« first day (1279 days earlier)      last day (4037 days later) » 

00:00
all x belongs to a also belongs to b ...
@Charlie Hmm, somehow that's not how it works.
@usukidoll No, that is wrong.
@jasper ok
now I'm lostttt x.x
@Mike Why not maintain a blog on the maths you're learning?
Let $x\in A$. Since $A$ and $B$ are disjoint, we have $x\notin B$ (otherwise $x\in A\cap B$), ie, $x\in B'$ @usukidoll
00:02
@Paul I don't know that it would help anybody, not even myself. Writing up problem solutions is sufficient for me.
@Mike What type of problems have you been solving recently?
OK, I am going to bed, I will see @mike in my dreams, lol.
disjoint?
Goodnight @jasper
00:03
@usukidoll Two sets are disjoint means they don't intersect, lol.
If any set theory lads could throw a look here math.stackexchange.com/questions/661405/… will appreciate it!
@Charlie Goodnight!
And @usukidoll - @JasperLoy beat me to it
@Paul Topology
yeah lol
wow somehow I earned 205 rep points XD
00:04
@Mike Then you should have answered Alexander's question, surely??
I also belong to academica stack or something
@usukidoll Thanks to me.
so for the proof that if $A \cap B = \emptyset$ then $A \subseteq B'$ that would mean that we need to have $ x \in A$ since we can't have $B$ in the subset... but what the heck would that mean for $x \in A \cap B$ since $A \cap B$ is an emptyset
@usukidoll I don't know what you mean but what I wrote above suffices.
00:07
I wrote the proof above!!!
6 mins ago, by Jasper Loy
Let $x\in A$. Since $A$ and $B$ are disjoint, we have $x\notin B$ (otherwise $x\in A\cap B$), ie, $x\in B'$ @usukidoll
@Paul Probably not, since I don't know what that is. Perhaps you think a it too highly of me.
A and B doesn't intersect, is that why $ x \notin B$ ?
soft off-topic question: If a function $f$ is defined on the plane and I want to consider an integral over $f$ over a closed curve, in the expression $\int f(x)dx$, are the values of $x$ now restricted to the curve (instead of the plane)?
@usukidoll Yes
:) ok
I just need to clean this up a bit
00:08
@Mike
Wait.
"Knowing" will be showing on TV this week, damn good movie.
@Pedro Why do you think that?
sdkfj; If $ A \subseteq B'$. then $A \cap B = \emptyset$
so since x belongs to a subset of A, but not B... the elements aren't the same...or they're aren't any or.. wow I'm tired out lol
@Mike I'm extremely impressed by you because you've submitted papers for publication before even entering grad school.
@Mike Sorry, that's not what I meant.
If $H$ has prime index in $G$, then $N(H)$ is either $H$ or all $G$.
Ah, got it.
00:18
@Mike a simplicial complex is a collection of simplices that's closed under taking sub-simplices. for example a filled in triangle with vertices $a,b,c$ is a simplicial complex with elements $\{a\}$, $\{b\}$, $\{c\}$, $\{a,b\}$, $\{a,c\}$, $\{b,c\}$, and $\{a,b,c\}$
@PedroTamaroff figured you could get that one. :)
If $A \subseteq B'$, then $A \cap B = \emptyset$
subset def... $[x: x \in A \rightarrow x \notin B]$ since nothing belongs in B... then A is a subset of a B' which means that while $ x \in A$, $x \notin B$.. so $A \cap B$ would mean that there are elements inside $A$ and $B$, but since $B$ for the subset isn't there...as in x doesn't belong to B in the subset... then there's an emptyset for $A \cap B$... ?!
@AlexanderGruber Does $|K|$ refer to the subspace given by the simplicial complex?
@KarlKronenfeld right, like, the part of $\mathbb{R}^n$ the simplicial complex takes up
Hm, so first we should see what $f$ does to the vertices of $K$.
right. so, take $u\in\operatorname{Vert}(k)$. then $g(u)$ is in a unique simplex $\tau$ of $L$.
00:31
maybe not, since we can map [0,1] to [0,1] taking 0 to 1/3 and 1 to 2/3.
oh!
Yeah, you have a good point there
@KarlKronenfeld that's the problem, really. it doesn't have to be in $L^{(m)}$.
i'd like to take $g(u)$ to a vertex of $\tau$ via a homotopy (which we can do because simplexes are convex so we just push $g(u)$ down the line between it and the vertex)
but i don't know how to show that we can pick the vertex to guarantee that it's a vertex of something in $L^{(m)}$
cause the other simplices in the star of $u$ don't necessarily have to go to a subset of $\tau$
(the star being the union of the interiors of the incident simplices to $u$)
00:35
The map is still continuous, though
so maybe $\tau$ doesn't work, but some simplex of dimension smaller than or equal to m will.
can we use that an inverse image of an open set is open under $g$, applied to the star of where we moved $g(u)$?
um we first have to pick a vertex then take the star, but I still don't see your objective.
like if we're embedding a triangle into a tetrahedron, it could be in the middle, in the interior of the tetrahedron. take the image of one of the vertices and move it to a vertex $v$ of the tetrahedron
then the star of $v$ has to include the interior of a triangle because every 2d face is there
if we already have it within a tetrahedron, we can pretty arbitrarily pick vertices, eh
@KarlKronenfeld that's what i'm thinking is the choice shouldn't matter
00:43
Yeah, I like your idea of taking the inverse image of the star of a choice of vertex.
This should help simplify the problem if used correctly
Or maybe that is too much work.
What I am currently wondering is why can't we embed an arbitrarily long string of triangles in a single triangle?
@KarlKronenfeld we can
it's ok if the dimension goes down
pick a triangle on the side and collapse all the triangles down into one of its edges
dizzy :S
oh I see it.
you do that first then you pick vertices of L
if $K$ is contractible, then we can just embed it into a vertex of $L$ however we want.
actually wait a second here.
what if we take $K$ to be an octahedron with a line through it and embed it into the same octahedron $L$ without a line through it via the identity map
00:59
You mean that 2-d simplicial complex right?
yeah. ugh, i have to take a break, i'm losing it.
I think the line can be turned into a loop and then the loop can be mapped however you want onto L
(If that is even necessary)
@AlexanderGruber
@PedroTamaroff pedro
I am looking at McKay's proof of Cauchy's theorem that looks at $S=\{(x_1,\ldots,x_p):x_1\cdots x_p=1\}$
01:05
Hi grubby
@PedroTamaroff yes, a good one
@Charlie hiya!
how're you?
@AlexanderGruber So, I have proven two things so far.
I'm fine, and you @alexander?
@Charlie i'm having a pretty good time.
@alexander it's awesome to know it :)
01:08
@AlexanderGruber I am not sure about something.
When they say $(x_1,\ldots,x_p)\sim (y_1,\ldots,y_p)$ if one is a cyclic permutation of the other, they mean any cycle in $S_p$?
For example, $(123)$ in $S_5$ would be a valid permutation?
@AlexanderGruber Understandable. To answer your question: no, I don't know why it is homotopic to some simplicial complex map in general. :)
@AlexanderGruber ?
@KarlKronenfeld ?
I asked a new question :)
goodnight.
@PedroTamaroff No
01:16
I edited, no. It has to be a full rotation.
@PedroTamaroff your 'd' is still working :p
So a power of $(12\cdots p)$?
Yes, that
bye @Charlie
0
Q: About $f(s)=\sum_{a^2+b^2>0} \frac{(-1)^{a^2+b^2}}{(a^2+b^2)^s}=0$ and the Extended Riemann Hypothesis.

mickLet $s$ be a complex number with a strictly positive real part ($Re(s)>0$). Let $f(s)=\sum_{a^2+b^2>0} \dfrac{(-1)^{a^2+b^2}}{(a^2+b^2)^s}$ where the sum runs over all positive integers $a,b$ such that $a^2+b^2>0$ and allowing multiplicity (as e.g. $x^2+y^2=q^2+s^2$ ). Notice $a^2+b^2$ is a n...

@PedroTamaroff To see why we can't have arbitrary length cycles, remember that $\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z$ is acting on it.
01:18
Ah, and since $p$ is prime this is always a $p$-cycle for any $1\leqslant k <p$.
@KarlKronenfeld Right.
Though D&F haven't covered orb-stab so I am guessing they want a simpler argument.
The author is assuming you will read it that way, I am just giving a clue why it actually should be that choice over others.
So we're making $\langle (12\ldots p)\rangle$ act on $S$.
@KarlKronenfeld Right.
Yep, you identify the group of order $p$ with that subgroup of $S_p$.
The point is that $(12\cdots p)^k$ is a $p$ cycle for each $k$, so the support of those cycles is always trivial and moreover, distinct for each $k$.
Well, each $k$ at most $p-1$.
@PedroTamaroff I think it's just supposed to be $p$-cycles.
01:24
@AlexanderGruber Yes.
@Pedro: I see you and Alex took care of your question.
I forgot the proof, I remembered as making $C_p$ act on $S$ as Karl said.
Hi @Karl.
@TedShifrin ted
ted is back
01:25
i can't prove things
@TedShifrin hi, long time no see
Nonsense @Alex
how do I disprove if $ A \backslash B = \emptyset $ then $ A \subseteq B$?
@TedShifrin do you know about simplicial complexes?
that would mean that $A \backslash B \neq \emptyset$ so there are elements
01:27
I have known stuff, @Alex, in the context of topology.
but $A \subseteq B$ which is A is a subset of B can't happen if I negate it.. A isn't a subset of B
@usukidoll $A-B=0$ means that the set $\{x\in A:x\notin B\}$ is empty.
yes I know that
@TedShifrin i can't figure out how to write the proof of this.
Well, this means that $x\in A$ and $ x\notin B$ is always false.
01:28
so did we disprove it? that quickly?
So when $x\in A$ is true, $x\notin B$ is false.
This means that when $x\in A$, $x\in B$.
So $A\subseteq B$.
First, @Alex, your comp geom tag is no good. What is $m$?
oh I see it because for the subset we are given... x must be in A and x must be in B... but since $A \backslash B = \emptyset$ that means that x does belong to A...but x doesn't belong in b
@TedShifrin $\operatorname{dim}(K)$.
on top of that it's empty
01:30
@usukidoll Alternatively, $A\not\subseteq B$ means precisely there is $x\in A$ that is not in $B$, which means precisely that $A\setminus B$ is not empty.
Ok, now I believe it @Alex.
yeah I wanted to disprove it to see if it was an easier approach
How bout induction?
I think disproving it is easier
@TedShifrin on number of vertices or dimension of $K$?
01:32
On $\dim K$.
@usukidoll, disproving a true theorem isn't easy.
crafsdfsdjkl so which way should I go on this one? proving it or disproving it?
@usukidoll It is true, you cannot disprove it!!!
And I just proved it is true twofold.
Reread what I wrote.
meaning true both ways
Else I would have to say you have the attention span of a chipmunk.
so, we have homotopies which bring dimension $m-1$ or lower subcomplexes of $K$ to dimension $m-1$ or lower subcomplexes of $L$.
01:35
Right. Now extend linearly across $m$-faces?
hey guys, can someone please give me a hint with this ((2x-7)/12)-((4-x)/6)=11/20? seems like bringing to common denominator cancels the x terms
Any set-theorists in here?
Depends on the level on the question.
@Joe: Be careful with your negatives!
There is a line that says "beyond this point, call Asaf."
Let's see if you cross it.
01:37
LOL @Pedro.
Well, worth the shot.. Huh, yeah, me and Asaf are from the same country
I never wanted to update my user info, he'll end up knowing my course-header personally or so
Which will probably be embarassing.
Why embarrassing?
@TedShifrin o duh ty
We're embarrassed all the time. No big deal.
But anyhow, I am trying to find a well-ordered subset of <Q,<> with the ordinal number of w+w. Can't think of one, since everytime I come up with one that's ordinal number is w, I can't think of a disjoint other one with w as the ordinal number too
Actually not embarrassing, would be interesting/cool
01:39
besides $\omega+\omega$ itself?
Yep
As in
besides N ordered so the even goes first and odd later
@Ted I'm not sure what about that process (Simplicial = singular homologies) could be called somplicial approximation.
I remembered something like that in the proof ... Chain homotopy based on subdivision. It's been almost 40 years :)
Ah, gotcha. We did that for excision.
@Studentmath Ok. Take the set $S=\{(x,y)\in\omega\times\omega: x=0\text{ or }y=0\}$ and use the lexicographic ordering. Then, $\omega+n$ is an initial segment of $S$ for all $n$.
01:44
Once we had excision the latter proof was more of a diagram chase than topological considerations. Some cleverness with $k$-skeletons
@Studentmath: I'm sure I'm being stupid, but what about $\{n\in\Bbb N\}\cup\{n/2: n \text{ odd}\}$?
@karl: I thought it was supposed to be a subset of $\Bbb Q$?
Oh, I didn't even notice that.
derp
@TedShifrin regarding the latter, yep.. and regarding your suggestion -
While in the order you mention it would be that, in the new order as a subgroup of <Q,<> (as in, in the regular order), I am afraid it won't be of the ordinal number w+w
Ah, $\{-2^{-n}:n\in\mathbb N\}\cup\mathbb N$.
Oh, good @Karl :)
01:49
oh god ordinals
@Mike Let's run and never look back.
Run run run Pedro
@Pedro Deal.
Me too :)
@Mike Wanna hold hands?
01:50
Aaaw
That's just brillian @KarlKronenfeld , thanks!
@KarlKronenfeld What's the difference between $\omega$ and $\omega+\omega$?
@PedroTamaroff They aren't order-isomorphic. That's about it.
@Pedro That would slow us down, the set theorists might catch us.
@KarlKronenfeld But how is your set not order isomorphic to $\Bbb N$?
Oh.
01:52
I tried to get around so I could get a group from the negetives that would work, couldn't figure one out like that
It has no least element, right?
Oh, no it does.
Every subset of a well-ordered set has a least element.
But it's like two copies of $\omega$ chained togheter.
Yeah, that's it.
It does @PedroTamaroff, in fact it has 'two' of them.
Precisely..
01:53
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/661296/prove-abc-ab-c-using-the-definition-of-ab

just on what line do I apply $A \cap B'$? :/
That's the cleverness of the negatives ... Which I hadn't thought of!
It's hard to find one alike, since you automaticaly think of groups with greatest number in the negetives, not least number
@Alex: You got quiet. Seem ok?
@usukidoll You want to show $\triangle$ is associative, right?
yeah but I got an error when I used distributive law I got garbage in the middle
01:55
@Studentmath Actually, I just try not to think about it.
@usukidoll I wouldn't get into that mess.
@Studentmath Is it possible to embed $\omega^\omega$ in $\mathbb Q,<$?
Also, one more question - is it right to say that the group of N ordered so that the evens go first (will mark that order with ~), odds later is a well ordered subset of <Q,<>? after all, I find it impossible to prove and in fact I think it's wrong.. but again it's odd
What about $\{1+1/n,n\}$? @Studentmath
Prove that $x\in A\triangle (B\triangle C)$ iff $x\in A$ xor $x\in B$ xor $x\in C$
01:57
@Mike xD
What do you mean with embed? @KarlKronenfeld
@Karl: What about $\{m+1/n\}$?
@Studentmath Finding a subset of $\mathbb Q$ order isomorphic to $\omega^\omega$.
@TedShifrin what do you mean with that group?
x belongs to a x belong to b x belong to c
@TedShifrin That's not well-ordered
01:59
Nah, I just have $\omega^2$.
But $\{m-1/n\}$ is iso to $\omega^2$.
isn't there any easier way to prove associative?
@AlexanderGruber
Let's be a little more abstract here. If we write out the actual sets, this will just be hell.
02:01
What is Aleph_null ^ Aleph_null? I would say it is not possible,
Can anyone vote so Mhenni's answer gets deleted?
However...
@Studentmath That's a cardinal bro. Definitely not going to embed $\mathbb Q$.
@usukidoll I didn't mean downvote, rather vote to delete.
=P
02:04
****
now how do I vote to delete?
I see, and to your question - if it is possible to find a subset of Q so that it is isomorphic to isomorphic to $\omega^\omega$.
mhm
For $a,b\in\mathbb Q$, let $S_{a,b}$ be a subset of $[a,b)\cap\mathbb Q$ that is a copy of $\omega$.
Then we can take unions of disjoint $S_{a,b}$'s.
well someone else downvoted with me ^^
Correct.
ok just got one more problem AND FINALLY THIS LONG ASSIGNMENT IS OVER! >:(
02:06
How do I vote to delete? @Pedro
We can take endless of such copies. We will get eventually to w*w, though.
You need a few reps @TedShifrin.
Yeah, I am starting to believe that $\omega^2$ is our limit.
not w^w. w^w is impossible from Q
Don't I have enough?
02:07
Same. Which is interesting in it's own, since it is, supposedly, the ordinal number of NXN
@Karl: Why not $\omega^k$?
and of sets alike, and the union of these sets is not alike to NXN.
@TedShifrin You should see a "delete" button under his answer.
Else, you don't have enough.
I think 20k is the threshold.
@TedShifrin $\mathbb Q$ is a set of pairs: we only have two dimensions to work in.
It's a rather silly argument, but it does give a sense for why you are so restricted.
Q is a set of pairs @KarlKronenfeld ? Wouldn't that be Q^2?
02:11
I'm referring to the fact that $\mathbb Q$ is a quotient set of $\mathbb Z\times\mathbb Z$.
Oh, I see.
But anyhow, I would say w^2 is our limit indeed..
However what about the group Q X Q?
Yes, we need to be more systematic, we need to base our observation off of the order type of $\mathbb Q$ (and then of $\mathbb Q\times\mathbb Q$).
@Pedro: I've been reading ... 10k should suffice.
The only question is whether there is a faulty in the logic of infinite subsets of Q so that $[a,b)\cap\mathbb Q$ that is a copy of $\omega$.
hi Professor
02:16
@TedShifrin If I went through your book, say, would I walk out able to prove that $O(n)$ is compact?
@Studentmath What do you mean?
That perhaps there can't be infinite subsets in Q that allow that, and in that case we can't even reach w*w (which is certainly the upper-limit, I would say).
However I don't think so, it seems logical that there are
No, @Mike, but that is not linear algebra :) my multivariable book has such.
02:18
Yet we have to remember that for such a subset to have the ordinal number of w, it also has to hold true to the fact that for any given a that belongs to said group (mark it with A), {x belongs to A: x<a} must be a finite group.
I think you can't get above w*2, actually.
@Ted O'm not sure why it's not linear algebra (other than that it's a topological criterion, of course). It seems like something I should prove with linalg.
@Studentmath I didn't flesh out my idea above. What you do is you take an increasing $\omega$-sequence $s$ in $\mathbb Q$ and then take the union $$\bigcup_{n\in\omega}S_{s_n,s_{n+1}}$$
But I'll take your word for it.
No, @Mike, it's only closed + bounded ...
Alright, I see..
02:21
@Ted Sure, but the question is how I would prove those. But I'll figure out the details myself eventually.
Polynomials are continuous and the natural topology on $n\times n$ matrices is that on $\Bbb R^{n^2}$ :P
Yeah I pulled myself together at the end there. Scratch that!
@Pedro: I need to figure out how to use all my moderator tools :D
@TedShifrin i'm fine, just working. dragging a proof out very reluctantly.
LOL ... @Alex: Do you see that my suggestion is a valid direction?
It's quite typical in topology to do stuff skeleton by skeleton. Indeed, this is one of the important interpretations of characteristic classes ... giving the obstruction to getting from one skeleton to the next.
02:26
@TedShifrin i mean, i see the concept. writing a formal proof is a different story.
i tend to be very slow and careful, and critical, of my proofs
I applaud you for your care, @Alex.
especially when i'm in unfamiliar territory. i'm not postrigorous yet in things that have metrics.
Oh, and lastly @karl $\{-2^{-n}:n\in\mathbb N\}$ wouldn't it have to be $\{-2^{-n}:n\in\mathbb N\{0}\}$ ? I might be wrong there, but since -2^0 would be -1, and that goes against the order we are looking for.. though then again ordering it with <, that wouldn't matter.. I take it back.
but with simplicial complexes you're only working with simplices, which are homeomorphic to polyhedra sitting in Euclidean space. Nothing bizarre :P
@Studentmath: To most of us $\Bbb N$ starts with $1$ !
@TedShifrin haha, well, i'm good with the the abstract simplicial complexes.
02:32
Yes, I know, but not in this course ;P @Mike another reason to hate set theory?
@Ted To most of the same of us, $\Bbb N$ starts with 0...
sane*
Seriously? I have almost never encountered that.
We already hve a perfectly good name for $\{1, 2, \dots \}$: $\mathbb{Z}^+$
Damn my phone fingers.
Well, you can be as stubborn as you like :P
huh?
02:40
@TedShifrin You want $(\mathbb N,+)$ to be a monoid don't you?
No, I don't @Karl ! :P
whew one more problem and I"m DONEEEEE
@skull: If you spent as much effort learning mathematics as you spend making silly comments here, you might be impressive.
@Ted What would you call the set that starts with 0?
02:41
If I need it, I might call it $\overline{\Bbb N}$ or $\overline{\Bbb Z^+}$, depending on the course/notation.
Gross!
Induction starts at $1$, not at $0$ ...
@Ted But defining the naturals starts at 0.
h. The statements $A+B = C, A + C = B,$ and $B +C = A$ are equivalent to each other. [Suggestion: Assume that $A+B=C$. Then "add" $(B+C)$ to both sides of the equation giving $(A+B)+(B+C) = C+(B+C)$. Then use parts (g) and (a) of this exercise.]

part g --->http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/660468/prove-a-bc-bac-c-ab-using-the-definition-of-ab

part a ---> http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/660230/prove-a-emptyset-a-aa-emptyset-and-a-a-u-using-the-definition

this either may be a killer problem or simple subsitutions all the way.
02:43
With successors and such.
OH NO! That means I may have to use the $A+B$ definition
@TedShifrin I agree with that. You start at the first step, not the 0th step.
Honestly, in my almost 40 years of teaching, using $\Bbb N$ as I do has not got me in trouble. :P
@Karl You could say the base case is the 0th step.
I could, but I would be insane, @Mike
02:44
I'm out of here. This has degenerated ...
@TedShifrin what is the base case of the induction.
@Ted I never argued that it would get you into trouble... just that you're wrong ;)
@TedShifrin I recall seeing inductions starting with 0.
@Alex ^5
(and for that case with the negatives.. which is totally not the point you are aiming for.)
02:46
Wow, we did just waste a screenful of messages about whether $0\in\mathbb N$.
Waste is a tough word.
0 belongs to N... N being sorry I never looked itupp
Also, 89 users currently talking in 45 rooms. That's 1.777... people per room. It's like 2 but one is a bad listener.
@Karl I wouldn't say it was arguing.
@Mike merely proving the other side wrong?
02:51
You've got me pegged @Studentmath
@Mike Just your usual math conversation. We should popularize this as the way mathematicians typically talk to one another.
If I may ask, what did you guys study/are studying?
if i'm using that the restriction of $h$ to $K^{(m-1)}$ is homotopic to a map $h^\prime$ from $K^{(m-1)}$ into $L^{(m-1)}$, i'm not sure how to deal with situations like this: $K=\{a,b,c,ab,ac,bc,abc\}$ and $L=\{x,y,z,t,xy,xz,yz,xt,yt,xyz\}$. $h^\prime\left(\left|K^{(m-1)}\right|\right)=\left|\{xt,yt,xy\}\right|$, which doesn't extend naturally when we add back in $abc$.
@Studentmath I am currently self-learning Commutative Algebra and (Algebraic/Differential) Geometry.
in other words, we can take out all the $m$-faces and get a good homotopy, but how do we show that it has to be the right homotopy, that it maps to the correct $(m-1)$-skeleton which can be extended inductively to include the $m$-faces?
@Studentmath i study finite group theory and then some other stuff which i'm not as good at.
02:57
@Karl Mayve I'll be asking you diff geo questions in the spring.
Both sound extremely terrible.
Quite the opposite.
In the meaning of frightening.
In Hebrew I don't think there is a different name to group theory (from set theory)
@Mike diff geo seems like something I'll being sticking with. I am quite interested so far.
@Karl I'm mostly interested in using and abusing its tools.
02:59
Really? I was never fond of that, on the other hand I am still just out of the k-12 system and that's the only place I studied geo in..

« first day (1279 days earlier)      last day (4037 days later) »