« first day (512 days earlier)      last day (4806 days later) » 
00:00 - 16:0016:00 - 00:00

00:01
Does that make any sense, @robjohn?
@Potato so does $x:\mathbb{R}^n\mapsto\mathbb{R}^n$ or $x:\mathbb{R}^n\mapsto\mathbb{R}$?
$\mathbb{R}^n$ to $\mathbb{R}$
Hmm.
then yes, it is $(1,0,0)$
So for any point $p$ and vector $v_p$ from that point, $dx(p)(v_p)$ is (1,0,0)?
$\mathrm{d}x_p=(1,0,0)$, applying it to $v_p$ would give the first coordinate, wouldn't it?
I am not sure how this is being applied, so it is hard to know what is meant. This is my best guess.
00:07
So when Spivak writes $Df(p)(v)$, does he mean take the vector $v$ and left-multiply it by the jacobian?
from what you said earlier, it seems so.
26 mins ago, by Potato
The actual argument is $df_p(v_i)$, which would be a vector.
The big $D$ here denotes the total differential though.
But sometimes notation is abused, and so without context, it is hard to know what exactly is meant.
So how do they define $D$ in terms of the differential forms?
Yes, his notation is terrible. I think I see what he means now. I believe he writes $v^i$ to mean the coefficient of the $ith$ basis vector, not the $ith$ basis vector itself. It's absurd.
I don't know yet.
They don't really. Jacobians were discussed earlier in the book. $D$ means the total differential at the point.
He is using $v^i$ as contravariant verctors and $v_i$ as covariant vectors, or vice-versa, or it seems.
00:11
What does that mean?
QED
QED
$\left(\begin{array}{ccc} a \\ b \\ c \end{array}\right)$ vs $\left(\begin{array}{ccc} a & b & c \end{array}\right)$ isn't it?
Unfortunately, I have to go for a while, take a look here and if you still have questions and are around when I get back, we can pick up there.
Ok, thanks. Hopefully I will be further then.
01:06
@Potato: There's nothing absurd about index notation. You just need to get used to it.
QED
QED
I must say all these calculus notations are really really difficult to learn/understand
much harder than the actual calculus
01:40
What is the name for the $f^*$ map (in the subject of differential forms)?
QED
QED
i tink thats a pullback
01:58
It almost always means ‘pullback’, even when ‘pullback’ doesn't mean ‘pullback’...
@ZhenLin So are you a doctoral candidate right now?
@Alex: Hah, I wish.
@Zhen Undergrad?
Essentially.
Oh man, that's rough haha
QED
QED
02:01
how come the undergrads here are always doing much more advanced mathematics than I did in my undergrad?
Were you on math forums when you were an undergrad?
QED
QED
I don't think so
Well, see, my faculty thinks I'm doing a graduate course, but officially I'm an undergraduate because I haven't received a degree yet...
Ah, I see. Well, that's not SO bad then, I guess.
@ZhenLin Have you done much SCV?
Several complex variables? No. Riemann Surfaces was as far as I got.
02:07
Hmm, I see. Riemann surfaces are still pretty interesting.
Hi, Alex. Something I wanted to ask you but it fits better here than into the comments: what distinguishes the 4th edition of Royden from the previous ones? I own the third one and I don't have many complaints, except for the occasional goof.
Let me begin by putting out the disclaimer that I had the man who reworked Royden as a teacher this past term. That said, the book is just much more organizationally pleasant. I always found Royden, I myself own a third edition copy, a little hard to read--I just didn't think it flowed well. Fitzpatrick did a good job in fixing this, as well as modernizing the notation and some of the language. He also added in, two?, new chapters, and extended some old ones.
Did you actually read all those books (at least in part)? :-|
Yes. Definitely some less than others. For example I've only read the beginning parts of the SVC books and the Riemannian geometry stuff. The algebra stuff I've been through mostly (e.g. the homological algebra). I've also gotten nowhere near through most of the algebraic geometry books. I am just a 'grazer' with books, I like to use a lot of books at the same time.
@AlexYoucis Oh, this sounds like I should have a look at the new edition, then... I basically agree with the assessment that it doesn't flow too well, so any improvement in that department would be welcome. Thanks for the explanations!
02:16
Ha. I can't say I've read so many books in so many subjects.
@t.b. Anytime friend.
@ZhenLin I don't think that's necessarily a big deal. You have the rest of your life to read, and you seem competent enough without them!
The lecturing style is a bit different in America, I gather. Where I study there isn't much emphasis on textbooks.
I don't even know if I'd say there is here either--I've just been blessed with a large access to books. While I 'read' them, I mostly use them to find theorems. I do what I feel like is common for most math kids, I find the theorems in the relevant books and then try to prove them myself [of course, there are often formidable ones I need help with]. Thus, the textbooks are more like
theorem lists.
That's not common at all, I think...
I wouldn't say that's true. You don't try to prove theorems before you read the proof? Halmos "Don't read it; fight it!" ?
02:21
This applies especially to his books...
True that. Anyone who tries to READ finite dimensional vector spaces, for example, is in for a sanity-robbing treat.
I don't try to prove theorems before reading the proof – I have enough trouble understanding the proof as I read it!
But sometimes I do think about how the proof might go when I'm being lectured.
It depends in what context we're talking. I'm not saying I go "Oh, Riemman-Roch, let's have a go at that", but 95% of proofs are totally doable by one's self. That's how I feel you best learn, is to do it yourself--an improvised Moore Method if you will.
Well then, you must be more clever than I am if you think that...
Oh man, I wouldn't say that, honestly. What book(s) are you reading right now?
02:25
Hmmm. I was reading Cartan and Eilenberg (and some of those proofs are of the kind you describe) but lately I've been working on my problem sets.
I'm also having to read Sheaves in Geometry and Logic, and I should probably resume my studies of étale cohomology and stacks at some point.
Cartan and Eilenberg, eh? What do you think of it? I am about to start a homological algebra/abelian categories course, and have shied away from C&E because I heard it's terribly old fashioned.
By Mac Lane? I've heard that's an intense book man. All his books are.
The first few chapters of Cartan and Eilenberg are very clear. It is a bit old-fashioned, but satellite functors are actually very intuitive. They're exactly what you would invent if you had to invent derived functors yourself.
Haha, that reminds me of an old AMA article "You could have invented spectral sequences too." Yeah man, once you get a 'feel' for derived functors they make sense, but they are definitely not an easy idea to notationally grasp at first.
Well, that's because the use of injective/projective resolutions is a little unmotivated in most treatments.
Yeah, like Weibel. I'm just really interested in sheaves friend, I just find them so fascinating. I really want to get sheaf cohomology all figured out
02:31
Go learn about satellite functors. I assure you, once you do that, it will be clear why we take injective resolutions to define cohomology.
Actually, just read the preface of Cartan and Eilenberg, and invent them yourself. ;)
Haha, easy stuff! Then, you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to invent derived categories, for fun.
If only somebody wrote a decent introduction to derived categories...
You volunteering? :)
I'm sure there's someone out there who thinks one of the SGAs or EGAs is decent!
(My essay supervisor insists SGA 4.5 is the place to go for étale cohomology.)
Operative phrases "someone" and "out there".
Yeah, but I feel like SGA is something that you enjoy, like dark chocolate, after you know enough to already know it--if that makes sense.
QED
QED
02:43
I know what you mean
03:03
Has anyone here read Bott and Tu?
03:53
@Srivatsan: I'm having trouble reading this text (starting in part II). Does your browser recognize what encoding is used?
Anybody know how to prove this without Jensen's inequlity? math.stackexchange.com/questions/94802/…
"Cellérier's function" -- I see it the same way as how (I think) you see.
@Srivatsan yeah, exactly.
What (who) is it meant to be?
@Srivatsan I wish I knew...
@Srivatsan I guess it is Cellérier
03:57
@tb Wish you luck in finding out
Searching for "cellerier function" gives me the Weierstrass function -- the nondifferentiable ones.
@Srivatsan yes, exactly. Given that it is $\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty} \dfrac{\sin{(c^n x)}}{n!}$ this isn't so surprising...
(here $c \gt 1$ is an integer)
Aw, right.
@Victor Did you check the proof in wikipedia? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
@Srivatsan the one on Wikipedia is the one Victor doesn't like...
What's wrong with it?
@tb There's one using Jensen's (the one posted as an answer), and another (in wikipedia) which says the sum of some two areas under graphs must exceed the area of some rectangle... Where has Victor mentioned that he doesn't like the latter proof?
Isn't Jensen a simple consequence of the definition of convexity?
@Potato Not simple. But consequence, yes.
@Srivatsan He didn't.
(I'm just assuming)
Well, you just induct...
@tb Well, if he cannot use Jensen and doesn't want the standard proof for Young, then it's a bit stringent requirement =)
@Victor, what do you mean "prove without using Young's inequality"? The inequality you mention is Young's inequality -- at least a trivial modification of Young's inequality.
04:12
Hello, guys. I hope I can clarify something about upper limits. Suppose I have a sequence $\{s_n\}$ such that the subsequences $(s_{2m})$ and $(s_{2m+1})$ both converge, to say $S_e$ and $S_o$. By definition, the upper limit $S^*\geq\max(S_e,S_o)$. Is it also true that $S^*\leq\max(S_e,S_o)$?
@Srivatsan that's all I'm saying
QED
QED
Hello
What is the definition of S*
@yunone what is "upper limit"? lim sup?
$S^*$ is the supremum of the set $E$ of all subsequential limits, where $E$ may also include $\pm\infty$.
QED
QED
I see
That is the lim sup
04:15
Ok, I thought so.
QED
QED
and yes it is the case that S* = max(S_e, S_o)
@yunone sure, your sequence has at most two accumulation points.
(and the limsup is the larger of the two)
yunone, You should be able to prove that the sequence has exactly two (or one, in case they coincide) limit points -- $S_e$ and $S_o$. One of them is the lim sup and the other lim inf.
I figured, so this might be a dumb question. I was suspecting that if follows since any subsequence contains infinitely many even terms or infinitely many odd terms?
QED
QED
Why don't you prove it
04:17
@yunone Well, yes. That is the idea.
Direction 1: prove that $S_e$ and $S_o$ are indeed limit points of $s$.
Direction 2: If $L$ is any limit point of $s$, then $L$ must be one of the two.
So I want to get something straight. The point of de Rham cohomology is this: if we compute the cohomologies of A and B, and they differ, we know A and B are not homotopy equivalent, and in particular not homeomorphic.
Thanks, @Srivatsan, I'll give this some thought.
@Potato Wait, How does not diffeomorphic mean not homeomorphic "in particular"?
Sorry, I rewrote it.
Does it make sense now?
No, I don't know enough to confirm it. [But it "makes sense" to me.]
04:26
@Potato yes, that's right. (I don't know if that's "the point" but as de Rham cohomology is a homotopy invariant, your conclusion is correct)
Well, what is "the point"? I am new to algebraic topology (will be taking an intro course next semester and decided to pick up Bott and Tu for kicks) so I don't know how all of this ties together.
I would be surprised is there is one single point behind any of these things.
What are the points, then?
@Srivatsan maybe you should try to prove them using Jensen?
04:43
Hm, SE thinks I've been here for a year, when it says on my profile 363 days...
@ZhenLin Well, you already got 200 points required, so it doesn't make much of a difference for the badge.
Congrats, Zhen!
Thanks!
@ZhenLin when I hover over "member for: 1 year" in your profile page, it says that you registered on Dec 29 (at 3:52:28Z, to be precise) last year...
Yes, congratulations!
Ah, I see, there were 2 days that I did not visit MSE or something.
@ZhenLin probably. If you click the link there, you get a calendar which displays the days that counted as "visited" in green.
(you can only do that in your own profile)
04:52
Wow, I did not know that. That's a cool feature.
yeah. right
@Srivatsan So the basic idea is to see that if $x\neq S_e,S_o$, then taking $\epsilon=\frac{1}{2}\min(|x-S_e|,|x-S_o|)$, then at most finitely many $s_n\in N_\epsilon(x)$, and thus $x$ is not a subsequential limit. So $S_e$ and $S_o$ are the only possible subsequential limits.
@yunone Yes, exactly.
Hmm, I'm a little slow, but good to know. Thanks @tb.
Of course, this only works if the limits are finite...
05:06
I'm asking to try to generalize a problem I'm working on, where I found $s_{2m}\to \frac{1}{2}$, and $s_{2m+1}\to 1$. So thankfully it still works.
05:43
Is anyone with edit privs (>2k )here?
QED
QED
don't think so
@yunone thanks, but I had a correction :D
What correction?
I can approve again if you need to fix it more.
@yunone I just sent in a correction. Thanks :)
sweet :) thanks and g'nite
Sure, 'night.
06:37
yawn
So I'm not the only night owl here?
Considering the fact that it is 8:40am you might be.
Ah. That's one thing I love and hate about the internet, you can't count on time of day.
That's the one thing I love about Americans, they would initially assume that everyone is from America unless specifically told that this is incorrect.
I did not the "good night" in the above conversation, and the "yawn" seemed to suggest being tired, so I don't think the assumption was unreasonable.
06:42
I'm just making an observation based on 15 years of being on the internet.
Fair enough, I've been known to do it.
It's something about the self-important American mentality. I got into many an argument over that with people before...
I imagine. What brings you to math.SE chat at 8:40 AM then?
I'm addicted to math.SE, this is what I do when I wake up.
I know how that can happen. I stopped using it for months and picked it up a week ago, and have spent a large portion of my days on it since.
06:47
@AlexBecker I don't mind at all. I've been an internet addict for the better half of my life...
I wake up and check the site from my iPhone before saying "good morning" to my girlfriend.
@AsafKaragila Not always the best strategy, unless rep points are your top goal.
@AlexBecker It's not the reputation. It's the fact I enjoy explaining mathematics.
My students benefit from that, since it helps me improve my answers to questions they will eventually ask me.
@AsafKaragila So do I, I only wish I knew more of it and were better at explaining it.
@AsafKaragila What branch of math do you specialize in?
It takes time, but you get there.
Set theory.
@AsafKaragila Huh. I've never studied that. What attracted you to set theory?
06:51
@AlexBecker The lack of usability, the fact that I "got it" right away, and the fact that I lack almost all geometrical thinking.
@AsafKaragila Algebra has many of the same qualities too.
In a very different way, though.
QED
QED
Hi
Hi QED
QED
QED
Does pi avoid algebraic numbers?
06:57
$\pi$ is not an algebraic number.
QED
QED
let me explain what I mean
Although I can't state it rigorously
You could approximate pi by rational numbers using degree 1 polynomials, or by square roots using degree 2, or by cubic algebraic numbers using degree 3 polynomials, etc..
it seems like the sum of the size of coefficients is smaller when the degree is smaller.
So while pi avoids rational numbers, it avoids square roots even more, and it avoids higher order algebraic numbers even more still
It should make sense.
QED
QED
that's my guess: I don't know if it's true or not though
I guess this from numerical evidence
The sum of the size of coefficients of a polynomial are independent of the roots, unless you mean integral polynomials with minimum coefficients.
QED
QED
yes
try to find polynomials with epsilon of 0 when evaluated at pi
07:01
Wow, my brain is really shut for non set theoretic stuff.
I tried to write an argument, but I just can't.
It's like I lost a part of my brain that does that.
What do you mean "epsilon of 0 when evaluated at pi"?
QED
QED
see, this is the dangers of set theory
Perhaps a mini stroke, or a clot...
Do you mean that they evaluate to exactly 0 at pi?
QED
QED
@AlexBecker, |P(pi)| < epsilon
07:02
Well |P(pi)|=0 is not true for any rational polynomial.
QED
QED
yes but $|2130241 \pi^3 - 22294338 \pi^2 + 51516201 \pi - 7857464| < 10^{-20}$
@QED Actually, I know exactly why this is happening... and it only proves how strong set theory is in my mind.
QED
QED
You sometimes prove a number irrational by showing it's got infinitely many rational approximations, I wonder if you could get a transcendence proof of pi that bounds best algebraic approximations away from pi
I believe that it has to do with the degree of best rational approximations.
Lioville developed a full theory about those things, I think.
QED
QED
oh tyeah
you can prove it trancendental just using rational approximations
07:09
Transcendence theory is a branch of number theory that investigates transcendental numbers, in both qualitative and quantitative ways. Transcendence The fundamental theorem of algebra tells us that if we have a non-zero polynomial with integer coefficients then that polynomial will have a root in the complex numbers. That is, for any polynomial P with integer coefficients there will be a complex number α such that P(α) = 0. Transcendence theory is concerned with the converse question, given a complex number α, is there a polynomial P with integer coefficients such that P(α) = 0? If ...
QED
QED
but I want to know something about not just rational approximations, but also degree 2, 3, ...
In mathematics, auxiliary functions are an important construction in transcendental number theory. They are functions that appear in most proofs in this area of mathematics and that have specific, desirable properties, such as taking the value zero for many arguments, or having a zero of high order at some point. Definition Auxiliary functions are not a rigorously defined kind of function, rather they are functions which are either explicitly constructed or at least shown to exist and which provide a contradiction to some assumed hypothesis, or otherwise prove the result in question. Cr...
Morning everyone.
@Matt Hello Matt
QED
QED
hi
that's interesting stuff @Asaf
07:20
@QED Naturally.
@Matt Morning.
@AlexBecker I see that another Matt has commented on you rings and modules question.
QED
QED
I want to learn some maths
What's preventing you?
@Matt You prevent him.
QED
QED
I don't know what to study
I need to find something really interesting that isn't too hard
07:22
Commutative Algebra? Then you can help Asaf with his homework.
He said interesting.
QED
QED
haha
@Matt In a month I should be over with all this crap.
@AsafKaragila Commutative algebra is the best!
Have you done topology, QED?
07:23
@AlexBecker It's not the worst, but certainly not the best.
Independence results via permutation models? These are mighty easy, and mighty fun!
QED
QED
I don't think so Matt, can you tell me the first interesting theorem?
just the name, so I can check if I know it or not
@AsafKaragila Oh come on, algebraic geometry is awesome, and commutative algebra is really the "there" there.
@QED I'd say Tychnoff
QED
QED
@AlexBecker, I don't have a clue how to learn any algebraic geometry without going through this absolutely gigantic book first
@QED There are several and I don't know the first important one but Heine-Borel is one and Tychonoff.
Topology is so fundamental that if you haven't done any you should do that next.
QED
QED
OK, I haven't done proofs of either of these
07:26
This is a really good book, in case you're looking for one.
@AlexBecker geometry stinks. All kinds of geometry.
@AsafKaragila Oh, right. No geometric intuition.
QED
QED
I wish I knew more about what number theory we can get from algebraic geometry
but it's very hard to actually understand what results mean without knowing the theory
I'll try to do these two topology theorems after I watch my show
@QED I don't know anything about those either. I call it "voodoo".
QED
QED
It does seem that way
07:33
Time to go, see you later.
@AsafKaragila Bye
See you later, Asaf!
QED
QED
08:03
:S
08:14
good afternoon guys
or whatever part of the day depending upon your time zones
hello.
anyone here.I have never chatted on SE before
I was wondering as to how much time it takes to acquire a strong hold on elementary Olympiad number theory.
QED
QED
hello
QED
QED
You might be better to ask that on Art of problem solving
:D may be yes.
QED
QED
08:27
I just don't know about it
ok.Seems I have to go.Bye.I rarely visit SE's chat rooms.Today was an exception.
QED
QED
bye
 
4 hours later…
12:04
silence has settled on the math chat room
@Skullpatrol You had your SE profile deleted -- does it mean you can use the email address you used to create the deleted profile to create a new profile on SE?
@Matt Yes.
Aces! : D
@Matt Why is that Aces?
Because I might want to do that at some point.
12:18
@Matt You've got a ton of good rep around here ;-)
3,582 to be exact
12:33
Makes me wonder if I should delete my comment.
13:01
@Matt What sort of question are you asking?!
I agree with Asaf.
It's almost trivial.
@AsafKaragila Tell me.
Hang on, I'm writing an answer.
There you go. I'm glad that you've found a way to ask a question for both of us to get votes ;-)
@AsafKaragila Thank you.
13:06
Sure :-)
:2839005 We should start matt.stackexchange.com perhaps.
@AsafKaragila What would that mean?
A site for the mentally handicapped?
@Matt If you do start such a site, I recommend that you add an initial to help your readers differentiate you from the other Matts.
2
hi @all
13:22
@Srivatsan : P Hello there, Srivatsan.
13:34
@QED A tedious application of Newton-Girard ought to do it.
hi JM
13:54
Hey Sri.
Hello, What's $[a,b]$ called in English?
@Gigili Where did you see this?
an interval?
The commutator?
@Srivatsan a closed one, if that's what I think it is...
14:00
@JM Nowhere, I need to use in my question. Huha.
Yes, closed interval.
Oh yes, an interval
...and as Matt has demonstrated, context is key.
Thank you @all.
Sorry for the Interruption again, should I say the interval where the roots are in? or what?
what are you trying to ask, anyway?
14:04
Something like "Take a guess about the roots of an equation"
How many they are, and the interval they are in
I want a better title =\
The roots lie in the interval [-1, 4] sounds fine.
Number of roots in a given interval -- is that any good?
Oh, "are the roots of $f(x)$ within the interval $[a,b]$?"
Not a given interval, that's where the problem comes from
Why don't you just describe the problem now? (Instead of us having to guess it anyway...)
You want (tight?) bounds on the real roots of your function, then?
14:06
In my book, it's written that we can guess how many roots an equation might have and where they approximately are by its graph or the table of function values without trying to solve it. There's an example afterward, doing that for $f(x)=\sin x -x +0.5=0$ starting from $-1\leq \sin x \leq 1$.

The problem is, it's not always that easy to guess how many roots it has. In the exercise at the end of this section, it's asking about $\sin x=x(x-2)(x-3)$ and $x^2 \cos^2 x-1=0$. I don't know what to do about them and where should I start from.
There it is. It's, um, too long.
@Srivatsan make that strict convexity in your comment on the nearest point projection.
what is strict convexity (of a set)?
@Gigili: sure, you can do it by looking at the function values, but one can get fooled sometimes. A graph's quite better, but not entirely foolproof.
@Srivatsan (I meant strict convexity of the norm)
It's too late now, missed the 5-min edit window =)
Perhaps you could make a clarifying comment?
14:10
I don't know what the title should be , "how to make a guess about the roots of an equation and the interval they are lie in? "?
@Gigili "Guessing bounds for the roots of a function"?
@Srivatsan Consider the unit ball in $\mathbb{R}^2$ with the max norm: $(2,0)$ is at distance $1$ to all points $(1,x)$ with $x \in [-1,1]$.
I can't quite read this guy... he's shown similarity; what else is there to do?
Hi guys.
@tb I see =) . Then my comment is rather misleading, no?
14:12
@JM Yes, but apart from some special graphs I know or I memorized by overusing them, it's really hard to know how it looks like without knowing the roots . Especially about the two equations in my example.
@JM Yes, that fits. Thank you for your time.
@Gigili I see, so you're not allowed the use of a graphing utility for this?
@AsafKaragila Hey, you.
Is it me you're looking for?
@JM Unfortunately not, Does "Guessing bounds for the roots of a function and the number of them without solving it" sound right to you?
@Gigili Okay, "Guessing bounds for the roots of a function, and counting roots within those bounds"...
Uhum, I'll go for that.
14:15
@Srivatsan a little bit. :) As soon as the norm is strictly convex then uniqueness is clear. Existence follows as soon as you have completeness in addition by showing that the approximants to a nearest point form a Cauchy sequence.
@Gigili ...unless the other guys have a shorter suggestion, of course.
@tb I see. One second. Let me delete my comment since I can.
@JM The other guy? I asked it. Hope it's understandable now.
@tb You should write it as a comment maybe.
@Srivatsan I think it's in the link provided by David
14:17
Alright then.
Here. Anyway, I'm off. Thank you again.
I will check the link out now
@Gigili I mean "unless other people here have shorter suggestions". :)
@tb In this answer, I am tempted to add that this is a trivial consequence of powerful uniqueness theorems in algebra.
[My comment could be technically wrong. I was being facetious..]
@Srivatsan is it? But don't mention Jensen :)
14:22
Nevermind what I said. =)
I will mind whatever I want to mind!
Oh boy, this is a blatant mistake (as KCd points out).
@AsafKaragila "Mind"? What "mind"? :D
@tb Would you like to have a fixed version of this?
Why (fractals) tag in this question?
14:33
@Matt Thanks, I fixed it for myself. But I couldn't figure out the encoding that's used..
Is this answerable...?
Then I wonder how you fixed it.
`line.rstrip().decode('utf-8').encode('latin-1').decode('utf-8').encode('latin-1').decode('utf-8').encode('latin-1').decode('utf-8')` fixes it.
@tb $ iconv -t iso-8859-1 | iconv -t iso-8859-1 | iconv -t iso-8859-1
Cellérier
Cellérier
@Matt I let sed run over it a few times.
14:53
Jurors needed, apply here: math.stackexchange.com/q/94943/13425
@Matt thanks, that would have been much more elegant :)
@ZhenLin same here
Descrptitified the title with a crptc edt dscrptn
These days, I can't imagine coordinating hit jobs without the chat...
What does $\heartsuit$ mean in this answer?
15:08
A fancy way to denote the fixed point, I guess.
I don't get the joke -- is that even a joke?
15:24
I wonder if there are other named four-term integer recurrences. Thus far, I've only found Perrin, Padovan, and "tribonacci".
@JM, there?
Nevermind, I'll ask later. Sorry about the unnecessary ping.
I'm here now. How may I be of help?
Ok, is it possible for an OP to split the bounty between two answers?
Nope.
That sucks. Can I start two bounties for the same question at the same time (or one after another)?
15:34
Let me check meta.SO...
This bothers me a bit, however.
@JM Er. What's the relevance here? (I hope you aren't suggesting that I am abusing the system. =))
I don't think Math.SE has enough traffic to pull that off, J. M.
I've had a bounty on a question and I still got no answer :P
What I had in mind was that once you've given, say, 50 rep to one answer, it seems you have to give more than 50 rep for the other one, and then more than that for the next.
15:44
@JacopoNotarstefano Well, it might -- depending on the question. I am still amazed how Mike Spivey's question went from 14 votes to 34 votes in the bounty period.
@JM Fair enough. I'll sort the answers in increasing order of bounty I had in mind, and then offer bounties in that order. =)
They implemented escalation to stave off "abuse"; that becomes problematic when you want to give answers the same amount of rep...
So, (strict) escalation is enforced now?
Yes. I'd complain, but I don't feel like writing a long meta post on this...
@JM [For what thread I have in mind, this is not a problem since I was thinking of giving out slightly different amounts in any case.]
To me, it sucks that something like this can't be done anymore.
15:49
Who gave these bounties?
Both bounties were from Jonas Meyer.
00:00 - 16:0016:00 - 00:00

« first day (512 days earlier)      last day (4806 days later) »