« first day (1976 days earlier)      last day (3341 days later) » 
00:00 - 15:0015:00 - 00:00

15:01
@Khallil: When you pass to the boundary, you increase codimension by 1. Think the unit ball.
@Huy: Thank
When you pass to the boundary, @MikeMiller?
@Khallil: Look at the last message again.
Ah I'm still puzzled. So looking at the unit ball in $\Bbb{R}^3$, a $2$-sphere, any good subset will be 2 dimensional with a boundary that's a surface, @MikeMiller.
15:18
Yup, that's roughly what I meant by good subset. (I really want the boundary surface to be smooth, too; so not, like, the unit cube.)
G'night @MikeM, hi @Khallil ... Happy new year
2016 is the smallest magic constant for an 8x8 magic square made of consecutive primes
Hi @Ted.
the only prime factor of $2016^17+1$ is 2017 and a large prime
Hey, @Ted!
15:26
@GBeau: Similarly with 21. The only factor is 3 and a large prime.
@MikeMiller hey, I visited UCLA the other day
I noticed the humanities building had a quote from a physicist on it
Enjoy the visit?
I haven't noticed that.
it was across from the physics building
I suspected it used to be a physics building
I did enjoy it; I'm applying to graduate school there (for physics)
so I wanted to see the campus while I was visiting my grandparents in LA
it was nice
Probably didn't used to be a physics building, unless somebody told you so.
Good luck!
I couldn't guess why they would have a quote from Michael Faraday on the building otherwise
15:29
I may be really wrong, but is the reason for treating $n$-dimensional spaces as $n-1$-dimensional manifolds because topology "ignores bending", @MikeMiller? So in that respect, circles are treated like lines because you can bend a line into a circle.
@MikeMiller thanks
Good luck, @GBeau!
right now I'm combing OEIS for interesting things about 2016
so far it's rather boring
@Khallil: The error is in your first sentence. When am I treating n-dimensional spaces as (n-1)-dimensional ones?
@GBeau: 'cuz.
In practice, @GBeau, I see a very small portion of the campus. You probably wouldn't see a much different portion than I do.
The $2$-sphere in a $3$-dimensional subset of $\mathbb{R}^3$ but a $2$-dimensional manifold, @MikeMiller?
15:34
@Khallil: I don't see why you would call the 2-sphere a 3-dimensional set.
@MikeMiller I thought the graduate housing was really nice, though
oeis.org/A125491 starts with 2016
Just because of the ambient space? But the dimension of your manifold shouldn't depend on the dimension of the ambient space. Dimension means "How many independent directions can I move in?"
A circle has 1. A sphere has 2.
For the sphere, it's radially outwards and parallel to the surface of the sphere, right @MikeMiller?
@GBeau: Yeah, I lived there last year. Moved out to save money. Newer place is bigger, cheaper, but has a longer commute.
@Khallil: No. Moving radially outwards isn't a way to move on the sphere.
You should look up dimension on MSE; I am sure there have been great answers about this.
Oh, when you say sphere, you mean the surface of a ball, @MikeMiller?
Yep, I'll look it up now :-)
15:37
Yes.
Huy
Huy
that is a sphere
I don't know what else a sphere is than that
I mixed up sphere and ball facepalm
Huy
Huy
@MikeMiller: I'm cleaning up my mess of a collection of PDFs. what area of maths would you say the primer on MCGs belongs to?
Geometric topology.
15:48
@MikeMiller can you give me an example of an orientable manifold of dimension $n\geq 2$ which cannot be embedded in $\mathbb R^{2n-1}$ ?
@Anubhav.K: I have the vague recollection that every oriented n-fold embeds in (2n-1)-space. I'm trying to find a reference.
@Hakim what did you post??
$$\sum_{n=0}^{2016} \frac{2016!}{n!}$$ is prime according to OEIS
@Anubhav.K was just testing out some $\LaTeX$
@MikeMiller please send me if you find it...
15:57
Please don't flag things that aren't offensive. Bear in mind that not everyone has ChatJax on, and can't see what messages are beyond the LaTeX commands.
@Anubhav: See "sharper results" on the Wikipedia page for Whitney embedding.
hello, happy new year 2016
@Vrouvrou happy new year !
thank you
16:03
@MikeMiller that's seems very nice to me
and is there any more result, when $n=2^r$ ??
i have a question on topology: $f,g:E\rightarrow F$ two continuous function and F is hausdorff, in order to prove that this set $\{x\in E, f(x)=g(x)\}$ is closed one use that $\Delta=\{(x,x), x\in X\}$ is closed, how we get the idea to use $\Delta$ ? thank you
Huy
Huy
you can also just consider $h = f-g$
@Anubhav: My impression from the page is that this is now known for all dimensions.
@MikeMiller should I ask this qes on overflow for better reference?
It's just that when you're not a power of 2, every n-fold embeds in (2n-1)-space, and there are non-orientable counterexamples.
Huy
Huy
16:08
the idea of using $\Delta$ is considering $v(x) = (f(x), g(x))$. then the set where the two functions are equal is precisely the preimage of $\Delta$ under $v$
I dunno.
Huy
Huy
the first approach is easier though, imo
@Huy if i let h=f-g then the set $\{x\in E, h(x)=0\}=\{0\}$ ?
Huy
Huy
@Vrouvrou no
but you are right that $\{x \in E, f(x)=g(x)\} = \{x \in E, h(x) = 0\}$
@Huy yes it is not \{0\}
it is h^{-1}(\{0\})
Huy
Huy
16:11
yes
and is that set closed?
and \{0\} is closed in F
Huy
Huy
yes, why?
beaue F is Hausdorff
Huy
Huy
exactly
and finit sets are closed in this space
as h is continuous the invers image of closed set is closed
16:14
16
Q: Is it possible to draw this picture without lifting the pen?

zdimensionSome days ago, our math teacher said that he would give a good grade to the first one that will manage to draw this: To draw this without lifting the pen and without tracing the same line more than once. It's a bit like the "nine dots" puzzle but here I didn't find any working solution. So I h...

I feel like the accepted answer is unnecessarily complicated.
Is this a good or a bad thing?
i do it now
Huy
Huy
why is it complicated?
It can be done in fewer moves and without having to change direction in the middle of a line.
Huy
Huy
then post a better answer
Well, I wasn't sure if there's a point. Perhaps the more complicated answer is fine. :)
Huy
Huy
16:20
@WilliamMariager: the question is "is it possible?" and clearly the accepted answer answers it.
@Huy True. :)
@WilliamMariager very easy
$$\style{ display: inline-block; background: url(//i.sstatic.net/atLTv.jpg) no-repeat center;}{\phantom{\Rule{50px}{50px}{0px}}}$$
Happy New Year!!! @all
@Huy thank you
@Vrouvrou Indeed. :) Which is why I thought the accepted answer was over complicating a simple problem.
Huy
Huy
16:24
np
@huy can we prove it using the complement ?
Huy
Huy
@Vrouvrou: Actually, rereading your question I think the approach with $\Delta$ should be used. A topological space is just a set with a topology. No notion of addition or $0$.
@Huy so we can't consider h=f-g ?
?
@Huy we can use h=f-g only if F=R ?
16:39
@Vrouvrou No, there is no notion of addition in an arbitrary topological space. Just consider the function $(f,g):E\to F\times F$. You know that $\Delta\subset F\times F$ is closed by Hausdorfness of $F$, so....
and if F=(\R,|.|) we can do the addition or not ?
16:53
@iwriteonbananas?
Hi @iwriteonbananas
@Vrouvrou Sure.
@MikeMiller Hey Mike
17:26
Happy day.
17:39
Hey @BalarkaSen
Hello.
17:51
Mystical greetings, strange traveler.
18:05
$$\hskip 6em {\require{cancel}\require{cancelto} _\text{psst! over here!}\cancelto{\hspace{1pt}}{\hspace{20pt}}}\style{ display: inline-block; background: url(//i.sstatic.net/NsEYz.jpg) no-repeat center;}{\phantom{\Rule{56px}{85px}{0px}}}\longleftarrow\text{psst! guess what this is!}$$
18:35
@MikeMiller Greetings. @Hakim Hi.
18:55
@BenjaminR trying to get the editor also working offline
If you have time, to check if it works for you (only chrome supports this)
it should be able to also cache gists you have once downloaded in mathedit
@Hakim Rudin's Principles of Mathematical Analysis
19:18
weee
19:39
Guy's would it be ok if you could help me out understanding something? I've already asked this question but I really don't want to spam the Questions page.
19:57
this simple question is confusing me ... Is this formula $\log((r/\log(r))^{r/\log(r)}$ in $\Theta(r)$?
@Khallil Correct ^^ btw was just testing out my $\rm\LaTeX$ skills
20:16
@Kasper you're a champ, I'm just your cheerleader :D
ok lemme try on my PC with chrome
It was a good chance for me to practice my "Search image on Google" skills, @Hakim. :-b
@Kasper yup offline caching working for me, Chrome 47.0.256.106m, Windows 8.1
20:50
Quiet day.
@Khallil hahaha cheater
Indeed, @MikeMiller.
Hahaha, it's a great tool to make use of, @Hakim. ^_^
@Khallil yup, although I never had an occasion to exploit it
I always use it for people's avatars. When there's a person and the photo looks generic enough, I always search it up!
Huy
Huy
like mine
21:10
@BenjaminR thanks :D
In the meantime I developed a new class of integrals with interesting properties.
Isn't it you in your picture, @Huy?
Huy
Huy
@Khallil: yeah, but all asians look alike
Also, is there a well known shorthand for the Cauchy-Riemann equations?
Huy
Huy
CR equations
or just CR even, in context pretty obvious
21:14
That's pretty bad! They don't all look alike.
So sorry I cannot share stuff anymore ... :-( (almost hurting)
Pretty difficult to talk about mathematics without using mathematics.
@Khallil i wouldnt ask such (even intentionally) naive dumb question
I will take that on board, @Agawa001. ^_^
not all asians look similar but all toddlers look cute indeed
@Huy I think there are things called CR manifolds. I wonder if it means the same thing.
Huy
Huy
21:23
according to wiki Cauchy-Riemann or Complex-Real
Now I know what all these talks I see on the schedule are apparently about.
I have a question on topology: how to prove that $P: E\times F\rightarrow E; P((x,y))=x$ is open
such that the first question is: $f:E\rightarrow F$ is open iff $\forall x\in E, \forall V\in \mathcal{V}_x. f(x)\in \mathcal{V}_{f(x)}$
someone have an idea please?
$f:E\rightarrow F$ is open iff $\forall x\in E, \forall V\in \mathcal{V}_x. f(V)\in \mathcal{V}_{f(x)}$
@Kasper np
@Vrouvrou In short, $f : X \to Y$ is called open if $f(U)$ is open in $Y$ when $U$ is open in $X$ (i.e., $f$ takes open sets to open sets).
This said, what are the open sets of $E \times F$?
no
Just $E,F$ two topological spaces
@BalarkaSen
21:34
Yes, but $E \times F$ has a standard topology on it. What is that topology? What are the open sets in that topology?
Then don't say what are the open sets in E
I asked what the open sets in $E \times F$ are.
the open sets in E \times the open sets on F but i don't know it
No, the open sets in $E \times F$ are not quite $U_E \times U_F$ where $U_E, E_F$ are open sets in $E, F$ respectively. I mean, that's not enough for a topology. The open sets in $E \times F$ in the product topology is generated by the sets of the form $U_E \times U_F$.
ok thank you
but we have not the open sets on E and F
21:42
I'm glad I see myself breaking up the holiday cheer on the right.
V\in \mathcal{V}_{x,y) then V=V_1\times V_2, V_1\in \mathcal{V}_x, and V_2\in \mathcal{V}_y is P(V)=P(V_1\times V_2)=P(V_1) ?
@BalarkaSen
Good, but again, it is not true that a neighborhood of $(x, y)$ in $E \times F$ is always going to be of the form $V_1 \times V_2$ where $V_1$ is an nbhd of $x$, $V_2$ is an nbhd of $y$. But you're close. What if $V$ is union of things of the form $V_1 \times V_2$?
right
so we must work with primary open sets
Yes. If a function sends primary open sets to open sets, then it sends all open sets to open sets. Why?
because it generated all other open sets
21:51
Be explicit. An open set can be written as union $\bigcup U_i$ where $U_i$ are primary open sets. Thus, if $f : X \to Y$ sends each primary open set to open sets, then $f(\bigcup U_i) = \bigcup f(U_i)$ is also open as each $f(U_i)$ is open and union of open sets is open.
Hence, $f$ is open.
Thus, as you proved $P : E \times F \to E$ sends primary open sets to open sets, $P$ is open.
@morphic How's life?
@BalarkaSen It's ok, you?
About right. Thought anymore about self-studying?
@BalarkaSen why f(U_i) are open please ?
Hey girls.
I don't think I'll have time to since I have to work 2 full-time jobs to survive
21:55
@Vrouvrou $U_i$ are primary open sets in $X$. $f$ sends primary open sets to open sets. Thus, $f(U_i)$ is open.
@morphic I am certain you'll be able to spare some time for yourself, don't worry.
Belated merry christmas and a happy new year, by the way.
3
from where we see that f sends primary open sets to premary open sets
You don't have to remove that.
Hello back!
@Vrouvrou $f$ need not send primary open sets to primary open sets. It just sends primary open sets to open sets. Anyway, we assumed $f$ does. In our case, $P : E \times F \to E$ indeed sends primary open sets to open sets, as $P(V_1 \times V_2) = V_1$, as you noted.
Were you addressing me?
With the NY stuff.
You too Balarka
22:11
Anyone else here hungry?
I ran out of noodles earlier.
And I've got nothing but tea left.
I am not.
ah. What did you have today?
So far, at least.
I am, but I have better things to eat... my old friend -- crackers.
I love crackers.
I can't find them much here in NL though.
I can find tea biscuits. But they're sweetish.
@Owatch Toast.
I am not a hungry person.
22:15
Been out of bread since Wednesday.
Chug water.
-_-
can anyone help out with this semigroup question math.stackexchange.com/questions/1582257/…
@Owatch: your goal is to be less hungry, yes? That will temporarily fill your stomach.
Merry whatever @AndrewT.
Merry everything!
22:20
That won't actually work. But thanks for the suggestion.
@AndrewThompson Tell that to the weather.
tell that to HAARP
22:44
@AlexWertheim I liked the previous gravatar better.
JASPER, where are ya?
It looks like the famous Jasper deleted his account again, just one more time.
Huy
Huy
hopefully he did, and started studying
@Huy I think he can have both an account and study math at the same time. Almost sure he gets another one soon.
:-)
23:54
Could someone of you take a look at my question:
0
Q: Unit normal of the surface $S$

Mary StarWe have that $$\sigma (u,v)=\gamma (u)+v\delta (u)$$ and $$K=\frac{-(\dot\delta \cdot \textbf{N})^2}{EG-F^2}$$ I want to show that if $\gamma$ is a curve on a surface $S$ and $\delta$ is the unit normal of $S$, then $K = 0$ if and only if $\gamma$ is a line of curvature of $S$. $$$$ Doesn't t...

?
I think "$\delta$ is the the unit normal of $S$" means $\delta(u) = \mathbf{N}(u) := \mathbf{N}$.
00:00 - 15:0015:00 - 00:00

« first day (1976 days earlier)      last day (3341 days later) »