggerating ;-) )
@MoreAnonymous If you post a question, most of them first check if everything you write down is well-defined and free of contradiction. You have always to assume they want to kill you by finding errors first. And for sure thats some strategy to collect credits. If there is some entity with a strage name like your "real constants" $d_r$ the vulptures will descend on you ...
 
8:19 AM
@MoreAnonymous In that sense you could optimise your question for this readership by specifying that $d_r\in\Bbb R$ with $r\in \Bbb N$, and that $f$ is a function from $\Bbb R \to \Bbb R$ and that its (integrable(?), ....) and so on ...
Then I think also the rhetoric question "What does this formula mean?" will repell quite a lot of competent people in the sense that they will just stop reading here and go to the next question ...
@MoreAnonymous You might want to say that $d_r$ is a sequence of real numbers. Then the next question would be what we in addition require for $d_r$ in order to get convergence and so on ...
"number of infintesimals" on the other side would suggest that $d_r$ is rather $\in \Bbb N$ instead of $\Bbb R$. Those inconsistencies make your question vulnerable
 
8:41 AM
@MoreAnonymous something more constructive maybe: when I remember correctly $\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{a_n}{n^s}$ for appropriate $a_n$ has a name, but I don't recall it at the moment. Maybe you can find it and see how it relates to the zeta function.
 
@Rudi_Birnbaum I think those are generalized zeta functions (at least when the $a_n$ come from Dirichlet characters).
But I also recall people looking at those for more general sequence $a_n$ coming from other things.
 
@TobiasKildetoft yes and it also looks then a bit like p-adic zeta functions
yep
 
8:55 AM
@MoreAnonymous @TobiasKildetoft Dirichlet series!
PS: Hello @TobiasKildetoft!
 
@Rudi_Birnbaum Hi
 
@Rudi_Birnbaum ... just woke up (didnt get enough sleep)
 
In mathematics, a Dirichlet series is any series of the form ∑ n = 1 ∞ a n n s , {\displaystyle \sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {a_{n}}{n^{s}}},} where s is complex, and a n...
 
@Rudi_Birnbaum I believe thats what i call them too in the proof
the underbrace
In fact using the same set of ideas I believe I can analytically continue the definition of integration for certain functions :D
@TobiasKildetoft (hey) did u finally see the proof?
 
@MoreAnonymous No. My love for integrals has not materialized overnight, sorry.
 
9:00 AM
There goes my hope .. .:P
 
Maybe there is something in the literature on $F(s)/\zeta(s)$, with the Dirichlet series $F(s)$.
 
Maybe I should write another post about analyically continuing the integral :P
 
@MoreAnonymous: More or less the question is about the nature of the pole of the Dirichlet series at $s=1$ in dependence of $f(n)$ (using Wikipedias names for the Dirichlet series).
 
yes it has to be first order
 
@MoreAnonymous The convergence of the Dirichlet series is determined by a $\sigma_0$
Every D-Series that converges somewhere converges everywhere on a half-plane $\Re{(s)}>\sigma_0$ with some $\sigma_0$.
Now the question is for which of your $d_r$ the $1$ is included in that half-plane?
For all the rest you formula doesn't make sense anyway.
 
9:11 AM
wahhh?
:(
 
@MoreAnonymous Btw. you know the joke "Its easier to prove the RH than getting anyone to read that proof." ;-)
 
well ur not gonna like the answer ... but this was one of the things that came later to me ... umm ... its very tempting to believe this $d_{1/n}$ ... I think this formula takes a life of its own
 
@MoreAnonymous there are actually quite simple explicit expressions for $\sigma_0$
 
link?
 
Dirichletreihen, benannt nach Peter Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet, sind Reihen, die in der analytischen Zahlentheorie verwendet werden, um zahlentheoretische Funktionen mit Methoden aus der Analysis, insbesondere der Funktionentheorie, zu untersuchen. Viele offene zahlentheoretische Fragestellungen sind durch diesen Zusammenhang einer „Näherungslösung“ (durch Abschätzungen) zugänglich geworden, etwa Fragen nach der Verteilung von Primzahlen. Konvergente Dirichletreihen sind als analytische Funktionen auch losgelöst von zahlentheoretischen Problemen als Untersuchungsgegenstand interessant, da sie in…
just look at the last expressions under that linked subtitle
 
9:26 AM
o..o
 
@mercio ?
 
good morning
 
morning
how was ur night?
 
it was okay
 
Good morning @mercio!
 
9:29 AM
coolz
 
@MoreAnonymous So when I understand correctly, then when for example $|\sum d_n|$ converges then $\sigma_0 = \infty$.
 
is that bad??
@Rudi_Birnbaum I think u are in a position to write an answer :) ... Feel free to do so ...
 
@MoreAnonymous Thanks for trusting, but I'll might try with a comment first. I am not really on safe grounds here. But well, especially for $d_n=1$ we get $\sigma_0=1$ and that means the Riemann sum case could work, but not necessarily has to (convergence is only assured for $\Re{(s)}>\sigma_0$). But one should check that
 
I see ...
 
@MoreAnonymous My first statement was wrong in case $\sum d_r$ converges $\sigma_0=0$ so thats a "worst case".
If the series diverges logarithmically we get a finite $\sigma_0$.
 
9:44 AM
Hey folks
I'm not sure I understand Robinson's field with valuation/asymptotic numbers ${}^\rho\mathbb{R}$
While the valuation is indeed a correct map and all, all finite numbers have a valuation of $0$
Is it really practical to make it a metric space?
 
I have not encountered a Robinson's field so far
 
it is this one
Although I think the same thing applies to most non-archimedean fields with valuations
 
Slereah ur a physics dude! (like me)!! hey
@Slereah
 
It's true
Basically Robinson's field is hyperreal numbers with like
Powers of some infinitesimal numbers
You have some infinitesimal scale $\rho$
And asymptotic numbers will be $\approx$ some power of that scale
The valuation is $v(x) = {}^0(\log_\rho (x))$
So that any finite number will just be an infinitesimal so projected to zero
 
@Slereah could I ask what is the physics application ur looking to use non standard analysis for?
 
9:55 AM
There's an embedding of distributions into asymptotic functions
Which could be useful for renormalization purpose
 
10:06 AM
I see I think if ur thinking on the same track I am then:
I might have beat u to the chase
 
so by "vertically summing" you mean "we switch the order the limits with no justification whatsoever" ?
 
not the way I'd like to phrase it but the hope is that there exists some f(x) which will allow u to do those manuplations
 
f(x)=0 probably works
 
or f(x) = e^{-x}
as well
@mercio it seems to give all the right answers in the verifiable cases
 
10:41 AM
According to code.jasonbhill.com/sage/project-euler-problem-12; If you factorize a number in this form $a = {p_1}^{e_1} \cdot {p_2}^{e_2} \dots {p_i}^{e_i}$ then, you can find number of all divisors using $\prod_{n=1}^{n=i} (e+1)$
all $p$'s are prime numbers
Does this formula have a name that I can google?
 
@yasar I doubt it. Why do you need to google it?
 
hi @TobiasKildetoft
 
@LeakyNun Hi
 
in $\Bbb F_2(t)$ is $X^2+X+t$ separable?
I think it is
 
@LeakyNun Sure, it has no double root
 
10:45 AM
@TobiasKildetoft I am trying to understand how the formula is derived. I can guess it has something to do with summing over all the combinations, but it is not immediately obvious to me. I am not professional mathematicans and last time I did combinations was years ago
 
do you have an inseparable irreducible polynomial that is not purely inseparable?
I think $X^4+X^2+t$ works
and I should stop answering my own questions
 
@LeakyNun I don't even recall what it means to be purely inseparable
 
$X^{p^n} - a$
 
@yasar You get a divisor by picking a power of each prime which is at most the power of that prime occurring in the factorization
these choices are independent, leading to that product
 
but the proper way to derive that is to use Dirichlet convolution ;)
 
10:47 AM
"Can you give a rigorous justification even that the double limit is the improper integral when all the $d_r=1$?"
What are you guys talking about? I wanna join in.
Teach me.
 
we're talking about two things at the same time
 
@TobiasKildetoft So, if I understood correctly, $+1$ comes from the fact that you can have that primes zero times? ($p^0 = 1$)
 
@yasar Yes, exactly
 
@LeakyNun of what field. you all keep mentioning dirichlet.
 
@TobiasKildetoft Ahh, it all makes sense now. Thanks a lot
 
10:51 AM
@Nick $\Bbb C$
but $\Bbb Q$ works just fine
but I'd argue that you can just use the ring $\Bbb Z$
 
ok, which textbook should I download to learn that?
 
wikipedia lol
 
2 hours ago, by Rudi_Birnbaum
In mathematics, a Dirichlet series is any series of the form ∑ n = 1 ∞ a n n s , {\displaystyle \sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {a_{n}}{n^{s}}},} where s is complex, and a n...
I see.. now, I just have to translate this for 11 yr olds.
 
@Nick such ones d2r55xnwy6nx47.cloudfront.net/uploads/2015/10/ErdosTao_Main.jpg ? But maybe he wasn't 11 then ...
 
Sam
can $\frac{8}{x^8}$ be re-written as $8x^{-8}$
 
10:58 AM
@Rudi_Birnbaum don't tell me that kid has an Erdos number.
 
Dunno, I have at least.
 
@Rudi_Birnbaum Is that Terence Tao?
 
@Nick Its Terry Tao btw.
yes
 
@Sam lol, I remember my physics prof in highschool couldn't digest that when I told that to him while he taught us the multisource intensity of light equation.
 
So he is no longer a kid and definitely has an Erdos number lower than mine
 
10:59 AM
@Rudi_Birnbaum dang, I hear he's pretty great. Has he won a Fields yet, tho?
 
Sam
Yup im trying to digest it now..
 
@TobiasKildetoft whats yours? I bet lower than mine?
 
@Rudi_Birnbaum It's 3
 
No!?!
 
x^(-1) is defined as 1/x ... how is that not simple?
 
11:00 AM
How comes?
 
@Rudi_Birnbaum How comes what?
 
Mine is lower than nine.
 
@Rudi_Birnbaum hither comes through yonder function breaks
 
3 is low, how comes that, who is the 2-coathor I mean.
 
So the picture did not result in a paper, because I can see that Tao has Erdos number 2
 
Sam
11:02 AM
@Nick There's no need to be rude
 
@TobiasKildetoft does scribbles on paper not count? Does it have to get published?
 
@Rudi_Birnbaum The 2 coauthor is Volodymyr Mazorchuk, who wrote a paper with Svante Janson
 
@Nick I Don't get that (no native speakerm sry).
 
@Sam no, no, I was just pointing out the negative extension of orders.
 
Hmm, my Tao number is also 3
I wonder if I have lower distance to any fields medalist than that
 
11:04 AM
@Rudi_Birnbaum no one did. that's why everything shakespeare said had to be translated on the opposite page.
@TobiasKildetoft lucky you, can I read the paper? Also, how can I get a Tao number? Is he on LinkedIn where I can reach him?
 
@Nick Which paper?
 
@TobiasKildetoft the one published giving you Tao#3
 
Cool! My Erd\H{o}s number is 8 (though its not one in the strictest sense, since its not within Maths).
 
@Rudi_Birnbaum Doesn't have to be within maths to count
 
My link is via Roald Hoffmann (chem nobel l.), my Roald Hofmann number is actually 2.
 
11:08 AM
neat
So for this years field medals, I have distance 4 to two of them and 6 to two others
 
and his E. number is 6
@TobiasKildetoft impressive!
@TobiasKildetoft PS among them?
 
PS?
Ahh, Scholze? That is one of the distance 6's
 
Peter Scholze
 
well, I sure have a lot to learn. See ya around guys.
 
But even if Williamson had won it this year, that would not have given me anyone closer (and I work in an area very closely related to what he works on, with us having cited each other directly)
So it was sortof surprising that the distance was only 4 to two of them, since I have no idea of what their work entails
 
11:14 AM
people only ask what is the E. number
but not how is the E. number
 
lol
one can always recommend the documantary movie about his life, its a quit good one ..
in case for those who dont know it youtube.com/watch?v=hXqozs2rxtY
 
11:29 AM
Just wondering, how do you calculate those numbers?
 
@AlessandroCodenotti I use the tool on mathscinet
(it is one of their free tools even, so no need for a university connection)
 
I see, thanks! I assumed there is an automated tool to do that, but wasn't aware of any
 
But obviously, the mathscinet one only counts things indexed there, so anything that is purely on arXiv or just hasn't been indexed yet will be missing, possibly leading to slightly too high numbers
 
you can expect to get upper bonds
 
right
It even shows the path from one to the other.
 
11:34 AM
It looks like I'll procrastinate this afternoon by checking the Erdős number of all my professors
 
Unfortunately I don't think it allows for scripts, or I would want to make it calculate a "Fields number", being the shortest distance to a fields medalist.
 
There's way too many of them to check manually, yeah
 
Sam
@Nick No problem. Thanks
 
Interesting, all of my professors had either a 3 or a 4 except for the numerical analysis and mathematical physics ones with 5
 
@AlessandroCodenotti I think that is fairly common
With the low numbers obviously getting rarer
 
Sam
11:47 AM
So does that imply $\frac{5}{x^8} == x^{8*(-5)}$
 
3 and 4 being common makes sense indeed, I'm not even sure how many number 1 are still alive and publishing
 
wasn't he considered a bit of a nut? (no disrespect intended :)
 
@user1732 Yeah, he was certainly eccentric.
 
I also found two professors who have a distance of two (or lower) from a fields medalist
 
also, wasn't there some drug use by him?
 
11:55 AM
@TobiasKildetoft which in turn seems to be not that uncommon among the highest ranking Mathematicians.
 
(One is a student of a student of Bombieri so it wasn't too hard to guess here, but a tool as you were describing above would be cool @Tobias)
 
@user1732 Yeah he used speed
lots I guess
 
:(
 
and coffee, but who doesn't
@user1732 I don't know how he got the stuff (in old and very old times you could get lots of drugs in pharmacies without prescription (heroine and cocaine being examples)) but in consumption per-se, I personally see no principle difference between coffeine and amphetamie abuse.
 

« first day (2939 days earlier)      last day (2069 days later) »