« first day (4047 days earlier)      last day (989 days later) » 
00:00 - 20:0020:00 - 23:00

12:02 AM
@SAJW sure, you can like math, and I can't tell you not to vote on something. However, targeted voting, which is voting (up or down) based on the person who wrote the post, is discouraged.
 
ah well, then I unvote it until I do understand
but now it said I can't revote :( bad stuff happens
(but I unvoted, not downvoted, so we should be fine)
note: I should learn to read.
 
@SAJW Targeted voting is only reversed if it happens a lot. Don't worry about it. Instead, try to understand modular arithmetic, and then you will understand the question and the answer.
it is not a very difficult concept. $a\equiv b\pmod{m}$ when $m$ divides $a-b$.
$a\bmod m$ is the remainder when $a$ is divided by $m$.
 
Modular arithmetic is fun and powerful.
 
12:23 AM
@robjohn that statement seems easy, tho I'm lazy to proof it
might as well be an axiom
 
@SAJW it is sort of a definition
 
what is the difference between an axiom and a necessary definition?
 
one possible interpretation from axiomatic set theory is that you use your axioms to confirm that your definition is valid
you're actually free to define whatever your like, but sometimes what you define doesn't exist
 
I get sidetracked alot
 
12:43 AM
What are the segments of focal chords here?
 
SA, SB, SP, and SQ. you are welcome
do they enjoy some nice relation, like intersecting chords of a circle? if so, i don't know it.
 
so that's how one's foice is created...
 
Thanks :-)
 
AB and PQ are the 'chords.' i bet there is some nice relation.
 
i have nodules on my chords supposedly.
the treatment therapy was voice therapy apparently. i declined.
 
12:52 AM
there goes your opera career.
 
i crossed the atlantic with a professional opera singer once.
 
the new yorker had a profile of this surgon who is like the best guy in the world with throat protuberances. high profile opera singers will trust him. newyorker.com/magazine/2013/03/04/giving-voice
 
i did not realise that such professionals avoid dairy products
 
if you don't want voice therapy, maybe just go the surgical route. it can take decades off your voice.
 
i mean singers not surgeons. i can attest to the latter fact on a family basis.
perhaps they could skip the nodules and focus on my body instead. taking decades off would be much appreciated.
 
12:55 AM
i had some issues with my voice once and the doc said to avoid all dairy and stop drinking.
i did until my voice came back, then it was back to normal. i bet it was some kind of infection that went away.
 
i find mine tends to go hoarse after i spend time with siblings. a lot of shouting needed to communicate within an irish family
 
father jack's favorite irish f-word is notoriously hard on the vocal cords.
 
surprisingly there is little use of what my mother would have described as colourful language.
i'm amazed that my stalin remark is still displayed.
my brain is rotting. i need to tackle a few convex psqs i think.
 
we all love barbara.
 
she's the best.
up there with laura trotsky.
 
1:06 AM
@shintuku so "definition alpha.1: {{}}={{},{}}" would be such a invalid definition?
(in set theory)
 
@leslietownes Harmonic mean of the segments is equal to semi latus rectum.
 
gesundheit
 
@SAJW that's a tautology in set theory, but alpha.1 can be defined as that proposition without any problem
 
so many places to go with that...
i'm actually frozen with so many possibilities
 
but it is a set with two empty sets (the latter) vs a set with one empty set
 
1:10 AM
in standard set theory, they're the same set
 
@SAJW tell me you're joking
 
ah ok, didn't knew :D
 
in standard set theory, $\{1,1\} = \{1\}$
and $\{4,4,4,4,4,4\} = \{4\}$
 
question, why is (2x-4)/(x+1) <= 1 not equivalent to (2x-4) <= 1(x+1)?
 
so 2 is defined as {{},{{}}}?
 
1:11 AM
@copper.hat i almost went there too.
 
my mother would shake her head, look at me and mutter juvenile
 
@SAJW yep
 
so a set is a list without duplicates
 
informally, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes,....
 
you can make this more obvious by noticing: $x \in \{a,b\} \iff x = a \lor x = b$
but if $a = b$, then $x \in \{a,b\} \iff x = a \lor x = a \iff x = a$
 
1:14 AM
@ThePhantomGamer If $x+1<0$ ...
 
I still want the AND/OR operator! grrr
 
i don't like the symbols for conjunction and disjunction.
 
@SAJW what do you mean?
also $\land, \lor$ are perfect
 
they look like n and v.
 
they're just slightly too narrow for my taste
 
1:16 AM
a and b or (a or b) as a symbol: like a "symbol here" b
 
@shintuku Here you go: - and -
 
Test: $\land \wedge$
 
@AMDG what have you done
@SAJW that's \land and \lor
 
even worse are $\&$ and $|$.
 
$\land \lor$
what happened to wedge wee?
 
1:18 AM
yep, those are the and and or or and or or operators
 
i must take a break to go for a wedge wee
 
@shintuku You said they were too narrow, so I made them wide. Mathematically, they are both different shapes of infinitely small angle.
 
$\wedge$ (\wedge)
 
@shintuku Too many and, or XD
 
$\wedge e$.
that would be a wedgie
 
1:20 AM
also: a symbol for: a and b or (a and not b) or (not a and b)
 
@SAJW \neg
 
$\neg$
 
gross
 
$A \land B \lor (A \land \neg B) \lor (\neg A \land B)$
 
$AB + A \bar{B} + \bar{A}B$.
 
1:21 AM
@shintuku for this expression i want a symbol between a "symbol here" b
so I should create one? and pray to "entity here" that it becomes popular?
$\xor$
 
@SAJW best you'll be able to do is $A \land B \lor A\nleftrightarrow B$
but $\nleftrightarrow$ is a disgusting symbol
 
Is there a mnemonic for remembering and or $\land \lor$?
ah lol latex gives it haha
 
learn the altcode
∨∧
because these symbols are so perfect, they're worth learning the altcode
see! whatever the font is for this chat, those are much better than the latex ones
they're less narrow
 
can't "view as latex" if I click on it, something wrong with my browser setup?
 
what, these? ∧∧∧ they're ascii
 
1:32 AM
Ah!
:D
\nland
$\nland$
 
the or wedge resembles the symbol for set intersection, and the vee resembles set union
this may or may not be a coincidence
whatever you do, don't use the mnemonic that wedge means and because the wedge looks almost like a capital A that's just missing one segment
don't use that one
 
how can I make a cross over any symbol like here $\neq$
 
prepend \not
will often do it
 
$\notland$
 
ohto the whole code
$\not \land$
 
1:35 AM
$\not\land$
XD
 
for many common symbols there is a baked in notted-version, like \neq
 
this crossing is not really useful to read
in this case
 
just do $\neg(A\land B)$
 
$\Leftrightarrow a\lor b$?
 
no, $\iff \neg A \lor \neg B$
 
1:39 AM
can you give me a long "valid" expression that I can shorten?
(logic)
 
$A \land B \lor (A \land \neg B) \lor (\neg A \land B)$
shorten that
you can reduce it to 3 logical connectors
 
and $\land$ or $\lor$ (sorry for reference)
$\neg(\neg A \land \neg B)$
mmh, but that is not finished?
 
It’s right, but can be simplified?
Venn diagrams are our friend.
 
1:57 AM
how has root canal recovery been Ted?
 
@TedShifrin ibb.co/gZgXG3g is this correct?
(the venn diagramms)
 
So what’s the answer?
@dc3rd That’s a week old. Waiting for new crown. And epidural in my back.
 
epidural in the back doesn't sound pleasant....
 
We’ll see.
 
a logical connector is any of $\neg\land\lor$?
(googling it doesn't show wikipedia haha)
 
2:05 AM
yep, but btw I realized you can reduce it to 1 logical connector
 
@copper.hat wedge?
 
@SAJW Oops, your Venn diagram was wrong. I didn’t pay close attention.
Right, @shin.
 
because i filled the area around A,B?
 
Yes
 
ah ok
what is the cross over $A\land B$ btw in latex (line above it) (not related to the problem)
 
2:13 AM
Cross over?
 
a line above an expression
 
Line over something is \overline{}
 
ah ok
$A\lor B$
 
Yup!
 
$\overline{A\lor B}$ as a readers task :P
 
2:18 AM
What does overline mean? In this context, isn’t it \lnot?
 
oh right that notation is only used with set's I see
and then the $\lor$ makes no sense
 
@SAJW $\lor$ would be the same as $\cup$
and $\land$ the same as $\cap$
mapping venn diagrams to sets
 
@SAJW There is nothing more to say!
 
@robjohn are you into programming?
 
@SAJW some
 
2:29 AM
Which language you currently use for the current project?
 
2:42 AM
@SAJW Java
 
3:24 AM
Can anyone figure out why WA returns an answer here (tinyurl.com/8dfw9mrp) which is easily seen to be $L = -\frac{n^2}{m^2}$, but when I add the instructions to solve for $L$ here (tinyurl.com/pezwhmdj), it drops the $n^2$ and returns $L = -\frac{1}{m^2}$?
 
I am wondering can someone help with this question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/4239709/…
 
3:46 AM
@robjohn play on wedgie
 
4:22 AM
Makes complex integer any sense?
1+i would be one for example
so would 2+3i
 
they're sometimes called gaussian integers, in honor of some german guy
 
@leslietownes ah good old Gauss (n+1)*n/2
 
 
1 hour later…
5:43 AM
unlike integers that fly in formation that are called goosian integers.
 
Assume the following: a sophisticated supervillain leaves your room as you come in. What would be the first 10 things you do?
 
cringe 9 times and then kill myself
 
6:00 AM
$\land \hspace{-3mu} \land$ $\land \hspace{-3mu} \land$ $\land \hspace{-3mu} \land$ $\land \hspace{-3mu} \land$
 
Quick! I need this answer for my job interview in half an hour, I h´cheated on the questions he/her asks. ;-)
 
i can't. i can only handle one suspension per year.
 
@leslietownes
that's what i'd do. one thing
 
oh maybe don't use my answer
Just leave the room
Move house
 
6:36 AM
we just call that moving on this side of the pond
backing away and going somewhere else is the winning strategy
 
7:10 AM
@leslietownes but do you pack or just run for it?
 
7:51 AM
the only winning move is...
 
Nf7#
 
 
4 hours later…
11:55 AM
@robjohn , you have proposed that one needs either a uniform little-o bound or a different bound for large $u$. Your example showed the need of a uniform little-o bound. How would a different bound for large $u$ be of any help?
 
12:55 PM
@robjohn So last night, had an idea. Did some experimental research with power of two decomposition of numbers that is... what's the formal term? Suboptimally? Non-minimally? Something like that. Anyways...
You find the smallest power of two greater than the divisor for which we already know fits in one time. We can then use the modulus of the power of two on the dividend to get a remainder. We then end up with an identity of $\frac{x}{y}$ which I'll describe in the next comment.
We find the smallest power of two greater than $y$. We'll call it $2^n$. $y$ is then decomposed into $2^n + (y\bmod 2^n)$.
For $2^n$, we further decompose this into $(y + (2^n - y))$
You can probably see where I'm going with this.
We compute $a = \lfloor\frac{x}{2^n}\rfloor$.
We then multiply this by our decomposition of $2^n$ as $a(y + (2^n - y))$. We then check if $2^n - y \geq y$, and if so, repeat the process of decomposition once again and determine once more the coefficient, and that's about as far as I've gotten. The modular part is pretty straightforward as we just add 0 or 1 depending on whether or not the modulus is greater than or equal to y.
I wouldn't be surprised, however, if this was just long division in disguise, and not actually a different algorithm.
Or maybe it's a form of long division that takes fewer iterations in base two, not sure.
The whole point is, this method can be used to once again reduce the size of $x$ for our modulus computation.
(or just compute floored quotients directly).
It took me long enough to realize, but I finally did figure out that you can in fact divide multiple sums in the denominator just not in the conventional manner, and certainly not by just expanding the sum to same number with each operand as the denominator.
If we consider the quotient of $\frac{27}{3}$, for instance, this method of decomposition gives us $\frac{27}{6\cdot (3 + 1) + 3}$. Distributing the coefficient, we obtain $\frac{27}{(18 + 6) + 3)}$. We see that the right hand term in the left-most parenthetical expression is greater than three. At a glance, we can already see that the sum of coefficients as-is gives us the correct quotient as 6 + 2 + 1 = 9, but of course, we are interested in determining this algorithmically.
Yet all we did was compute the floored quotient of one or more powers of two into the dividend.
But basically the recursive sequence here is a matter of doing the above, and then for that right operand in the power of two's decomposition of the divisor, we then compute that quotient. Namely, if we have a number in the form of $a(y + (2^n - y)) + (y\bmod 2^n)$, after computing the coefficient $a$ and the quotient $\frac{y\bmod 2^n}{y}$, we compute $\frac{2^n - y}{y}$.
Since we can once again decompose $2^n - y$ and use the same method to extract coefficients from it, we can do this ad infinitum to compute the quotient, and you could probably extend it to get the fractional portion, but I just think it's easier to just compute $\frac{2^N - 1}{y}$ for $N$ bits to compute the reciprocal of $y$ and multiply it by $x$.
@robjohn Thoughts?
 
1:39 PM
@AMDG. Wow!
This is like an article
 
Thank you
I'm quite poor at articulating myself, so that compliment means much.
 
@AMDG. Are you doing cryptography or number theory?
 
Nope
At least not formally.
I'm just a programmer.
 
2:03 PM
yo yo yo
 
@anakhro. :0
 
Hi Avra, how are you?
 
Good thanks. Hope you too
 
What are you up to?
 
2:29 PM
2
Q: Showing $f(z)=|z|^{1/2}z$ is differentiable at $z=0$ but not holomorphic.

Gregoire RocheteauGiven $f(z)=|z|^{1/2}z$, it is obviously complex differentiable at $z=0$ because $$f'(0)=\lim_{z\rightarrow 0}\frac{|z|^{1/2}z}{z}=0$$ I have done similar examples with $|z|^2$, but the $|z|^{1/2}$ is throwing me off because you cannot simply expand it like you would with $|z|^2$. How can I show...

See my comment on Angina's answer. I could use some help and I don't think Angina is on this site anymore.
 
Is there a way to learn a programming language (like C) the same way as learning mathematical proofs (using a deductive system)?
 
@Prithubiswas Programming languages existed long before computers in the form of lambda calculus and other derived systems.
But I am a little unclear on what you mean by using a deductive system to learn. Can you elaborate?
@user193319 Perhaps your problem is that the stated derivatives of u and v do not exist at 0 (you would need to use a limit definition to determine anything there).
 
@anakhro I used " a deductive system to learn" as an analogy. In math , I am learning a logical deductive system (natural deduction-fitch style). First , it introduces all of the syntax , deductive rules and the formal notion of a "proof". Then some exercises are given to check if I have understood the deductive system.

But in books for learning programming (like C) , they seem to teach the programming language by introducing a concepts and then some example code. But I dont seem to get what the precise structure and rules are and have to rely on my intuition. This sort of makes learning p
 
Well there are languages that you can learn the way you learn mathematics, but none of those are super useful for the sake of programming (unlike C which is very useful).
It's kind of like learning a language to use vs. study (if you have ever taken latin vs. another modern language course, you will see the differences in pedagogy).
The efficient and natural way to learn most languages is through examples and frequent use.
 
2:44 PM
Aren't there books for C that teaches the way I mentioned ?
 
Not "teaching", no.
However, there are C specification manuals which detail exactly what compilers do to read them. The problem is that this usually needs expertise in low level programming like assembly and stuff.
 
@Prithubiswas in principle all programming languages work exactly like a fitch-style deductive system. the issue is that you'll have to dig in the source code, which sometimes goes down to assembly
so it is very, very pointless to attempt to learn it that way
you can instead create a header which works like a list of axioms
then you import your header and use it like a fitch-style deductive system
 
I would find it helpful if someone more mathematically inclined, could double-check whether or not what I'm saying here makes sense!
2
A: Functional derivative of energy with respect to density

Nike DattaniYou are developing the right idea, but your Eq. 1 is a bit awkward. To understand why, let me say a bit about functionals and functional derivatives. A functional acts on a function in its entirety, for example we need to know the full input function $n(r)$ in order to obtain the corresponding va...

 
@shintuku Maybe it is pointless. by the way , I am asking this just because , if I am able to learn C in the same way I learn a deductive system , then I don't have to ask someone else about if I have some error in my code. And every programming task will just be a puzzle to solve .
 
the compiler guarantees whether or not your code works
but if you really want to learn it that way, you can. just start figuring out whether you have access to the source code for the compiler, and dig in there. but yeah, the compiler for, say, python, is not written in python
 
2:52 PM
Yeah, and the errors your compiler mentions when it fails to compile are awfully specific usually.
 
@Prithubiswas so if your plan was to learn python, but you want to learn the inner structure of python first, you need to learn C first. and if you want to learn the inner structure of C, i think you need to learn assembly. and if you want the inner structure of assembly, good luck, i have no clue hehe
but there is some way to learn about the inner structure of assembly, maybe it is hard-coded into the cpu?
but if you want to learn to use python, you don't need to understand the inner structure of python, just how to use it
 
hehe
 
Hello,

If we have expectation $E[X] = \sum_{i=1}^{\infty}(i\times Pr\{X=i\})$, where $i \in \mathbb{N}$. Can you please explain how is it equal to $E[X] = \sum_{i=1}^{\infty}( Pr\{X \ge i \}))$?
 
That doesn't seem to work, does it? If you do it for a finite discrete distribution (e.g. flipping a coin, i.e. a 2-sided die) then it is wrong, right? 1*0.5 + 2*0.5 = 1.5 vs. 1*1 + 2*0.5 = 3.
Where the values of the "die" are in {1,2} and each is equally likely.
Are you sure you formulated that correctly, @Avra? Is there maybe additional hypotheses?
 
3:07 PM
If we have expectation $E[X] = \sum_{i=1}^{\infty}(i\times Pr\{X=i\})$, where $i \in \mathbb{N}$. Can you please explain how is it equal to $E[X] = \sum_{i=1}^{\infty}( Pr\{X \ge i \})$?
 
@Avra Look at how many times $Pr[X=k]$ is counted in $\sum_{i=1}^\infty Pr[X\ge i]$
 
OH
The second one doesn't have i.
I am blind. :(
 
@Avra It is counted once for each $1\le i\le k$, so $k$ times.
 
Oh no, it was edited since I looked at it.
I AM NOT BLIND
 
\begin{align*}
E[X] = \sum_{i=1}^{\infty}(i\times Pr\{X=i\})\\
= \sum_{i=1}^{\infty}(i\times \frac{i}{N})\\
\end{align*}
 
3:12 PM
Also, hi @robjohn how are you?
 
@anakhro good, how are you?
 
Absolutely thrilled to not be blind.
 
@Avra does it make sense now?
 
@robjohn. I am trying! Sorry if I take more time to grasp.

$$
Pr\left[ X\ge i \right] =1-Pr\left[ X<i \right]
$$
Is the previous equality true please?
$$
Pr\left[ X\ge i \right] =1-Pr\left[ X<i \right]
$$
$$
Pr\left[ X<i \right] =\frac{1}{N}\times \frac{2}{N}\cdots \frac{i-1}{N}
$$
$$
Pr\left[ X\ge i \right] =1-\frac{1}{N}\times \frac{2}{N}\cdots \frac{i-1}{N}
$$
$$
=1-\frac{\left( i-1 \right) !}{N}
$$
$$
=\frac{N-\left( i-1 \right) !}{N}
$$
@robjohn. This is how I understand it
 
@Avra try writing out $Pr[X\geq i] = Pr[X=i] + Pr[X=i+1] + ...$.
And then write out the sum $\sum_{i=1}^\infty Pr[X\geq i]$ on a piece of paper with each $Pr[X\geq i]$ on a new line, and expanded out as above.
And then go back to Rob's hint here: Count $Pr[X=k]$ for each $k$, starting with $k=1,2,3,...$
 
3:23 PM
$$
\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}{\left( i\times Pr\{X=i\} \right)}=i\times \frac{i}{N}\ne \sum_{i=1}^{\infty}{\left( Pr\{X\ge i\} \right)}=\frac{N-\left( i-1 \right) !}{N}
$$
0
Q: Why $E[X] = \sum_{i=1}^{\infty}(i\times Pr\{X=i\})$ is equal to $E[X] = \sum_{i=1}^{\infty}( Pr\{X \ge i \}))$

AvraIf we have expectation $E[X] = \sum_{i=1}^{\infty}(i\times Pr\{X=i\})$, where $i \in \mathbb{N}$. Can you please explain how is it equal to $E[X] = \sum_{i=1}^{\infty}( Pr\{X \ge i \}))$? I see that $$ Pr\left[ X\ge i \right] =1-Pr\left[ X<i \right] $$ $$ Pr\left[ X<i \right] =\frac{1}{N}\times ...

@robjohn. Appreciate your explanation.
I just wrote everything in one question in case you can summarize your thoughts there please.
 
 
2 hours later…
@Prithubiswas probably wrong audience here. i love the 6502 though.
 
6:06 PM
@Prithubiswas Because that gives you a mini-scale version of how things work under the hood.
 
@robjohn. Based on my question please, if we have $n$ elements and $m$ slots such that $\frac{n}{m} < 1$, then $Pr[X \ge i] = \frac{n}{m}\times \frac{n-1}{m-1} \times \frac{n-i+2}{m-i+2} \cdots$ is true please?
 
That's the beauty of it. If you don't appreciate it I don't know what more to say. Have you ever worked with a 8085? Those were such a sweet heart. It can give you the idea of everything clearly. You will know the basics so well.
 
@copper.hat I wrote an assembler for the 6502 and migrated up to the 68030.
So I have a lot of assemblers that I don't use any more.
 
@robjohn That means you are a man of culture. I am so happy to hear about it.
 
@robjohn. Wow! You wrote an assembler. Amazing
 
6:10 PM
@user27286 bizarre notion of culture
 
@robjohn. What you did not do yet please :/?
 
@Avra I don't understand that.
 
I like it. I also had to do it in my uni once. Started with 8085 then slowly moved into assembler writing. And then later we did some work with Arduino and stuff. It's so much fun.
@TedShifrin haha...it's good
@robjohn Have you ever worked with OS and stuff? Just for reading and enjoying certain portion?
 
@robjohn. Do you mean my question please?
 
@copper.hat after the 68030, Apple moved to the PowerPC, and I did not have time to write a new assembler for that. The 68000 to 68030 assemblers were modifications of the 6502 assembler, and so easy to do.
@user27286 I wrote some of the software for QuickDraw GX, which was abandoned because Adobe told Apple they would stop writing software for Apple otherwise. QuickDraw GX made it too easy for other developers to write Illustrator and Photoshop like applications.
 
6:20 PM
for culture, see my video, Why bake an entire loaf of bread on a computer board
and imagine that that's a link to a rickroll
 
I would send you to my video on procrastination, but I haven't made it yet.
 
@leslietownes that would effectively constitute culture
 
@TedShifrin I just said it casually. Nothing to mind I suppose.
 
@robjohn GRRRR
 
The best nerdy rickroll that we need is a software programming tutorial that, when completed, plays a rick roll.
 
6:23 PM
@TedShifrin That and their adoption of renting software, are the reasons I hate Adobe.
 
comrades! we must say that we've had enough, and recognize that these are reasons to socialize the process of production! (edits: working on oratory skills)
 
KKomrade
 
GRRRR
 
Ted has become a growling dog. You feel uneasy. +10 Anxiety
 
Soon the smacking returns.
 
6:30 PM
@robjohn Ah this drama is always there in SW industry. So you are a computer scientist? or Mathematician turned programmer? or..
 
Corporate snooping as usual.
"How dare you facilitate the creation of competitive software to our company even though it wasn't made explicitly for that purpose! This is mutiny!"
 
Hm ye
 
hi, is anyone here familiar with computable functions?
 
is there any reason i should fear square roots on inequalities with positive LHS and positive RHS or are they mischievous
 
if 0 <= a <= b then sqrt(a) <= sqrt(b), if that's what you're asking
no mischief
 
6:39 PM
yes, that was my question. thanks, i recently learned that squares are not always wellbehaved, and i've stopped trusting inequalities since. good to know for square roots
 
The function $f(x)=x^2$ is increasing on $\{x\ge 0\}$.
 
@TedShifrin oh: if the corresponding function is monotonic over the desired interval, we can use it on both sides of an inequality?
never thought of that
 
The issue I raised with you earlier was an if and only if statement, where only one implication was valid. Of course, be careful when you say monotonic and inequality. If the function is monotone decreasing, then ...
 
hm. or is it only for increasing?
oh
hm, but it should work for monotonic decreasing too no?
as long as the inequality remains in an interval where the function is monotonic
 
Write down a precise statement.
 
6:45 PM
i've got it, 2 sec
$[a > b \implies f(a) > f(b)] \iff (\exists x_1,x_2 \in dom \ f: f(x_1) = a, f(x_2) = b) \land a,b,f(a), f(b) \in I$, where $I$ is an interval in which the function is monotonic.
 
That is indecipherable to me.
 
also to me 2 sec
 
Write English sentences.
We were worrying about monotone increasing versus decreasing. Address that.
 
also the above statement is wrong
 
I refuse to work on reading it.
 
6:58 PM
i think this one is right:
if $a,b,f(a),f(b)$ are in an interval of the image of $f$ where $f$ is monotonic (i.e., only increasing or only decreasing), then $a>b \implies f(a) > f(b)$
 
First of all, $a,b$ and $f(a),f(b)$ live in different worlds, ostensibly.
Second, you've written down the definition of (strictly) increasing.
 
hm, thinking about it
 
7:16 PM
hm, well the contrapositive is true: if it is false that $a>b \implies f(a) > f(b)$, then $a>b \land f(a) \leq f(b)$, which means that $a,b,f(a),f(b)$ are not in one monotonic interval of the image of $f$
scratch that
 
7:37 PM
what is the degree where one can't find a formular. polynomials degree 7?
^might be disremembering the exact wording
 
@TedShifrin this is what i'm thinking
so we can't have $a>b \implies f(a) \leq f(b)$
if $f$ is monotonic over that interval
 
7:51 PM
SAJW under the interpretation of 'exact formula' in terms of algebraic operations and root extraction involving the polynomial's coefficients, degree 5 is the minimal degree for which there is no such formula
 
00:00 - 20:0020:00 - 23:00

« first day (4047 days earlier)      last day (989 days later) »