« first day (3760 days earlier)      last day (1260 days later) » 

12:00 AM
Well, that's in general a good thing, @Rithaniel. I don't like being explicit about everything. But if there's a key thing that's clearly super important, I liked to do it. I always hated it when colleagues would give students a sample test, and then give essentially the identical test for real. Talk about not teaching ...
 
Heh, yeah, I know for sure that I wouldn't do that
Like, I strived to make my practice exam different from the practice exam the department provided, even
 
I never wrote practice exams.
 
we have one prof who did a super elementary exam for a masters course in analytic NT. The first question was "Are there infinitely many prime numbers?" the second question was "Prove that there are infinitely many prime numbers"
 
LOL
Masters course??????
 
urgh, you're right
 
12:02 AM
That should be in a first "how to give proofs" course.
 
I was thinking "but the group is always non-empty", but forget the set can be, eh
and yes, I've seen your comment, trying to figure out why it's true
 
LOL ... one point for Ted, minus ten for Thor.
 
@Ted yeah, it was a joke
I mean it was real
but the difficulty was a joke
 
@Thor: That said, I probably would have screwed up and assumed the set was nonempty when I gave my definition.
Yup, in my algebra book, I have "$G$ acts transitively on $S$ if there is just one orbit." I then wrote it out explicitly.
 
For all $x,y\in X$ there is $g\in G$ with $gx=y$ works without assumptions on the (non)emptiness :P
 
12:06 AM
who cares whether the action on the empty set is transitive
 
I rarely care about the empty set. Back to discussions about my not being the most pedantic mathematician/teacher.
Demonic, yes, of course.
 
I stand by what I've said in the past: pedantry is a legitimate skill for mathematicians
 
Blah.
If that's one's only skill, one's not much of a mathematician.
 
Very true
 
I think being a good mathematician takes both formalism and intuition. Pedantry can be considered part of formalism I guess
 
12:12 AM
You need other skills, such as punctuality and penmanship
/s
 
I don't minimize the importance of careful and precise use of language. So many times — especially on MSE — that's a yuge issue.
 
But yeah, I'd classify pedantry under formalism, probably
 
@Rithaniel: I took penmanship very seriously. Students can't read boardwork if there's horrid penmanship. And I thought appropriate use of colored chalk and pictures was essential. More important than pedantry. :D
My students were always surprised at how good my penmanship was, given how fast I wrote on the board :D
 
Oh yeah, it's an actual think that you need, just like punctuality is an actual thing that you need
The joke was that I listed them as the foremost skills, instead of stuff like logic and grasp of abstract concepts
 
Oh, there was a joke?
 
12:18 AM
Yeah, that's what the /s signifies. It's "I'm being sarcastic"
 
My query was ironic.
 
Ah, I see. My reply was made while in an oblivious state
 
12:34 AM
can I do a substitution $u^2\mapsto v^2 $ here $ds^2=\frac{1}{u^2}du^2+\frac{1}{v^2}dv^2$?
to get $ds^2=\frac{du^2+dv^2}{v^2}$?
 
 
2 hours later…
2:26 AM
Is the Smith Normal Form of $$\begin{pmatrix} 2 & 2 & 0 \\ 0 & 2 & 1 \\ -1 & 0 & 2 \\ \end{pmatrix}$$ the matrix $$\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 2 \\ \end{pmatrix}?$$
 
2:52 AM
@MikeMiller @BalarkaSen know of any reference for a proof of homotopy invariance of simplicial homology that doesn't rely on singular homology?
 
You need simplicial approximation and relative simplicial approximation, and a subdivision lemma.
First prove that homology is invariant under barycentric subdivision of your complex.
Then show invariance under PL homotopy equivalence.
Then show every homotopy equivalence is homotopic to a PL homotopy equivalence between sufficiently subdivided complexes.
 
 
1 hour later…
4:19 AM
I think the given \gamma is not geodesic
gamma''(t) = (0,0,2) but we have sigma(x,y) = (x,y,x^2+y^2) as a surface patch
gamma'' can't be parallel to normal vector
 
Helloo
 
My definition of geodesic is a regular curve \gamma in a regular surface S such that for any t in the domain of gamma, \gamma''(t) is a normal vector to S at gamma(t)
 
4:44 AM
@TedShifrin one of my profs has absolutely atrocious handwriting, and it's for the most difficult course I'm taking :( Most of the time it's not even worth trying to follow his boardwork and to instead just listen and take notes on what he's saying lol
 
4:58 AM
@love_sodam You have to have a constant-speed curve for your definition.
Listening is good, @Edward, except for involved math formulae.
 
right, but there's a lot of technical junk happening atm so it's difficult to keep up hahaha
 
@TedShifrin But in the textbook, they don't say about the constant speed
Ah it's neccessary condition
 
Yup. So you have to reparametrize or use the chain rule.
 
5:17 AM
I think reparametrizing this curve is complicated
 
You may have other ways to see what geodesics are on surfaces of revolution. .
You should know how to handle non-arclength parametrized curves using the chain rule, regardless. Or think about it conceptually.
 
How can I use chain rule for that?
Well I know that in a surface of revolution, any longitudinal curve is geodesic
In my case, the given curve is kind of longitudinal
With some restriction
I think the only problem is the orign
 
No restriction. Any portion of a geodesic is a geodesic. He's asking whether it is always length-minimizing. We only know that I geodesics are locally length-minimizing.
 
5:34 AM
Actually, for the minimizing thing, I found that on [-2,2], gamma is not minimizing curve
The problem is to show gamma is geodesic
and what do you mean no restriction?
 
Is there an analytic continuation of the Riemann zeta function for the whole complex plane?
 
Why is the origin a problem?
Don't believe so, epic.
 
Because in my textbook, in the definition of surface or revolution doesn't intersect the z-axis
Minor actually.
 
The surface is fine because of the horizontal tangent there.
 
Given a discrete kernel $k$, how do I "quickly" approximate a $w$ such that $w \ast k \approx \delta$ where $\delta$ is the delta function?
For example, if $k$ is the discrete Laplace operator, $w$ should be a discretization of the corresponding Green's function.
Using the FFT and IFFT is unstable.
 
5:51 AM
@epic_math it has a meromorphic continuation to $\Bbb C$ but you still have a pole at $s=1$.
 
Ya that is true
 
6:21 AM
Hi Ted
 
6:46 AM
Hella fellas
 
7:02 AM
I was gone on a trip.
I see that hundreds of more posts are starred since I left
Haha no hundreds
And yes many of those starred posts refer to mike
Internet connection is not much available here
What is the most complicated branch of math?
Yeaa I will surely learn it
 
 
1 hour later…
8:27 AM
math is like drugs
I am addicted to it
and cannot get rid of the addiction
how many people agree with me?
3
 
9:11 AM
@epic_math I don't know what you mean; I can stop any time I want!
 
9:28 AM
I can create tags now
It's great
 
@robjohn man I was joking you took it seriously
@MrMaths ya it seems good
but I can't make tags
waiting for that time
you remember the product I gave?
 
@epic_math what makes you think I took you seriously?
@MrMaths just think what you can do at 2K!
 
@robjohn because you replied :)
wait I can't type it
lemme simplify it more
 
@epic_math with a joke...
 
lool it's good
 
9:45 AM
@epic_math $$\frac{\log(|z-1|)}{z}+\int_{0}^{1}\frac{1}{2t}\sum_{m=-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{i\sqrt{\pi}}{\log q}\sum_{n\ge1}\frac{(tz)^{n}}{\sqrt{n}}\exp\left(\frac{(m\pi)^2}{n\log q}\right)\,\mathrm{d}t$$
 
thanks
 
@epic_math was that $\mathrm{d}t$?
 
this is the logarithm of the product
oh I forgot the dt
I am simplifying this by using expansion of exp
hey you people can call me EM for short
but not em it can confuse me
 
@epic_math any number includes the letter "a"
 
lol yes
that was from reddit
it said verify this
 
9:50 AM
"one and one half" contains two
 
@robjohn are you interested in my work on partitions?
 
@epic_math haven't had a chance to look at what you were saying about it
 
the thing you just wrote in latex is the logarithm of the generating function of a function related to partitions
See the generating function answer of this question:
7
Q: A generalization of partition function to the sums of squares

epic_mathThe well known partition function $p(n)$ is defined as the number of ways to represent $n$ as the sum of natural numbers. An asymptotic formula for $p(n)$ is $$p(n)\sim\frac{1}{4n\sqrt{3}}\exp\left(\pi\sqrt{\frac{2n}{3}}\right)$$ which was obtained by Ramanujan. Recently an interesting idea came ...

@robjohn I simplified it and now it has become an expression involving the polylogarithm so I am thinking to use an integral representation of polylog
 
@epic_math I mentioned that the generating function was pretty simple when you mentioned it in chat a while ago. I see that someone has answered regarding that already.
 
you know what I want to do
I want to derive an analytic continuation of that product
this is why I am doing it
 
10:00 AM
you mean of the generating function?
 
the formula you wrote in latex has a little larger domain than the original product
@robjohn yes
and I want to substitute q=1, z=1 in it so this is why I am using analytic continuation
 
The analytic continuation may not give a good value for $z=1$, just like $\zeta(1)$
What is $q$ in the product?
 
this is q
the sum in the LHS is equal to $p_2(n)$ for q=1,z=1 and $p_2(n)$ is finite for all numbers
but the product is not for q=1,z=1
this is why I am using analytic continuation
and sorry the variable is not n in $p_2(n)$
don't think I am a crazy
@robjohn can you derive $$\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}p^2_j(n)q^nz^j$$ rather than $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}p^2_j(n)q^nz^j$$
the writer of the answer should have given the first one
I did a mistake in reasoning
the first one is $p_2(n)$, rather than the second
I wasted my whole day on this :(
 
Unless I'm mistaken, I'm fairly sure analytic continuations of $\zeta$ are all "equal"
 
yes, but how to you define $\zeta$ using $$\sum_{k\ge1}\frac{1}{k^n}$$ for n<0?
it's divergent there
 
10:13 AM
Via the reflection formula lol
 
that is also a sort of analytic continuation
 
Of course, you wouldn't need an analytic continuation if it was already convergent everywhere
 
reflection formula does nothing in the region 0<n<1
for example 0.3
do you know $\zeta(0.7)$ to calculate $\zeta(0.3)$
formula for $n\le0$ is derived but I don't think there is a good formula (that is not a functional equation) for 0<n<1
 
idk what you mean by "good formula that is not a functional equation", the reflection formula is a functional equation
 
by "good formula that is not a functional equation" I mean a formula for the region 0<n<1, which is not a functional equation
Can someone calculate $$\sum_{m=-\infty}^{\infty}m^{2k}$$
I simplified it but it became 0
lol what am I doing
I should really stop simplifying that product
But I successfully simplified it to $$\exp\left(\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{z^n}{n}(\vartheta_3(0,q^n)-1)\right)$$
 
10:41 AM
@skullpatrol and @skillpatrol. So similar names
 
yeah, they are a tag team
one of the room co-owners^ used to have many accounts
 
can someone rigorously prove the generating function formula of the number of partitions of n?
 
11:20 AM
$$(1-2^{1-s})\zeta(s)\Gamma(s)=\int_0^\infty\frac{x^{s-1}}{e^x+1}\mathrm{d}x$$
this works for $s\gt0$ and by integration by parts, can be extended as far negative as needed.
The Euler-Maclaurin Sum Formula can also be used to compute $\zeta(s)$ for $\mathrm{Re}(s)\lt1$.
 
11:39 AM
Integration by parts once gives $$(1-2^{1-s})\zeta(s)\Gamma(s+1)=\int_0^\infty\frac{x^se^x}{\left(e^x+1\right)^2}\,\mathrm{d}x$$
which converges for $s\gt-1$
Integration by parts again gives $$(1-2^{1-s})\zeta(s)\Gamma(s+2)=\int_0^\infty\frac{x^{s+1}\left(e^{2x}-e^x\right)}{\left(e^x+1\right)^3}\,\mathrm{d}x$$ which converges for $s\gt-2$.
etc
 
12:11 PM
@epic_math and I'd have more money if I stopped and settled for an industry job
 
I don't do it for the money.
 
But you need money to eat
Eating is priority; math can wait
 
Sleep is a priority.
Med school sleep deprives interns to see how they perform.
 
do you just have a magic 8-ball that you use to decide what message to send?
9
 
lol
 
12:54 PM
Money is the 2nd best
Math is the best you know
According to me, @epic_math, yes math is like drugs!
 
1:43 PM
Revolving a curve is not the same as changing the coordinates, revolving and then changing the coordinates back. How do you show this?
I think the specific coordinate change matters
 
@BalarkaSen this
 
Hello!!
 
@MaryStar hello
 
I want to show that an iteration method converges locally quadratic to $\sqrt{a}$.

I have done the following:

We have that $|x_{n+1}-\sqrt a|=\frac1{2x_n}|x_n-\sqrt a|^2$.

To get local convergence we want that the starting point is near the root. Then this should hold for all approximations. So it must hold that $\left |x_n-\sqrt{a}\right |<\epsilon$, with $\epsilon>0$. Is this true for all $\epsilon$ ? Can we just pick one?

Then we get: $$\left |x_n-\sqrt{a}\right |<\epsilon \Rightarrow \frac{1}{2(\sqrt{a}+\epsilon)}<\frac{1}{2x_n}<\frac{1}{2(\sqrt{a}-\epsilon)}$$ So we get $$|x_{n+1}
 
Someone here knows how to do this?
I dunno
 
2:15 PM
hey everyone
@epic_math
 
You ever get a problem with a hint and the hint just confuses you more than anything?
 
Hella @geocalc33
@Rithaniel hints are good until they mention "it is obvious that" and then give a monstrous expression.
 
Like, I'm supposed to be showing that if $T_n$ is a sequence of compact operators on a Hilbert space that converge in operator norm to $T$, then $T$ is compact, and the hint is "Show that for each weakly convergent sequence $(x_k)$ the sequence $(Tx_k)$ is Cauchy using that $(T_nx_k)$ is Cauchy and the $\frac{\epsilon}{3}$ argument," but I'm unsure how Cauchy-ness plays in here
 
Hilbert spaces are complete so you need Cauchy-ness?
 
Because Hilbert does not imply complete, so this has to mean that we find a Cauchy sequence in the operator norm, but then that seems to work in favor of showing that $T_n$ converge to $T$, not that $T$ is compact
Ah wait, they are complete
 
2:22 PM
@Rithaniel By definition
 
I keep on fumbling with the definition of Hilbert spaces
It's not usually the focus of the talk, so it gets lost in the haze
 
Hilbert spaces should be laid to rest once and for all
Hilbert space is an inner product space that is complete with respect to the norm defined by the inner product.
Could no one do it?
 
Yep, that's what it says on the Wikipedia article
 
I asked to rigorously prove the formula for the generating function of partitions
Rigorously
 
Hello everyone. When someone corrects the proof that I posted at MSE (solution verification tag), should I update my question to make it right?
 
2:36 PM
@EduardoC you asked the question to find out whether your proof was right or not, so no need to do that
 
Ok!
 
3:04 PM
@MikeMiller thanks I should have guessed barycentric subdivision was necessary.
 
does this have negative gaussian curvature?
 
@geocalc33 pick a point. Identify the principal directions. What are the signs of their curvatures? Take the product of the signs.
 
$k_1 \times k_2=(1)(k_2)$
$k_2<0$ so the gaussian curvature depends on the value of $k_2$
I picked the point at the middle of the blue curve
 
The cross section there is like a circle, right?
Where the green line is a normal of the plane of the cross section.
 
yeah it's exactly a circle
 
3:16 PM
What's the curvature of a circle of radius R?
 
I think it's 1/R^2
 
Close.
You are thinking the Gaussian curvature of a sphere.
 
oh 1/R
 
But right idea, anyway.
It's kind of an easy one to remember intuitively. If you are driving a car and you are driving in a circle, which feels more curved: driving along a circle with big R, or a circle with small R?
 
yeah that's a good example. driving along a circle with small R feels more curved
 
3:20 PM
Yeah, so from that you know that $\kappa \sim 1/R$.
i.e. "curvature is inversely proportional to radius"
 
$\kappa_1 \times \kappa_2=(1/R)(k_2)$
 
So the conclusion you have is that most definitely, it depends on the sign of the other principal curvature.
And you can guess that from the picture.
 
what if it's exactly $-1$?
 
Then you know the Gaussian curvature is exactly -1/R.
since R is positive, then the Gaussian curvature is negative.
But you can be much more general than that. At each point you can guess the sign.
(from the picture)
 
I want to calculate the gaussian curvature and mean curvature of this shape but I don't have a CAS
 
3:31 PM
What is CAS?
 
computer algebra system, like Mathematica
 
You can easily do it by hand.
$x^2 + y^2 - z^2 = 1$ is an equation for an identical looking surface.
So now you just do the calculations by hand.
 
can I get $\kappa_2$ just from the curvature of the blue curve?
 
That will be the principa;l direction of any point on it, but the issue is that you don't actually know this until you calculate it.
At that point you are eyeballing it.
How would you start finding the principal curvatures?
 
I would find the osculating circles maybe?
 
3:45 PM
Well a good start would be finding a parametrization for your surface.
Because we do things in geometry through these parametrizations.
 
okay I actually calculated it a few weeks ago
so I'll find it
 
Well if you are this slow to remember how to do it, maybe you might want to start from scratch again, just so you get better at these calculations.
Practice makes perfect, and you only get faster as you do it more. :)
 
okay definitely
 
Let me know if you need some help, I don't mind guiding you a little.
 
okay
 
4:17 PM
If I need to prove 'A if and only if B or C' then B->A is enough for if direction?
 
The if direction is "(B or C) implies A". Is this stronger or weaker than "B implies A"?
 
Stronger?
No weaker
So I need to prove B->A direction (if possible) for if direction and A->B if not C for only if direction (if possible) right?
 
4:39 PM
no, you need to prove "(B or C) implies A" for the if direction
does "B or C" imply "B"?
 
No but B implies B or C
 
yo thor
bijective immersions are diffeomorphisms
 
lol, that stumped me for longer than it should
but yes, they are
@love_sodam does that help in proving (B or C) implies A?
 
Oh
The problem I actually try to prove is the following:
Q(\xi_n)\subset Q(\xi_m) if and only if n|m or n = 2r for some odd divisor r of m.
where \xi_i means primitive ith root of unity
@Thorgott So need to prove B -> A and C and ~B -> A?
 
that is unintelligible without some parentheses telling me how to read those ands
 
4:54 PM
(C and ~B) -> A? I mean
 
so which one's A, which one's B and which one's C
 
@Thorgott The problem I said above?
 
yeah, but which letter corresponds to which proposition
 
A = Q(\xi_n)\subset Q(\xi_m)
B = n|m
C = n = 2r for some odd divisor r of m
isn't it?
 
then yes, proving "B=>A" and "(C and (not B))=>A" is equivalent to proving "(B or C)=>A"
 
5:02 PM
@Thorgott And proving one of A => B or A=> C is equivalent to proving A=>B or C?
It seems neither directions are easy
 
No, "A=>(B or C)" means that A implies B or C, but "(A=>B) or (A=>C)" means that A implies B or that A implies C, but that's a different thing. Looking at different examples in this case shows that there are configurations where A,C are true and B is false and also configurations where A,B are true and C is false. So "A=>B" is false and "A=>C" is false, hence "(A=>B) or (A=>C)" is false, but "A=>(B or C)" is still true.
 
I see.
 
"A=>(B or C)" is asking that A being true implies one of B or C being true, but not always necessarily the same one.
the "if" direction is fairly easy
 
Yes for n|m => is easy
 
the other one is also easy, think about r=m=1 and n=2 to see what's going on
 
5:10 PM
@BalarkaSen I'm doing some cool stuff now. Brownian motion that gets "propelled outwards", and slowing down, in a random direction that is chosen in a rotation-invariant fashion on a sphere. The calculations are meh though, we're apparently interested in approximating how much this deviates from a usual brownian motion (i.e. moments)
 
it seems you're using a rather loose definition of "cool"
 
It's been a long time since I did anything that I can easily visualize smh
 
@Thorgott I don't understand your consideration. I think it's not the case. What does it show?
 
well, why is $\mathbb{Q}(\xi_2)\subseteq\mathbb{Q}(\xi_1)$?
 
Becaus they are both Q?
 
5:17 PM
why is $\mathbb{Q}(\xi_2)=\mathbb{Q}$?
 
because x^2 = 1 has root x = 1,-1?
 
yeah, cause -1 is already in Q
more generally, if $m$ is odd, then $-\xi_m=\xi_{2m}$
this is all that's going on: you don't change the extension by multiplying by -1 (cause that's already in Q), but may obtain 2m-th roots of unity from m-th roots of unity that way
the only if direction says that this is all that can go wrong
 
Why is $-\xi_m = \xi_{2m}$?
 
you can verify that yourself
 
5:33 PM
Roots of unity are fun
 
-e^{2\pi k i/m} = e^{\pi i}e^{2\pi k i/m} = e^{2\pi(2k+m)i/2m}
 
5:50 PM
Does gcd(k,m) = 1 => gcd(2k+m,2m) = 1?
 
What if $2\mid m$?
 
^ very important observation
 
m is odd sorry
 
Ah, the same question as before. So, what things could possibly divide $2k+m$ and $2m$ at the same time?
 
2 or ...aliquot part of m?
gcd(k,m)
 
5:58 PM
So, if it divides $2m$ then it is either $2$ or divides $m$. So, if it divides $m$ and $2k+m$, then what can you say about what else it must divide?
 
2k
and as m is odd
should divide k
so divide m and k so only 1
 
There you go
 
can't divisible by 2 as m is odd
2k+m
my god
So if n doesn't divide m and n=2r for some odd divisor r of m, then m is odd.
the fact m is odd is not important I think
 
no that's false
 
r is odd and divisor of m so \xi_r is in Q(\xi_m). And -\xi_r = \xi_{2r} = \xi_n so Q(\xi_n)\subset Q(\xi_m)
if m is even then n divides m doesn't it?
 
6:10 PM
yeah
but m being odd was important in this argument
 
Why is that?
 
Suppose $m$ weren't odd. Then if $r\mid m$ and $r$ is odd, then $2r\mid m$
 
Yes but don't need to mention. I think it
it's just a consequence of our setting
 
I'm going to integrate this parametric equation $x=\frac{1}{t}e^{-t}$ and $y=te^{-\frac{1}{t}}$
 
6:27 PM
I think if direction is done
only if direction is much harder I think
First assume A and n\nmid m => C
So essencially I need to show \xi_n = -\xi_r
 
6:54 PM
How can I show that?
 
The expected value of the squared norm of a gaussian distribution is equal to the trace of its covariance matrix, right?
 
@user2103480 Seems cool
 
for $X \sim \mathcal{N}(0,I_d)$,
\begin{align*}
\E[\norm{\Sigma^{\frac{1}{2}}X}^2] &= \int_{\R^d} \norm{\Sigma^{\frac{1}{2}}x}^2\cdot \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^\frac{d}{2}} e^{-\frac{1}{2}x^Tx}\,\d x \\ &= \int_{\R^d} x^T \cdot \Sigma \cdot x\cdot \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^\frac{d}{2}} e^{-\frac{1}{2}x^Tx}\,\d x \\ &= \sum_{i,j} \sigma_{i,j} \int_{\R^d} x_ix_j \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^\frac{d}{2}} e^{-\frac{1}{2}x^Tx}\,\d x = \sigma_{1,1} + ... +\sigma_{d,d}, \end{align*}
this should be it if I don't overlook something ovious
 

« first day (3760 days earlier)      last day (1260 days later) »