« first day (3410 days earlier)      last day (1598 days later) » 
00:00 - 17:0019:00 - 00:00

7:01 PM
@BalarkaSen Sorry in case I'm missing the point, but I think there's an easier way: Let $K/F$ be a finite extension and a splitting field for a polynomial over $F$. Let $f\in F[x]$ have a root $\alpha\in K$. Consider an irreducible factor $g$ of $f$ in $K[x]$. Consider the extension $K(\beta)/K$ by adjoining a root $\beta$ of $g$. $\alpha\mapsto\beta$ defines an $F$-embedding $F(\alpha)\rightarrow K(\beta)$.
This can be extended to an embedding $K\rightarrow L$, where $K(\beta)\subseteq L$. However, $K$ is is a splitting field, so the image of $K$ under this embedding is contained in $K$ again; in particular, $\beta\in K$, so $\deg g=[K(\beta)\colon K]=1$, hence $f$ splits completely.
Essentially, having a root gives room to embed, but all your embeddings are necessarily automorphisms, so you already have all the roots.
 
7:50 PM
Interestingly (or not), I put this as a (not too hard) exam problem the last time I taught algebra: If $K/F$ is Galois and the irreducible polynomial $f(x)\in F[x]$ has a root in $K$, then it splits in $K$.
Oh, and I put it again on the final. Hmm ... I guess I like that result. :) Symmetry and all.
 
8:02 PM
So, on a normed algebra $A$ of finite dimension, if $x_n \to x$ then $a x_n \to ax$ where $a \in A$, only because $x \mapsto ax$ is linear and hence continuous.. I'm asking for an example in infinite dimension where this breaks.
 
$x \mapsto ax$ is still continuous in infinite dimension because it is bounded (its operator norm is $\|a\|$)
@Thorgott "easier" is in the eye of the beholder
your proof is essentially the same, only that he is more explicit (he explained why "the image of $K$ under this embedding is contained in $K$ again" and he used an algebraic closure instead of some finite extension $L$
 
My professor keeps mentioning this every time he needs to "factorize" by a matrix for example from the sum of a series..
 
I think working with finite extensions is easier than working with the algebraic closure in this case, because you don't need choice, which makes it a little less technical. Of course, you are right that this is up to the beholder and that the general idea behind the proofs is similar.
 
8:21 PM
Is there a characterization of matrices in $SL_n(\mathbb{Z})$ with only integer eigenvalues?
(I have a suspicion that such a characterization might be "is the identity")
 
8:40 PM
Well, @Rithaniel, that's certainly false. If $n$ is even, negative the identity will work. But any upper (or lower) triangular matrix with $\pm 1$ on the diagonal will work.
 
Ah, fair.
I wonder if that would be a case of being unable to see the forest for the trees
Looking too much into the details and searching for things and not noticing the obvious examples
 
Sometimes the method of wishful thinking fails.
 
That'd be most of the time, right?
 
the eignevalues must be $\pm1$ though
 
Okay, that's useful information
 
8:58 PM
@Rithaniel: That's because $1$ cannot be a product of integers of absolute value $>1$, right?
 
I'm not sure. I would believe you if you said that was the case, but I am missing the bridging detail
 
The determinant is $1$ and it's the product of the eigenvalues.
 
Well, that's if we're looking at upper triangular or diagonal matrices. Do we know for sure that those are the only matrices in $SL_n(\mathbb{Z})$ that have only integer eigenvalues?
 
No, it's for all (square) matrices.
Do you know that the product of the roots of a polynomial with leading coefficient $1$ is $\pm$ the constant term?
 
I did not know that either, but that seems more broadly useful
 
9:05 PM
OK, you should figure out (in a minute) why that is true.
 
So, if $\frac{a}{b}$ is a root for $p(x)$ then $b$ divides the constant term and $a$ divides the leading term. Since we are assuming that $\frac{a}{b}\in\mathbb{Z}$, then we know that $b=\pm1$ and since the leading coefficient is $1$ we know that $a=\pm1$ and so $\frac{a}{b}=\pm1$
(This isn't what you asked me to prove, but it's where my mind went and seems relevant)
 
That's the rational root test. That will prove what you wanted, but not the general fact I stated. Just factor the polynomial.
 
@TedShifrin Hi
 
Hi @Tanuj
 
@TedShifrin I know how to make counters using logic gates right, but they start counting from 0 and count up to a particular value (modulus counters)
Let's suppose i want to calculate from 5 to 15. How would I do that
 
9:15 PM
Ah, I see. For each $(x-\alpha)$, $\alpha$ must divide the constant term.
 
Well, that doesn't mean much with random numbers. The point is that the constant term is the product of them all (up to sign).
@Tanuj: I have no idea. I don't know this kind of stuff, but other people do.
 
@TedShifrin Thanks, but can you please let someone know if they'll look into this please?
 
But couldn't $p(x)$ have no roots and still have a constant term? Such as $x^2+1$? Though, I suppose it has roots in the complex numbers and the product of those complex roots is 1.
 
There you go, @Rithaniel. :)
 
@Tanuj My first inclination would be to add circuitry to handle initializing to 5 and then force a reset at 15. But that isn't exactly elegant. Are you looking for something cleaner? Or would this work?
-Rithaniel's friend who is creeping over his shoulder.
 
9:23 PM
@TedShifrin How would I make it initialize to 5?
 
Don't be asking me!!
Ask @Rithaniel's creepy friend :P
 
@Rithaniel can you help?
 
@Tanuj Look at how you set each output bit (I'm assuming you're using JK flipflops). override the input to each JK when you reinitialize and force each bit to whatever you need it to be to get 5.
-Not TedShifrin or Rithaniel
 
@Tanuj: You need to ask Rithaniel's creepy friend. :)
 
My friend needs to get his own account, honestly
I disagree.
- Rithaniel's Lazy Friend
 
9:29 PM
Lazy and creepy. What's next?
 
Disclaimer: He is giving himself these labels, not me
 
Hi everyone
 
He's speaking his mind through the veil of anonymity
 
Heya Alessandro
 
hi, demonic @Alessandro
 
 
2 hours later…
Bob
11:22 PM
Hi
if you answer a question and your answer is not upvoted, accepted or downvoted
do you get point for that
 
No
If you did, people would just spam answering
 
Bob
is that true on all of the Stack exchanges?
 
Hello guys! Question regarding group theory
If we are given the set $Z_n$ of integers modulo $n$, then if we talk about "The group $Z_n$"
What is its operation? Is the sum or product? I can't remember what is the abuse of notation. Thanks!!
 
Bob
I believe it is sum. Remember there is only one operator for a group.
 
Thank you @Bob ^_^
 
11:31 PM
No abuse, @manooooh. It has to be sum.
 
Good evening good fellas.
 
well it was riddled with errors and I posted here like three times before I posted a question about it and nobody responded which could of prevented the embarrassing public blunder gfc what ever happened to team adam
 
@shi hi
 
00:00 - 17:0019:00 - 00:00

« first day (3410 days earlier)      last day (1598 days later) »