« first day (3583 days earlier)      last day (1442 days later) » 

11:00 AM
@Thorgott I meant, what operation is that $\ast$ doing
 
@AlessandroCodenotti how does italian look
 
Relation is not defined in that question
 
yes, it's arbitrary subject to the given identities
 
@AlessandroCodenotti let's say we're following the homophone relation instead
 
the question is whether any such relation satisfying the given identities is necessarily associative
 
11:01 AM
so the paper Balarka linked
two words are the same if they are homomophones in Italian
Fundamental » All languages » Italian » Terms by lexical property » Terms with homophones Italian terms that have one or more homophones: other terms that are pronounced in the same way but spelled differently....
wow this category is much smaller
only 47 entries
 
Homophones are rare in Italian
q is read the same as the hard c, and h is silent, but apart from that I cannot think of other groups of letters that are read the same
 
anno = hanno
cappa = kappa
ceco = cieco
 
heya
sup?
 
We have homophones in the sense of whole words having different meanings but the same pronunciation, like costa which can be both coast and (she) costs
@LeakyNun Ah right, there's a few with cie/gie vs ce/ge
 
she costs? umm... what?
 
11:04 AM
 
how much?
 
$$x*(x*y)=y$$
$$(y*x)*x=y$$
Is it given or is this just OP's attempt?
 
@feynhat Objects are gendered in Italian
 
@feynhat asking the right questions
 
@LeakyNun Aren't some of those homographs rather than homophones? Like Monaco and monaco
 
11:06 AM
I suppose that's just automatically generated
like words with different capitalizations treated as different words
 
costa is the third female singular person of the present tense, indicative mood, of the verb costare (to cost)
 
@Knight What's it? logic?
 
The third person of the verb is declined according to the gender of the subject
 
What is $*$ operation?
 
11:08 AM
OP didn't define the operation
 
Okay...
 
I couldn't understand the question
 
Replace, $y$ with $(y*x)*x$
in the first equation.
Now, it looks kinda associative
 
@AlessandroCodenotti what's the masculine form?
 
@AlessandroCodenotti You probably should have written (feminine it) instead of (she). lol.
 
11:10 AM
@abhas_RewCie Is that relation given or did he make that attempt?
 
@LeakyNun Uhm well, also costa
 
@Knight given
 
The example sentence I had in mind had a chair, which is female
 
@AlessandroCodenotti the masculine and feminine forms for 3rd sing pres ind are always the same
 
Yeah I realized
I don't know grammar lol I just speak Italian
 
11:11 AM
fair
 
Hmm maybe only the past participle has a gender in the verb then
 
ok chomsky
 
Costa is also a brand of coffee in London
I remember going to Costa stores in year 1
they're like Starbucks stores
(do those have a generic name?)
 
I know, founded by Mr. Costa
 
cafe?
 
11:12 AM
everyone has an inbuilt deep grammar anyway so theres no reason to learn language
thats just surface structure
nothing compared to this DEEP STRUCTURE BRO
 
@robjohn oh, right, I should have floored all the xs
$\int_{2}^{n-1} \left \lfloor{\left \lfloor{\frac{n}{\left \lfloor{x}\right \rfloor}}\right \rfloor - \frac{n}{\left \lfloor{x}\right \rfloor} + 1}\right \rfloor dx$
 
sxpt
 
you can also assume $n \in \mathbb{N}, n > 2$, for the sake of that problem
I guess at that point it's more like $\sum_{2}^{n-1} \left \lfloor{\left \lfloor{\frac{n}{x}}\right \rfloor - \frac{n}{x} + 1}\right \rfloor$
4 internet points to whoever figures out what I'm trying to achieve with that
5 if you also send a 4 cheeses pizza to my address
 
11:54 AM
can a kernel be anything?
in terms of an integral transform
for the laplace transform the kernel is $K(s,t)=e^{-st}$
there are other kernels I know of, such as the kernel for the fourier transform
I'm under the impression that a "good" integral transform is invertible for a large class of functions. Is this on point?
 
guys, why do we need to take a quotient when dealing with the push-out in the category of sets?
that is, if we have $f\colon Z\to X$, $g\colon Z\to Y$, and we want the push-out of $f$ and $g$, why do we need to put an equivalence relation on $X\sqcup Y$ given by $f(z)\sim g(z)$?
 
What is a pushout?
 
Because it doesn't have the right universal property otherwise? Not sure what's your doubt
 
Hi Mike.
 
this is the general definition (thought it might be better to share this screenshot, since the commutative diagram is easier to read than what I could have written down)
 
12:10 PM
so does X cup Y satisfy that definition?
 
I feel like it does
 
That's not an argument
Hi feynhat
 
oh oops
I now see where it goes wrong
 
@Semiclassical hi
 
I was checking the wrong part of the diagram
 
12:10 PM
Where does it go wrong?
Ah
 
in the left part of the diagram
$\iota_X f=\iota_Y g$
 
how are you?
 
The other day we worked out when pullback gives an embedded submanifold (of the product). Is there a similar result for pushouts?
 
Pushout of manifolds is mostly not gonna be a manifold
 
Yeah there you go
 
12:13 PM
sad
 
It exists if you pushout along open submanifolds, but you stop being Hausdorff (take R <- R\0 -> R, pushout is line with two origins). In schemes it's a bit better, pushout exists along open immersions and closed immersions both
 
You should think of examples more @feynhat --- any example here would have convinced you the answer is "no" :)
 
feynhat should think about schemes more am I right
 
Bruhlarka
 
Pushouts must exist in the stacky sense
 
12:23 PM
Balarka
 
why do people even care about pushouts and pullbacks
 
AHA
theorem A.1
pushouts exist in the $\infty$-category of derived stacks
Oh man no they also demand closed immersions
What the fuck is the point of this then
 
@Thorgott Pushouts are union along a subspace; van Kampen says that pi_1 preserves a certain kind of pushout; these sorts of things are usually comprehensible to algebraic topology; the universal property shows up here and there
Pullbacks are fiber products
or if you like transverse intersections
those also show up
 
They are products and coproducts in the slice category over an object, which AG people will swear is the right category to work in because of some relative viewpoint nonsense
(might be comma category, I can never remember them)
 
Mike prove that pushout of a general diagram in Sch/S exists as a derived stack
 
12:28 PM
I shall learn algebraic topology some day
 
algebraic geometry should be banned if this is not known
 
Sorry to hear Thorgott
 
has anyone ever wondered about the equal sign
 
umm... sorry because he hasn't learnt it yet or because he shall someday?
 
do some people go insanse from trying to learn AG
 
12:32 PM
the people who try to learn AG are kind of fucked in the head from the beginning
 
oh
well I have a question about equivalence
in algebra 1 we learned about things like how to graph $f(x)=x^2$
the key point is that f(x) is exactly equal to x^2
but mathematicians on the historical perspective when given time, developed several things like looser equivalence
why?
like jacob lurie. He developed certain category theories in which the power of the equal sign is diminished. It's almost as if the equal sign is becoming less and less of what it used to be
 
Like the equals sign no longer equals itself
 
yeah
kind of
but my main concern is, if we build all of this elaborate structure of mathematics based on all these loose forms o equivalence what do you gain from it?
 
is it an inequality then?
 
maybe a more positive viewmpoint is that okay now mathematicians have maybe in the future have understood the entire spectrum of equivalence
 
12:48 PM
I think the point is that even in the fancy new stuff you still have f(x) equal to x^2, let's say --- but you also have a way to compare x^2 to y^2
The new stuff doesn't displace equalities so much as enrich them; there are now not just two things being equal but ways of going back and forth between different things
 
@geocalc33 I always have an impression that sign of equivalence has equal has a story
 
that's a good point
it's like having two languages and figuring out how to translate between them or something
this relates to integral transforms because apparently (integral transforms) map a problem into a different domain that's easier to work in
 
sorry if I interrupted your conversation!
 
1:06 PM
Not at all I just didn't have much else to say
 
1:32 PM
Why does $x^{\frac{1}{2}}=(1-x)^2$ have the same real roots as $x^3=(1-x)^{12}?$
 
.
let's define a polynomial $p=x_1^2x_2+x_2^2x_3+x_3^2x_4+x_4^2x_1$
How would you solve stabilizer and orbit of this polynomial given variable $x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4$
there are 4! ways you can arrange
If you have intutive approach let me know. Tag me.
May be this is not a good place to ask pathetic math question. I quit.
 
 
2 hours later…
3:25 PM
@geocalc33 If you raise each side of thee first equation to the sixth power, then you get the second equation.
that said, this only shows that a real root of the first equation is also a real root of the second equation
to see the issue, note that (for instancne) you could apply the same trick to $x^{1/2}=-(1-x)^2$. Luckily, this equation has no real roots.
 
4:04 PM
I gave up and decided to read Hatcher's proof. I don't understand a few things.
How does he lift the homeomorphism $p_i : X_{i} \to X_{i-1}$ to bundle isomorphisms $E_i \to E_{i-1}$?
 
What are you trying to prove again?
 
pullbacks of bundles over homotopic maps are isomorphic
He defines $h_i(x, \psi_i(x), v) = \begin{cases} (x, \psi_{i-1}(x), v) & \text{ on } p^{-1}(U_i \times I) \\ (x, \psi_{i}(x), v) & \text{ elsewhere } \end{cases}$.
 
If $\sigma,\tau \in S_k$ and $f$ is a k-tensor on a real vector space $V$.
Then $\tau(\sigma f)=(\tau \sigma)f$
Is he composing or taking product?
 
@topologicalorientablesurface I only see one way to interpret that
 
I don't get why this should even be continuous.
 
4:16 PM
composing is the way i interpret it
but $\sigma \circ f$ makes no sense
 
@topologicalorientablesurface I am not sure what you mean by composing here
 
sigma is a bijection on $\{$ $1,2....,k$ $\} $
 
you have an action of $S_k$ on the space. That is the action being considered
 
$\sigma f$ means you permute the arguments of $f$.
 
The equality just states that this is an action
 
4:17 PM
ohhh $\sigma f$ means you permute the arguments
okay
oh haha it was written that in the page before
that its just rearranging the arguments
thanks
 
oooh... $\psi_i|_{X\setminus U_i} = \psi_{i-1}|_{X\setminus U_i}$
 
$\tau(\sigma f)=(\tau\sigma)f$ is actually evil
I always get the order wrong
 
@Thorgott Do you prefer to act on the right but write it on the left?
 
4:35 PM
nah, but every time I rethink this, I need to remind myself again why writing $\tau(\sigma f)(v_1,....,v_k)=\sigma f(v_{\tau(1)},...,v_{\tau(k)})=f(v_{\sigma(\tau(1))},...,v_{\sigma(\tau(k))})=(\sigma\tau)f(v_1,...,v_k)$ is garbage
 
@Thorgott Yeah, you act via the inverse on the arguments
 
Munkres writes $f^\sigma$. So for him $(f^\sigma)^\tau = f^{\tau\sigma}$. Now that's confusing.
 
acting via inverses is even worse
 
This extension by zero sheaf is nuts
 
Okay. That was neat. But how does one look at vector bundle over $X \times I$ and go "I should look at a finite cover $U_i$ such that restriction to $U_i \times I$ is trivial, consider the partition of unity $\phi_i$ over $U_i$, and consider the graphs of $\psi_n = \sum_{i=1}^n \phi_i$...." umm... hello?
 
4:48 PM
why not
 
I don't know what else to do feynhat. You have trivializations on stuff of the form $U_i \times [t_0 - \epsilon, t_0 + \epsilon]$, and I know how to push this trivialization along in the forward direction in time
The way to push it forward is by taking graphs
It's the natural idea because there's nothing else to do!
To be 100% honest with you this is actually just the homotopy lifting property idea in covering space theory (indeed, a variant of the proof gives you that fiber bundles have the homotopy lifting property)
 
@BalarkaSen Why is Hom_{AlgGp/k}(k*, k*) = Z for alg closed k?
 
@MikeMiller I don't think you need alg. closed for that
 
Isn't it clear that if f : A^1\0 -> A^1\0 is a regular function such that f(zw) = f(z)f(w) then f(z) = z^n
 
@TobiasKildetoft You're right
Probably that's clear
 
4:55 PM
Basically, being anything but a single monomial breaks the comultiplication on the coordinate algebra
as does any non-idempotent coefficient
 
That's a strange way to say monomials are the only multiplicative polynomials, chief
 
@BalarkaSen being multiplicative means respecting the comultiplication, not the usual multiplication
 
But regular functions aren't polynomials, which is why this isn't obvious to me.
 
@Tobias Fair point
@MikeMiller Oh ok you want elements of k[z, z^-1]
Still seems like a calculation
 
right, you need the negative powers since you are to get all the integers
 
4:59 PM
Oh of course. f/g where f is nonzero except at 0 and g is nonzero except at 0.
You don't even need multiplicativity to see that all regular maps are cz^n I think
That's probably sloppy
 
@MikeMiller Well, there you do need alg. closed if you don't want to use multiplicative
 
Got it
 
They have some atrocious notation for the circle
 
I am not sure I ever went through all the details of this actually. I just saw it mentioned as being obvious and quickly convinced myself that it seemed reasonable and then moved on with using it
 
$\mathbb{G}_m = \text{Spec} \;k[z, 1/z]$
Dude, it's a circle
 
5:07 PM
@BalarkaSen it is also the $m$ultiplicative group
 
$m$ultiplicative $\Bbb{G}$roup?
 
Hence the similar notation for the additive group
 
Nuts
 
@BalarkaSen You should knot theorists, they have hundreds of objects with different names, but they are all circles...
 
@Alessandro Yeah say that it's "just a circle" when I tangle your headphone into a Perko pair
These sassing set theorists
 
5:09 PM
lol
I'm actually not going to do (pure) set theory in my PhD most likely! Checkmate
 
@AlessandroCodenotti Does that mean you will be doing applied set theory?
 
Well at thee rate I will do my PhD in Grothendieck universes
Going to have to understand the upper shriek before it's too late
Gonna grab dinner, cya
 
@BalarkaSen $\infty$-stacks you mean, that's what all the cool kids do
@TobiasKildetoft Well I'm still going to do some set theory, so I guess?
 
5:28 PM
@BalarkaSen Not sure what you mean by pushing along in the forward direction in time.
Don't we already have that restricted to $U_i \times I$, the bundle is trivial. What we did in the proof was extend this $U_i$ to $X$ using the graphs.
Right?
 
6:19 PM
goddamn, why are modules so complicated
 
6:37 PM
Hey cool cats.
@Thorgott what seems to be the problem?
 
Modules are the one place in algebra where literally everything that can go wrong will go wrong
 
7:01 PM
anyone want to connect on LinkedIn
 
No, but how are you?
 
I'm pretty good. I am getting a birthday present called "Semi-Riemannian Geometry" by O'Neill from my friend
 
Nice!
He had a nice Elementary Differential Geometry book.
 
also read an non rigorous article about repulsion principles
"Things with number-theoretic significance tend to push each other apart. The name for this is a repulsion principle,” said Jacob Tsimerman of the University of Toronto
Also played tennis today and my serve is 65-80 mph
 
was looking at this blog post of Terry Tao's: terrytao.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/…
and trying to figure out what his 'extensions of the base ring' would look like in the case of the ring being $\mathbb{C}$
 
7:20 PM
@AlessandroCodenotti Well, if all you knew was abelian groups, you might be upset at how much goes wrong with non-abelian groups. :P
 
That's fair
 
he only requires that the ring extension be commutative and contain $\mathbb{C}$ as a subring
 
I remember (when I took algebra second year of university) being so pleased at how module theory unifies f.g.a.b. and canonical forms of linear maps.
 
he does talk about how one could construct certain extensions of $\mathbb{R}$ to his own taste, so I guess I should stare at that for a while
 
non-abelian groups behave much nicer than modules over non-PIDs
 
7:32 PM
Yes, and non-finitely-generated modules are a pain, too. I was just offering an analogy, not a formal comment :P
 
poorly-founded question about divisors incoming
over an elliptic curve, it seems as if we've got div(f(z)dz) = div(f)+div(dz) for all f
first off, is that right
and second, if it is right, does it break down when we go to higher-genus curves?
(i am pretty well certain that $\text{div}(f\omega)=\text{div}(f)$ where $\omega$ is the invariant differential on the elliptic curve)
 
It's true in total generality, @Semiclassic.
But $dz$ is nowhere-zero on an elliptic curve.
 
In higher genus, you don't have such convenient formulas for the holomorphic differentials. If it's a plane curve or a hyperelliptic curve, you can write things down explicitly, but not so easy in general.
 
what I've got in mind as far as what's confusing me: suppose we now consider the case of a hyperelliptic curve (say, degree-5)
 
7:46 PM
Good day. My algebra teacher asked me to do a mini project, I'm looking for a topic that covers all (or most) of the following topics:
1. Free modules. Matrix bases and finitely generated modules in main domains,
structure and classification
2. Finely generated abelian groups, structure and classification.
3. Similarity of matrices over fields, rational and canonical forms of Jordan, diagonalization of
matrices, Cayley-Hamilton theorem, Jordan-Chevalley decomposition
4. Quadratic forms, Sylvester's inertia theorem, definite positive and negative forms, bases
 
Representation theory will invoke a lot of that, but I can't think of anything that hits all the topics. But I'm no algebraist.
 
brief computer problem---back now. let me simplify to the case y^2=p(x) where p(x) is quintic with distinct roots
 
So you're doing only hyperelliptic curves presented as plane curves.
 
right, with as small of degree as possible for convenience
in that case, I thought I understood that there are now two holomorphic differentials: one is still $\omega=dx/y$ and the other is $x \omega$
 
So a smooth plane quintic has genus 6, or something.
 
7:53 PM
wait, what
i thought smooth plane quintic was genus 2
 
Um, $(d-1)(d-2)/2 = g$, best I remember. Maybe I'm rusty.
 
hrm. i see what you mean
the wiki page on hyperelliptic curves gives the degree as either n=2g+2 or n=2g+1
so g=2 gives n=5,6
but the degree-genus formula seems at loggerheads with that
 
Well, one has to think about what singularity there is at infinity.
 
I'm going to eat lunch now, so I won't work it out now.
 
8:03 PM
fair
 
I never did anything much with hyperelliptic curves, I confess, other than assigning a few homework exercises.
 
I still say you should look at Griffiths's little book I suggested.
 
which one was that?
@TedShifrin i think i was taking for granted that hyperelliptic curves wouldn't have singularities, which I see now was an incorrect assumptionn
 
8:59 PM
@TedShifrin the statement on y^2=p(x) with degree >3 seems to be that one shouldn't embed it in the projective plane, but rather view the projective curve as a double cover of the projective line and use Riemann-Hurwitz
which ...neat?
 
yo
does anyone think "momentum" exists in sports games?
 
The "hot hand" (also known as the "hot hand phenomenon" or "hot hand fallacy") is the purported phenomenon that a person who experiences a successful outcome has a greater chance of success in further attempts. The concept is often applied to sports and skill-based tasks in general and originates from basketball, whereas a shooter is allegedly more likely to score if their previous attempts were successful, i.e. while having "hot hands.” While previous success at a task can indeed change the psychological attitude and subsequent success rate of a player, researchers for many years did not find...
is essentially what you're asking about
(with the present status being a firm ".maybe"?)
 
9:18 PM
@Semiclassical This is the definition of a hyperelliptic curve, in fact. The canonical mapping (which is for most curves an embedding) given by taking a basis of the holomorphic differentials maps you to $\Bbb P^{g-1}$. When the curve is hyperelliptic, this gives a branched double-cover of (a curve isomorphic to) $\Bbb P^1$.
The book is Griffiths's Introduction to Algebraic Curves.
 
9:41 PM
mmkay
 

« first day (3583 days earlier)      last day (1442 days later) »