« first day (2147 days earlier)      last day (3170 days later) » 

21:01
Let $M$ be a simply connected oriented closed 4-manifold. Then $H^2(M)$ is a free abelian group, with a pairing $H^2(M) \otimes H^2(M) \to H^4(M) \cong \Bbb Z$ (the last isomorphism coming from our chosen orientation). The bilinear form this determines on $H^2(M)$ is called the intersection form. It has determinant 1 by Poincare duality. We say it's 'positive definite' if $a \cup a \geq 0$ for all $a$. Freedman proved that every unimodular positive definite intersection form is realized
by some s.c. closed oriented topological 4-manifold, and is mostly unique up to homeomorphism. (To be precise: It's unique up to homeomorphism if $a^2$ is always even, and there are exactly two if $a^2$ is odd; at most one of the two will be smoothable.)
Link to Freedman paper? Very interesting stuff!
If you want to learn that the reference everyone tells me is the book by Freedman and Quinn.
Right; I heard that's a difficult book.
I've never read it.
My alg. top. TA said it was very hard.
21:04
But his construction only works in the topological category. It says nothing about smooth 4-manifolds. Donaldson, under the advice of Atiyah, was doing something completely different. If $M$ above is smooth and has a Riemannian metric, you can write down the space of connections on an $SU(2)$-bundle over it "with charge $k$" (let's just say $k$ measures how twisty the bundle is). There's a PDE on this space, called the ASD equation: $F_A^+ = 0$.
This $S^2\vee S^4\not\simeq \Bbb CP^2$ stuff is cool: The Hopf invariant sounds real nice. Especially that only the Hopf maps have Hopf invariant 1!
@MikeMiller Monopole charge? :D
Instanton charge, if that's a thing.
Yeah it is.
Instanton number, though.
That's what it is.
(it doesn't correspond to an electric/magnetic type charge in the physical interpretation)
21:06
If $\mathcal C$ is the space of connections, there's a (n infinite dimensional) group $\mathcal G$ acting on it, that preserves the set of points with $F_A^+ = 0$. That is, if $F_A^+ = 0$, then $F_{g(A)}^+ = 0$ as well. So I can consider the "moduli space of solutions", $\mathcal I/\mathcal G$, where $\mathcal I$ is the set of points with $F_A^+ = 0$.
$F^+$ being the self-dual part of $F$?
Okay, so far so good
ASD equation = anti-self-dual equation? :P
Yes. Shh.
21:07
Sorry.
This moduli space is not compact, but it has a natural compactification (called the "Uhlenbeck compactification") involving adding solutions from bundles with smaller instanton number. Donaldson proved the following: If $M$ is positive definite, then the compactified moduli space $\mathcal M_1(M,g)$ of instantons on the bundle with instanton number 1 is almost a smooth manifold for generic $g$ (but not for all $g$)
This sounds so great
Away from a finite set of points, it has the natural structure of a smooth manifold with boundary, and that boundary is $M$ itself. The finite number of singularities where it's not a smooth manifold are locally homeomorphic to the cone $C(\Bbb{CP}^2)$.
Indeed, he can write down explicitly how many there are: there are precisely as many as there are elements in $H^2(M)$ with $a^2 = 1$
how can I permute $11{x_1}^6x_2{x_3}^3{x_4}^{23}$ by $\sigma=(1~2~3~4)$ defined by $\sigma * x_i = x_{\sigma(i)}$
Deleting a small neighborhood of the cone points you get a cobordism from $M$ to that many copies of $\Bbb{CP}^2$; because cobordisms preserve signature, there must be precisely $b_2(M)$ of them. You can use this data to explicitly prove that the intersection form is diagonalizable over the integers.
21:11
@Obliv keep in mind that's actually a right group action and not a left group action
I would write it as $x_i\cdot\sigma=x_{\sigma(i)}$
Anyway, just apply the permutation to all the subscripts you see.
I don't change the exponents right?
correct
Thus, every smooth positive definite etc 4-manifold has diagonalizable intersection form. But Freedman produced a topological manifold for every positive definite bilinear form. There are a lot of those; the number of positive definite unimodular bilinear forms grows exponentially in the rank of $H^2(M)$.
So Donaldson's theorem and Freedman's theorems combine to prove that there are many, many non-smoothable 4-manifolds.
Donaldson's theorem is the flavor of the kind of math I think a lot about.
I get a different answer than the solution though. Shouldn't $x_4^6$ be the element with the 6 exponent
Ah, that explains a lot
About your knowledge
21:14
oh, does it also matter if the permutation acts on a 3 term polynomial in the form $ax_1x_3x_2 - bx_2x_4 + cx_1x_2x_3x_4$? (with varying exponents) I'm focused on the last term mostly
@Obliv applying (1234) to the subscript 1 yields 2
(Actually Freedman's theorem already provided many; I told you that when the intersection form is even he gets two, one which is not smoothable. But you can measure the non-smoothability of this second one (actually non-PLability, but whatever) from an invariant called the Kirby-Siebenmann invariant which is somehow a more classical obstruction to smoothability, so it's not that surprising.)
@MikeMiller Mind=blown
4 goes to 1 right? So shouldn't the $x_4 \to x_1$?@arctictern
21:15
crazyproject.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/… is a solution manual. The answer to 1. is different than what I expect
$11x_1^6 x_2x_3x_4^{23}$ becomes $11x_2^6x_3x_4^3x_1^{23}$
how is it different from what you expect?
There's a famous conjecture called the 11/8 conjecture which more or less says that every simply connected smooth 4-manifold is homeomorphic to one of $\# k\Bbb{CP}^2 \# \ell \overline{\Bbb{CP}^2}$ or $\# k(K3) \# \ell S^2 \times S^2$, where $K3$ is the $K3$ surface, aka zero set of a quartic curve in $\Bbb{CP}^3$. But this conjecture seems very out of reach at present.
@arctic unless this is a different type of permutation than what I'm used to, I expect $(1~2~3~4)$ to permute $x_1^6$ to $x_2$ , $x_2 \to x_3$, etc. to get $x_4^6 x_1 x_2 x_3^{23}$
@MikeMiller Seems so nice. How can something that simple-sounding even be true?!
In many of those manifolds we know that there are infinitely many non-diffeomorphic smooth structures. These frequently are distinguished by doing something along the lines of "counting the number of points in $\mathcal M_0$", which is a smoothish invariant.
@Danu Freedman's theorem says there aren't that many simply connected smooth 4-manifolds. The simply connected assumption is trivial. In general $(n/2-1)$-connected manifolds are classifiable. $n= 3, 4$ are the odd ducks.
21:21
@Obliv $x_1^6\, x_2\, x_3\, x_4^{23}\cdot \sigma=x_{\sigma(1)}^6\, x_{\sigma(2)}\, x_{\sigma(3)}\,x_{\sigma(4)}^{23}=x_2^6\, x_3\,x_4\,x_1^{23}$
@MikeMiller Sigh... I envy you so hard right now.
since $\sigma(1)=2$, $\sigma(2)=3$, $\sigma(3)=4$ and $\sigma(4)=1$
I forgot not to move the exponents. shit
i even asked beforehand.
I'm sorry, thinko. I meant to say "The simply connected assumption simplifies a lot of things". It's certainly not in any sense trivial.
@Semiclassical you're silent these days.
21:28
yeah
@Semiclassical I just finished a very cool problem. Trying to take a little break.
Let me find a cool problem for you (all).
I could use a nice break
2
@Krijn I like your sense of humour! :-) Star!
Solve the following equation
(elementarily)
$$2^{x-1}+2^{y-1}=2^{(x+y)/2}$$
real solutions, or integer solutions specifically?
@Semiclassical considering real numbers.
21:37
well, x=y is always a solution. i think those are the only ones
well, let $y=x+2t$. then the lhs becomes $2^{x-1}+2^{x-1+2t}=2^{x+t}$. Dividing through by the first term gives $1+2^{2t}=2^t$
multiply by 2, subtract, factor, get $(2^{x/2}-2^{y/2})^2=0$
oh, I like that even better.
Oh, well, I think I didn't write things correctly above.
i mean, if $x$ and $y$ aren't real then one has multivaluedness of 2^ to contend with
@Semiclassical I put it on paper wrongly, let me check my original papers. I think there is a missing 1 in the right-hand side.
21:45
ah
@Semiclassical I have a bunch of interesting stuff that I put from other papers on a single notebook under the words Very nice and special :-), but some I didn't write correctly.
(still seeking for the original papers)
i'll have to look at it a bit later
though i suspect arctic's remark will continue to be useful
22:00
I need to check some more equations and see if they were well written down.
Here is another one in the meantime
$$2^{\sin^2(x)}-2^{\cos^2(x)}=\cos(2x)$$
@Semiclassical which is very nice
i am such a mathematical badass now, that I no longer have anything to ask on this site.
@ForeverMozart The sea of learning has no end.
@user1618033 It would be nicer if you put it this way: $2^{\sin^2(x)} - 2^{\cos^2(x)} + \sin^2(x) - \cos^2(x) = 0$
@ForeverMozart Be careful that pride in mathematics is very dangerous. I mean you can be proud, boastful in front of anybody, but not to yourself, be honest with yourself, otherwise you go down with very high speed. :-)
@LeakyNun ;)
@user1618033 I simply mean that I can answer any basic question in my specific field
@LeakyNun even better to write $$2^{\sin^2(x)} + \sin^2(x) = 2^{\cos^2(x)} + \cos^2(x) $$
22:11
the questions I do have are too specific
@ForeverMozart I didn't mean anything bad with that, but just to be careful. There is always room to learn from others, and this is a (very) good thing. I admit that for a long period of time I develop only my research ideas, but at the same time I know that at some point I need to return and also consider other new ideas from others.
@user1618033 Ah, I think I have it then
@Krijn :D
Although it's a bit too messy to work out now at night
So I'm off to sleep and will solve it in bed
@Krijn As it is put now it (the solution) is obvious. ;)
22:14
My goal in life is to make dimension theory relevant again!
See $f(x)=2^x+x$
@user1618033 but if that fails, you're right I will have to return to learn some more
@ForeverMozart Wish you fully succeed (and reach your math objectives).
22:34
A very nice inequality
(typing)
If $a,b,c$ are positive real numbers, show that $$\frac{1}{a+\sqrt{bc}}+\frac{1}{b+\sqrt{ac}}+\frac{1}{c+\sqrt{ab}}\le \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{a}+\frac{1}{b}+\frac{1}{c}\right)$$
Or this one (which is again very cool)
(typing)
Let $a,b,c>0$ such that ab+bc+ca=1. Show that $$\frac{1}{a+b}+\frac{1}{b+c}+\frac{1}{c+a}\ge\sqrt{3}+\frac{ab}{a+b}+\frac{bc}{‌​b+c}+\frac{ca}{c+a}$$
Don't miss them, they are very nice.
Time to leave now and work some more on my stuff.
23:24
i do not understand the point of inequalities like those
i guess it looks nice

« first day (2147 days earlier)      last day (3170 days later) »