« first day (1101 days earlier)      last day (4216 days later) » 

00:03
@PeterTamaroff did you get my email?
@robjohn Yeah! =)
hi
@robjohn I'm responding.
I asked this today
@robjohn Email sent, Rob.
00:06
0
Q: Counting numbers of the form $ai + bj + cij$ and finding related L-series?

mickLet $a,b,c$ be given nonnegative integers with $gcd(a,b,c)=1$. Consider a given positive integer $n$ and positive integers $i,j$. Let $f_n(a,b,c)$ be the number of distinct solutions to $1<ai + bj + cij<n$. As an example $f_n(1,1,2) = n-(\pi(2n+1)-1)$ where $\pi$ is the prime counting function....

@mick Use [alt-text](link), please.
alt ?
anyone willing to look at my question ?
@PeterTamaroff response sent.
emails about ?? im curious :p
@mick Mathematics.
00:18
@PeterTamaroff more specific ?
@mick Bernoulli numbers.
:)
bye
@mick Bye, Mick.
01:10
@robjohn
@user1 Yo.
@PeterTamaroff yo
I'm trying to show that $$\sum_{n\geqslant 1}\gamma_nz^n$$

converges for every $z\in\Bbb C$. Where $$\gamma_n=\displaystyle\int_0^\infty\frac{t^n}{n!}e^{-e^t}dt$$
One can show by IBP that $$\gamma_n=\int_0^\infty \frac{t^{n+1}}{(n+1)!}e^te^{-e^t}dt$$
Hmm...
Ah, wait.
@PeterTamaroff Hm, I don't know.
01:29
@user1 The $\gamma_n$s are decreasing and have finite sum $\sum \gamma_n<+\infty$
02:09
@PeterTamaroff yes?
@robjohn What bound did you get for those integrals above last time?
I asked on main.
Maybe there is an more elementary approach?
Does it help to write $e^{t-t^2} = e^{-(t-1/2)^2}e^{1/4}$?
@PeterTamaroff you forgot a factor of $e^{-t}$
@robjohn Where?
Oh, know, I'm just misreading as $e^{-t^2}$ what actually should be $e^{-e^t}$ which is quite different :)
02:19
ah, never mnd... The thing has changed a bit. I have to get dinner, then I will get what I wrote up.
@ThomasAndrews Heh, yes.
@ThomasAndrews What do you think can work?
Need more sleep. I got nothing :)
@ThomasAndrews Oh, noes. OK.
Guys how do I integrate $ \int e^{x^2}dx $ ?
Perhaps I can use substitution
@math101 You cannot "integrate" that in the usual sense, i.e. with usual functions, and all possible usual operations.
02:29
oh that sucks :(
 
1 hour later…
03:48
@PeterTamaroff Do you mind if I just give the general idea for your question about $\int_0^\infty t^n e^{-e^t}\,dt$? I think the details should be similar to the usual ones after the correct scaling is chosen.
04:21
@PeterTamaroff Sorry, dinner took longer than I thought. I came up with a cleaner proof than the one I had previously which used Laplace's method.
@robjohn I went ahead with the unclean method :)
04:54
@AntonioVargas It's a nice method (and real), but it requires a lot of justification if done rigorously.
@robjohn Definitely. I've linked Peter to some other posts where I work out the details, so I thought it might be best to leave them out of this one.
@AntonioVargas You get to know when things are going to go wonky. This is not one of those cases.
05:08
Hello :)
Maybe it is because of I am not fully awake but when you write the scalar product in $\mathbb{C}^n$ as $x^\ast \cdot x$ isn't it just wrong ?
@DominicMichaelis $\operatorname{End}_{\mathbb C}(\mathbb C)\cong \mathbb C$.
Because of $x^\ast \cdot x$ gives you an element of $\mathbb{C}^{1\times 1}$
@user1 yes i am aware of that
@DominicMichaelis Well, elements of $\mathbb C^{1\times 1}$ are exactly the endomorphisms of $\mathbb C$..
but for example if I write $(x^\ast \cdot x )\cdot A$ where $A$ is a matrix
then I would multiply a $n\times n$ matrix with a $1\times 1$ matrix
You're implicitly going through the isomorphism I provided. Yes, you can say it's an abuse of notation.
05:12
@user1 yeah I am just confused with the matrix size ;)
presumably $x^*$ is a function from the dual space
when $x^*$ is applied to $x$ one should obtain a scalar
@anon well but writing $f\cdot x$ for $f(x)$ seems strange for me too (I know the riesz markov representation theorem it is a pure notational question)
@anon but i like this interpretation :)
@DominicMichaelis If you really don't like to abuse notation like this, just use different dot radii for your various multiplications.
@user1 I write $\langle x, x\rangle$ for all my scalar products (or hermitian forms)
@DominicMichaelis That's probably best anyway. It's not like there is some associative law for expressions like $(x^\ast \cdot x )\cdot A$ for most $A$.
05:23
I have the feeling that most student don't notice how neat arguements with minimal polynomials are in linear algebra
For example in the actual exam they got the problem that they should show when $A^2=A$ then $A$ only does have the eigenvalues $0$ and $1$
$A$ is obviously a zero of $X(X-1)$ hence the minimal polynomial divides $X(X-1)$ which gives the eigenvalues + diagonalizability
Bad luck they didn't ask to show diagonalizability
 
3 hours later…
08:18
@Chris'ssis $\frac12\cdot2013$
 
2 hours later…
10:20
I have great trouble in the exercises of linear groups.
@DominicMichaelis Though easy, it's not necessary to show that $A$ is diagonalizable. It's not hard to show that, if $\lambda_1,\dotsc,\lambda_n$ are all eigenvalues of $A$ with replicates, then $f(\lambda_1),\dotsc,f(\lambda_n)$ are all eigenvalues of $f(A)$ with replicates if $f$ is a polynomial.
11:08
@FrankScience what exercises are giving you problems?
hi, how do we calculate the rank of a polynomial. Say, I've x^2+x+1, what would be its rank?
@Ramit what do you mean by rank of a polynomial?
Is that the same as the degree?
actually i am given f(x) is a minimal polynomial. And I am given a 4*4 matrix. I am to find the rank of matrix f(A). I don't know how to proceed. why f(A) is called as matrix. wouldn't it be a polynomial. I know I could be sounding stupid. But I would appreciate if you could point any reading material to me. Thanks.
@Ramit no, once you evaluate the polynomial at a matrix, you get a matrix, not a polynomial
11:16
but m not sure how to evaluate the polynomial. It's just given as f(x)
you are not given the actual polynomial?
are you given the actual matrix?
ohh, never mind
ya, no polynomial. but matrix is given
so you can find the minimal polynomial
do i have to use any property of the minimal polynomial. I just know one, that is p(x)=0. but how to apply to find rank
what do you mean $p(x) = 0$?
what is $p$? What is $x$?
11:19
umm.. i mean for p to be a minimal polynomial, p(x)=0, where x belongs to umm.. i am not sure
Where did you get the question?
i am looking at the previous year question of an entrance test (graduation-based)
i want to get admission in a college to study further math, but entrance test is tough, coaching classes are expensive. i am trying to self-study. i looked at the question and read about the relevant definition on net. how m unable to solve the question
how have you had minimal polynomial defined?
the monic polynomial of least degree such that p(A)=0
and you are now asked to find the rank of $p(A)$?
11:26
@TobiasKildetoft hey
@BenjaLim Hi
do you know how to look through EGA?
@TobiasKildetoft- yes
@BenjaLim No, so far I have not had any cause to do that
@Ramit so you need to find the rank of $0$
because the thing is my advisor right now he presented to me an approach today to constructing the fibered product using representable functors
the result I need, only is supposedly mentioned in EGA
11:28
@BenjaLim a lot of results are like that, especially if you want the full general version
(so far, I have been able to avoid that)
what do you mean by "a lot of results are like that, especially if you want the full general version"
@BenjaLim I mean that for a lot of results, the only reference for the full general result is EGA
holy shit really?
@TobiasKildetoft- oh shit! it was so simple and obvious. Thanks for helping me think.
@BenjaLim at least that is the impression I have from various people working in algebraic geometry
11:30
man this guy is incredible
grothendieck
(obviously, one can probably also find those references in various papers, but then EGA is probably better)
@TobiasKildetoft I think i am in really deep water everytime I try to look for results like that, I see documents on "algebraic spaces" and "stacks", etc
and then I know i'm in deep water
@TobiasKildetoft but today man
We used like Yoneda 5 times
@TobiasKildetoft I think I am beginning to get a grip on yoneda and it's power
I think it's quite powerful to translate between natural transformations of functors and elements in global sections
@TobiasKildetoft I have to say this algebraic geometry is addictive
@BenjaLim have you seen there is an algebraic geometry chat room on MO?
11:36
@TobiasKildetoft I don't dare join it
It is not particularly active
only slightly more than the representation theory one, which is basically dead
ok
@TobiasKildetoft But for me things are starting to get too abstract
my advisor said not to worry if I don't understand all of it
that's good advice at this point
@TobiasKildetoft thank god he said no need to write up anything this week as I have a complex analysis assignment due on tuesday and a functional analysis assignment on friday :D
that's quite a packed schedule
term hasn't even started yet here
11:55
@TobiasKildetoft Well, first pure algebra:
Use the adjoint representation of $SL_2(\mathbb C)$ to define an iso $SL_2(\mathbb C)/\{\pm I\}\approx SO_3(\mathbb C)$
And some with a bit topology:
$O_{2,1}$ has four connected components
Double coset $TPT$ is homeomorphic to a torus, where $T$ is the subgroup of $SU_2$ of diagonal matrices, and $P\in SU_2$, and none of the entries of $P$ is zero.
@TobiasKildetoft I am also studying representation theory of flag varieties
so my schedule is very packed
but right now I am very tired
I need to learn more algebra. What about Morandi's Field and Galois theory?
@FrankScience I am not familiar with it
Thanks, anyway.
Come back to the problems. Adjoint representation furnishes a homomorphism $SL_2(\mathbb C)\to O_3(\mathbb C)$. However, I cannot see any clear idea that its image is $SO_3$.
What software/font is used to write formal math papers? I don't like word :(
12:04
@user2357 LaTeX
Was latex used here: i.imgur.com/ETsAkey.png
@FrankScience do you see that the image is contained in that?
@user2357 certainly looks like it would if written using LaTeX (at least to me)
@TobiasKildetoft I think it should be a result of direct computations. I didn't calculate in details.
After I do the code, how do I put it on PDF format?
Since the Lie algebra of $SL_2$ is the set of matrices of trace zero.
12:07
@user2357 do you have LaTeX installed?
then run pdflatex on the .tex file
Do I need to buy the software?
@user2357 texlive is free.
Thank you! I will install it
And, what about Hilton, Stammbach's A Course in Homological Algebra?
 
2 hours later…
14:39
sap?
Greetings
@robjohn absolutely correct.
@Chris'ssis How is it going ?
@N3buchadnezzar I'm suffering because of the high temperature :-(
@N3buchadnezzar how about you? :-)
=(
Chillin
@robjohn did you do it mathematically or computationally? A friend of mine, a good mathematician, only did it computationally after 1 hour from the moment I gave the problem.
14:50
@Chris'ssis It took me about a minute after looking at it.
@robjohn that's awesome!
@Chris'ssis I happen to know how to invert difference operators. That makes it easy.
@robjohn yeah. It only requires high school knowledge.
Summing $2013+o(1)$ gives $2013n+o(n)$
Summing that gives $\frac12\cdot2013n^2+o(n^2)$
dividing by $n^2$ finished it off.
@robjohn I see.
14:53
easily done in a minute :-)
@robjohn well, you're fault you're brilliant. ;)
most of the minute was spent looking up the answer I gave so that I could give it as a reference, and now I need to look it up again :-)
@robjohn by the way, did you like it?
hmmm, nice (+1)
14:58
@Chris'ssis did I like the question? I don't know. It is always nice to know how to solve something.
@robjohn I noticed you added an application of Laplace to the end of your answer on Peter's question so I refined my bound at the end of mine in response ;)
@AntonioVargas Yeah, Peter prompted me to add what we had discussed in chat, since he couldn't use complex methods
Look at my integral, my integral is amazing. Give it a lick it tastes just like raisins.
Can this be rewritten as a frullani integral ? the 1/x seems tempting.
3
Q: Evaluating $\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{x}\big (\frac{\sinh ax}{\sinh x}-ae^{-2x}\big )dx$

Martin GalesSome time ago, stumbled out of an integral: $$\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{1}x{}\left (\frac{\sinh ax}{\sinh x}-ae^{-2x}\right )dx=\ln\frac{\pi\cos\frac{a\pi}{2}}{\Gamma^2(\frac{a+1}{2})};\left | a \right |<1$$ I have no idea where to start?

Could someone please give me a hint (or a link) on how to prove that: $$\sum_{k=1}^{n}\cos(kx)=\frac{\sin\left ( n+\frac{1}{2} \right )x}{\sin\left ( \frac{x}{2} \right )}-\frac{1}{2}$$
@user2357 I would try rewriting the cosine in terms of exponentials.
15:15
@robjohn Well, I think a bit differently. When I understand the profound beauty of a question then I definitely say I like it, or even more, I love it.
@N3buchadnezzar Hey, I don't know where that integral's been...
@user2357 write $\cos(kx)=\dfrac{e^{ikx}+e^{-ikx}}{2}$ then use the formula for summing a finite geometric series
The $-\frac12$ arises because you miss the $0$ term in the series
I see it now, thinks. I never learnt how to use exponentials because it isn't in high school syllabus for some reason...
@user2357 There are probably more elementary (that is, non-complex) methods, but this is much easier.
15:28
Yes, it is. Do you think using this identity is the right approach to doing this: math.stackexchange.com/questions/463584/…
15:38
I don't know. I'd have to give it some more thought. However, there is this function
$$
\sum_{k=2}^\infty\frac{x^{2k}}{1-x^k}
$$
The coefficient of $x^k$ is two less than the number of divisors of $k$, thus, $0$ for primes
 
1 hour later…
16:59
$\sigma_0(n)(=\tau(n))=O(\sqrt{n})$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$. Why? I guess this also means (via $\varphi(n)+\tau(n)=n$) that $\varphi(n)=O(n-\sqrt{n})=O(n)$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$ (probably abusing O notation there).
how do you get (number of divisors of n) + totient(n) = n?
@anon by drinking heavily?
nope
only lightly
@anon No, I was not asking you if you were, I was suggesting that is how that equation was arrived at.
... I see ...
17:14
No, sorry. Tau's not the number of numbers who share a common factor. Ignore that bit.
 
4 hours later…
20:49
@robjohn
21:25
Funny
@Charlie What is?
Nothing
Nothing is funny, actually
21:40
@Charlie Wrong. What about squirrels?
@PeterTamaroff they're not funny anymore
@PeterTamaroff yes?
@Charlie did their writer go on strike?
@robjohn I did you to help me count.
Can you count?
@PeterTamaroff 1, 2, 5, sure :-)
@robjohn no...
21:49
@robjohn Ah, perfect-.
I need to count lattice points.
Can someone link me to a really complex-looking, massive questions/answer? I feel like looking at some aesthetically pleasing LaTeX :D
@user2357 This? (I just got it pinned in my browser)
thanks :)
@robjohn Nevermind, I need to rest now.
@PeterTamaroff sleep tight..
 
1 hour later…
23:15
@user1
@PeterTamaroff ${}$
@user1 What be oozin'?
@PeterTamaroff Just stumblin'...
@user1 Ah. I am lost.
I finished all finals. I need to get a book and hit it up.
@PeterTamaroff Hartshorne Algebraic Geometry.
23:27
@user1 Hmm...
Let me learn algebra first, braw.
@PeterTamaroff Eisenbud Commutative Algebra
@user1 Heh. I'm studing Linear Algebra at the moment.
And Fourier stuff.
Hilbert's 10th Problem is a fun read. Ostensibly about how diophantine equations in general are unsolvable, but the key result still has me stumped: There exists a polynomial such that, for all integers $x,y,z$, $p(x,y,z,w_1,\dots,w_n)=0$ has a solution if and only if $z=x^y$. This still strikes me as strange - we can express integer exponentiation in terms of simple polynomials.
@ThomasAndrews Whaaaa...?
Curious.
I've read and understood the proof - it's "elementary." But I still find it unbelievable.
Once you have exponentiation, you easily get all the other types of numbers and functions. You can get factorials, for example, and from there find a polynomial $q$ such that $q(x,w_1,...,w_n)$ as a solution if and only if $x$ is prime.
23:52
@user1 Sent you correspondence.
@ThomasAndrews Ah. I don't know if I can bear with you now, sorry.
Missed capping by one vote. pretty good day, I guess.

« first day (1101 days earlier)      last day (4216 days later) »