The Euler Characteristic V-E+F has an interesting history. It was initially stated that, for all polyhedra,
$$V(ertices)-E(dges)+F(aces)=2$$
and its proof was widely accepted, until people found counter-examples.
Imre Lakatos' book Proofs and Refutations has an imagined dialogue between t...
The book is really interesting. I'm reading it at the moment.
In mathematics, smooth functions (also called infinitely differentiable functions) and analytic functions are two very important types of functions. One can easily prove that any analytic function of a real argument is smooth. The converse is not true, as demonstrated with the counterexample below.
One of the most important applications of smooth functions with compact support is the construction of so-called mollifiers, which are important in theories of generalized functions, like e.g. Laurent Schwartz's theory of distributions.
The existence of smooth but non-analytic functions represents one...
You can also conformally change any metric to make it complete. This should not be particularly surprising; the idea being that you pick a compact exhaustion and make lengths longer as you go out to infinity.
@AndrewThompson Yeah. I had a nice meeting with someone not-my-advisor yesterday to talk about Tate cohomology and had a lot of great ideas as a result. Then I looked at my notes and I have no idea what they're talking about.
@0celo7 I never said that's how it was originally published, and I don't much care, either. It's the first idea that ever came to mind to me about it, and it worked.
@0celo7 Pick a compact exhaustion of submanifolds, a small open neighborhood of each submanifold, and a smooth function that is a sufficiently large constant $c(n)$ on $W_n \setminus U_{n-1}$. Then replace $g$ by $e^fg$. The point is that you want to show that any geodesic that goes through $W_n$ and out $W_{n+1}$ takes at least one unit of time.
So I can give an example of where Hopf-Rinow fails in the noncomplete world, eg $\Bbb R^2 - 0$ : given any path joining a pair of antipodal points, I can find another one which is of smaller arclength (the point is the straightline does not exist on the surface). But is there an example where a locally arclength minimizing path exists between $p, q$, but it's not the geodesic?
basically, if someone writes $H_{DR}(M)$ where $M$ is a manifold, should I take that to be the de Rham complex? Otherwise I don't get what's meant by $[\alpha]\mapsto [\alpha\wedge \omega]$ is a mapping from $H_{DR}(M)$ to itself.
Also, inverse limits are limits. I have no idea whether or not fundamental group commutes with homotopy limits. It commutes with directed colimits of CW complexes already, as long as everything is an inclusion.
@MikeMiller You can probably write down a path between two points in the inverse limit, because the structure maps are covering maps (by path lifting). It's called the n-adic solenoid.
I don't see why you don't. Pick two points $p, q$ in the first $S^1$, join by a path and lift them up to each $S^1$ in the limit. These gives map from $I$ to the inverse system which commutes with the structure maps. That gives a map from $I$ to the inverse limit.
I met with my advisor today and was explaining a proof to him until I realized I missed something important. I told him I was scared about it and he told me "It's near halloween, it's OK to be scared."
"In more technical language, if the summands are ${\displaystyle (A_{i})_{i\in I}}$, the direct sum ${\displaystyle \bigoplus _{i\in I}A_{i}}$ is defined to be the set of tuples ${\displaystyle (a_{i})_{i\in I}}$ with ${\displaystyle a_{i}\in A_{i}} $ such that ${\displaystyle a_{i}=0}$ for all but finitely many $i$."
The direct sum is an operation from abstract algebra, a branch of mathematics. For example, the direct sum
R
⊕
R
{\displaystyle \mathbf {R} \oplus \mathbf {R} }
, where
R
{\displaystyle \mathbf {R} }
is real coordinate space. Then
R
⊕
R
{\displaystyle \mathbf {R} \oplus \mathbf {R} }
is the Cartesian plane,
...
When $A, B$ are $K$-modules, then $A \times B$ is the same as $A \oplus B$.
Let $A, B$ be two $K$-algebras, where $K$ is a field. Is $A \times B$ the same as $A \oplus B$?
Thank you very much.
Edit: $A \times B$ is direct product and $A \oplus B$ is direct sum.
Edit: I am asking this qu...
@AliCaglayan I'm pretty sure you don't want inverse limit. I think what you're trying to think about is the "infinite genus torus", where you connect sum forever to the right.
@Kari You should check that. Pick a different parameterization: these two are related as $f = \phi \circ g \circ \phi^{-1}$. Does that change the first fundamental form? Checking $E, F, G$ are invariant suffices, note.
You should also be able to tell me intuitively why it doesn't depend on any parameterization and is intrinsic to the surface, without checking definition.
Hey guys, need some help here I have to solve a system of equations using a matrix I've been struggling but I cant find a way to represent the system as a matrix
$2a - b = 0$
Sorry, the whole system is 2a - b = 0 -ax - cx = x -ax^2 + bx^2 = 0 cx^3 = 0