« first day (2090 days earlier)      last day (3230 days later) » 

23:03
@MikeMiller Aren't you going to ignore me? ;)
I'm ignoring you both. Done.
Haha, rehi @Ted.
@TedShifrin I just saw you in a book, see chat @23:37
LOL, @Krijn, your clock and mine are different :P
Amsterdam time, that is
23:08
Oh, I found it. I didn't remember his thanking me.
Or just 30 mins ago
You'll find my name in Griffiths & Harris, too.
Did you know any of those two authors?
I mean, is it an acknowledgement mention?
23:10
Yes.
Cool.
Harris's writing is nice. I liked his textbook "a first course in algebraic geometry", which I plan to work more on after I get calc done.
23:24
The algebraic Nullstellensatz is very pretty.
Everything is pretty.
Let me rephrase that
Zariski's lemma is very pretty
@anon Unlikely, but is that Catwoman on your avatar? Seems similar.
no
Hi @anon
23:30
hello
same avatar it almost always is
Thought so. I preferred your previous one.
me too. but it was old.
What's wrong with old? Huh?
someone took that comment seriously!
heh
23:43
If $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are closed forms on the open unit ball, is there a simple way to show that $\alpha \wedge \beta$ is exact without resorting to the full "closed form is exact on a star convex set" proof?
Well, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ being closed only tells you $\alpha \wedge \beta$ is closed. To deduce anything about the exactness of that, you at least need e.g. $\beta$ is exact. So you'd want to prove that a closed form on a ball is exact.
If you try to write down a proof I don't think that can differ much from the star convex set proof you have in mind.
Oh ok, I though I might be missing something.
I hate to admit it (since Balarka has only known this for a day), but Balarka is right. There's nothing special about the wedge product. You need the general result.
The whole point is that you have to use the topology of the ball, so to speak.
BTW, Balarka, that result about star convex sets will be an exercise in the last section. You can try to understand that there's a chain homotopy there.
23:48
@TedShifrin ;)
Ah, OK. I'll try to write down a proof after I finish up section 3 + exercises in section 2.
I already know the content of section 3 because of a discussion with Mike I had a couple months ago. But I still need to learn that well.
Aaand it's 5 in the morning again. I am fixing up my biological clock really fast. Faster than I expected. Self-pat.
Fixing? You mean ruining?
They are synonymous, of course!
Well, I can't do much math now so I think I'd rather go to sleep and start on this tomorrow. G'night, @TedShifrin.
Night.

« first day (2090 days earlier)      last day (3230 days later) »