« first day (2294 days earlier)      last day (3024 days later) » 

10:06
@alessandro what would R/Q look like?
Max
Max
Can anyone see how this step is justified? prntscr.com/d72355
@DHMO a mess? Jokes apart are you thinking about R as a group and Q as a normal subgroup when writing that quotient or which structure do you have in mind?
@MartinSleziak Did you see this?
10:38
@Alessandro the former
would it only have one element? I have no idea
Q is dense in R
I reckon it would have infinitely many elements
It has as many elements as R I'd say
but it would be a mess
R over Q is uncountable, yes
Elements in R/Q correspond 1-1 with Q-linearly independent irrationals in R, no?
but it is indeed a mess
I still can't picture it
10:46
and, I guess you could say it's a mess, in the sense that you need the axiom of choice to find a basis for the space
I believe so @Balarka
@SteamyRoot so we have the axiom of choice
And as for the topology it's badly not Hausdorff. Any irrational has an nbhd which hits a rational, which quotients down to the equivalence class [0]. So nbhd of any point intersects [0]
what is the basis then
AoC is equivalent to "every vector space has a basis"
10:47
then what is the basis?
It doesn't tell you anything about what the basis is
It just means it exists
@SteamyRoot We're not talking about a vector space...
so can u find the basis in R/Q?
$\Bbb R / \Bbb Q$
But AC does give a basis.
@BalarkaSen about what, then?
10:48
@SteamyRoot quotient group/ring?
R/Q as a group
I've never seen anyone talk about "R over Q" unless when considered as vector spaces
@SteamyRoot We're literally looking at a quotient group.
is it a group or a ring?
(You could also think about R/Q has a quotient of topological spaces but that's trivial)
10:49
@SteamyRoot what does R/Q as a vector space mean?
@DHMO Q is not an ideal of R.
@BalarkaSen I see
You can't quotient by stuff in a ring which aren't ideal.
@Alessandro This quotient group also admits a topology.
@BalarkaSen do you know anything special about this quotient group?
No, why would you think there's anything special about it?
10:51
because it's a mess
wait, 0=1 in R/Q right
I know nothing about topological groups sadly @Balarka
@DHMO what do you mean "what does R/Q as a vector space mean"?
@Alessandro This Q-action on R is continuous. So the topology is just defined by pinching the equivalence classes of the orbits (I mean, it's an equivalence relation, so you quotient by it)
Wait is the topology on R/Q as a quotient group the same topology I get from a quotient of topological spaces R/~ where x~y iff x-y is in Q?
10:55
@SteamyRoot you mistook it as a vector space right
That's the trivial topology then
R has commutative addition and a neutral; multiplication of a real number by a rational scalar is well-defined; and the scalar multiplication and vector addition behave correctly
So R can be seen as a vector space over Q
I see
10:55
Q-orbit of any open interval upstairs is all of R
what is the basis then
Yeah, I mistook it as a vector space because, afaik, that's the only time people actively use this space. Seen as a group, I have no idea if it has anything interesting about it
@DHMO Google "Hamel basis"
^
We only know such basis exists
Doesn't mean we can explicitly construct one
but a basis is just one vector right
10:57
A basis is a set of linearly independent vectors that span the entire space?
Hello, please if $I: X\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ , the differential $I'(u)$ is defined from where to where please
Why would it be a single vector?
@SteamyRoot how many vectors does the basis of R/Q have?
Uncountably many
@Vrouvrou it depends on whether $I$ is continuous and differentiable
I see
10:58
Suppose a hamel basis only had countably many elements
And Q is countable itself
@Vrouvrou ideally it would be the largest open set in X, right @BalarkaSen
I mean, there won't be countably many for obvious reasons
Then what is the cardinality of R?
it is continuous , i will write it to you @DHMO
@DHMO That's correct.
10:59
@Vrouvrou is it differentiable?
@BalarkaSen and it's called the interior
@Vrouvrou then it is the interior of X
meaning the largest open set in X
"open" meaning there is no boundary point
right @BalarkaSen
and the finally space ?
@Vrouvrou i don't even know what X is
"Google" or "use a topology textbook". But yes.
11:01
@Vrouvrou all i can say is that it would be the interior of X
@BalarkaSen I only know the delta-definition of open set lol
@DHMO ; $I: W^{1,\Phi}(\Omega)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, $I(u)=\int_{\Omega} \Phi(|\nabla u|)\,dx+\int_{\Omega} \Phi(|u|)\,dx-\int_{\Omega} F(u)\,dx.$
$$
I'(u)v=\int_{\Omega} \phi(|\nabla u|)\nabla u \nabla v\, dx+\int_{\Omega} \phi(|u|)uv\,dx-\int_{\Omega} f(u)v\,dx, \quad \forall u,v \in W_0^{1,\Phi}(\Omega).
$$
I have a lecture now, bye everyone!
@Alessandro arrivederci
@Alessandro Have fun
I wouldn't exactly call numerical analysis fun but I'll try to :P
11:08
Oh, that's no fun
number theory?
I should get back to reading Dostoyevsky again
Among other things I should get back to...
@DHMO i found this in a paper i want to know how to prove the continuity of $I'$, i must take $(u_n)$ a convergent sequence from $W^{1,\phi}$ or take a $v_n$ ?
no idea
C/R is less of a mess right
its elements are exactly iR
11:15
8
Q: Visualizing quotient groups: $\mathbb{R/Q}$

mike4ty4I was wondering about this. I know it is possible to visualize the quotient group $\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}$ as a circle, and if you consider these as "topological groups", then this group (not topological) quotient is topologically equivalent to a circle. But then, what does $\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Q}...

Maybe that's what you were looking for?
thanks
and, yeah, if you see C as the set R x R with the operation (a,b) + (c,d) = (a+c,b+d); and identify R = R x {0}, then C/R = iR = R
R/Q and R being isomorphic as groups makes sense but I didn't expect it
11:50
i imagine R/Q as a point...
it is not known if e is equivalent to pi, lol
What do you mean with equivalent?
in R/Q
Yep, that's an open problem
is there a clopen problem? :p
2
12:11
@DHMO Maybe that's when you prove a problem is independent standard axioms?
You've closed the problem by stating that it will remain open.
nice
12:42
I've got a couple of group theory questions up that aren't getting a lot of attention if anybody wants to take a look and help a cat out.
Post them, maybe someone will know the answer
Caption: This is getting weirder for this seemly trivial structure I asked in MSE some days ago: It seems to be a totally ordered lattice like structure where only the join semlattice is bounded but not the meet semilattice.

In addition, the absorption rules only hold for one of the elements
I should update my question to insert these findings, maybe it will help characterise it
0
Q: Center of group of real unitriangular $3 \times 3$ matrices

Jessy CatFor reference, if $R$ denotes either $\mathbb{Z}$, $\mathbb{Q}$, $\mathbb{R}$, or $\mathbb{C}$, a matrix $A = (a_{ij}) \in M_{n}(R)$ is called unitriangular if all diagonal entries $a_{ii}$ are $1$ and all entries $a_{ij}$ $(i>j)$ below the diagonal are $0$ (i.e., an upper triangular matrix with ...

0
Q: For finite collection of groups, $G_{1},G_{2},\cdots G_{n}$, $\exists G$ where $G_{i}$ is homomorphic image of $G$

Jessy CatLet $G_{1},G_{2},\cdots, G_{n}$ be any finite collection of finite groups. I need to prove that there exists a finite group $\mathbf{G}$ such that each $\mathbf{G_{i}}$ is a homomorphic image of $\mathbf{G}$. Since this problem is in the section we're doing on direct products, I let $G = G_{1}...

and last, but not least
0
Q: Prove that any two nontrivial subgroups of $\mathbb{Q}$ have nontrivial intersection

Jessy CatI need to prove that any two nontrivial subgroups of $\mathbb{Q}$ have a nontrivial intersection as part of a larger proof that $\mathbb{Q}$ cannot be represented as a nontrivial direct product (Yes, I realize that there are other ways to prove that $\mathbb{Q}$ cannot be represented as a nontriv...

@JessyCat Stop spamming chat with your posted questions
@TobiasKildetoft I'm only doing what @Alessandro asked me to.
I swear, I wasn't trying to spam.
12:54
I didn't realize they were questions from MSE, anyway it's fine to post them but use links so that they don't take up that much space next time
They are also less than half an hour old (the newest being a few minutes old)
@Alessandro Links automatically get converted to those giant things if they're from MSE
@Tobias, yeah, I've been working on that stuff all week, and just now got around to posting all the questions I've been saving up.
@SteamyRoot, not if you embed them in comments.
For the last one intuitively, suppose $G$ and $H$ are subgroups of $\mathbb{Q}$ with trivial intersection, if a/b is in G so is a, and if c/d is in H so is c, what about lcm(a,c)?
You can post them in the [description](link) format I think @SteamyRoot
The $lcm (a,c)$ is in $G \cap H$?
crap. What's the tag for lcm?
12:58
No idea, you can use \mathrm{lcm}, but maybe there's one specifically for lcm
I just googled it, apparently $\gcd$ is standard, but not $\lcm$
oh well.
@Alessandro \operatorname is probably better due to spacing
not that is makes a big difference here
But anyway, is that correct @Alessandro?
Yep, that's probably better
Yes, it is
@Alessandro, so that's it, then? Take any nontrivial subgroups $G$ and $H$ of $\mathbb{Q}$, and suppose $G \cap H = \{ 0 \}$. Then, suppose $\exists$ element $\frac{a}{b} \in G$. Then, because $G$ is a group, if $\frac{a}{b} \in G$, we must have $a \in G$, $\frac{1}{b} \in G$. Also, suppose $\exists$ element $\frac{c}{d} \in H$. Then, likewise, because $H$ is a group, if $\frac{c}{d} \in H$, we must have $c \in H$, $\frac{1}{d} \in H$.
Then, I assume there is some kind of result somewhere that the lcm of elements of two number groups is contained in its intersection?
Yeah, except I got the group operation wrong. It's addition, not multiplication...
13:07
That's longer than it needs to be, look at the answer you got on MSE
So the lcm isn't going to help here @Alessandro
Yeah, I just saw that.
lcm(a,c) or ac doesn't really matter, as long as you get something which is both in H and G
Hello.
This one guy who's answered some of my questions before posted a very weird note to some guy named Don Antonio as a comment to one of my new questions...
Hi @Mahmoud
13:10
Wait - you're trying to prove that any two nontrivials subgroups of $\mathbb{Q}$ have nontrivial intersection?
That was the problem, but we solved it already
@SteamyRoot yeah. I like the proof that Arthur dude posted. It's very clean.
@JessyCat It is quite clear that the person had made another comment containing a mistake which was corrected by DonAntonio and both those comments are now deleted
Today I had a course about functions, we talked about the average rate of change $T(a,b)$, but I was wondering why do we still learn this if we're going to study Differential Calculus later on.
Yeah, the product $ac$ is indeed in the intersection
13:11
(DonAntonio is a quite regular poster of answers)
@TobiasKildetoft I see. So, I guess no jokes about "on this, the day of his daughter's wedding" are in order?
Why do we still care about something average ?
Because Trump got elected.
Like seriously, why ?
Because differential calculus involves a limiting process whereby you take the average rate of change over smaller and smaller intervals.
In the limit, the average rates of change should go to the instantaneous rate of change.
13:18
So we have to learn the average in order to understand the instantaneous, thank you $:)$
Then, of course there's the mean value theorem, which tells you that if $f$ is continuous and defined on any interval $[a,b]$ and differentiable on $(a,b)$, then there exists a point $c$ on that interval where the instantaneous velocity and the average velocity are the same.
Yes @Mahmoud You're welcome :)
$f$ being the position function in that case.
First time I see it.
If there's one thing I know how to do really well, it's explain Calc I stuff to students. I had so much trouble learning it myself back in the day that I really had to learn it very, very well, and be able to explain it clearly and in many different ways.
Nothing is an accident.
I've been able to help lots of students because of it.
Thanks again, I'll go now.
Have a nice day !
You too.
@Alessandro and @TobiasKildetoft thank you both also for all your help! :)
13:34
hey guys, after tidying up this is the question:
0
Q: nontrivial ringnoid with two commutative monoids where multiplicative identity coincide with additive identity?

SecretToday when joining the chat thus revising how $0=1$ implies triviality in rings. I then started to wonder whether the same thing hold in semirings (aka rig, which are generalisation of rings throwing away additive inverses) if the annihilator axiom $$\forall a\hspace{1mm}0a=0 $$ is thrown away ...

13:44
Iam tempted to know this solution
solution to what problem?
Code=
they picked some dumb equation and put it after code=
the wifi code is probably bananas123
its probably an expression that has a name
Which name?
13:48
like the top part is n^2 times the kurtosis
of some probability distribution
and the bottom part actually makes no sense at all
indeed
Ok,thanks
(sorry not n^2 times the curtosis but n^2 times the 4th moment^)
you could have expected something like my name is $E[(x-\mu)^4]/\sigma^4$ - diffusion through cell wall
at it would have been kurtosis minus osmosis and his name is kurt-om
So where is that bar?
14:15
@s.harp thanks! :)
I have a question for you guys: if $\frac{a}{b}$ is in a subgroup of $\mathbb{Q}$, how does closure under addition guarantee that $a \in $ that subgroup as well?
I'm trying to understand an answer someone posted to one of my questions: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2013483/…
$b$ is an integer, right?
Add a/b to itself b times
@Alessandro....ugh.
okay, so then how am I guaranteed that the intersection of $H$ and $G$ contains $a+c$?
14:21
and if $b$ is negative, just add it $|b|$ times to itself and use that the inverse must also be in the group
It doesn't necessarily contain a+c, but it'll contain ac
I know that $H \cap G$ is also a subgroup of $\mathbb{Q}$...
@Alessandro, why?
Uhm, well, maybe a+c too, but it's easier to show it for ac
$a \in G$ and $c \in H$
add $a$ to itself $c$ times in $G$
and add $c$ to itself $a$ times in $H$
$a+c$ won't necessarily be in $G \cap H$. For example, take $G = 2\mathbb{Z}$ and $H = 3\mathbb{Z}$. Then $G \cap H = 6\mathbb{Z}$. But if you take $2 \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $3 \in 3\mathbb{Z}$, you don't have that $5 \in 6\mathbb{Z}$
Hello, can I get a tip on how to prove correctness of bottom up merge sort ?
14:29
@SteamyRoot and @Alessandro thank you so much!!
SteamyRobot, what's your take on my question?
14:54
I have a question about selfadjoints over $\Bbb C$ it is easier to read here:
0
Q: Show $\alpha$ is selfadjoint.

Aksel'sRoseQuestion: Let $V$ be an inner product space finitely generated over $\Bbb C$ and let $\alpha$ be an endomorphism of $V$ satisfying $\alpha \alpha^* = \alpha^2$. Show that $\alpha$ is selfadjoint. **Edited after more thought: I know that in order to be selfadjoint $\alpha^*=\alpha$. Becuase this...

can someone please shed some light on this
i'm not a good person to ask about self-adjointness in a formal sense, but suppose that $\alpha$ weren't self-adjoint. then there must exist $v\in V$ such that $\langle \alpha(v),v\rangle \not\in \Bbb{R}$
perhaps the thing to do is look at $(\alpha^2)(v)$?
I will try that
You might also look at how the inner product behaves under complex conjugation.
Why and when was I removed?why my reputation dropped 50?
@Semiclassical oh true, forgot about that
15:08
Hello, can I get a hint of how to do Taylor series on theory of relativity? I can post the full question here if you'd like
@steve That's pretty vague. I'd need to see the question, yeah.
Alright, here you go:
I don't understand part two of the following question:

a) Let $x\in[0;1)$. Prove by using Taylor series that $(1-x)^{-\frac{1}{2}}=1+\frac{x}{2}+\frac{3}{8}(1-\xi)^{-\frac{5}{2}}x^2$.

This was straight forward. I calculated the Taylor series to the first degree to the point $a=0$:

$P_{1,a=0}(x)=f(a)+f'(a)(x-a)=1+\frac{x}{2}$

Afterwards I calculated the remainder:

$$R_{1,a=0}(x)=\frac{f''(\xi)}{(n+1)!}(x-a)^{n+1}=\frac{3x^2}{8(1-\xi)^{\frac{5}{2}}}$$

Adding these two together, I get:
that's a mouthful. to make things simple, I'll take $c=1$.
in that case, what's your expression for $E$ in terms of $v$?
also, the factor $1/\sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}$ is typically labelled as $\gamma$ i.e. relativistic gamma
so the kinetic part can be written as $\gamma m_0 c^2-m_0 c^2$, i.e. the total energy $\gamma m_0 c^2$ less the rest energy $m_0 c^2$.
The Taylor expansion should be done on $f((\frac{v}{c})^2)=(1-(\frac{v}{c})^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}}$, right?
right.
also, you're looking for an upper bound.
what I'd suggest doing is doing the Taylor expansion with $\xi$ left undefined as long as possible.
and then at the very end make a bound on $\xi$ which gives the desired inequality
15:20
Okay, I'll get back to you. Thanks
I get the first term (first degree Taylor expansion) to be $f '((\frac{v}{c})^2)=-\frac{1}{2(\frac{v}{c})}$
when $f(x)=(1-x)^{-1/2}$?
Well, when $x=(\frac{v}{c})^2$ I assumed the derivative would change
15:26
due to the power of 2
you're still looking it as a function of $(v/c)^2$, not of $v$.
as a function of $x$, the derivative of $x^2$ is 2. as a function of $x^2$, it's just 1.
@JessyCat you're welcome, although I did not do much^
Hello everybody
more to the point, though, if you view $(1-x^2)^{-1/2}$ as a function of $x$, then the first derivative vanishes.
I'm a bit confused why you're going down this route, though. You indicated above that you understood the first part of the question.
Hmm, how is this Taylor expansion any different from the one I did in a)?
It's not.
That's more or less the point---you're just applying the result in (a)
15:29
Well, I was unsure about the derivative.
Hello @s.harp
so what does $E_{kin}(v)$ look like once you make the approximation?
The same as a) with $(\frac{v}{c})^2$ instead of $x$, but where does the $4$ come from in the denominator?
it'll become clearer once you write out all the algebra.
@s.harp I humbly disagree. The bottom part is not relevant in the measure of "pointy-ness" (which is what kurtosis means), but it's to make the whole thing useful for computational purposes. The 4th moment is ~ of order 4, so you divide by $\sigma^4$ to match up the order and make the whole thing small enough.
huh? what do you disagree with
15:35
Follow the grey arrow on the message.
so what're the (somewhat tedious) expressions for $E_{kin}$ and $E_{kin}-T(v)?$ feel free to use $x$ instead of $(v/c)^2$.
ok, ill brb in a min then ill respond^
Nvm
In this problem here, can anyone tell me how to show in general how $a_{12}b_{23} = b_{12}a_{23} \implies a_{12} = 0, a_{23}=0$? Somebody posted an "example proof" answer, which is completely useless, and somebody else thought he was helping me but really wasn't.
2
Q: Find Center of $\mathbf{UT(3, \mathbb{R})}$

Jessy CatFor reference, if $R$ denotes either $\mathbb{Z}$, $\mathbb{Q}$, $\mathbb{R}$, or $\mathbb{C}$, a matrix $A = (a_{ij}) \in M_{n}(R)$ is called unitriangular if all diagonal entries $a_{ii}$ are $1$ and all entries $a_{ij}$ $(i>j)$ below the diagonal are $0$ (i.e., an upper triangular matrix with ...

If you can help me, could you please post it as either a comment or an answer (preferably an answer b/c I don't want to award either of the current answers any points)? I really need to go get ready to go to class now, so I will stop by later to look at what you wrote. But it would really, really help me a lot.
15:44
[Abstract algebra] It seems that given an arbitrary commutative magma with a cayley table of 3 elements, if one of the elements is a two sided identity, then the rows and columns of the cayley table correspond to that identity are invariant under associative laws. In addition, commutativity ensures the entry in the associative cayleytable of coordinates (id,id,id) to be trivially associative
@BalarkaSen this with the arrows is amazing, I did not know you could do it
@Semiclassical So if I split up the fraction, $E_{kin}(v)$ and $E_{kin}(v)$ cancel each other out and I'm left with $-\frac{T(v)}{E_{kin}(v)}$. Is that right?
but also in the picture, the bottom term is $(\sum_{i=3}^n(x_i-\overline{x}^2)^3)^2$
which is, I think, completely meaningless in a standard context
sure it encodes information about the system
@steve that's not a good idea here
15:46
but there is no readily available standard method of interpreting this information, like there is for mean, variance etc
@s.harp It doesn't even have proper units :/
I don't see a picture.
@Semiclassical yeah because of the x-x^2 term :)
2 hours ago, by Ramanujan
user image
15:48
@steve the problem is that $E_{kin}$ and $T(v)$ are roughly equal, so what you get is something like $1-(1)/(1)$ which isn't helpful.
you need to leave the numerator intact. bite the bullet and write out $E_{kin}(v)-T(v)$ explicitly
Seroiusly I know I've asked a lot of everyone today, but I just want somebody to show me how I can prove that $AB = BA$ \implies $a_{12}, a_{23} = 0$ in that problem I just posted in a general way without any stupid examples with a bunch of 1's in it.
@s.harp funny; Secret's message comes after that in the ongoing chat transcript, sending that picture far back so I can't see. otoh the chat transcript has it on the right order. strange!
In my comp, both in the trasncript and the actual chat, I saw my message came before that pics
(A relativity thing?)
I am in a state of confusion
But I think it is ok, so I will not consider it further
I was at a coffee shop whose password was wedonthavewifi
15:52
i was at a non-starbucks shop which had the password as starbuckssux
"What's your wifi password" "Oh, wedonthavewifi"
@s.harp I misread your message as saying that the bottom of kurtosis doesn't make sense, not knowing what you were replying to as that particular message was pushed back the last message in the chat when I was reading the trascript.
ok^
also it is strange that kurtosis is not written curtosis in english
[Abstract algebra] Experiments on ringnoids with 3 elements are not very illuminating in showing how distributive laws impose constraints on the cayley table. Guess I am going for the most general cayley table to try to tease it out (NB the numbers are just labels):

\begin{matrix}\circ & 1 & 2 & 3 \\ 1 & 1 & 2 & 3 \\ 2 & 4 & 5 & 6 \\ 3 & 7 & 8 & 9\end{matrix}
\begin{matrix}\triangle & 1 & 2 & 3 \\ 1 & 10 & 11 & 12 \\ 2 & 13 & 14 & 15 \\ 3 & 16 & 17 & 18 \end{matrix}
@Semiclassical $E=\frac{m_0c^2\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}-1\right)-\frac{1}{2}m_0v‌​^2}{m_0c^2\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}-1\right)}$
16:04
SR?
this is not quite right if were assuming a non zero velocity and a non zero mass then you have to account for (pc)^2 as well as (mc^2)^2
This is Taylor expansion on theory of relativity. See my question above (it's the long one, you can't miss it)
ah so the equation they gave you was slightly wrong but its what your working with cool
Where do I go from here?
I don't see how I am any closer to the desired expression
@steve okay, and -now- plug in the taylor series expansion including the remainder term
@shaihorowitz E here means error i.e. (E_kin - 1/2 m v^2)/E_kin
yeah i see that now
16:14
pretty awful notation imo, but whatever
agreed but what you got
Quite.
two things should cancel in the numerator, and one in the denominator
i would say the continuum hypothesis is clopen. looking at the side
It's not an open problem in that it's been shown that the continuum hypothesis is independent of the axioms of set theory.
Instead of $E_{kin}(v)$?
16:17
yeah but there are people actively working on which axiom it should be so i would label it open
Yes. Plug in the Taylor series expression.
@shaihorowitz right.
also, it may help to preemptively factor out $m_0 c^2$, i.e. $T(v)=m_0c^2 \cdot T(v)/(m_0 c^2) = m_0 c^2\cdot \frac12 (v/c)^2$
which you might recognize as $m_0 c^2\cdot \frac12 x$...
also the 4 coloring problem in graph theory, its sort of proved kinda but really not compellingly.
Kepler's conjecture re: sphere packing is another instance of that
yeah theres starting to be to many
computers make things hard because are we sure we did our part right and they did there part right i.e. perfectly programmed and perfectly executed. hard to trust for giant programs
garbage in, garbage out
and the more you have to put in, the more possibilities for garbage
16:27
p(a and b) < p(a), P(b)
yep.
The conjunction fallacy is a formal fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that specific conditions are more probable than a single general one. The most often-cited example of this fallacy originated with Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman: Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations. Which is more probable? Linda is a bank teller. Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement. The majority of those...
yeah the human brain is not the best which compounds the fact that there might be an error in programming and if there is it might lead us to assume p and not p for some p...
@Semiclassical Hey there, ive been working on that question from before and need a check. (I will write a bit better on actual proof) Given$\alpha\alpha^*=\alpha^2$ $\langle{\alpha(v),\alpha(v)}\rangle=\langle{\alpha\alpha^*(v), v}\rangle$ which is $\langle{\alpha^2(v),v}\rangle=\langle{\alpha(v),\alpha^*(v)}\rangle$ Thus $\alpha=\alpha^*$
hmm, I like that approach
Then I will use a proposition which states that if it is true for the reals than it is true in the complex
16:33
not sure it follows, though
It probably doesnt....my math skills have definitely deteriorated recently
i.e. does $\langle \alpha(v),\alpha(v)\rangle=\langle \alpha(v),\alpha^*(v)\rangle$ imply $\alpha=\alpha^*$?
I would say so but I honestly have no idea...
it implies a^2=aa*=aa thus a*=a if i'm reading this right
that seems a bit strong.
16:36
i.e just pull out the scalers
ah but can you do that in the second case i get it
i mean, you've definitely got $\alpha^*(u)=\alpha(u)$ when $u=\alpha(v)$.
so it's definitely a real operator on the image of $\alpha$.
I feel like im way overthinking this question but want to make sure its right
what is a*a?
composition of endomorphisms
a* is adjoint
16:45
no i mean if a* a=a^2=aa *
then clearly a = a*
^ that makes sense
@Semiclassical $E=\frac{1+\frac{(\frac{v}{c})^2}{2}+\frac{3(\frac{v}{c})^2}{8(1-\xi)^{\frac{5}{‌​2}}}-\frac{1}{2}m_0v^2}{1+\frac{(\frac{v}{c})^2}{2}+\frac{3(\frac{v}{c})^2}{8(1-\‌​xi)^{\frac{5}{2}}}}$
r9m
r9m
hi .. can someone tell me how to install a .sty file in latex? (I'm on ubuntu 14.04)

« first day (2294 days earlier)      last day (3024 days later) »