« first day (2047 days earlier)      last day (3271 days later) » 

00:36
@MikeMiller Ya S^2 \times S^2 doesn't work for my purposes.
I figured.
I need like a symplectic form of a submanifold to be preserved.
That's a bad way to say it.
I want the ending manfold to be a symplectic filling of S^3 after removing a disk.
I don't think I believe it since you dont have transverse embedded spheres with 0 self-intersection. That's the key ingredient to the proof for $S^2 \times S^2$.
Theres transverse spheres but they have non-vanishing square under the intersection form.
 
1 hour later…
01:48
@MikeMiller I was reading Massey book it is so great
the one in algebraic topology I like it a lot
02:10
@MikeMiller I decided to give a talk in a learning seminar about the no taut foliation result.
02:22
It's one of my favorites. It's just so clean. The only thing I warn is that to actually prove it you need to get into some minor annoying technicalities, like HF with local coefficients.
But it's basically no more than the usual necessity of Novikov rings.
03:13
i wonder if winner will be a math.SE user
probably
then again, there's lots of good problem solvers everywhere
03:47
Finally I've found a little bit more satisfying answer. What do you guys think? math.stackexchange.com/questions/1691494/…
 
1 hour later…
05:08
eyyo
05:19
hello
 
3 hours later…
08:07
Hey any body knows momentum conservation
 
1 hour later…
09:27
My book's proof that if $x = \displaystyle \lim_{k \to \infty}x_k$ exists, then it's unique: if $y$ were another limit then $$|x-y| = |(x-x_k)-(y-y_k)| \le |x-x_k|+|y-y_k| \le \frac{1}{n} \div\frac{1}{n} ~~~ (\star)$$

If $k$ is such large enough; hence $x-y = 0$ by the axiom of Archimedes.

My question is where does the very last inequality/the division in $(\star)$ come from?
 
1 hour later…
10:28
@DeMoivre I think that was supposed to be a plus, not a division sign
@TobiasKildetoft Hi.
@BalarkaSen Hi
user174558
Now we can begin the lesson.
I am kind of confuzzled about regular maps between quasiprojective varieties.
@BalarkaSen I would probably be too if I could recall the definition :)
user174558
10:33
Just look it up in a dictionary. =)
@Tobias Oh. I was hoping you would be able to help me with it.
@LeGrandDODOM A moderator on a break
It's Arthur Fischer.
@BalarkaSen thanks
11:49
Can someone walk me through a solution of this problem
Evaluate:
$\lim_{x \to 0} \frac{ln(1-x)-sin x}{1 - cos^2 x}$
12:06
hi
 
2 hours later…
13:39
Any idea how I can show that (n-1)2^n - 1 = BigTheta( n^0.5 * 2^((2n)^0.5) That is big theta of root n multiplied by 2 to the power of root 2n? Calling the LHS f(n) and right hand side g(n), I've tried finding constants A and B which bound f(n) between Ag(n) and Bg(n) but haven't had any look. Would one way be to find limsup and liminf of f(n)/g(n)? I'm not too sure about this approach as this isn't for an analysis course.
14:34
hi
hello
Huy
Huy
@MikeMiller: nevermind the thing the other day, I got it
Huy
Huy
@MikeMiller: any chance you know what's wrong here?
15:18
@robjohn We have that $\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} E(\epsilon,x) dx=1$, so in our case we pick $E(\epsilon,x)$ as $\eta$, right?
Sorry, nkt now. Would have to see ChatJax.
Ping me either tonight or Mon?
15:51
What is the proof that if $x$ is a transcendental number then $p(x)$ is also a transcendental number for a polynomial p having rational coefficients ?
@albas one trivial counterexample: $p(x)=0$
simple enough to exclude that with "nonzero polynomial" though
$x$ has to at least irrational, since if it were rational then for nonzero $p(x)$ one has $p(x)-p(0)$ with rational coefficients and $x$ as a root.
@Semiclassical So what the answer said is wrong?
i didn't say that
all i meant was that one can easily prove the weaker condition of $x$ not being rational.
that doesn't mean it isn't transcendental, just that i don't know a proof off the top of my head :)
15:59
Sorry for misunderstanding
no worries. i imagine that Ross's claim is true---it sounds quite plausible---but it's not something i've thought through.
Do you have time @Semiclassical?
some. but i think i might see a proof. hang on. nope
I was asking if you could look at my question?
i mean, one argument would go like this (but i'm not sure it's airtight)
16:03
Okay go on
bah, still doesn't work.
what are you trying to do . I mean to prove it
something that, in retrospect, wasn't actually coherent.
anyways. the trouble is that, in terms of cardinality, there are certainly far more transcendental numbers than algebraic ones. but the algebraic ones are the ones which are far easier to study, precisely because there's structure you can put on them
Yes. Exactly. So that brings us to the "side question" that I asked
the claim that Ross is making is an example of that, or at least the contrapositive is: If $p$ is a nonzero polynomial with rational coefficients, and $p(x)$ is an algebraic number, then so is $x$.
with regard to the side question, i really don't know. my inclination would be to say no, but that's intuition not rigour.
16:10
Hmmm.. I will try to prove Ross's claim
i doubt you can make a group out of transcendental numbers, though, since what would the identity element be?
actually, that characterization i gave above (the contrapositive) seems not so hard to prove.
if $p(x)$ is an algebraic number, it's the root of some polynomial $q(x)\in\mathbb{Q}[x]$. but then $q(p(x))$ has $x$ as a root, and $q\circ p$ should also be a rational polynomial.
Yes. I did figure that out
yeah. so i think that proves his claim.
But isnt his claim for transcendental numbers?
We proved it for algebraic numbers
let me rephrase my proof a bit.
Let $p(x)$ be a nonzero polynomial with rational coefficients and $x$ a transcendental number. I'll assume the claim is false i.e. $p(x)$ can be algebraic.
16:16
Yes
right
said the claim backwards momentarily, woops
Anyways. By definition, $p(x)$ being algebraic would mean that it's the root of some other nonzero polynomial with rational coefficients $q(x)$.
that would imply x is a root
But that is a contradiction
Right. One does have to show that $q(p(x))$ is itself has rational coefficients regarded as a polynomial in $x$. But I don't see how that could be otherwise.
So if we accept that last point, then we indeed have a contradiction and thus the claim must be true.
16:42
can you have a manifold where every closed path is non-orientable ?
user174558
@Semiclassical Mike has me on ignore, so he would not know that I mentioned pointless topology, just to let you know.
@Semiclassical do you know the answer for my question ?
@L33ter What does a non-orientable path mean?
16:51
I am reading from massey, so in 2 dimensions. It means that if you pick a specific rotation and designate that as positive and the reverse as negative. A manifold is orientable if every closed path preserves orientation.
@BalarkaSen how come I didn't see you since long time
@L33ter That's very imprecise, but ok. No, there is no such manifold. Take the constant loop.
user174558
Massey has 3 GTMs. You should read the latest one which combines the first two.
@Jasper 1977 ?
@L33ter What are you studying?
user174558
@L33ter A Basic Course in Algebraic Topology.
16:59
I am still reading off allen hatcher I finished section 2.1 will be going to section 2.2
but I want to read also chapter 1 in massey to provide me with some geometrical intuition.
I finished a project in elliptic curve cryptography @BalarkaSen
would you like to see it ?
user174558
One of the few books that has classification of 2-manifolds in full.
yeah exactly @Jasper I am lacking geometrical intuition for many stuff when I am reading hatcher I understand stuff algebraically
so I need to get that
@L33ter Maybe after 21st this month.
I think massey chapter 1 is good for that
I have never done geometry in high school or university only algebra and physics etc
user174558
I would like to announce that Anthony Knapp's Basic Algebra and Advanced Algebra, digital second editions, are available for download on his website.
17:03
Hello@Balarka
user174558
The PDF is beautifully produced and covers all algebra from freshman year to grad school.
@Evinda as $\eta_\epsilon(x)$
user174558
17:20
@robjohn Hey, I am still alive!
@robjohn So we pick $\eta (x)=\frac{\sqrt{\epsilon}^n}{(2 \sqrt{\pi})^n} e^{-\frac{|x|^2}{4}}$, right?
Nice picture @Jasper :P
user174558
@Evinda Just like you. =)
user174558
17:45
Bonjour @ted.
Bonjour, @Jasper. Ça va?
@L33ter: Karim, I assume you figured out the answer to your question. In any manifold, a small open set is homeomorphic to a ball in $\Bbb R^n$, which is quite orientable. Orientation-reversing loops require a long distance. :)
@robjohn I think I made a mistake... It should be $\eta (x)=\frac{\sqrt{\epsilon}^n}{(2 \sqrt{\pi})^n} e^{-\epsilon \frac{|x|^2}{4}}$... Right?
@Evinda no. $\eta_\epsilon(x)=\frac1{(2\sqrt{\pi\epsilon})^n}e^{-\frac{|x|^2}{4\epsilon}}$
heya @robjohn, Guten Tag, @Evinda.
Guten Tag @TedShifrin
17:54
@Jasper That is good news!
@TedShifrin Hey, Ted!
@robjohn Yes, I see... I wanted to find $\eta$ to check if its integral is 1...
@Ted: Do you know this business about root systems and Lie algebras?
Not really. I knew some of it 40 years ago when I took a course.
Ask Tobias.
I'm on my second hour of trying to solve an undergraduate diff geo question on here.
@Tobias: Where's a good place to pick up root systems of Lie algebras?
18:14
@robjohn We have that $\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} \eta(x) dx=\frac{\sqrt{\epsilon}^n}{(2 \sqrt{\pi})^n} \left( \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} e^{-\epsilon \frac{t^2}{4}}dt\right)^n$. But is this equal to 1?
@robjohn Yes, it is... I calculated it right now...
18:30
Guys,do you consider Homotopy Type Theory to be a blind street?
@robjohn I had shown the following proposition:

Let $\rho \in C_{C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ with $\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} \rho(x) dx=1, \rho \geq 0$ with $supp \rho \subset \{ |x| \leq 1 \}$.
We define $\rho_{\epsilon}(x)=\frac{1}{\epsilon^n} \rho \left( \frac{x}{\epsilon}\right), \epsilon \geq 0$.

Then $\rho_{\epsilon} \to \delta$ in $D'(\Omega)$ while $\epsilon \to 0$.

But we can't use this, since it doesn't hold that $supp n(x) \subset \{ |x| \leq 1 \}$, right?
@TedShifrin bonsoir
Salut, @JeSuis. Bon matin :P
@TedShifrin ah! quelle heure est-il chez vous ?
chez toi** (habitude...)
11 h moins le quart
18:44
@robjohn In our case we don't have convolution, do we?
19:00
@TheCoolDrop: I don't know what that means
@MikeMiller it means that it is a valid and good idea but will not amount to much of actual mathematical results.Useful ones.
Useful to what? The goal of HoTT, as far as I onow, isn't about proving theorems about manifolds or number fields or whatever.
r9m
r9m
@Jasper ahoy!
If anything the point is to make it easier to use automated proof checkers, and my impression is that they've had some success with that.
Not that I know anything about HoTT.
r9m
r9m
@RandomVariable cool solution there at warmup#1 :-) (y)
19:11
@r9m Thanks. I assume he's going to post much more difficult ones.
r9m
r9m
@RandomVariable well I hope he doesn't escalate stuff too quickly .. :) I wanna try some too! :-)
Huy
Huy
@MikeMiller: got a minute now?
(or chatjax)
Not ChatJax
I could look if you put it somewhere rendered :P
@r9m Did you see my other post about a variation of Abel's "summation by parts" formula?
r9m
r9m
@RandomVariable yes! very handy form! :-) well they are the same as the one I used, just phrased differently .. the form I used looks like $$ \sum\limits_{n=1}^{N}a_nb_n = \sum\limits_{n=1}^{N-1} (a_{n}-a_{n+1})\left(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{n}b_j\right)+a_N\left(\sum\limits_{j=1}^‌​{N} b_j\right)$$ :-)
(check the latex code .. I'm sure I'm writing the right thing .. it's rendering wrong :( )
Huy
Huy
19:26
@MikeMiller: in how many hours will you have chatjax? :P
When I go home to go to bed around 9.
So idk 10?
@r9m Someone asked about that version. math.stackexchange.com/questions/433789/…
r9m
r9m
@RandomVariable cool! thanks for the link .. (I notice there's a considerable gap between your consecutive responses .. are you chatting form a mobile device? :-) .. )
@r9m No. I keep getting distracted by people around me. Sorry.
r9m
r9m
@RandomVariable ah! :) okay ,,
19:41
@r9m All the variations of the formula are fairly easy to derive.
r9m
r9m
@RandomVariable yes .. telescopic (easy to see and easy to remember :) .. )
If anyone here likes pizza hut, you might be interested: blog.pizzahut.com/flavor-news/…
Some schlub from Missouri is probably going to win
the first 50 pages of this paper are representation theory : - (
Huy
Huy
19:57
@MikeMiller: can I email you and you'll be able to answer in 10 hours? I doubt I'll be up then yet
:p sure
20:10
@r9m Were you able to evaluate $ \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{\left(H_n^{(2)}\right)^3}{n^2}$?
Can anyone recommend a rigorous book on differential equations?One point to bare in mind is that I know noting about differential equations,but I have covered Spivak Calculus.
What do you want to learn?
20:27
I can recommend not learning differential equations. It has been awesome so far.
r9m
r9m
@RandomVariable not yet .. it's quite a bugger ..
r9m
r9m
@RandomVariable $\zeta(4,2,2)$ is what we are looking at .. the rest should be manageable ..
@LeGrandDODOM Yo there G! how are you?
hhh
hhh
20:48
Huy
Huy
-_-
hhh
hhh
Supppose $K$ is a field. What is $K^n$?
$n$ pieces of fields under cartesian product? $K\times K \times K \ldots K$ where $n$ pieces of $K$?
Huy
Huy
depends on what $n$ is
hhh
hhh
a positive number
r9m
r9m
@Huy like the 14 th letter of the English alphabet?
Huy
Huy
20:54
wouldn't that just be the Latin alphabet
oh look at the new icon of @r9m
r9m
r9m
@Agawa001 that'd be Jack Spicer :-)
not the poet !
r9m
r9m
definitely not the poet .. :P (antagonist character from a cartoon show)
hhh
hhh
@Huy moved the very simple question to
0
Q: What is $K^n$ when $K$ is a field?

hhh where I am not fully satisfied that $K^n$ is a field, rather $n$ pieces of fields under cartesian product such that $K\times K \times K \times \dots \times K$ where $n$ pieces of $K$. Also $K^n$ contains $n$-length tuples where each parameter in $K$. How is $K^n$ usually defined?

21:10
Is there example of function $f:[a,\infty) \to \mathbb{R}$ which is continuous, $\lim_{x \to \infty} f(x)=\infty$, but $\int_a^{\infty} f(x)\, dx$ converges? I suppose not, but...
21:30
hi,.. I have a stats question
I have built a regression model which gives me "the coefficient of determination R^2 of the prediction" as the score when I test it on my data. I get [-0.21087993 -0.60910592 -0.33646844]. How on earth do I interpret that?
those are from 3-fold cross-validation
user174558
22:12
@r9m Nice pic!
23:40
yes @TedShifrin I figured it out
23:53
@Huy: I dunno.

« first day (2047 days earlier)      last day (3271 days later) »