« first day (1750 days earlier)      last day (3568 days later) » 

Huy
Huy
18:08
@MaryStar: Its closure.
Hi @barznjy
I guess someone should point out that Armstrong is probably something he'd want.
@Sawarnik That's a consequence of Pauli's exlucison principle.
@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 ?
@barznjy I have no idea. Are you sure it has one ?
I'd just say 'of indice n'
18:22
@Hippalectryon I am not sure, but someone asked me, I just told him it is the order of exponential integral
I have searched in mathematical handbooks, I didn't find any name of it
Maybe there's no name for it
@Hippalectryon Thanks
@Ted: I posted that question about Liouville vector fields here.
18:46
@hipp me back too. you here? :D
@Sawarnik yep
:D
do you learn things like pauli exclusion in your two year course?
yeah
Well, yes and no
We learn the principle, but I wouldn't be able to give you a clear mathematical proof of why it holds
Basically two electrons can't have the same state
18:49
i do plan to learn some chem during this summer vacations .. i studied some very basic organic chem right now :)
Is there a mathematical proof, though?
Probably there is.
@BalarkaSen Must be.
@BalarkaSen there is
@Sawarnik organic chem is fun, it's like buiding games
Cool. Don't know any of the new quantum theories except basic stuff about wavefunctions.
I don't like organic chemistry, partially because I don't understand it.
@Hippalectryon Yup .. that was only time I had fun learning chem till now :D
I was shocked to know by the way, that Balarka was interested in advanced physics and chem.
Nobody seems to like humanities here :(
18:53
@Sawarnik They're boring to me
I am not, to clarify.
I just happen to know some of those stuff, and found them logical enough
that is a good way to see it I think
Quantum mechanics is cool @BalarkaSen
if you know some math you can easily understand it
especially linear algebra functional analysis some differential equations
you don't need heavy math
especially linear algebra functional analysis some differential equations
yeah, and I don't know functional analysis.
But I plan to read some of those stuff some day.
New quantum theory sounds really cool.
@BalarkaSen what do you think of my answer here
@KarimMansour That depends
18:57
on what?
I am currently learning QM from gritftah or dunno its exact name
its pretty cool
how come can't I copy paste stuff here
@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.
@KarimMansour 'Not heavy maths'
@Hippalectryon That's so odd. I find them interesting.
That gave me a lot of motivation for really caring about chemistry.
@BalarkaSen At this point it's barely chem anymore. More like physics
19:00
yeah.
@BalarkaSen You happen to know, means you interested enough to learn that stuff.
Kind of, but I am not going to try learning it right now.
you know
You just need to study the first few chapters.
there is a book called griftah
its pretty good
also @BalarkaSen what do you think of my following answer?
3
A: proving a function as surjective

Karim MansourTo 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...

19:01
@BalarkaSen Will see.
thats an easy way to see it right?
@hipp I need you to pigeonhole something!
@Sawarnik xD what is it ?
Yes, surjectivity is the same as having a right-inverse, @Karim.
@Hippalectryon Using pigeons, show that there is a fibonacci number ending with 2007 zeroes.
:/
19:03
yeah
but I was giving the intuition to why its true
yeah, it's alright.
ideas? @hipp
@Huy Ok... Thanks!! :-)
eh, @Ramanewbie don't disturd hipp's though process right now.
@Sawarnik What are you supposed to know about fibo numbers ?
19:07
@sawarnik I just arrived, I didn't even spoke to him yet... ^^
What's that story with the pigeonhole ??
@Hippalectryon ?
@Sawarnik have you seen any special property except the definition ?
@Hippalectryon Yes, but they don't seem related to this. But lets try.
Hello :)
7
A: Fibonacci number that ends with 2014 zeros?

Random ExcessGiven 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...

19:11
Hi @evinda
@Ramanewbie How are you? :)
@evinda Fine and you
@Hippalectryon You cheated! :D
@Ramanewbie Ok
@Ramanewbie Do you have exams now?
@evinda No, this year is the only year I don't...
19:14
@Ramanewbie Aha! How so?
@Sawarnik Since it had 2007 in it, it had to be well known
@Hippalectryon heh .. do you want more pigeonholes? :D
@everyone Complete the sequence : 2,3,8200, ... ? (no interpolation polynomial allowed >:c )
@Sawarnik Sure
Give some more terms.
@Sawarnik Nope :-) only those
19:16
@evinda No idea... Go and ask French education ministery !
@hippa Because you don't have more or you don't want to give them ?
@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
@Ramanewbie Who knows xD
@hippa You obviously. You told me you didn't know the answer. But do you have more numbers ?
It would be easier to find @hippa
@Ramanewbie I "half know" the answer
Stop bugging hippa, or i will kill you @ramanewbie !
19:18
@Sawarnik nvm
@Sawarnik What do you need him for ?
@Sawarnik 50$ and I don't bug @Hippa Hahaha
@Sawarnik Thanks a lot. Now I will stop bugging hippa...
@Ramanewbie Though as I am very generous, I can also give you this:
@Sawarnik Tsss... Isn't that worth like 100 USD ?
@sawa Or even less^^
19:24
@Ramanewbie Probably less.
It's worth $0
Zimabwe switched to US dollars iirc
@Hippalectryon Not really.
They don't have an official currency, afaik. Though, I could be wrong :D
@Ramanewbie A ok.. :p
@Sawarnik Anyway, it's equivalent to proving that for $n$ numbers in $[1,n]$ we can find some which add up to $0$ (mod $n$)
19:29
Sure.
Though you could it even easily.
@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
Aha. How?
Alright.
I tried to apply this on yesterday's weight question, but the idea fell through due to seemingly minor holes :( :((
That 1 is so useless q_q
@Hippalectryon y?
Because if any element were 1 then of course two are divsible by it
19:37
arithmetic modulo n + 1.
@Hippalectryon I did not understand :/ .. its obvious of course .. but what you said??
@Sawarnik Post the whole thing again
Let S be a subset of {1, 2, 3, . . . , 2n} with n + 1 elements. Show that there are two elements in S, one divisible by the other.
How can two elements be divisible by each other if not equal in a finite space ?
who said anything about both being divisible by the other?
19:40
$2 \mid 4$, $2 \neq 4$
Oh I read 'by each other' instead of 'by the other'
oh, I see.
hello, @anon
hi
thinking about anything interesting?
19:41
failing to think about many interesting things
covering spaces, orientability, classification of compact connected surfaces without boundary
oh, nice.
now, those are the kind of stuffs i like to think about :)
@anon: once you have that, it's not difficult to classify all compact surfaces
@Sawarnik seems obvious by strong induction
might be a fun exercise, if your taste is as mine
speaking of which, i just remembered that i'd like to know a proof of the fact that every compact surface can be triangulated.
19:44
should be able to find it in plenty of topology books
it's not in Hatcher, last time i looked.
lee's topological manifolds, kinsey's topology of surfaces
not even in Munkres : he just says that it can be done.
okay.
@Hippalectryon hmm. you can also write $k=2^m\cdot q$, where q is an odd number and then pigeonhole :D
probably
19:45
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?
no, i don't think i agree that smooth manifolds can be triangulated :P
that's a shame
well, Theorem B is obviously false
/joke
@hipp Is it possible to have a tetrabond, just like there is single, double and triple bonds?
19:48
@Sawarnik Yep. CN for instance
C-(triple bond)-N
Could you take a look at my question:
0
Q: Maximum principle-estimation

Mary StarLet $S=\{x \in \mathbb{R}^2 \mid |x| <1\}$. 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...

?
@Hippalectryon It has a triple bond!
I meant a 4-ple bond.
Oh sorry
Like possibly, C - (4-ple bond) - C ... something like this?
Quad bonds are possible
But rare
One common example would be Re2Cl8
Quad Re-Re bond
19:51
@Hippalectryon Why so rare?
Very reactive?
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
@Sawarnik Because that requires a lot of orbitals to interact. It's not very reactive though (bonds stabilize structures)
oh, I don't know any Morse theory
which is why I said that
@Hippalectryon I heard that single bonds are most stable, and they go on decreasing then :/ :/
19:53
his "Proof of Fact 2" is where all the Morse theory sits
@Sawarnik Double bonds are (usually) stronger that simple bonds
That's confusing .. my book says unsaturated carbon compunds are more reactive than saturated compounds.
r9m
r9m
@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 Not because of the double bond specifically
19:57
@r9m Awesome! I hope you also corrected the problem! (some things there were wrong) :-)
@Hippalectryon then?
r9m
r9m
@Chris'ssis no log^2 ... answer only involves log :)
@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)
heh .. i don't know what polarity is.
:D
I'm feeling sleepy anyways.
@r9m Indeed. :-)
r9m
r9m
19:58
@robjohn Awesome!!! :D
@Sawarnik Basically the more polar you are, the more you attract electrons in bonds
@r9m go to sleep bachhu.
@Sawarnik Bad Oxygen likes to steal electrons from poor Mr. Carbon :c
r9m
r9m
@Sawarnik no way ... I'm serially killing all problems today :-)
Oxygen is smart then.
19:59
No, he's just strong :P
Definitely not the strongest though
@r9m By poisoning or shooting or chopping?
@Hippalectryon Why not she? :O
r9m
r9m
@Sawarnik all of them .. :P all's fair in love, war and problem solving :P
@Sawarnik No idea.
@r9m I didn't use any special function. :D
r9m
r9m
:21747043 no no whatever it takes to kill ... if necessary all three of them :)
@Chris'ssis which one?
20:03
@r9m To the Knuth's one. :-)
r9m
r9m
@Chris'ssis oho! neither did I ... just plain old series manipulations :D
r9m
r9m
@Chris'ssis I'll add my solutions in my blog tonight itself :-) I have a logic assignment to take care of after that :)
Hey @Ted
@MaryStar the closure of $\Omega$
20:05
@r9m I also used integrals, not only series manipulations. It's great it worked by series only. :-)
Goodnight @Balarka :)
r9m
r9m
@Chris'ssis Knuth's problem?
@r9m Yeap.
I'll be going to bed sooner today, @Ted. Felt totally messed up yesterday after waking up at 8:00 AM
r9m
r9m
@Chris'ssis :D okay ,, lets party now then ( = gimmie some more to crack at) :)
20:07
Not my fault, Balarka :D
Yes, it was Alex's fault.
@r9m lol, you seem you cracked a lot, let me crack some problems too :-))))))))
Good news : I am at spectral theorem right now. Gonna do that and classification of quadrics tomorrow.
r9m
r9m
@Chris'ssis no no ... I just finished my Alg NT question paper .. and after that did Knuth's problem :)
Sure ...
20:09
Afterwards, multivariable analysis from your book. Oh, I don't think I told you that I ordered your book from amazon finally :)
@r9m Not sure what you mean. Didn't you solve Knuth's problem?:-)
r9m
r9m
@Chris'ssis Just saying I was busy doing routine problems ... I didn't crack much :)
@r9m Ah :-)))
@r9m You're going to be a great mathematician one day! I'm sure of that. :-)
@r9m Thanks. Limiting the binomial distribution to the normal distribution seems pretty logical.
(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))
20:13
@BalarkaSen ?? what one ?
r9m
r9m
@Chris'ssis :-) That'd be a dream realm :)
Prof thinks it's wonderful, @Ted. But he says I really should start from chapter 5.
What d'you think?
@Hippa "multivariable mathematics"
@r9m I was reading this one (What happened before the Big Bang? What was its cause?)
No, you should start with 3.
r9m
r9m
@robjohn It never occurred to me! :) This is super compact and beautiful solution!! :D
@Chris'ssis :) lemme read it too :) .. btw are you on Quora?
20:15
@TedShifrin Right, I think I should do that too. Maybe a bit of chapter 2 too.
Yes, some of limit exercises in 2. Make sure you look particularly at harder ones ...
@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.
You have marked the harder ones down, not?
r9m
r9m
@Chris'ssis ? :o trouble with registering?
@r9m Yes.
20:17
Not all. I called attention to unusual ones.
oh, I see.
@r9m The approximation for the central binomial coefficient $\binom{2n}{n}\sim\frac{4^n}{\sqrt{\pi n}}$ can be extended to $\binom{2n}{k}\sim\frac{4^n}{\sqrt{\pi n}}e^{-(n-k)^2/n}$
influenced by Artin, I see :P
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.
r9m
r9m
@robjohn :) I think I used that somewhere before (can't recall where)
@r9m that's what I used with $n\mapsto n/2$
20:19
I thought DF went from easy to hard.
r9m
r9m
@robjohn okay :)
sometimes he does, but sometimes he doesn't.
the ones in the beginning are easy, and the ones in the end are hard, but the middle ones are jumbled up.
@r9m I also have many theories in physics about the origin of the universe, but they are not founded on formal education, but more intuitive.
@robjohn Ok.. Thanks... :-)
r9m
r9m
@robjohn btw can I add your solution to my blog (with your name reference of course)? :-)
20:21
Well, grading the middle depends on the student.
Could you take a look at my question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/1291735/… ? @robjohn
r9m
r9m
@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 that all finally led to the idea of God.
@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.
r9m
r9m
@Chris'ssis too much complicated for my pea sized brain :)
@Chris'ssis I have been meaning to expand my vocabulary and understanding of the subject Philosophy (but I haven't found the time yet)
@r9m OK :-)
20:32
essence of existence does not mean anything to me
i have got only impatience for philosophers.
@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..."
The big bang isn't necessarily the beginning of everything though
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
20:40
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.
nevermind that comment. I see it was out of place.
@Jeff Not totally. Sillicon chem is not exactly like carbon chem
Oh.
@anon In any case I've already chosen the God's way, but I also like to think of the whole story from other views.
More important question, is anyone familiar with the derivation of the arc length formula in Calculus 2?
20:42
@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.
The equation is $L=\int_a^b \sqrt{1+f'(x)^2}dx$.
i'm curious why in the derivation they use $\left| \Delta y \right|$ when a simple delta y would have sufficed?
Ell
Ell
Hi folks
@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 $x \in [a, b]$.
Ell
Ell
I'm having a crisis wrt integrating $\frac{1}{2x}$ :P
20:46
@BalarkaSen Right. I get that. But why are they using the absolute value of delta y? Why not simply use delta y?
@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.
@Jeff who is "they"?
@Jeff where do they do that?
@anon Briggs, Cochran, Gillett (the author's of the Calc book I'm using).
@BalarkaSen Page 384 and 385 of the book in my last message
there shouldn't be any reason for an absolute value symbol
dunno why they would have it
me neither.
20:48
@anon that's my opinion. i'll leave it out of my lecture.
Potentially just to emphasize the fact that you're thinking, geometrically, about lengths?
i guess they want to rule out the cases where $\Delta y = f(x + \Delta x) - f(x)$ is negative (which is possible when $f$ is decreasing, say).
as in, lengths are always positive.
but it doesn't matter really, squaring stuff cancels out signs.
@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.
Maybe so, but neither can it be proved philosophically, @Chris'ssis :P
@BalarkaSen ;)
20:54
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).
yahwen sounds like a big yawn.

« first day (1750 days earlier)      last day (3568 days later) »