« first day (3252 days earlier)      last day (1771 days later) » 

7:07 PM
@MatheinBoulomenos jfc I don’t even want to imagine your undergrad thesis
Probably more advanced than most PhD theses
 
thanks, but it's not that advanced
 
Hullo all
@Mathein nice antiquated English
lol
 
hello @ÍgjøgnumMeg
 
@MatheinBoulomenos what’s it on
 
waddup
 
7:18 PM
modular forms and galois representations
 
@TedShifrin it's 4:18 p.m. (16.18hs) here
 
it's related to the Langlands program and Wiles' proof of FLT
 
Be sure to share a copy with us when you're done :P
 
Lmao an undergrad thesis on FLT
 
@Ryan mine was on FLT! Just the cheap version...
lol
 
7:19 PM
well, I don't give a proof
 
It seems like every number theory student knows how FLT goes
 
but at least after my thesis I will be able to make sense of Taniyama-Shimura
i.e. the statement
 
But very few geometric analysis students know how Poincare goes
 
But those are like similar in magnitude problems
I think
 
7:20 PM
I think very few know the whole proof
but ideas from the proof are very important
 
I only know the partial proof for regular primes
but the Wiles' account of the story on the BBC documentary is literally what inspired me to study mathematics in the first place
I almost became a linguist
lol
 
I was insprised by some random dude on YouTube
It was like a one hour lecture on GR
 
Oooo! Let's share inspiration stories
Was it Susskind?
 
I couldn’t figure out one Christoffsel symbol thing
No I saw that second
 
Ah I see :)
 
7:23 PM
Because I looked up more videos
To figure out Christoffel symbols
Ironically if I had understood them immediately I probably wouldn’t have gone deeper
 
well I was an A-Level student so I barely knew what a prime was
Hiya @Ted
@Mathein Ken Ribet said something like "modularity is contagious so you only need to prove stuff for one prime"
is that modular lifting?
 
I still want to meet Suskind
But he’s very old
I’ve met some of the people that got me into math
Susskind, Brendle, Hawking are left
Hawking will be tough
Oh Anthony Zee
But I don’t think he’d like me
He rags on mathematicians a lot in his books
 
7:39 PM
lol I was about to say that Hawking would be a tough one
I met a guy at a summer school who said that he had dined with Wiles once, and that he was really really shy and hated people approaching him
which is a cool factoid
 
Yeah I heard him described as a “ghost” by Princeton people
 
in contrast to Ribet who is quite outgoing
 
Hawking was said to be a pretty rude guy sometimes haha
 
Do you know the show "University Challenge"?
 
Don’t think so
 
7:46 PM
It's basically a British TV show that takes teams from universities around the country, each episode has two teams on and they answer quite difficult questions from the humanities and the sciences
And the overall winner of the entire season has a trophy presented by a famous academic or smth
And Hawking presented it the year before he died
 
and I remember him making some tongue-in-cheek jokes on that
 
This is kind of out of the blue. But a slide I'm reading describes some requirement on the construction of a parity matrix that I just don't understand - and was hoping maybe it is abstract enough for someone here to get:
"The equation $xH^{T}=0$ can be considered as a condition that a number of columns in H add up to 0. If all columns in H are different and unequal to the all-zero column, then the weight of x in order to satisfy this equation is either equal to zero or at least equal to three"
The context is parity-check matrices, and the term weight refers to the number of places in which a vector differs from the zero vector if that helps.
The matrix $H$ has dimensions $(2^{m} - 1) \times (m \geq 2)$ if that helps. All columns are also nonzero. But I'm not sure why that is either.
My confusion is the "at least equal to three" part. I can see how that if $xH^{T} = 0$ is a condition, than $x=0$ vectors solves this.
 
8:29 PM
The new 3B1B video explains Fourier series like how I've always explained them
 
@ÍgjøgnumMeg best show
 
@Erico right!
 
that and only connect are like my two favorite trivia shows
 
hi chat
 
Only Connect is SO hard hahaha
 
8:34 PM
as an american none of it makes sense to me anyway
but i still love it
 
hahah fair
hey @Semiclassical
 
8:52 PM
Is anyone able to find a proof on MSE that $1/z$ is holomorphic on the punctured plane? I can't seem to find one, which is kind of surprising. I keep f*cking up my calculations, so I just want to see a proof.
 
9:02 PM
wouldn't it just be the CR equations? Those should hold except at z=0
 
I suppose you could use those. They haven't been presented in the book I'm using.
I am trying to look for proof that uses the definition.
 
What definition do you have? The CR equations are the usual one I remember
 
$f$ is holomorphic at $z$ if the limit of $f(z+h)-f(z)/h$ exists.
as $h \to 0$.
 
$\frac{1}{z+h} - \frac{1}{z} = \frac{z}{(z+h)z} - \frac{z+h}{(z+h)z} = \frac{-h}{z(z+h)}$
 
@Daminark boi
 
9:17 PM
And then $\frac{1}{h}$ kicks in, so that's just $\lim_{h\to 0} -\frac{1}{z(z+h)} = -\frac{1}{z^2}$
@Igjo whaddup
 
So I should prove some limit laws before proving that $1/z$ is holomorphic?
 
@Dami watching some video about a japanese flute
how about thou
 
Limit laws? I mean the very last thing I wrote I guess asks for some sorta continuity but like... it's kinda clear
@Igjo gonna read and sign the lease on my apartment in grad school (at least first year) and do some online driver's ed class that'll give me a learner's permit. And hopefully eventually get some time to do math holy crap
 
Nice :) Where are you going?
 
@Daminark No, what you wrote presupposes a reciprocal limit law.
 
9:24 PM
I mean a reciprocal limit law basically amounts to saying that $\frac{1}{z}$ is continuous for $z\ne 0$
Which is really just a calculus fact
@Igjo Madison!
 
Madison is Wisconsin?
 
Yeah
 
Cool!
 
How are things going on your side?
 
@Dami well I've been ranting on here a lot about getting rejected from Heidelberg lol
 
9:28 PM
Wait what
It seemed a couple months ago like you were basically in
Didn't you have a scholarship? (Sorry if I'm opening a wound of some sort here, I'm just surprised)
 
Right, I actually still have the scholarship (haven't told them about the rejection yet), they basically flat out rejected me without warning because my degree certificate and my transcript didn't have an official seal on them
lol
 
That's... stupid
Sorry
 
(sorry to everyone hearing about this for the 9001th time, it is helping with the "grieving" process lel)
@Dami Mathein is going to speak to some people tomorrow and see if he can get them to do something about it
 
Ah, good luck, hopefully he can pull something off
 
Hope so! Everybody on Earth cross your fingers and toes
his advisor is the head of the board of examiners
maybe he has some clout
 
9:33 PM
Nice
Do you have a backup plan of some variety? I guess this was kind of a surprise but
 
Well I could go to Cambridge or Bristol or smth
but I really dislike living in the UK
 
not backup plan since this wasn't supposed to be planned around but a backup option perhaps
 
But financially I'd be screwed, since the scholarship was perfect lol
 
I wonder if it's some sort of excuse to artificially lower admission rates.
Though, that doesn't really make sense.
 
@Rithaniel I had some thought that it was a racist action because the UK is so unpopular in Europe at the moment hahaha
 
9:40 PM
That would be embarrassing for the college, in the long term. Probably is just a matter of excessive bureaucracy, I'd bet.
 
Howdy, Demonark, @Rithaniel, re @ÍgjøgnumMeg
 
Sup Ted.
 
Heya @Ted, just complaining some more lol
 
Hey Ted!
 
Well, it is partly your fault, but complain away ;P
 
9:41 PM
This is for a masters, right?
 
Maybe :/
Yeah
 
Well, with your mind, Meg, if they don't let you in, it'd just be a loss on their part.
 
LOL @ Demonark's learners permit
 
Yup, 22 and I'm just gonna get that
 
lol I wouldn't exactly say I'm anything above the average
 
9:42 PM
I'm more scared of your driving than I am of demonic @Alessandro's.
 
You can keep up with the conversation in here. I take that as an indication that you are, at least, above average.
 
@Ted the problem I have is that I sent exactly the same documents as when I applied the first time and got accepted but had to turn it down due to financial constraints
T_T anyway sorry hahaha
 
Yeah, also I decided not to get a car, even if insurance is cheap and I can just get some beaten up $500 car or something, the problem is that parking is tricky and Madison is kinda hilly which would be rough to drive in during the winter
 
@ÍgjøgnumMeg, I thought they might have wanted the official one once you decided you were going. That's how things work lots of places here.
Yeah, Demonark, I drove in Madison around Christmastime about 15 years ago and it was super snowy. But I learned to drive in New England.
 
@Ted but I'm going through the exact same application process as when I applied the first time, so it's really confusing for me! I understand their concern I guess, just hope they can still overturn the decision because it's painfully stubborn if not
Guess I'll see tomorrow!
 
9:45 PM
Hmm, so you already offered to overnight the official one to them and they refused?
 
I've got my fingers crossed for you, man.
 
This did make apartment search somewhat tougher since now I simultaneously wanted to be near a bus to school and within walking distance of stuff like groceries, but luckily that's been handled without going too expensive
 
Little Demonark is growing up :)
 
Oh tomorrow is when you'll find out whether they'll undo or not? Good luck
 
@Ted no not yet, the letter arrived on Friday evening so nobody has replied to my email yet, I'm sending everything tomorrow and Mathein will have a chat with some people too (I'll email him my documents and an empowerment to act on my behalf)
which is extremely kind of him and I'm indebted to him if it works out
 
9:47 PM
Yes, he's a good person. You can't email the official transcript, though; that has to come from the Registrar.
OK, well, don't panic too much yet.
 
Yeah that makes sense, I'll get some official copies of everything tomorrow (students are all home for the summer so the faculty admin staff aren't too busy!)
@Daminark well tomorrow is when the staff are back at the university so I'll get some confirmations tomorrow I guess, just hope Mathein's advisor isn't too busy to do smth
 
Well, any fun math you've been up to?
General you
 
I've just been brushing up because I've been out for a long time, and reading introductory CFT
You?
 
This just came up (implicitly) in a question on main. if $f(x),g(x)\to\infty$ and $\lim\limits_{x\to\infty}\dfrac{\log f(x)}{\log g(x)} = 0$, then presumably $\lim\limits_{x\to\infty}\dfrac{f(x)}{g(x)} = 0$. Proof?
Probably too easy for this crowd ... :P
mutes the snores
 
10:07 PM
I'm actually not sure yet
 
me neither
 
Okay so assume $\lim_{x\to \infty} \frac{f(x)}{g(x)} > 0$, we can take its log
 
Ah ... well, it's good for developing intuition on rates of growth at infinity (e.g., for elementary number theory stuff).
 
well I have the feeling that log(smth) grows slower than smth
 
well, of course, @ÍgjøgnumMeg. That's fundamental.
 
10:09 PM
right
so it seems reasonable
lol
 
But Demonark is going to run into the difference of the logs, not the quotient.
But, undeterred ...
I don't follow your logic (yet), @ÍgjøgnumMeg.
 
Commute things by continuity, so that's $\lim_{x\to \infty} \log(f(x)) - \log(g(x)) = r$, some finite value
And I guess then you can divide through by log g
 
OK, good.
So $r=-1$?
Hmm, that's interesting.
 
Yup, so then that would force $\lim \frac{f}{g} = \frac{1}{e}$
 
So, your proof fails to prove what I wanted.
 
10:13 PM
I mean maybe we can manually check that this isn't possible either
 
Maybe not the best proof, but interesting.
The question is: Can there be an example like this?
Seems to me that we could multiply $f$ (or $g$) by any nonzero constant and violate this.
So maybe that is a (horrible) proof of my claim.
 
Oh wait maybe I was careless
 
If so, you trapped me.
Oh, the RHS goes to $0$. Duh.
 
So $\lim_{x\to\infty} \log(f(x)) - \log(g(x)) = r$, when we divide that actually messes with each side
 
So, wait, that can't happen. OK, good.
 
10:16 PM
So yeah okay that kills it
 
This is one of those proofs by contradiction that I would rather have rewritten to eschew contradiction.
I think it's easy enough to turn this into a direct proof.
Oh, and in fairness, Demonark, I was careless, not you. You just got suckered by me.
 
Yeah, but huh neat problem. I think I might've had this problem in combo maybe. Or when I graded discrete
 
It can be useful in simplifying rate of growth at infinity problems.
 
Or the sequence version of this problem at least, I think one was to show that this isn't true in general but if $a_n$ and $b_n$ are bounded away from $1$ then it works
 
Can we do $n!/n^n$ sans Stirling easily?
 
10:30 PM
Sorry I was out
Showing the limit is 0?
 
$\frac{n!}{n^n}=\frac{1}{n}\cdot\prod_{i=2}^n\frac{i}{n}$ and the second factor is bounded, the first goes to $0$. Shouldn't that suffice?
 
Yeah
 
I know lots of proofs. I was just trying to use this technique.
 
Ah
 
I still have to use the integral test to estimate $\log(n!)$, I think.
But I'm fine with that.
Anyhow, moving on ...
 
10:36 PM
Where was the question on main?
 
@TedShifrin how would you personally motivate the defining of the real numbers.
Maybe perhaps without appealing to knowledge of calculus.
IVT seems to be the popular answer to this question.
With some different incarnations, like intersecting curves.
 
Getting square roots is also popular.
 
That only gets you algebraic numbers though
 
Yeah, and including details in that often amounts to IVT.
e.g. "I want a root for $p = x^2 - 2$"
 
@Daminark did u read any jacobson yet
 
10:45 PM
@anakhro wanting to make sense of any string of decimals seems legit
 
@RyanUnger in what way?
Like, why would we initially be curious about that?
 
@anakhro a legit reason for wanting R
 
True, square roots can't motivate all the way up to the real numbers.
 
$\pi$
 
@RyanUnger that's not begging the question?
Or do you mean approximations of pi?
 
10:48 PM
$\pi$ looks like it would reduce to the convergence of bounded, monotone sequences.
 
you can't make sense of pi without real numbers
 
Well you can make some sense of it.
 
@Thorgott I believe you can construct real numbers by using monotone sequences of rationals
In fact, I know it
 
@Eric it's been going really slow, between driver's license, trying to get some exercise, apartment business, and parents being sick so I'm kinda on call, I haven't gotten too far sadly
 
But I am not quite sure what in particular you are referencing about pi.
If anything.
 
10:49 PM
what is pi if you don't know what real numbers are
it's an infinite decimal
turns out that's exactly what real numbers are
boom
 
Sounds reasonable. A bounded, monotone sequence determines a Dedekind cut and two such sequences determine the same one iff they (in R) have the same limit.
 
I don't know how great pedagogically it is to justify all of R on just pi, something that even the greeks discussed without R.
 
@Thorgott Assuming $\Bbb R$ is constructed and we have completeness, note that for any $x\in\Bbb R$, $$x=\sup\{y\in\Bbb Q:y<x\}$$
@anakhro I think this is a bad question. If someone doesn't like $\Bbb R$ but they understand that $\pi$ is not a rational number, give up on them
If you understand that certain infinite decimals are not rational numbers then it's really not hard to see that the set of all infinite decimals is a thing
 
Yeah.
@anakhro If $\pi$ is too specific, you can take it as a special case of the fact that you can reasonably talk about the length of a sufficiently nice (say, $C^1$) curve.
 
lmao lengths of curves is a bit much here
I think @anakhro is talking about schoolchildren
 
11:00 PM
I think asking that something you can draw has a reasonable notion of length or area is intuitively desirable. Of course, getting to the core of why this requires R is a bit deeper.
 
11:14 PM
I think the IVT is much harder conceptually
decimals are understood by literally everyone
 
11:56 PM
I am talking about high school students.
And I am not talking about someone who in some way rejects R.
 

« first day (3252 days earlier)      last day (1771 days later) »