« first day (1436 days earlier)      last day (3882 days later) » 

15:12
Greetings
This is a question I received today $$3\times 4=8$$
$$4\times 5=50$$
$$5\times 6=30$$
$$6\times 7=49$$
$$7\times 8=?$$ (it's an interview question)
10
@Chris'ssis It'd probably be divisible by $8$
Wait no.
$128$?
@BalarkaSen No
@Chris'ssis That looks like a mighty strange question.
Wait I think I have an idea.
Don't reveal, @Chris'ssis
It's $56$
@BalarkaSen No
15:22
@BalarkaSen The multiplication symbol must represent something other than pure multiplication right?
@Chris'ssis Oh right, the pattern breaks.. gcd(8, 50) = 2, 2 * 4 = 8. gcd(30, 50) = 10, 10 * 5 = 50. gcd(49, 30) = 1.
208 is a guess...
@robjohn No
Great, now the whole starboard is occupied by this problem =D
Wait a sec I have another idea
Nah, that doesn't work.
Nice..
15:35
@Studentmath You know the solution?
@Balarka not yet
@Studentmath oh ok
Thanks a lot @DanielFischer, have a nice day!
Kali Spera, @nullgeppetto.
@Hippa! You're back!
15:41
@DanielFischer, I'm impressed! You too!
@Chris'ssis 7. Likely to be false, though.
You mean 7 is not the answer?
@BalarkaSen I misunderstood your statement. No, it's not 7.
Right. OK
Then it's definitely divisible by 8.
Let's see. 24, maybe?
@chris'ssis 104?
@Studentmath No
15:47
I wonder if it uses some high-math, or simple logic...
simple logic, i'd guess
these are just brain-teasers.
5*6 is the part where the sequence centers..
@Studentmath It is the most important part of the game.
Gonna be silly, but 80?
I was thinking about 80, actually
15:50
The other idea I have is 107. I am just trying all patterns possible in my mind..
@Studentmath 107 is not divisible by 8
No chance with that.
Not necessery the pattern is that. If the pattern has anything to dow ith that than obviosuly, yeah.
@Chris any of our guesses are anywhere near?
I think it's a multiple of 56.
@Chris'ssis 112.
Heya @TedShifrin
hi @Balarka
We're doing a silly problem to kill time.
15:53
@Studentmath
Hey Prof. @Ted
I'll give you one the grad students asked me studying for their algebra qual, @Balarka. Let $p$ be prime, $n<p$. Show that the Sylow $p$-subgroups of $S_{np}$ are all abelian.
@BalarkaSen It's not 112.
@TedShifrin I have forgotten my wedge products.
wedge products?
15:54
Neither 107 nor 80? @Chris'ssis
@Studentmath No
@TedShifrin Sylow p-subgroups of S_n are wedge products of copies of S_p.
Oh sorry, I mean wreath product.
I forgot names. Told you that.
You don't need anything fancy.
@TedShifrin OK. Will think about later. Noted for the time.
15:56
Not in the right mood to do group theory.
LOL ... I rarely am in the mood.
@TedShifrin Good news. Hippa returned
Oh, good. Anything go wrong?
I don't know.
OK ...
15:58
He isn't the chat yet.
Oh, so what do you mean by "returned"?
@TedShifrin I saw his avatar as a zombie in the chat
ah
I prefer to be a zombie.
@TedShifrin I am reading stuffs on transcendence right now.
probably you aren't in the least interested...
Probably not.
16:04
@TedShifrin so you are interested? or are you not?
negation of a negative statement is positive
Not now. I'm working on learning probability for my course, as I leave on vacation in three days.
@TedShifrin Yuck probability.
@Balarka be nice to probability
I tried reading some probabilistic number theory once but as the notes grew more fond of mentioning ergodic theory in later chapters, I thought better of it.
I have my test this monday actually
16:06
@Studentmath you'll fail.
Balarka, we ware losing sight of our real problem here
no sequence in OEIS, remember?
Probably.
Yeah. Thanks!
@Studentmath which problem?
I really had a terrible test yesterday. But I get an extra one, sirens went off in the middle. Plus it wasn't that terrible, I got the answers right, just the questions were ugly..
Chris's sis problem.
16:07
OK. I thought you were going to give up like me.
Nah, I am incapable of that.
For better and worse..
@Chris'ssis 24?
@BalarkaSen No
droops ear
Perhaps we should treat it as a function of sort
16:10
168 or nothin', @Chris'ssis
@BalarkaSen No.
Nothing it is.
42
$f(3)+f(4)=8, f(4)+f(5)=50...$
@Chris'ssis You are an evil genius.
16:11
Was that no towards my idea or towards the answer to everything in the universe?
@Studentmath Heh heh
@BalarkaSen lol :-))))
7*8 is 56, darn it!
@Studentmath 56 is not it.
I already proposed it... and it was refuted.
Is there a function whose integral over 3 to 4 is 8, 4 to 5 is 50, etc.?
16:13
haha.
@Chris'ssis 84
Stop throwing numbers!
@BalarkaSen No
@Studentmath 7 * 3 * 4
Let's try to draw it, maybe geometry will give us something.
Oh, that's nice.
what is happening
16:18
@TomCruise see the starboard
It's certainly larger than 98.
@Studentmath How can you guarantee that?
the startboard?
Well, considering it centers around 5*6, it should grow similliarly around -
wait..
@Chris'ssis 130?
@Studentmath No
16:21
grins
You are evil.
i said it was a multiple of 8
@Chris'ssis 8?
@BalarkaSen No
16:22
This 30 breaks down everything.
now you are really evil
@Studentmath even my cool gcd computation
@BalarkaSen You're right, it's a multiple of 8.
it grows too fast to do anything sensible
@Chris'ssis i knew i was right
16:25
We could write a program throwing every imagineable multiple of 8 into the chat, but that wouldn't be too fun.
@Studentmath right
i can also guess that the other factor is prime, but i am not sure.
@Chris'ssis Wait. Integer multiple of 8? Since 1.5*8 is also multiple of 8..
You could be that evil.
I am sure the it's not noninteger multiple.
@Studentmath hehe, that would be too much. Integer multiple of 8. :-)
@Chris'ssis Is it also an integer multiple of 56? I don't think so.
16:28
@BalarkaSen Yeap. It's 224.
I guessed right!
But why
I know!
8 = 4 * 2
50 = 5 * 10
30 = 6 * 5
Note that 2 * 5 = 10
Now similar should hold for the other case.
f(7, 8) is divisible by 8
and 49 = 7 * 7
so it's 7 * something
hence it's 56 * something
@Chris'ssis I don't know why it's 224 though. Explain?
:16521328 ?
16:32
I had an idea
Don't tell us yet @Chris, few more seconds..
@DanielFischer when beginning a new page, there's some forced blank space at the top of the page. Is there a way to get rid of it ?
Nah I give up
I think 448 might be a better candidate, really.
Explain, @Chris'ssis!
@Studentmath I didn't solve it either, but I only know the answer ... (so, it remains a mystery)
16:36
@Chris'ssis Ah, heck.
Did you get to my analysis?
i.e., the reason that it's a multiple of 56?
@BalarkaSen I think there might be a simple explanation.
@Chris'ssis I gave an explanation above.
How to solve? When 142 is added to a number, the result is 64 more than 3 times the number. Find the number.
@DanielFischer ah I can do \usepackage[a4paper]{geometry}
\geometry{ textheight=\paperheight, noheadfoot} but it's too radical (defaces the page)
@BalarkaSen You said "@Chris'ssis I don't know why it's 224 though. Explain?"
16:38
@Chris'ssis No, I mean I gave an explanation of why it's a multiple of 56 above.
Ah, OK. =D
Have you followed the same line of reasoning?
@BalarkaSen Not really.
@Chris'ssis oh ok.
I think it's a nice problem, and that the answer should be 448 instead of that.
Much more logical.
I am off \o
16:41
@GTR: You can set parameters like \textheight, \textwidth and do \voffset \hoffset if you want.
yeah! \usepackage[showframe]{geometry}
\usepackage{layout}
\setlength{\voffset}{-0.75in}
\setlength{\headsep}{5pt}
well, never mind, then :)
you're a Latex master @Ted
I've been using it for 25+ years and have typeset 4 textbooks, so I'd better know a little.
@Ted you'll scream if you see my horrendous writing
16:47
I shall?
I don't like your notation. When you're working with polynomials, having $x_i^n$ is very confuzling.
How do you deal with double-indexed sequences then ?
Like matrix entries, or at least put parentheses around the superscript?
You can write macros in TeX for this so typing won't be bad.
Hi everyone.
Hello @abhishek
16:53
Can you please help me solve this problem. When 142 is added to a number, the result is 64 more than 3 times the number. Find the number.
Do you know linear equations?
hi @Sawarnik
Hi @TedShilfrin
@Abhishekstudent Are you having problems formulating the equation?
@TedShifrin hi :)
16:54
Yes
hi @Abhishekstudent
Yes @Sawarnik
let the number be x ... then x+142=...
17:09
@DanielFischer how would you find the smallest period of a function, then how would you do that for a 2-input function $f(x,t)$?
The function takes on one of 256 values at discrete times
Is it necessary to know how to prove a function is integrable straight from the definition?
@TedShifrin Hi ted, pouvez vous m'aider à traduire cet énoncé en français ? : How many pairs of nilpotent, commuting matrices are there in Mn(Fq)?
SVP
@EnjoysMath The first question: is it periodic? In $x$, in $t$, in both?
17:25
I'm thinking I may need 2D FFT but not sure
Well obviously it takes on the period of the involved $\sin$ function, but I was thinking more generally when I started the problem and made that post
@G.T.R Tu es bon en anglais n'est ce pas ? :P
@EnjoysMath I don't think that function has any other period than the $2\pi/g$ period in $t$ from the sine.
17:51
@Nico oui. Ils demandent le nombre de couples de matrices $(A,B)\in M_n(F_q)$ tel que $AB=BA$, avec $A$ et $B$ nilpotentes
@G.T.R Merci beaucoup!
Is it proper to write numbers as improper fractions or should they be written as a mixed number?
@DanielFischer technically the answer is not disclosed
@G.T.R Yes, it's "Let me carry you until two inches before the finish line and give you a strong push, you need to fall the last inch on your own."
@nitrous2 Mixed numbers are generally frowned upon once you leave school. $\frac{23}{16}$ is a wonderful unambiguous fraction.
18:08
That is what I thought, I find it interesting that my H.S. calculus text writes answers as mixed numbers
@nitrous2 H.S. = High School? School is different. They use all opportunities to annoy mathematicians.
Could be Higher Secondary if you're in India
High school
too much effort is wasted trying to simplify expressions in High School. What is simpler is subjective, and rewriting a number 1000 times does not indicate any understanding. you might even make errors when "simplifying" and lose points.
I have to beat this out of my students
18:21
sorry to rant :)
I totally understand lol, it bugs me as a student that I will have to "unlearn" in post secondary
and it bugs me more that we are asked questions that completely rely on calculators
let alone that calculators are allowed and exams depend on them
yes that is a big problem too
the fact that you have to use a calculator to write the exam fast enough to complete it
incredible I have peers that rely on calculators for single digit times tables
I don't allow graphing calculators, but I may allow no calculators at all soon
its all incorporated in my curriculum, we are in many cases only required and tested on graphical solutions
and I feel its really left me unprepared for calculus
instead of spending all that time learning tricks on calculators that will be banned in post secondary anyways we could of learned lasting knowledge
18:26
bingo
the logarithm unit we did was a joke
in almost every case they only expected a graphical method
how does that teach logarithm rules
@nitrous2 logarithm unit?
im just venting on my high school curriculum
i don't know what that is.
@nitrous2 no, i mean what is a logarithm unit?
chapter in a course
precalculus
18:28
what does it concerns of?
oh, oh.
haha
the "unit" was bugging me
the fact that we are taught / tested on graphical solutions and marked on numerical response answers neglecting written work
logarithm rules follow from the exponent rules
@TomCruise exactly.
all in the name of saving time
and money
that's how I show them to Calc 1 students
18:30
@TomCruise I think it's most interesting when people ask "hey! how come $\int \frac{dx}x$ inverse of $\exp(x)$?"
Bob
Bob
@BalarkaSen....... how to prove $e^x=1+x+x^2/2+o(x^2)$
even trigonometry we were primarily using calculators
@Bob Have you learned Taylor series?
how does that help people learn the unit circle
Bob
Bob
ya
18:31
Then apply it.
Also, I don't think the error is correct.
it's O(x^3)
Calculators in trig is insane
Bob
Bob
but $o(x^2)$
??
@Bob no it's false.
Bob
Bob
its small o
it's not.
read up the definition of small o
18:33
@BalarkaSen $O(x^3) \subset o(x^2)$ as $x\to 0$.
@DanielFischer $x^3/x^2 \to 0$ as $x \to \infty$?
What do you mean?
@BalarkaSen "as $x\to 0$" I wrote. For $x\to \infty$, no Taylor polynomial of $\exp$ has an $O(x^n)$ error for any $n$.
@DanielFischer AFAICR In number theory, we usually define $f(x) = o(g(x))$ as $f(x)/g(x) \to 0$ as $x \to \infty.$
@DanielFischer Ah.
So you're tayloring at the neighborhood of 0.
@Bob It's true if and only if $x$ is around $0$.
Bob
Bob
but how will you prove this ??
@Bob prove that $x^k $ goes to 0 for $x \to 0$
18:37
Does anyone here have experience reviewing papers?
Bob
Bob
@BalarkaSen.... can you show me the proof
@Bob isn't it kinda obvious? have you read about limits?
When $0<x<1$ $x^k <x$ so use the Squeeze Theorem
@TomCruise STAHP
18:39
I mean, let him do it by himself.
And no need for Squeez theorem here.
Overkill.
Formalities.
right, just one way
@BalarkaSen Calling the squeeze thingy overkill is a new one.
Anywho
@DanielFischer At least overkill for this one.
OK, anyone have some fun number theory to do?
I know zero number theory
Bob
Bob
18:43
@BalarkaSen... after proving that
??
@Bob Yes?
@TomCruise You're a topologist.
yes I try to be
Bob
Bob
means after proving that what should i do to show the error part
@Bob is there anything left to do?
@BalarkaSen Let $$S = \sum_{\substack{p\in\mathbb{P}\\p+2\in\mathbb{P}}}\frac{1}{p}.$$ Is $S\in\mathbb{Q}$?
18:45
@DanielFischer That's Brun's constant. Whoa.
I think I can prove that,
Let me think.
Is that the sum of reciprocals of twin primes?
oh no
@TomCruise Of the smaller of the twin pair.
yes ok
I bet it uses the trick similar for the sum of reciprocal of primes one.
@BalarkaSen I think if you solve that, you'll become famous.
18:47
@DanielFischer Is that an unsolved problem?
So the sum of reciprocals of all primes is known to be irrational?
@TomCruise Grmph.
Diverges.
Does it even converge?
@BalarkaSen I think so. If there are infinitely many twin primes, it's unlikely that the sum would be rational, but it might happen. Proving $S\notin\mathbb{Q}$ would prove the twin prime conjecture.
@TomCruise No.
I am a very forgetful person.
18:49
oh, right @DanielFischer :)
Oh, right.
Sum of rationals is rationals.
What happened to me today?
Need a cup of coffee...
it happens, lol
Do we know that the series converges @DanielFischer ?
@TomCruise Yes.
Brun's theorem.
interesting
so twin primes are much less dense than primes in general
@TomCruise yes, they are.
They grow like $\sim x {\log(x)}^{-2}$
@Daniel Have you even seen the avatar of that guy? It's best not to argue with him =P
18:57
what avatar?
@TomCruise Click on the ping of Daniel.
I am lost :(
This, @TomCruise
19:01
@BalarkaSen I'm too old to be afraid of drawings of grinning puppets.
@DanielFischer Heh, it's not a grinning puppet. It's a trollface.
Heya @TedShifrin
lol
troll physics memes
are hilarious
Rehi @Balarka
it is raining :(((
now I feel sad
@nitrous2 One of the exercise for you would be to explain why trollface is trolling.
i.e., find the flaw in his proof of $\pi = 4$
19:10
usually my mood is inversely proportional to the clarity of the sky
@TomCruise my mood is squared-inversely proportionate to the probability of going school the next day,
@TedShifrin Rehi?
School is a Newtonian sun?
School isn't that bad
Rehi @Balarka Prof. @Ted
Heya @Studentmath
The answer was 224, right?
19:24
@Studentmath Yeah. You're still working on it?
sigh.
Nah, just came back and thought I'd give it another try.
I want to go out but it is raining
guess I will torture myself with this paper some more...
Blah, many different answers would make much more sense and fit many more patterns.
Back to probability, babai
19:53
@TomCruise I guess $\infty$ is not rational...
true ;)
@BalarkaSen That also proves $\sqrt2=2$
@robjohn Indeed.
It's just the upper Riemann sum.
But more to anything, the main reason is probably that infinite induction doesn't work.
For example $\{1\}$ has finite cardinality. Assume $\{1, 2, \cdots, k\}$ has finite cardinality. $\{1, 2, \cdots, k + 1\}$ has finite cardinality, hence $\Bbb N$ is finite.

« first day (1436 days earlier)      last day (3882 days later) »