« first day (2288 days earlier)      last day (3028 days later) » 

22:01
it is mainly for passing through laws. if the mainparty only has 51% its tough, because individual members can disagree
so in the USA, if the ruling party is for something but not all of them ,say 51% of the party or effectivly only 25% of all politicians a law can be passed through anyway?
seems legit... :O
@saturatedexpo That's not the case. It's still a majority of the entire Congress.
Which, in our system, just leads to massive amounts of deadlock.
ah ok
so the "great wall" of trump might not see daylight anyway?
@saturatedexpo Probably not, unless his party retains control of the Senate (which looks unlikely).
This is why I like math. You can't politicize math. Only how you teach it.
didn't read your comment fully haha
Happens.
22:13
it's good that we agree to agree tho
wait, can you even disagree to agree? :s
@saturatedexpo That's just disagreeing, isn't it?
agree = agree
disagree = disagree
disagree to agree = disagree
agree to disagree = disagree but end discussion
What I'm getting at is that agree and disagree don't commute.
mmh, not quite. Think of: we both think the same thing, but we don't understand that we agree on the same thing
I'm reading it as, "I disagree to agree with you--rather, I would like to disagree."
mmh, i thought of "y+1=x+1 implies that y=x", whereas another might say "to me thats not obvious, only if there stands y=x it means that y=x"
#bad examples
Guy i got a question I need to show that K[X] is K-Vektorroom. I know the definition of a polynom and a vektorroom, but my question is can i just choose 3 random polynoms from my vektorroom to show for example associativity under addition?
22:24
@AjaxEdm vektorroom = vector space, I assume?
@Fargle yes, in german it would be room=raum
(and probably in some other languages too)
oeww precisely ;)
@AjaxEdm Associativity under addition follows directly from associativity of $K$ under addition as a field.
Yes but the question wants me to show it thats the problem
Just consider three arbitrary polynomials $\sum_{i=0}^n a_ix^i$, $\sum_{i=0}^m b_ix^i$, $\sum_{i=0}^p c_ix^i$, and apply the definition of adding polynomials, then use associativity of $K$
You can't just pick three particular random polynomials--it has to hold in general. Unless what I said is what you meant, in which case my bad. ;)
22:29
Yes makes perfectly sense ;)
Good evening @Semi
Thank's man wouldn't have expected a soo fast answer ;)
@AjaxEdm No problem! I've been doing a lot of abstract algebra lately--I'll credit that.
if G is any group and $a\in G$ for which $a\circ a=a$ holds, then a is the identity element of G. (i asked that previously) So is the inverse-axiom here to be used?
22:39
As i told you before you know that $a^{-1}$ is also in $G$
ok, then there has to be an element e, for that $b\circ e=e\circ b=b$ holds. ($b\in G$)
that's part of the definition of a group
if $a=b$ then $ac=bc$, right? What if $c=a^{-1}$? And what if $b=aa$?
@Alessandro would assuming the negation help me in any way?
aa=a holds AND a is not e.
22:49
I don't think it'll help, but answering to my last message probably will
@saturatedexpo Not really. You'll just get to write ", a contradiction." at the end of your proof
im kinda stuck in the sense that i dont even know where im stuck :(
@saturatedexpo Well, if $aa = a$, then definitely, $caa = ca$ for any $c$.
Do you agree?
because its a group, yes
now just choose $c$ wisely
(we already suggested you how to choose it by the way)
22:52
$a^{-1}$
because then on the left e will stand
You mean on the right?
And on the left...?
and what about the left?
$e\cdot a=e$
22:54
what's $ea$ equal to?
a
by definition of neutral element
Yep. And you're done.
You showed that if $aa = a$, then $a = e$.
ok, so you have $a=e$ and that concludes the proof
They don't call it "abstract" algebra for nothing.
It might have helped to think of it a bit more concretely: consider $\Bbb R$ under addition.
If $x + x = x$, what must $x$ be?
Exactly. You subtract x on both sides.
What the problem is trying to show is that that sort of cancellation works in any group.
Now @saturated you mentioned before that the identity element is unique and that's something everyone should prove once
Put more precisely, if $ac = bc$, then $a = b$, and similarly if $ab = ac$, then $b = c$.
In the first case, you right-multiply by $c^{-1}$ ("right-divide by c", heavy air quotes), and in the second case, you left-multiply by $a^{-1}$ ("left-divide by a")
$a\circ a=a\iff c\circ a\circ a=c\circ a$. Now we choose $c=a^{-1}$ which is fine by the axioms. Therefore $a^{-1}\circ a\circ a=a^{-1}\circ a\iff e\circ a=a=e$?
@saturatedexpo Indeed.
23:00
@fargle i saw^^
that was a hard birth
You can just use standard multiplicative or additive notation instead of writing $\circ$ everytime by the way
that took some doing :D
it's common to do so
@saturatedexpo It gets easier. Just remember that groups are just nice enough that you can use cancellation and other stuff from normal algebra--you just can't rearrange the order of things unless your group is abelian.
ah ok, the problem is \cdot is not really better then \circ
23:02
Just concatenate them, like $xy$
Unless you're working with multiple groups it's understood you're using the group operation.
(And it's also standard to write $1$ instead of $e$ when writing $xy$ instead of $x\circ y$)
is it wise to write $1_G$ for clarity?
There's no risk of misunderstanding unless there are more groups involved
@saturatedexpo If you're working with multiple groups, yes. That happens when you get to homomorphisms.
Otherwise, as @Alessandro said, there's really no problem--in context it's clear you don't mean $1 \in \Bbb N$.
but sometimes you'll see things like "$f(1_{G_1})=1_{G_2}$ if you're talking about the identities of different groups
If the group's operation is addition then you'll find $x+y$ for $x\circ y$, $-x$ for $x^{-1}$ and $0$ for $e$, just as one might expect
23:08
and if the group is addition-like, can you write -x too?
like my previous excercise $ab=a+b-1$
@saturatedexpo Yes, but I think in that example it would have been confusing.
You get weird looking stuff like $-a = 1-a$ in that example.
It's just a matter of using notation you're comfortable with, and that's unambiguous.
so the operation minus is not really well defined with the field axioms?
@saturatedexpo It is--$a - b = a + (-b)$.
It's just in that case, since you're already using the normal $+$ to define your new operation, calling your new operation $+$ is something you have to be very careful with.
mmh, i wonder if i ever get so far that i prove my own stuff instead of those excercises.
problably, but you have to start somewhere
23:13
so at the moment I learn how to count to ten.
yep
I have to go now, but you should think about proving that in a group $G$ the identity element is unique, that is if $ae=ea=a$ for all $a\in G$ and $af=fa=a$ for all $a\in G$ then $e=f$
that's a standard exercise
@Alessandro good night/ or day :)
all elements of a subgroup have to be in its supgroup right?
23:37
Hey, I've got a dilemma over here
@Maks speak up :)
When I do $ \sqrt[3]{-1} $ on my scientific calculator, its says the answer is -1
But wolfram says it is not -1
What is happening ??
well first
(-1)(-1)(-1) is indeed again -1
BUT
That's exactly what I thought
But ?
Hello.
23:41
@Maks read this, it will explain: math.stackexchange.com/questions/25528/…
Ohh thank you
You learn something new everyday
the gist is: don't trust your calculator blindly ;)
and neither should you trust wolfram alpha blindly, altho WF is a great verifier
instead, trust this chatroom lol
Yeah haha
Well, trust everyone but DHMO.
23:46
Just another simple question
@TedShifrin what?
the set of internet resources i trust: $\{\}$
I'm in college, we are learning integrals
@Maks as you see, every (complex) polynomial of degree $n$ has $n$ (complex) roots up to multiplicity
More specifically convergence of integrals
And I have to check if this integral converges and in what point
23:47
it means that every (complex) polynomial can be factored into linear factors
@Maks checking if something converges doesn't help you. SHOW it!
$ \int_{0}^{2} \frac {1} {(1-y) ^ \frac {2}{3}} $
how would you biject between [0,1] and (0,1)?
for a quick example consider $f(x)=\frac{1}{x}$ in the intervall $1,+\infty$
Now, I have to divide the integral in two because it is not continuous on 1
And then evaluate it
I get 6 as result
23:50
@saturatedexpo and then?
6 is the point of convergence ?
Shouldn't I be evaluation to an infinite ?
@Maks that depends on your definition of integration. the common convention allows the cancellation of infinite terms... (handwavey)
e.g. $\displaystyle \int_{-1}^1 \frac1x \ \mathrm dx = 0$
@DHMO with some work even rigorously
i'm too lazy
23:52
how would i biject between [0,1] and ]0,1[?
@saturatedexpo
yes
well, firstly i think you(me,we) can
Sooo... 6 is the right answer ?
@Maks yes
23:55
@DHMO just for clarity, one intervall contains 0 and 1, while the other not?
yes
The convergence point is the answer of the integration ? O.o
f(0)=0.1
f(1)=0.2
f(x)=0.5+$\frac{x}{2}$ while $1\not= x\not= 0$ But that is not a bijection!
but thats how i'd start thinking...
@Maks yes

« first day (2288 days earlier)      last day (3028 days later) »