@Hippalectryon I have this question regarding the exponential integral function En(x), where n=1,2,3,... what is the name "mathematical name" of "n"? is it the power of exponential integral or what ?
@Sawarnik If you want to know about all this stuff logically enough, you should have a peek at Ponomarev's quantum dice. It's a pop. science book, but goes through everything as logically as possible.
To prove that something is surjective we need to show that every element in your co-domain gets hit so one way to show this is to show that you have a right inverse the reason or the intuition to as why this is true is as follows when you do $f(f^{-1}(y)) = y$ what your doing essentially is going...
Given any n (even one with 2014 trailing zeros) there has to be values b and k so that $F_b\equiv F_{b+k} \pmod{n}$ AND $F_{b+1}\equiv F_{b+k+1} \pmod{n}$ (which is equivalent to the claim the mod n residues have to eventually form a repeating cycle, and proven in other answers).
Once such b and...
@Hippalectryon Let a_1, a_2, ... a_n be positive integers. Prove that we can choose some of these numbers to obtain a sum divisible by n .... its too easy :D
@Sawarnik It's obvious indeed. Assume that no such sum exists, then you necessarily (pigeons !) have two sums S1,S2 s.t. S1 mod n = S2 mod n which is absurd
if you agree that smooth manifolds can be triangulated, this pleasant note by hatcher proves that all topological manifolds carry a unique smooth structure up to diffeomorphism
equivalent problem: write 1,2,...,n and then write n+1,...,2n below the first list. if we circle n+1 of the numbers, is it possible for no two circles to be paired one on top of the other?
Let $S=\{x \in \mathbb{R}^2 \mid |x| <1\}$. Using the maximum principle I have to show that the solution of the problem $$-\Delta u(x)=f(x), x \in S \\ u(x)=0, x \in \partial{S}$$ satisfies the estimation $$|u(x)| \leq \frac{1}{4}\max_{x \in \overline{S}} |f(x)|, x \in S$$
To use the maximum pr...
to prove that you need some Morse theory; but there's going to be a hard part somewhere in this proof, and that's it instead of the topological Schoenflies theorem
and Morse theory for surfaces is not particularly hard
@Chris'ssis I'm done with Knuth's problem ELEMENTARILY ! :D I love this new approach, I have been finally able to punch in together all the results from my failed attempts (I totally love it when it happens) :D
@Sawarnik For instance in a ketone, the reactivity comes from the difference in polarity between O and C. The fact that it's unsaturated then makes some reactions possible (like additions)
(the opinion of a self-educated - @BalarkaSen don't stone me for that :-))) - I like to have opinions based upon what I see (referring to the real facts))
@r9m No, I'm not. I wanted to create an account these days but it seemed something went wrong, I tried 2 or 3 times because I wanted to read something (not to be active there). Then I gave up. The page I read now I simply can read.
@r9m The approximation for the central binomial coefficient $\binom{2n}{n}\sim\frac{4^n}{\sqrt{\pi n}}$ can be extended to $\binom{2n}{k}\sim\frac{4^n}{\sqrt{\pi n}}e^{-(n-k)^2/n}$
that's what I don't like about Dummit-Foote : he jumbles up all the hard and easy exercises at the back of each section and you don't even know which one you should do and which one you shouldn't.
@Chris'ssis :P I ain't listening to intuitions reg. that matter .. I'd only believe mathematics and solid evidence backed up by practical experiments :)
@r9m To give you an example, people often ask who created God, but they miss to ask themselves who created the essence of their existence. It's more or less the same question posed differently (I'd say equally as difficulty). It seems that both the essence of our existence and the essence of the existence of God are as mysterious.
@anon Use "Who created X, Y, Z ...?" many times, starting from you, say, and see where you get (on the evolutionary pathway). After a while you approach the big bang story and all the stuff I read now on quora.
I guys there says "According to modern physics, even nothingness, or absolute vacuum has energy. That means, even nothing has something. So we cannot even say that there was nothing before the big bang! It was the origin of everything, including nothing..."
no one knows why we're made out of carbons, not sillicons (which is very similar to carbon as it sits right below carbon in the periodic table, and is easier to find once you fuse a few hydrogens in a heavy hydrogen-made star, since it's more stable), but that really doesn't imply existence of god.
of course, setting "god is the answer to everything" as an hypothesis always makes out a consistent theory, but the whole point of modern science is not to assume that :P
if by creation we mean transition from one state to another, sure (although "creation" is convenient word choice for teleologists), we can keep going back. cosmologists would have us go to the big bang (I await a unified theory in physics to feel assured in it though). according to physics, all of reality has been operating within a spacetime that is described by physical laws, but we have no other observed instances of universes themselves being created from which to empirically induct from.
@Jeff true, there's no such thing as hydrosillicons (citation-needed), but that carbon were even made at that time is a big surprise, as you have to fuse a few beryllium inside a very heavy star to make it in the first place, and throw them out via a very big explosion next second since it's very unstable.
@Ted: I figured out the fundamental difficulty I was having with that hypersurface question. I'm going to write it up. I have no idea what McDuff's question is about now.
@Jeff geometric intuition : think about the graph of the curve $y = f(x)$. the length of the curve between $f(x + \Delta x)$ and $f(x)$ is, by Pythagoras, $\sqrt{(\Delta x)^2 + (\Delta y)^2}= \sqrt{1 + \left (\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta x} \right )^2} \Delta x$. now sum over them for $x \in [a, b]$.
@Chris'ssis I wouldn't be surprised if there are affairs that exist outside of the physical universe e.g. the universe could be a simulation or project of some higher beings in their own universe - the number of hypotheses of similar value in explaining our universe is very infinite and larger than the mythologies and imaginations of humans. Although I would be surprised to learn of such affairs, as that would necessitate some kind of mechanism by which I could learn of it.
Another explanation of the anthropic principle is that every possible universe exists (which is a bit broader than the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics). You seem to be using the term God to describe poetry (vaguely like Einstein or Spinoza, say), but this strikes me as naive since it condones everything else associated with the word, such as the mythological character of Yahweh and organized religion at large.
@anon Surely, I didn't go into details as I'm sure many believers would do since it might take too much talk on the subject. Eventually, the existence of God cannot be (dis)proved scientifically I might dare to say.
I think it's independent of any set of axioms which doesn't include "god" or "supernatural" and "if you don't believe in god, i'll hit you", so there's no point in bothering about it.
"God" usually refers to a certain character in stories that we have. Other such characters that were believed to have existed are Zeus or, say, Namagiri (Ramanujan's goddess, who he attributed some of his creativity and 'divine revelation' to). I would never insinuate that we must take the idea that Zeus exists seriously, for instance, and I take a similar approach to Yahweh (I find it more natural to call him by his name rather than the generic title "god" that he holds).