I wouldn't say it depresses me, but it makes me somewhat nervous (and I truly dislike the masses of people on a shopping spree). I'm always looking forward to January 2 when all's over again.
@Srivatsan Actually, I like that quite a bit. There was an Anatolian restaurant in Göttingen (about the only place that could produce edible food) that had an excellent acuka.
Ok, so first let's make sure I am getting all the definitions right. S is a map from V to V that especially "squashes" the part of the vector in U to zero, right?
@t.b. Could you clarify here? My book (A terse introduction to linear algebra) defines the adjoint of any linear transformation, between any two vector spaces (that are not necessarily the same vector space).
@Srivatsan I tried wikipedia and it was not helpful.
So the problem is to interpret $S^*$. I'm not sure what the desired answer is. It appears to extend any linear functional on $W$ to one on $V$ by using the projection map?
@Potato BTW I am also a learner. I just realised that I pretty much forced myself on you. We can either figure things out together (with help from tb and others), or I will let you ask them directly...
I meant: we have a linear map $S: V \to W$. Now the dual spaces $W^\ast$ and $V^\ast$ are spaces of linear maps $W^\ast \to k$ and $V^\ast \to k$ (where $k$ is the ground field)
@Srivatsan Anyway, what I was trying to say is: the only way we can produce a map between $V^\ast$ and $W^\ast$ using $S$ is to take $w^\ast$, precompose it with $S$ and get something in $V^\ast$ that is $w^\ast \mapsto (w^\ast \circ S : V \to k)$. Now this gives you the map $S^\ast : W^\ast \to V^\ast$.
I just said that the adjoint $S^\ast$ sends $w^\ast \in W^\ast$ to $S^\ast w^\ast$ which is the composition $V \; \xrightarrow{S} \; W \; \xrightarrow{w^\ast} \; k$
On the other hand, every functional $v^\ast : V \to k$ gives you a functional on $W$ and $U$ simply by restriction. These restrictions determine $v^\ast$.
In other words: $v^\ast = (u^\ast, w^\ast)$ where $u^\ast = v^\ast|_U$ and $w^\ast = v^\ast|_W$
Ok, so in the construction of elliptic functions, an initial attempt is the sum $\sum \frac{1}{{(z+\omega)}^2}$ for $\omega$ in some lattice. Why doesn't this converge absolutely?
@JM I think the abstract-algebra tag is good for that question. The OP is confused about convergence in $\mathbf C[[x]]$ which is really some analysis/algebra.
That given a countable partially ordered set, (for example finite/cofinite subsets of $\mathbb N$) then you can replace each of those with a cardinal number which is below $\beth_2$.
Here it is shower time and then heading out to the university time to pump myself full of caffeine and beer and sit through this paper in commutative algebra.
@tb Once again, you have to come visit Israel sometimes. Either Murphy's law will induce a massive blizzard - and I'll be very happy about it; or you'll enjoy the sun and heat of our summer (which I have no problems with).
@Matt: Hello Matt, merry Christmas. I saw your answer, thank you. I'm stuck, I don't know what the problem is but I cannot figure it out. Assuming 1, 2, 3 and 4 as keys I can draw only one max-heap fulfilling the property that it should be filled from left to right, and 1 is the 4th biggest element. What am I doing wrong? I'm sorry if it's going to be annoying.
@Gigili Not annoying at all, I'm quite enjoying myself : ) Gives me a chance to learn what I should've learned some years ago : ) Can you give an ascii art version of the heap you have?
@Gigili Don't worry about what it looks like. You can just post it like so:
@Gigili That depends. In reasonable programming languages (for example C) the index of an array starts counting at zero : ) But there are some (for example Eiffel iirc) where it starts at 1.
@Gigili But what does this mean? All the elements before it in the tree are bigger than it. So if you traverse from the root to reach it you pass 4 elements, including the root, before you reach it.
@FreakEnum Well, the first time I've been on a flight is when I came to the US. Tell me this: what train or bus do you take immediately out of Kathmandu (will be leaving from Kathmandu)?
Aw, I am doing PhD here in computer science. I didn't think of the high school possibility.
@FreakEnum That's sheer nonsense FreakEnum. What makes you think my mood is not alright?
(As you perhaps surmised yourself, I am also simultaneously checking the main page -- almost all the time. So those interludes will be common :). Sorry about that.)
Maybe it's a dumb question, but why is it visually clear that it can never be written as the union of nonempty separated sets? I'd be grateful to see either of your explanations.
@Matt Within the chat? Besides I was asking about something general, it's not my fault tb found a link answering more than what I needed for this question and exactly what I needed for other questions.\
I like this: I am on a quest to find a definition of "class function" and then I come across this: "...Informally, we call any collection of the form $\{x \mid \phi(x) \}$ a class. However formally, classes do not exist, and expressions involving them must be thought of as abbreviations for expressions not involving them...."
I think they are a sort of set even though you can't call them that. Just like a collection or a family. Why do there have to be several names to mean the same thing?
@Matt Functionality is a property of ordered pairs. You can express it with a nice formula. So if all the elements satisfying a certain formula are ordered pairs with the property of a function we can say that $R$ is a function.