« first day (2028 days earlier)      last day (3290 days later) » 
01:00 - 22:0022:00 - 00:00

01:32
@Paradox101 The Sylow theorems already show the order of such a group is either $pq$ or $p^3$ when $p$ and $q$ are primes. The pq case is easy, so the only case left is when $|G|=p^3$.
GGG
GGG
01:45
You know how if $p,q,r$ are distinct primes then we use unique factorisation to say $$\gcd(p^3q^2r,p^2r^2) = p^{\min(3,2)}q^{\min(2,0)}r^{\min(1,2)}=p^2r.$$

How do I do the same for $\gcd(pqr, pq+pr+qr)$?
02:00
@ggg: You can't approach this quite the same way, because of the sum. It may help to notice that $pq+pr+pq=pqr(1/p+1/q+1/r)$.
(or maybe not, I'm not sure how I'd finish the calculation)
GGG
GGG
Yeah the fact that it's a sum is preventing me from applying unique factorisation straight away.
To be sure, I know how to solve the problem (by considering different cases which are identical by symmetry anyway). I thought it would safe me some time in the test if I learn how to do it by unique factorisation.
@JeSuis it doesn't help with proving existence, but what i find myself wondering about is how one characterizes the boundary of that domain. for instance, for $x=0$ one seems to have (proceeding numerically by trial-and-error) $(x,y)\in\Omega$ if $|y|<a$ where $a\in (0.8157255,0.8157256)$.
02:20
hi @Semiclassic
hiya
what're you up to on a sunday night?
Just back from a violin recital
ahh, neat
How're you?
02:21
aw
putting grades into the gradebook at the moment
which is tedious
yes, especially when you make typos :)
@Semic: It was the Lojasiewicz inequality; I summarized why it's cool in the form of 5 exercises at Balarka earlier above. Somewhere.
Sorry to hear you're feeling meh.
ah, okay @mike
@MikeM loves derailing Balarka
I'm still waiting for Mike to turn in all the complex geometry homeworks :P
02:22
I got busy.
and yet I prefer the tedium of grading to the utter pit that is me failing to write :/
@Semiclassic:I empathize.
Teaching is what got me through grad school, seriously.
i'm almost grateful to have this HW to do instead
Well, don't get too depressed ... you can do it.
with the almost being because i've also got quiz-grading to do by Friday, and that's gonna be an arse
it's easy to grade quiz problems in two cases: when they did everything right and when they did everything wrong
this one is going to land smack dab between those :P
02:25
How many students?
Funny how taste is.
ehhhh, i've had worse
intro physics courses here have 200+ students
I was told that at UCSD some of the math major classes (like how to write proofs, analysis, etc.) have 150. Totally insane.
02:26
this is a mid-level quantum physics course, so it's a heck of a lot smaller
yeah.
@Ted: I think that's true at many big schools.
this was the fourth (and last) problem on a 50-minute school, and it was definitely the hardest one
though the first two should've been really easy
I've never heard of it for upper-level classes, but the terrain for education is changing, Mike, with no one wanting to pay for quality anything.
TAs are a commodity at a research university
I'm talking about having enough faculty to actually teach reasonably-sized classes ...
02:29
sure. I don't have that perspective, since my teaching is all 'in the trenches' as it were
The flip side is that there weren't enough students signing up for point-set topology at UGA this spring for it to run, so I'm teaching it (obviously without lectures and for free) for two students.
I started in trenches many moons ago, @Semiclassic.
i'll confess that point-set topology is one of those things which i just can't get excited about
but given how little proofs i do nowadays, that's perhaps not surprising
I'm in your company @SemiC
algebraic topology, by contrast, is neat (though without proper foundations i can't really call myself a practitioner in it)
It can be a fun class, if taught right. It teaches skills in looking for examples/counterexamples, which too many students don't learn elsewhere. .... But we're moving faster than I ever have in teaching an actual course, so we'll do a bunch of fundamental group/covering space stuff, too.
02:31
ahh
I still prefer differential topology to all of it, @Semiclassic.
i think the places where i was exposed to examples/counterexamples were discrete math, on the one hand, and an intro to dynamical systems course on the other
A good deal of the standard point-set course is stuff everyone really needs to know. And one needs to get over the $\Bbb R^n$-based intuition on everything. But I haven't taught it officially since the 90's, so obviously I thought other things might be more fun/important to teach.
I could have used one of those, in retrospect
easy to see what's importsnt and what's not in retrospect
02:35
I still wish people (who want to go to grad school) learned multivariable analysis and Guillemin&Pollack. Hardly anyone does.
there's a kierkegaard quote which applies here: "Life must be understood backwards, but can only be lived forwards."
or something like that
Sounds prophetic.
Maybe Trump will use it.
I got a "Counterexamples in Analysis" book a while back (though I didn't get very far in it), I think there's a series of "Counterexamples" books out there, which would be good for developing intuition with regards to examples/counterexamples.
Those books are good references, DogAteMy, but better to try to figure things out for yourself than to cheat.
02:38
Also, hi.
Also, hi. :)
Perhaps. I suppose one could think of it as a puzzle book, where one looks at the table of contents to see what sort of thing to construct.
As I recall, there were a few mistakes in those books that I stumbled upon. But I got rid of the books when I retired.
We teach it! ...even if nobody learns it, @Ted
BTW, DogAteMy, did you see my ping that you got the easiest example for that algebra question? Isn't it frustrating that there's not something more ... um ... concrete?
I meant for good undergrads, @MikeM, but ....
02:40
I did not see that ping, but, yeah, it was inelegant.
Well, it's the same thing I came up with, so kudos to us both :)
what was the question, out of curiosity?
Now you know why quotient rings triggered that question.
Abstract algebra, @Semiclassic. Don't fret. :P
But it would be nice if the grad students learned it too, huh?
02:41
DogAteMy, I still think it's instructive for you to prove that in any quotient of an integral domain the result holds.
I suppose so, @MikeM.
If, in a ring, the ideals generated by $a$ and $b$ are the same, must they be unit multiples of each other?
@Semiclassical
DogAteMy, next time I visit NY I look forward to meeting you.
Likewise.
You've been to NYC?
Oh, lots of times. I have good friends there I need to visit.
And Philly and DC and ...
02:44
Noice.
Wait, wasn't my counterexample a quotient of an integral domain?
oh, you might find this funny. one of the questions for my students' discussion tomorrow amounts to: Show that the Clifford algebra on two elements cannot be represented using scalars.
Oh oh, I better think again, DogAteMy.
Maybe I need principal ideal domain.
it's not stated that way, of course. all it asks them is to realize that there's no numbers $A,B$ such that $A^2=B^2=1$ and $AB=-BA$
That's what I think I said to you the first time.
02:47
Yup, I mean PID.
smacks self
what's funny to me is that the proper scenario actually has four such elements rather than two, and in that case you have to go to complex 4-by-4 matrices for a representation. and while the problem asks them to show that a certain 4-by-4 representation works for $A,B$, it doesn't actually point out that that's unnecessary in the 2-element case.
In your last post, $A$ and $B$ are matrices?
well, they'd better not be just numbers if they don't commute!
They could be quaternions?
depends on whether you'd count those as numbers. i doubt a typical undergrad science-engineering student would
02:51
Ordinal numbers don't commute either (but, then again, they're clearly not what you meant)
but i am b eing a bit sloppy, since i'm implicitly meaning 'reals' (or at most complex scalars) when i say 'numbers'
Well, shame on you.
pfff
it's funny, though. physics did have a flirtation with quarternions for a time, but that's pretty much gone now.
I don't usually call ordinals numbers. I feel like it's stretching the limits of what a number can be.
Hamilton is reeling in his grave.
02:53
i will say that i do like quaternions in this context for one reason
So why don't ordinals commute, DogAteMy?
$2\omega=\omega\ne\omega2$
Same deal with addition
@Semiclassical: We mathematicians still flirt with quaternions, so Hamilton's legacy is not entirely dead.
Huh? What is $\omega2$?
$\omega+\omega$?
02:54
No, that's $2\omega$.
$2\omega$ is $2+2+2+\dotsb=\omega$
They use the same example.
if you have elements $\{A_{1\leq i\leq n}\}$ such that $A_i A_j+A_j A_i = 2\delta_{ij}$, then for $n=2,3,4$ one has representations $M_2(\mathbb{R}),M_2(\mathbb{C}),M_2(\mathbb{H})$
On that note, I'm going to cook/eat dinner. Bubye, all.
which is a cute little progression
02:56
We'll have to misbehave without you, I guess @TedShifrin
What's $M_2$, @Semiclassical?
2-by-2 matrices with elements in that field
Ah
I think I've seen that written $\Bbb R_{2\times2}$ or something similar.
03:12
Ayo~
I have another set theory question that's probably pretty basic
I need to show there's no set containing all functions.
Any hiiiiiints.
Show that every set would have an injection into it, which is absurd.
My first instinct is to try to use that set to construct the set of all domains, aka the set of all sets, which is impossible.
@AkivaWeinberger That's what I wanted to do, but I don't know how to use functions to do that.
And @MikeMiller I'll think about that
gracias senors
@MikeMiller Oh yeah, I see why the statement is true, but I'm not sure why it's absurd.
I'd try the schema of replacement for my thing. (I don't see what Mike's getting at)
@Anthony: Consider its power set.
03:22
Okay, okay, okay.
Thanks @MikeMiller.
Oh, I misread your comment. @MikeMiller
hello friends
Hello?
Is anyone here?
can anyone offer any insight as to what category theory is good for
@enthdegree All of programming with types
03:35
am i justified in scoffing at it from the perspective of engineering
(pls dont cite John Baez)
Category theory has been linked to the Haskell programming language, which is considered a good use of functional programming and types to create stronger systems and more expressive type systems.
i do not think it is a stretch to say that the vast majority of engineers also consider haskell a joke
If you don't have a motivation to learn it, I'd advise you to postpone learning it. There's a rather famous book which I've heard wise praise about by Mac Lane and Eilenberg that might be a good place to start.
@enthdegree It doesn't matter.
What people think never matters in terms of actual utility.
Remember, Fourier was ridiculed for his transform
@VermillionAzure hmm...
03:38
Certainly Mac Lane and Eilenberg have written down proofs of things I care about (though I can't tell if theres any real category theory in these.
@PVAL Excuse me
Does there exist work that tries to characterize the one-directional attribute to time?
e.g. How can I express the one-directional motion of time in mathematics?
I don't know what that means.
@PVAL How can I describe time being one-directional in formal terms?
e.g. Now vs. 1 second ago--time always moves forward
This article is an overview of the subject. For a more technical discussion and for information related to current research, see Entropy (arrow of time). The Arrow of Time, or Time's Arrow, is a concept developed in 1927 by the British astronomer Arthur Eddington involving the "one-way direction" or "asymmetry" of time. This direction, according to Eddington, can be determined by studying the organization of atoms, molecules, and bodies, might be drawn upon a four-dimensional relativistic map of the world ("a solid block of paper"). Physical processes at the microscopic level are believed to be...
@enthdegree Right
But there doesn't seem to exist a generic mathematical model for time itself
03:43
skimming the wikipedia article it looks like its an open question that so far is partially resolved by just pulling it from the second law of thermodynamics
@enthdegree I guess so
This seems more like philosophy than mathematics.As far I as I know, most mathematical models of physical situations are not symmetric in time. Modeling something like time itself steps more into metaphysics than any physics I know.
i am no physicist, i can't attempt to answer
@PVAL Right, most models.
But there doesn't seem to exist a generic model for describing the arrow of time.
Here's my question:
0
Q: Is there any generic mathematical model for describing the arrow of time?

VermillionAzurehttp://www.math.harvard.edu/~mazur/preprints/time.pdf Barry Mazur gave a talk about time and distance and the way we have "discovered" time by the virtues of cyclic states and uniformity of observations of state. Is it possible for me to divorce the concept of time from measure theory to be a t...

I am not sure this is a question in measure theory. Maybe it would be better suited for the physics stackexchange
cap
cap
03:57
why does Lcm(a,b) divide any common multiple of a,b?
nevermind got it
 
1 hour later…
05:18
I have a few questions about the Pumping lemma and its use in proving languages aren't regular. Anyone around that could lend a hand?
 
6 hours later…
11:43
Hello!!
$\mathbb{Z}_p^\times$ is the group of units of $\mathbb{Z}_p$, right?
Is this a subset of $\mathbb{Z}_{p-1}$ ?
@MaryStar Yes, and no, it is not a subset in any meaningful way
12:31
I think it is mentioned in every course on Lie Groups that topological groups that are locally homeomorphic to $\mathbb R^n$ for some $n$ can also be given a $C^1$ structure. Does this hold only for finite dimensional groups or also for infinite dimensional groups?
(Also for infinte dimensional manifolds, there is not a unique (metric/norm) topology on $\mathbb R^{X}$ for an infinite set $X$. Is some canonical topology chosen or can any metrisable topology be considered for the definition of an infinite dimensional manifold?)
13:31
quantity, form, location
13:42
@MatsGranvik ?
1
Q: Finding the volume of a solid

All_RounderHow do I attempt the following question, to find the volume of the cylinders: $$ z=\log x , z=\log y $$ and planes - $$z=0 , x+y=2 e , (x>=1)? $$ Is there a way out apart from double integration ?

guys have a look at this question
seems interesting
13:56
Ah ok... Is $\mathbb{Z}_p^\times$ a cyclic group? @TobiasKildetoft
@MaryStar Yes, though that is not entirely trivial
14:08
@s.harp: 1) I would be astonished if this was still true in the infinite dimensional setting. At the very least the finite simensional proof doesn't go through.
2) If $X$ is a compact smooth manifold, the right topology on that is the Whitney $C^\infty$ topology (convergence is $C^k$ convergence for all $k$). I always forget what the "correct" topology is for noncompact things. In any case things get grosser when your domain is not compact.
If you really care about the noncompact case look through Peter Michor's answwrs on MO.
14:24
hello
@MikeMiller do you mean this question mathoverflow.net/questions/121306/… ?
No, he's written quite a lot about what the correct topology / smooth atructhre is. You're looking for anything where he talks about the noncompact case.
14:50
I guess this is what I was thinking of
It is possible define and compute $$\lim_{x\to 1}\frac{\zeta(x)}{li(x)-\Gamma(x)}?$$
Is a curiosity when I've tried to get the limit enjoy with a online tool.
Seems there's a zoo of usable topologies in the noncompact case and no correct one. In any case I dunno much about the noncompact case
@Clarinetist Hello
Any suggestion to read spherical harmonics ?
@MikeMiller Have you read representations of $O(n)$ and $U(n)$?
15:13
Is this guy aberdysh, playing around? math.stackexchange.com/a/1666871/2987
Does anybody happen to have a copy of Bass' Algebraic K-theory at hand?
Huy
Huy
15:28
@MikeMiller: "if eigenfunctions (of the Laplacian) are our aim, we first need to show compactness of the inverse". here, is compactness of the inverse likely meant to be that the image of any bounded set under $\Delta^{-1}$ is relatively compact? or rather $(\Delta - \lambda)^{-1}$ in this context?
Huy
Huy
so, the former?
Oh, you were asking about the two. I don't know.
 
1 hour later…
16:34
helllo
Each term in the sum goes to zero, but as $k$ increases the number of terms increases. JMoravitz' example is a simple one. — Ross Millikan Feb 18 at 19:20
-1
Q: A different answer for a limit question

sharaf zaman(Here is a picture of the problem) I have doubt in that question (where he has used $e^{1/k}$) My doubt is as $k \to \infty$, $1\over k$ should tend to zero therefore $e^{1/k } \to 1$, so ${e^{1/k}\over k^2}$ should tend to zero because denominator is very huge so all series will end to zero but ...

help me out with that
anyone online
@sharaf can you find out what is wrong with this example:

$$1=\sum_{n=1}^N 1/N = 1/N +... 1/N$$

so

$$1=\lim_{N\to \infty}(1/N+... +1/N) = (\lim_{N\to \infty}1/N+...+\lim_{N\to \infty}1/N)=(0+...+0)=0$$

This is essentially the mistake you have made
16:51
hi
Does anyone else besides me think that degenerate triangle is a misnomer
Everybody knows that triangles are degenerate cretins
17:10
@s.harp Hey, how can you make the limit tend to infinity $$1=\lim_{N\to \infty}(1/N+... +1/N) = (\lim_{N\to \infty}1/N+...+\lim_{N\to \infty}1/N)=(0+...+0)=0$$ even if number of terms are N not infinity
thats the point, you have a sum $\sum_n^N f_n(N)$, if you take the limit $\lim_{N\to \infty}\sum_n^N f_n(N)$ you cannot pull it into the sum: $\lim_{N\to \infty}\sum_n^N f_n(N) \neq \sum_n^\infty \lim_{N\to \infty}f_n(N)$
@s.harp is this valid for all cases that first we should add then to apply our limit
@s.harp
Yes
i mean is it like a rule or something
Its not a rule
17:22
@s.harp then common sense, which i m lacking
Consider $\lim_{x\to 0 } \sin(x)/x$, its also non-sense to say $\lim_{x\to 0} \sin(x)=0$ so this expression must be $\lim_{x\to 0}0/x=0$
the principle of why the step is wrong is the same in both cases
oh! great
i think instead of posting questions on website i should post my doubts here
18:17
Hi!!! Could I ask someone something about the Divergence theorem?
Hey @Huy
Do you maybe have some time?
Huy
Huy
@evinda: a bit, but I can't promise I can help
1
Q: Can we just set it?

EvindaSuppose that we have $G(\overline{x},\overline{y})=-\frac{1}{4 \pi} \frac{1}{||\overline{x}-\overline{y}||}$ for $\overline{x}, \overline{y} \in \mathbb{R}^3$. I want to calculate $\Delta{G(\overline{x}, \overline{y})}$. I have found that $\frac{\partial^2}{\partial{x_1^2}} \left( -\frac{1}{4 \...

Huy
Huy
I think you might be better off waiting for a response by robjohn, considering he already knows and understands what it's about.
How do we this: $$
\int_{B(0,r)}\Delta G(x,0)\,\mathrm{d}x=\int_{\partial B(0,r)}n\cdot\nabla G(x,0)\,\mathrm{d}\sigma$$ ?
@Huy Ok, I will wait...
Huy
Huy
that is literally the divergence theorem, look it up on wikipedia or your old analysis notes
18:30
Why from $\Delta G(x,0)$ we get $ n\cdot\nabla G(x,0)$ ?
At the divergence theorem it is just $G(x,0)$ @Huy
Huy
Huy
the divergence theorem is about vector fields.
$G(x,0)$ is not a vector field
But? @Huy
Huy
Huy
that was a hint so you can find out how to apply the divergence theorem to get that equation.
18:46
@Huy It is just a function of x. Right? How do we compute n ?
Huy
Huy
$n$ is just the unit normal vector pointing outwards
@Huy Is there a formula for n?
Huy
Huy
in this case, yes.
How do we find the formula? @Huy
Huy
Huy
draw a picture
18:49
Is this the only way? @Huy
Huy
Huy
no, but the easiest
What else could we do? @Huy
19:07
Hey
any topologists here
?
@sharafzaman the top looks like it's going to act like the triangle numbers
this isn't rigorous but that would get you $1/2$ i think
@JC574 i didn't get you? sorry!
the top looks a bit like 1+2+...+m for large m
so maybe the method is to make that rigorous
oh sorry you might have $\sqrt{2}$ hanging about somewhere
19:15
any topologists around?
somewhat basic i know!
@JC574 It is easier to just ask whatever it is
cool OK anyone know what functor would be described as going from intervals of $(\mathbb{R},\le)$ to finite dimensional vector spaces? It's described as a characteristic diagram of the interval. I missed a lecture last week where it was defined.
@JC574 Hmm, sounds odd. You mean intervals with inclusions as the morphisms?
sorry no
19:22
Anyone up for helping me with basic measure theory?
0
Q: $\sigma$-algebra generated by a subset

ClarinetistI'm new to this concept of a $\sigma$-algebra generated by a collection of subsets. Let $\Omega = \{a, b, c, d\}$ and $$\begin{align} &\mathcal{F}_1 = \{\Omega, \emptyset, \{a\}\} \\ &\mathcal{F}_2 = \{\Omega, \emptyset, \{a\}, \{b, c, d\}\}\text{.} \end{align}$$ I wish to show that $$\sigma\la...

@JC574 Which morphisms then?
given an interval $I$ we define a functor from $(R,\le)$ to finite dimensional vector spaces
each interval defines a functor
@JC574 But you still need to know what the morphisms are in $(R,\leq)$
the morphisms are $a \le b$
ohh, you mean as an ordered set (= certain type of category)?
19:24
yes
sorry
I wasn't clear
So given that it is called characteristic I would guess it sends elements of the interval to the $1$-dim vector space and the rest to $0$. The morphisms should be easy to take care of then
hmm
Is $R$ the reals or some arbitrary set with a (partial?) order?
reals
I was lazy
hmm, a very large diagram then, if I am right
19:26
would it make sense to talk about the functor having a critical value?
This does not sound like a question for a topologist ;)
@JC574 never heard that term used for functors
@MikeMiller an applied topologist maybe?
You're doing persistent homology?
yaa
19:28
So you've given way too few details and context to actually answer your question.
Probably impossible to answer anything without seeing the lectures, given that it claims it was covered in lecture.
that's what i was afraid of hahaa
19:46
some one has an information abut lost chris the self-called artist ?
20:08
0
Q: Determine the Minimum polynomial

Manolis LyviakisDetermine the minimum polynomial of $v=\sqrt{3}+\sqrt[3]{2}$ Over Q[x]. Cant find the right calculations .I am trying to find another way.I know the minimum polynomial of $w=\sqrt{3}+\sqrt{2}$ but still that does not help.I know it must be of degree 4 since the field extension of $\sqrt{3}$ + $...

20:32
f(x)=x+cosx), g(x)=x does the $\lim \frac{f(x)}{g(x)} exist
Which is the cardinality of $M=\{\tau \in S_4\mid \tau (4)=4\}$ ?
20:46
@MaryStar, can you think of a close-lying way to characterise an element of that set?
Wnat do you mean to characterise? The elements of $M$ are elements of $S_4$ that fix the element $4$, or not? @s.harp
@AkivaWeinberger do you maybe have an idea which the cardinality of the set $M$ is?
@MaryStar, what does $\tau$ do with the ordered set $(1,2,3)$?
@s.harp It is a permutation of the set, ot not?
thats right
the set of permutations of $(1,2,3)$ is also known as $S_3$. If you look sharply at $M$ you will see a close connection
Do we consider that $\tau \in S_3$ since $4$ is fixed? @s.harp
20:59
Yes, exactly
Ah ok... Thank you!! :-) @s.harp
21:30
hello
If anyone is there, I have a question. Under users where it says spam flags for 'your user name goes here' and you might see links... if you do see links does that mean someone has reported what you typed as spam? If so I'm confused because on this link I do not see any postings by me. Under the link it says "spam - randomgirl Jan 10 at 23:11 helpful " . I don't understand how spam can be helpful.
Weird question, but I actually need to know this. If I have a polynomial of degree $k$, i.e., $f(z)=a_{0}+a_{1}z + a_{2}z^{2}+\cdots + a_{k-2}z^{k-2}+a_{k-1}z^{k-1}+a_{k}z^{k}$, is there a formula for the $k-1$st derivative?
It's important.
21:51
Hey @AkivaWeinberger @TedShifrin
Could you take a look at my question: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1667075/symmetric-group-find-the-elements-of-the-set ?

I have thought the following:
We have $$\sigma \cdot (1, \ldots, n) \cdot \sigma^{-1} = \big(\sigma(1), \sigma(2), \ldots, \sigma(n)\big) \\ \Rightarrow \sigma \cdot (1, \ldots, n) \cdot \sigma^{-1} \cdot \sigma = \big(\sigma(1), \sigma(2), \ldots, \sigma(n)\big)\cdot \sigma \\ \Rightarrow \sigma \cdot (1, \ldots, n) = \big(\sigma(1), \sigma(2), \ldots, \sigma(n)\big)\cdot \sigma $$
@JessyCat: Sure, and you could do this easily years ago!~
Great @TedShifrin. I'm currently in the process of posting a qeustion with my hypothesis for what it is in it.
When I'm done, I'll post a link.
You don't need a question for this.
What happens to $z^2$ when you differentiate it $3$ or more times?
0
Q: $k-1$st derivative of a degree $k$ polynomial

Jessy CatI know this is going to come across as a very strange question, but it's important that I know the answer. Say I have a degree $k$ polynomial (for my case, I need it to be a complex-valued polynomial with real coefficients, but I think the idea would work even if it were real-valued), $f(z) = a_...

Yes, I do, because I can;t figure out what the coefficients should be for the constant and linear terms that are left over.
@TedShifrin
Did you learn about Taylor polynomials in calculus years ago?
21:59
Yes
What happens when you differentiate $z^k$ precisely $k$ times?
you get 0
No you don't.
you get a conostant?
Of course. What constant?
01:00 - 22:0022:00 - 00:00

« first day (2028 days earlier)      last day (3290 days later) »