« first day (3179 days earlier)      last day (1828 days later) » 
00:00 - 22:0022:00 - 00:00

10:03 PM
Hey guys, how's it going
 
@user193319 What do you mean by the sum of the roots?
 
@user193319 Assuming the polynomial splits (meaning all its roots are in the field), yeah
Er, up to a sign
Should be minus the coefficient of the second highest degree
 
@AkivaWeinberger For example, $x^2 + 1 = 0$ over $\mathbb{C}$?
I don't see how that polynomial satisfies that requirement.
 
By "splits" I mean it can be factored into linear terms
like $(x+i)(x-i)$
Oh, I guess technically the second highest degree term is $1$
since there's no degree 1 term
 
10:07 PM
I was interpreting it as the "degree $n-1$" term (which in this case is zero)
 
Right, that should probably work then
 
I haven't really mathed in a while
:(
 
it's ok but that was (for some reason) the first polynomial that came to mind when @user193319 asked that
I'm bad at mathing
 
Nah that last comment was irrelevant to this conversation
 
10:11 PM
I'm just sad that I haven't really mathed in a while
 
why haven't you?
 
Thinking about other things
 
too hard to concentrate on math? :(
 
I'm like within five pages of finally finishing Do Carmo's Riemannian Geometry at long last
but also I left it in Jerusalem (I'm home in NY for Spring Break/Passover)
so I can't finish it
I have other math books with me
 
What about $x^2 + 2x +1$ over $\mathbb{R}$? That would be true if you added the roots
 
10:17 PM
That's a double root at $-1$
 
I don't know how you would prove this generally though.
 
(so you need to count multiplicity)
@kylecampbell Multiply out $(x-r_1)(x-r_2)\dotsb(x-r_n)$
Throw out all terms of degree $n-2$ and lower 'cause you don't need them
 
Right, so that's where the sign comes in
 
You get $x^n-(r_1+\dotsb+r_n)x^{n-1}+O(x^{n-2})$
($O(x^{n-2})$ just means "something of degree $x^{n-2}$ and lower that we don't care about)
 
oh nice
 
10:19 PM
Exercise: What do you get for the coefficient of $x^{n-2}$?
Also, after you do that, look up elementary symmetric polynomials
Another thing I need to do is pick Japanese back up
I started learning it a while ago and didn't get very far
 
Languages have never been my strong suit.
 
10:45 PM
Hi! Is it true that sets with non zero Lebesgue measure contain an open interval?
 
@AnjaniGupta No. Look up the "fat Cantor set"
(And I'm sure Cantor would like to know the exact bracketing of that name…)
Apparently this is actually more formally called the Smith–Volterra–Cantor set
Basically, when you're constructing the Cantor set, instead of removing 1/3 of the length at each step, you can remove a decreasing fraction of the length at each step
 
If $I\subseteq R$ is a set which does not contain any units, then $(I)$ is always a proper ideal of $R$, right? Or am I going crazy?
 
$(I)$ is the ideal generated by $I$?
What about $I=\{2,3\}\subseteq\Bbb Z$?
 
Indeed.
 
$(I)$ would be $\Bbb Z$ in that case (since $3-2=1\in(I)$).
 
10:56 PM
Shoot
 
@AkivaWeinberger Strange set indeed! I'll read and ask if the doubt persists, thanks :)
And can Lebesgue integration of an always non zero function be zero?
 
Why can't you just do $f(x)=\begin{cases}1,&x\ge0\\-1,&x<0\end{cases}$ and integrate over $(-1,1)$?
Or do you want a positive function
 
Yes I want positive.
 
And integrating over a set of nonzero measure?
 
Yes :P
 
10:59 PM
I'm fairly certain that would have to integrate to something nonzero but I'll have to think about a proof
Well
Oh I have a proof but also I have to go
:P
Bad timing
Look at sets where the function has a value between $\frac1n$ and $\frac1{n+1}$
 
That's a new way to say the proof is obvious and left to the reader...
 
Ok I'll find it maybe. You are certain about the result though, right?
@Dair
in that case ill post it
 
Lol, why are you pinging me? I'm not really paying that much attention. haha.
 
I'm tempted to ping Dair for no reason, now.
But no, that would be rude.
 
Just to say that if its a new way of leaving the proof to the reader, I'll better post it as a question ;)
Ping him!
 
11:03 PM
good thing i need to go now too lmao.
 
Never! I'm too busy with this: "Show that $\mathfrak{M}\subseteq R[[x]]$ is a maximal ideal if and only if $\mathfrak{M}=(M,x)$ for some maximal ideal $M\subset R$ of $R$."
It's a weird one. All the approaches I think of keep hitting walls which uncover that the original idea I had doesn't actually work. Yet it seems like such an obvious fact.
Sadly though, "Of course that's what the maximal ideals of $R[[x]]$ look like. How could they look like anything else?" does not constitute a proof.
 
I study math 21 hours a day.
 
11:18 PM
@AkivaWeinberger the d is lower case in do Carmo my dude
 
I know but it feels so weird
@AnjaniGupta I'm back
Yeah so let $S_0$ be $\{x\in A:f(x)\ge1\}$
Let $S_1$ be $\{x\in A:1>f(x)\ge\frac12\}$
Let $S_2$ be $\{x\in A:\frac12>f(x)\ge\frac13\}$
and in general let $S_n$ be $\{x\in A:\frac1n>f(x)\ge\frac1{n+1}\}$
We want to show that, if $m(A)>0$, and $f(x)>0$ for all $x$, then $\int_Af(x)dx>0$
Yeah?
The point is that $\bigcup\limits_{n=0}^\infty S_n=A$
So $\sum\limits_{n=0}^\infty m(S_n)=m(A)$
In particular, we can't have all the $m(S_n)$ be zero, because then their sum would be zero
So at least one of the $m(S_n)$ is greater than zero
So now: $\int_Af(x)dx\ge\int_{S_n}f(x)dx$
And, on $S_n$, $~f(x)$ is between $\frac1n$ and $\frac1{n+1}$ (so in particular it's greater than $\frac1{n+1}$)
so $\int_{S_n}f(x)dx\ge\int_{S_n}\frac1{n+1}dx=m(S_n)\frac1{n+1}>0$
QED
@AnjaniGupta
The main point is that we can write the set of positive values as a union of countably many sets with positive lower bound
($(0,\infty)=[1,\infty)\cup[\frac12,1)\cup[\frac13,\frac12)\cup[\frac14,\frac13)\cup\dotsb$)
@Rithaniel Well, $(M,x)$ is always maximal
(It's the set of polynomials whose constant term is in $R$)
So the hard part would be the converse, yeah?
What is that, fraktur?
Oh god
Right so if $\mathfrak M$ were not of the form $(M,x)$ then we need to show that there's some proper ideal strictly containing it, yeah?
Hm
Does it matter that it's $R[[x]]$ and not $R[x]$?
Thinking aloud for a second: What's the ideal in $\Bbb Q[x,y]$ generated by $x^n+y^n$, $~n=1,2,3,\dots$?
Is $x^2$ in it?
Is $x$ in it?
No
 
11:48 PM
Well, nah, everything would need to have positive powers of $y$.
 
and also everything in that ideal is symmetric
Oh well no
'cause you can multiply anything in the ideal by anything in the ring and stay in the ideal, right?
So $x(x+y)=x^2+xy$ is in the ideal
We also have that $(x+y)^2-(x^2+y^2)=2xy$ is in the ideal
so $xy$ is in the ideal
so $(x^2+xy)-(xy)=x^2$ is in the ideal
 
Hmmm, touche
 
What about $x$?
 
(I should be more careful with my analysis.)
 
I didn't know the answer to that question when I asked it, to be clear
 
11:51 PM
Yeah, but you actually investigated it. I was willing to just say "nah."
I'm leaning towards "nah" on the inclusion of $x$, though.
Because to cancel an $xy$, it seems you'd need some polynomial of the form $x(x^n+y^n)$
 
Hm
I think you're right
I think in the end you probably end up with the set of things whose constant term is zero, whose linear part looks like $cx+cy$ for some $c\in\Bbb Q$, and whose higher-order terms are whatever
i.e. things with zero constant term and equal coefficients for the linear terms
That set feels like an ideal
It's closed under addition, and under multiplication by anything in the ring, right?
Notice that this isn't maximal
 
Yeah, because $x^ny^n$, $x^{2n}$, and $y^{2n}$ are in the ideal, and a rational times a rational is a rational.
 
OK, new question
 
Though, actually, what about $x^{n+1}y^n$? That's in there too, right?
 
$x(x^ny^n)$
Once you have $x^2$, $~xy$, and $y^2$, you have all things of degree two and higher
 
11:58 PM
Ah yeah, we're requiring that it is an ideal.
 
New question
 
Go ahead
 
What's the ideal in $\Bbb Z[x]$ generated by $x^n+1$, $~n=1,2,3,\dotsb$
Well if it were $\Bbb Q[x]$ then it would be the whole thing
 
00:00 - 22:0022:00 - 00:00

« first day (3179 days earlier)      last day (1828 days later) »