« first day (3693 days earlier)      last day (1333 days later) » 

mr5
5:05 AM
o/
why is this room not appearing in chat.so search result? I've landed here from Google search...
Is division considered a usual way to "scale" numbers in Mathematics? Because I usually scaled numbers in computer using multiplication. I am no Mathematician but I'd like to know why 3B1B used division to scale polynomial values instead of multiplication.
 
5:22 AM
Where i can read the proof that in disc method frustum best estimate surface area and i. Volume disc approximate better also how to check if the infinitesimal I took integrates to correct value
 
 
1 hour later…
6:22 AM
Is there a simple equation for y=1/x revolved about y=x?
 
trying to read a paper in french..."fonctions convenablement décroissantes à l'infini"...does this mean functions decreasing to infinity? A little odd...?
 
@CalvinKhor link?
 
@geocalc33 in R^3? its a quadric surface (hyperboloid of two sheets)
its an old one but I can screenshot @LeakyNun gimme a sec
 
@CalvinKhor yes but is the cartesian equation of it simple?
 
oh, this isn't one of the old ones that I had to try very hard to find. Its here, page 228 (page 8 of the pdf)
 
6:34 AM
I know that it would be $z^2-y^2-x^2=1$ rotated by a certain amount
 
@geocalc33 OK, that's simple to me, so I would say yes
ack no page 7 sorry. I edited the comment but it was correct
 
@CalvinKhor okay, I'm trying to derive the cartesian equation
so I have to rotate the re-arranged hyperboloid $z=(1+x^2+y^2)^{1/2}$
but the only way to do this is with parametric equations, like there's no explicit cartesian equation for it right?
in $\Bbb R^2,$ $y^2-x^2=1$ rotated by 45 degrees has a nice rep. as $y=1/x$
 
ok, what about $y^2 - x^2 = c$?
 
I mean to say that in $\Bbb R^2$ both the standard form and rectangular form are simple
 
2 mins ago, by Calvin Khor
ok, what about $y^2 - x^2 = c$?
 
6:46 AM
At least tell me a room where i can ask my question
 
what about it?
 
I'm asking you?
 
mr5
@sheltonBenjamin is it related with 3d stuffs?
 
that's in $\Bbb R^2$
 
Yes integrals
 
6:48 AM
I'm working with $z^2-y^2-x^2=1$
 
And you think $y^2 - x^2 = c$ has no relation to this?
 
it does, I just can't figure out this problem
 
the slices are precisely of this form. So if you want to see if it has a nice form after the correct rotation, then it suffices to rotate this and check the form, right?
Also @geocalc33 do you speak french... :)
 
mr5
do you Mathematicians code your equation also to confirm if it's working?
 
@CalvinKhor I know a few phrases
 
7:03 AM
@geocalc33 ok, not enough to help me translate my sentence I guess. Thanks anyway
 
7:16 AM
6
Q: Leapfrogs puzzle -- Least number of moves needed to interchange the pegs

TryingHardToBecomeAGoodPrSlvrThis is a question from the book "Thinking Mathematically" by Burton and Mason. Question: Ten pegs of two colors are laid out in a line of 11 holes as shown below. I want to interchange the black and white pegs, but I am only allowed to move pegs into an adjacent empty hole or to jump over one p...

^ I would like to draw attention to this question (not mine), because although I believe it can be solved by some simple invariant, I am unable to find it.
So I was hoping someone here might have some good ideas.
Ping me if anyone is interested to discuss ideas! =)
 
 
1 hour later…
8:22 AM
> Cantor's theory of transfinite numbers was originally regarded as so counter-intuitive – even shocking – that it encountered resistance from mathematical contemporaries such as Leopold Kronecker and Henri Poincaré[3] and later from Hermann Weyl and L. E. J. Brouwer, while Ludwig Wittgenstein raised philosophical objections. Cantor, a devout Lutheran,[4] believed the theory had been communicated to him by God.[5] Some Christian theologians (particularly neo-Scholastics) saw Cantor's work as a challenge to the uniqueness of the absolute infinity in the nature of God[6] – on one occasion equ
if this isn't the benchmark of success I don't know what is
 
@LeakyNun Wait a minute. What do you mean by success and what do you mean by benchmark?
 
Imagine inventing something so dope you're convinced God has to have something to do with it
 
If $V(I) = V(J)$ for two ideals $I,J$ what can we say about $I,J$?
 
@SayanChattopadhyay $\sqrt{I} = \sqrt{J}$
 
What's V ?
 
8:27 AM
@user21820 I was just referring to the part about him being rejected by contemporaries
 
Lol @LeakyNun I was coming from there itself, I was looking to say something more than that
 
@Astyx the vanishing set -- $V(I) := \{ \mathbf{x} \mid \forall f \in I, f(\mathbf{x}) = 0 \}$
 
@LeakyNun sorry to ask again but can you help with my french :) A "No" is fine
 
cheers
 
or alternatively, $V(I) := \{ \mathfrak p \mid I \subseteq \mathfrak p \}$
 
8:28 AM
@LeakyNun Ah. But that isn't success, no?
Or do you mean it's a truly useful invention that is rejected by contemporaries?
 
@CalvinKhor I don't know what they mean
 
oki, thanks
 
@CalvinKhor I think I figured out the hyoperbal problem
 
@LeakyNun Can you say anything more than this?
 
@CalvinKhor "Convenablement décroissante à l'infini" means the function decreases at infinity, not to infinity
 
8:32 AM
@Astyx that makes a lot more sense! thank you!
 
And convenablement just means that it's nice enough for things to work
Unless you have a more specific definition in the textbook
 
@SayanChattopadhyay what do you mean
 
no, its not been defined prior (just 7 pages into a paper). Thank you :) @Astyx
 
link to the paper ?
 
@Astyx here
 
8:35 AM
Thank you
 
you're welcome :)
 
@CalvinKhor I got $xy-1=z^2$ for the hyerboloid of two sheets
so it looks like it is pretty simple
 
yup
 
8:52 AM
Hello all
 
9:46 AM
What is the explicit cartesian equation for y=1/x revolved about y=x?
is it actually $xy-1=z^2?$
I know that it's a two-sheeted hyperbola^
 
9:59 AM
What is the largest open set where $e^{\sqrt{z}}$ is analytic?
 
 
4 hours later…
1:44 PM
@user330477 There is no such object as "the largest open set". It is analytic on $\Bbb C \setminus \Bbb R_{\leq 0}$, if you like.
 
Hi @Balarka
 
It is also analytic on $\Bbb C$ with a "topologists' sine curved negative real axis" thrown out.
Hi @Alessandro
 
waddup @Balarka @Alessandro
 
Damn I saw a flag on a massive message
Lmao it was about mask abolition
 
2:07 PM
@BalarkaSen Then shouldn't $e^{\sqrt{z}}+e^{-\sqrt{z}}$ be analytic on $\mathbb{C} \setminus (-\infty,0]$? Correct me if I am wrong?
 
@Balarka on main or what?
 
2:39 PM
@BalarkaSen lmao
 
3:26 PM
hi all how are you doing
long time i've been away from this chat
 
4:01 PM
Sanity check, if $(X_i)_{i\in\Bbb N}$ is a family of subspaces of a space $X$ with $X_i\subseteq X_j$ whenever $j\leq i$, then $\varprojlim X_i=\bigcap X_i$, right?
 
 
3 hours later…
6:35 PM
@user330477 That's an interesting question. Why is it not analytic everywhere?
Belated hello to a @Balarka, @Edward, @MikeM, demonic @Alessandro.
 
How's your topology course going, Mike?
 
Does there exist a bijective continuous map from $[0,1)^n$ to $[0,1]^n$? :)
I don't know how to prove not.
It's fine. Next week we cover closure, bases, subspaces, products, disjoint unions.
Getting past the preliminaries.
 
Hmm, so the only way we know how to do $n=1$ is with disconnecting. I guess we'd need homology to generalize that.
 
Yeah, I couldn't work out the details though.
 
6:42 PM
Hmm ... well, an interior point must map to $(1,\dots,1)$. Pulling those out gets a contradiction. No, that's not necessarily the case. So we have to look at the whole boundary of $[0,1]^n$? Yuck.
Maybe there's a good reason we haven't thought about this question before :D
 
Indeed
 
How was the proof that space filling curves are not injective? I think something similar should work here
 
That's usually invariance of domain.
I was thinking about that but didn't see it.
 
Invariance of domain tells us only that $f(0,1)^n \subset (0,1)^n$
So the inverse image of the boundary is contained in the boundary of the domain; but part of the domain's boundary could fit inside (0,1)^n
Intuitively that seems preposterous but...
 
I didn't understand that.
 
6:51 PM
what part?
 
So the question is why $[0,1)\times 0 \cup 0\times [0,1)$ can't wrap around the entire boundary. Surely that contradicts one-to-oneness nearby.
"But part of the domain's boundary could fit inside ..."
 
We've only seen that $f^{-1}(\partial [0,1]^n) \subset \partial [0,1)^n$.
We haven't concluded that $f(\partial [0,1)^n) \subset \partial [0,1]^n$.
 
Oh, now I see how to read your sentence. Thanks.
 
Sure, I wasn't sure if I was presenting mangled English or mangled math. :)
 
"fit" = "map"
Yeah, that doesn't seem to contradict continuity, but ugh.
How annoying.
 
6:58 PM
Yeah. I gave up after a while.
Such maps might even exist. Who knows.
 
I'm just trying to think if you can continuously map that boundary surjectively (and bijectively) to the boundary and that seems impossible. But your point stands.
 
Well, there's definitely no continuous bijection $\Bbb R^{n-1} \to S^{n-1}$ by invariance of domain; it would be open, hence a homeomorphism.
 
Right.
 
And the boundary of the first guy is homeo to R^{n-1}, and the latter to S^{n-1}.
It just seems 'obvious' that the boundary can't snake inside and then back outside again without messing things up.
Now it's time to think about calculus.
 
That's where I want to remove and use homology somehow.
I think I can handle calculus better.
 
7:07 PM
Polar integrals and triple integrals this week. Logically, I'd prefer to do change of coordinates more generally after polar, but I understand why this is the standard order.
 
Prove that a graph with 6 vertices contains either 3 mutually adjacent vertices or 3 mutually non-adjacent vertices
 
Mostly you're only going to have them do general changes of variables in 2 dimensions, anyhow.
 
Right. Triple integrals are already way too painful.
 
this is just another way of formulating the friends and strangers problem, right?
 
Well, I always enjoyed teaching this section, although I had to prepare some figures carefully ahead of time.
Sounds like it, @orientable, although I don't know it.
 
7:51 PM
@TedShifrin When formalized, the question he's referring to is: "Can you draw a curve in [0,1]^2 from (0,0) to (1,1) which never touches the boundary except at time 0 and 1, and another curve from (1,0) to (0,1) satisfying the same hypotheses, do they intersect?"
AKA the Jordan curve theorem.
Oh no not at all
He's asking a graph theory problem
 
That's a way of saying that the Ramsey number R(3,3) is <=6
 

« first day (3693 days earlier)      last day (1333 days later) »