« first day (2252 days earlier)      last day (3065 days later) » 

18:00
Heya @Sawarnik. Long time!
@TedShifrin Hey!
I thought I was so disliked here due to my past behaviour that no one will notice me.
@MikeMiller You like scotch? :) I'm a big fan.
@Sawarnik You don't seem to have misbehaved much since... 2014
I was in general disliked due to my past behavior. I am fine now. They forgot the past version of me, thankfully.
I don't remember what you did, Sawarnik.
I'm still disliked by certain people, I'm sure.
Yeah, we all hate you :P
18:05
I mean ... there was a certain group of young'uns, including Balarka, Sawarnik, and others, who were occasionally bothersome ...
PVAL-inactive??
Where's the real PVAL?
I am the real PVAL
What happened?
@TedShifrin I irritated so many people so many times I can't remember. Fortunately, it was long back :)
I'm not using main of this site anymore
Just so as not to waste research time, PVAL?
18:06
Ya, and some frustration with this site.
Good choice
I've had plenty of that in all the time I've been around.
So you shouldn't waste your time on us, either :D
It's too littered with trivial homework questions with no effort.
Yup. But even I get ensnared in some of them ... which turn out to be highly nontrivial and a learning experience for me.
But I ignore most posts, true enough. ...
Yeah, @PVAL I agree.
18:07
And attempts to insulate myself from these aren't in the general interest of the site.
I'm trying to filter questions but even then most of what I find is not that great.
I figure that when I get to 40K rep, I'll resign.
Disappear like a puff of smoke, like @Jasper.
@BalarkaSen Which institute are you aiming for after 12th?
@Sawarnik Haven't really decided
@BalarkaSen Would you be going towards IITs or ISI/CMI?
18:09
Most likely the latter.
I wouldn't be able to qualify IIT exams anyway :P
too hard
You're planning to stay in India, @Balarka?
I think if I had gotten to the reputation where you could instantly delete posts I'd be banned within a few days.
I'm a homesick person
You're definitely sick at home all the time, @Balarka.
Is that 10k?
18:11
lol
Wait: Instantly delete others' posts?
Ya without voting to close.
Isn't that a rep reward.
I've never even considered/bothered with doing such a thing.
@BalarkaSen Ha, I am keeping both options open. Its tough to get into CMI/ISI I feel but then getting into the original IITs is tougher :(
I stayed away from home for a month, a couple months ago (and I did mathematics where I went, yes). The experience was horrible: maybe I learnt more, but I didn't enjoy much of it
18:12
From what I could tell, Balarka, I didn't realize you actually enjoyed spending time engaging with your family.
But there's a difference between 15, 16 ... and 18, 19 ...
@PVAL-inactive Nobody can do that except moderators.
You can vote to delete (closed!) posts at something like either 10 or 20k
But it still takes multiple votes.
@Sawarnik yeah. I find the CMI/ISI style easier than IIT style stuff
@BalarkaSen Yeah? Hmm... I somehow always imagined you'd go to a top institution in the US for your bachelor's.
I have tons of rep, but I don't take advantage of (or is that abuse?) it.
@Ted you could use it on bounties...
18:14
@Danu Very expensive to do that.
@TedShifrin Not quite family, just the environment.
@BalarkaSen Nah, not too hard. Just not worth slogging for.
@TedShifrin With Balarka's qualities, he could probably get a scholarship, no?
@Danu That's rather tough.
Quite possibly. I actually don't know the realities.
18:16
@Danu unfortunately I have figured out that I prefer enjoying the math I do more than "reaching for the top" whatever that means.
@TedShifrin when you went to berekley was it with full scholarship ?
@BalarkaSen Do you do any competitions?
Hi everyone
Nope, @PVAL
@BalarkaSen Sure, but as you said you might be able to learn more in other places. But good for you if you have made a solid decision. That's what counts.
18:16
That was graduate school. ... And I had an NSF grant and support from Berkeley for 1 year, basically.
@TedShifrin Bonjour ;)
Hi @PVAL. Quitting to get work done?
Graduate school is very different from undergraduate.
Salut, @DanielC.
Basically
We'll miss you, PVAL, seriously.
18:18
I'll be here probably still.
@ParthKohli I have never seriously tried much of it. I looked at it, and I don't think I can do them easily.
@PVAL: excellent!
I just think main is not even a pleasant complete waste of time.
@BalarkaSen The math section would be manageable.
you make some good contributions around this chat. please do stay
I have answered several decent questions on Main lately. But I'm a bum.
18:20
@PVAL Oh, sure. I filter by tags and only browse main using intags:mine answers:0. But I've gotten somewhat bored with that too.
@Danu: Where on Meta is there an obvious list of what one can do with what rep? That should be prominently linked, and maybe I'm being stupid and missing it.
Mike and PVAL: I think you've learned a great deal answering the odd question here and there, but I don't think this is the best use of graduate student time. Agreed.
@TedShifrin It's not on meta. One sec---It's easy to find
@MikeMiller I posted a unanimously downvoted question on meta, where I wanted the ability to remove tags so that when some of the usual content drifted into my tags I could delete the tag so no one could have to read it and waste time. Apparently in order to do that I would have to do the tagging for the poster.
That was in some sense the last straw.
Thanks, Danu. I found it for Stack Overflow ... different list, it turns out.
@PVAL: I have removed uncountably many "complex geometry" tags. People just don't know what it means.
^
Seriously, complex geometry is abused like crazy
18:24
But I don't fly into a rage about it :D
Well, naive people learning about equations of circles in $\Bbb C$ (like me at 12:30 AM this morning) think that's complex geometry.
@PVAL What could they do to you if you just retagged it as garbage or tag-removed or precalculus or something?
@TedShifrin lol
I am a little annoyed that UCLA has printing quotas and that they're so low per quarter. I run out in printing the essential papers I would want to have on hand for a new project.
@MikeMiller I tagged it as tag-removed, and was told by a moderator in a reply not to do that. I'd rather not tag it as pre-calculus and do the job of the asker for them.
I see, I didn' realize a moderator messaged you.
18:26
@PVAL-inactive I don't understand the issue: Do you want to do something else than retagging? You want to remove all tags?
@Danu: Maybe we should recommend that the complex geometry tag have a word added. The problem is that it allows both complex differential geometry and complex algebraic geometry.
@TedShifrin Yeah but those are super closely tied together anyways, so I'm not sure if it's a great idea to separate. But you'd be the expert on that, of course.
I concur that complex geometry is heavily abused.
@Danu I do not want to retag a question which is not a part of my field. I want to be able to remove the tags relevant to my field freely.
I don't want to separate, @Danu. The only thing I can think of is to replace complex geometry with complex manifolds/varieties
@PVAL: I haven't gotten in trouble for doing that virtually uncountably often.
18:28
@PVAL-inactive But you are able to do that. Are you talking about cases where the only tag is in your field, and you can't be bothered to replace it with something?
I usually mark that I've removed an inappropriate tag.
@Ted When there is only one tag, there is an issue.
Yes, @Danu. You have a sort of tone there with "can't be bothered".
or all the tags are irrelevant.
Right. So I usually do find a tag in that case. I haven't had much trouble.
Again, I am totally supportive that a serious Ph.D. student shouldn't be spending its time doing that (avoiding his/her/sher ... problems).
18:29
@MikeMiller Yes---I don't consider it a lot of effort to put in a single tag. But then again, I like doing the "dirty work" in some cases. I can respect that others don't.
Danu, to be grandfatherly, I honestly think you spend too much time here.
Sure I do :)
I'm glad computers didn't exist when I was a graduate student :P
It's a way to combine usefulness with social activity.
What about those of us who are unserious PhD students?
18:30
This is very important for me---I go nuts without social activity
You probably noticed how I like to talk a lot.
But you have real-life friends and girlfriend(s) ...
I'm sure you can find beter social activity than this website.
Talking on a computer screen isn't exactly social.
Sure... But not when I'm working at home all day
whew, done with schoolwork. wonder if I can sneak in some math before I sleep
18:31
And this is at least sometimes extremely productive
Mike, our comments are falling on deaf ears. Besides, I like Danu.
I mean... I know you guys mean well and all, trying to encourage me not to waste too much time, but it's not like I didn't consider this myself already
Also, don't be fooled, I do work while I'm in this chat, too!
Plus I understand that some time wasting is needed. For me in graduate school it was generally cooking, baking bread, and playing bridge. But we know I was/am a nerd.
Hello!!! I have a question.
Do you have an idea why it holds that $\int_{|\xi|=R} u d_{s_{\xi}}=R^{n-1} w_n u(0)$ where $w_n$ is the surface are of the unit ball?
Back to Kodaira vanishing, @Danu :P
18:35
Yeah, I need it too---I play chess and chat here, mostly.
More like Hodge decomposition, @Ted
I waste most of my time, and I waste most of it away from here.
I don't know anyway to waste my time away from here
@Evinda: If I could read it, I'm sure I'd know why. Do you know $u$ is harmonic? Your $d_{s_\xi}$ is very weird. I assume mean $dS$ ... some element of surface area on the sphere.
$w_n$ is the surface area of the unit sphere in $\Bbb R^n$.
Yes it is given that $u$ is harmonic.
This is the mean value property of harmonic functions. You prove it using Green's identities.
18:38
Assume you know the elliptic regularity theorem (if $f \in L^2_k$, and $\Delta g = f$, then $g \in L^2_{k+2}$), Rellich's theorem (the inclusion $L^2_k \hookrightarrow L^2_{\ell}$ is compact when the base manifold is compact and $k > \ell$), and Sobolev embedding (if a function is in $L^2_k$ for all $k$, it's smooth). Then the Hodge theorem follows quickly. let's see if I can provide the proof.
You should make sure Danu is listening, @MikeM.
Mmmmmm Lagavulin 12 is so great :)
I prefer Ardbeg.
@MikeMiller $L^2$? Ain't no $L^2$ in my book
@MikeMiller I've got that, too. But just the 10. The Lagavulin 12 is cask strength (56.1%), which is great.
Okay, then I guess I'd better not tell you the proof of the Hodge theorem. Also, $L^2_k$ is not just $L^2$.
18:40
Aren't Sobolev spaces usually written with the letter $H$? Which is confusing, admittedly.
I don't know any analysis surrounding this stuff
The analysts do it, the geometers tend not to.
I know what the Sobolev spaces are, haha, from math. QM
I was always taught $H^{2,s}$, etc.
Not to be confused with Dolbeault ... context, you know. :P
@Danu Which is why I was giving you three theorems that you can black box and then a presentation of the proof. But I can just go back to work if you don't want that.
18:41
OK, I have cooking to do. I'll be back later.
hi/bye @ted
Oh, hi/bye @Semiclassic.
still want to bug you about riemann surface stuff later
@MikeMiller Oh, they were supposed to be black boxes instead of things-you're-supposed-to-know...
I know you don't know the analysis. Those three are the essential inputs into Hodge theory.
18:42
Okay.
Elliptic regularity is the hardest one.
Okay. I'd be glad to hear you out
But I still don't know why $L^2$ is involved... :\
@TedShifrin Oh yes, right... Thanks a lot!!!!
or what $L^2_k$ is
Because you're doing analysis.
It's the Sobolev space of functions which have $k$ derivatives, all of which are $L^2$.
18:45
$k$-th degree square integrable forms?
ah
I'm using it as shorthand instead of talking about forms.
But I always mean forms in the following in some fixed degree.
interesting theorems
So you're talking about functions instead of forms because the action of $\Delta$ is mostly focused on the function (locally) multiplying $dz_1\wedge\dots\wedge d\bar z_p$?
As in that's where the interesting stuff happens?
Need to do union stuff for a sec
brb
No, I'm talking about functions because I'm lazy and don't want to write "$L^2_k$ $\ell$-forms" repeatedly. I'm just using shorthand.
OK. Just wondering: Why do you need $k$ derivatives? The Laplace operator only takes two, no?
18:57
@TedShifrin I have also an other question.
I am looking at the proof of the theorem: If $\phi \in C^0(\partial{B_R})$ then there exists a unique solution of $\left\{\begin{matrix}
\Delta u=0 & \text{ in } B_R \\
u|_{\partial{B_R}}=\phi &
\end{matrix}\right. (\star)$ and $u(x)=\frac{R^2-|x|^2}{w_n R} \int_{\partial{B_R}} \frac{\phi(\xi) dS}}{|x-\xi|^n}$.

At the proof: if $x_0 \in \partial{B_R}$ then it must hold $\lim_{x \to x_0} u(x)=\phi(x_0)$.

$P(x, \xi)=\frac{R^2-|x|^2}{w_n R |x-\xi|^n}$

$|u(x)-\phi(x_0)|=\left| \int_{\partial{B_R}} P(x, \xi) (\phi(\xi)-\phi(x_0))\right| dS= \dots$
good evening
sorry, have to bail, emergency on my end
long time no see @evinda (mostly because of my absence in chat I suppose), how are you?
@Mike Okay.
apologies again for bait and switch
19:01
Hey
@Alessandro It's also a long time I visited every day the chat, because I had holidays. :P I am fine , thanks. How are you?
@evinda fine, thanks, I was on holidays as well, the new semester just started a couple of weeks ago
Mine too... What subjects do you visit? @Alessandro How were your holidays?
Not sure if this is the right place, but I didn't feel it necessary to post in the Q&A. I was just wondering if anyone had a nice explanation for why polynomials are so 'well liked'. I think I've heard that one of the reasons (from physics/ engineering) is that they are differentiable, but I'm not really sure what importance that has.
Just very relaxing, I didn't do anything special! This semester I have intro to numerical analysis,analytical mechanics (ugh), topology, a course called "analysis B", which has been measure theory so far but I don't know what will become later on and a course on abstract algebra @evinda
what are you studying?
I'm also following a bonus course of mathematical logic because I really like the subject
19:08
@Alessandro I am doing my master in Mathematics of Computer science
@user1952009 thanks for your feedback about my question involving Möbius inversion and $Li(x^\rho)+Li(x^\bar{\rho})$. I believe that my question had no meaning because I don't know what are doing it. You are right, thanks.
@User17670 they are what you get using basic arithmetic operations applied to x. also, taylor series.
differentiability is important because rates of change are meaningful
maybe not differentiability everywhere necessarily
you can also talk about fourier series, but those are infinite power series in q anywho
or generalizations using integration
19:29
@arctictern Thanks for your response, that's helpful!
Is there anything you can add to say about Taylor series?
like what?
not sure what your background in math is
My original question was 'why are polynomials well liked?', and i'm not sure what you meant by 'taylor series', although I know what Taylor series are
@arctictern Also, don't suppose you know why polynomials are defined as having exponents of 0, 1, 2, 3... do you? Why is this important?
@User17670 you can't get any other exponents just using addition, subtraction and multiplication (the basic operations of any "ring"). taylor series are the way we approximate (nice) functions, the successive approximations given by the partial sums (which are polynomials)
20:24
testing something, ignore: $\text{m}^2$, $\text{m^2}$
So an arbitrarily definition of vector field gives can give us a linear map between $C^{\infty}(U)$ to itself
I guess
20:47
Hello folks
I don't understand the valuation of asymptotic numbers
It's defined as something along the lines of $\log_\rho |x|$
But doesn't that mean that all finite numbers are mapped to infinitesimals
Seems odd for a valuation
Since $\rho$ is some infinitesimal and $\log_\rho |x| = \ln |x| / \ln \rho \approx -\ln |x| / \omega \approx \varepsilon$, if $x$ is finite
From the article it seems to confirm that $\log_\rho 2$ is infinitesimal
Aren't valuations supposed to map to $\Bbb R$?
I mean I guess technically all finite numbers being 0 still obey $v(xy) = v(x) + v(y)$ and $v(x+y) \geq \min(v(x), v(y))$
Seems odd, though
Oh I guess finite elements are the valuation ring
21:03
@Danu Sorry, I had an emergency and then I realized there was a hole in my proof sketch I didn't know how to fix. I owe you a rain check.
@MikeMiller YES. Mike owes me. My evil plans are progressing just as planned...
A little annoying, since I gave a correct proof sketch in class last year. Oh well...
It's something I should work out at some point again but I don't have the time at the moment.
21:17
@MikeMiller I'm sure you'll find the time before I learn about Hodge theory :P
Only if I'm doing something wrong.
21:39
Hello!!
Let $F$ be a subfield of the field $K$ and $S$ a non-empty subset (not necessarily, subfield) of $K$, finite or infinite. Let $F(S)$ be the subset of $K$ that is defined as follows:
An element $u\in K$ is in $F(S)$ iff there are finitely many elements of $S$, say $s_1, \dots , s_n$, and polynomials with $n$ variables $f,g\in F[x_1, \dots , x_n]$, with $g(s_1, \dots , s_n)\neq 0$, so that $u=f(s_1, \dots , s_n)/g(s_1, \dots , s_n)$.

Let $E$ a subfield of $K$ and $F\cup S\subseteq E$.
The elements of $F(S)$ are of the form $\frac{f(s_1, \dots , s_n)}{g(s_1, \dots , s_n)}$.
22:31
@MikeMiller Do you know how to show the cohomology classes in $H^2(X,\Bbb R)$ represented by symplectic forms form an open set? I asked my adviser this and he mumbled something about Hodge theory.
22:42
Hi everyone! I just had a quick question, can someone explain to me what this question is asking? How many non-isomorphic simple graphs are there with $5$ vertices and $3$ edges The problem I'm having is that I can't understand which graph we are finding nonisomorphisms for.
@PVAL-inactive I think his point was just that you can take a symplectic form and add a small harmonic 2-form and it will still be symplectic.
23:10
Hello, quick question
In general does the set of sequences in a set X have greater cardinal than X?
I would like to use this for a concise proof that $K(X) \neq K((X))$ for a field $K$
@GPerez the set of sequences is $\Bbb N^X$; invoke diagonalization
Is $|\Bbb N^X|>|2^X|? I feel like it should be (and that I should know that) @MikeMiller
I just asked the same to myself
But there seem to be so many more subsets than sequences!
Anyway I will use your suggestion Mike, thanks
Wait, isn't the set of sequences $X^\Bbb N$
23:44
@GPerez So it is.
Oops.
Huybrechts is getting real exciting now :)
Nice theorems
Time to sleep---trying to get back to a reasonable schedule before the semester starts.

« first day (2252 days earlier)      last day (3065 days later) »