@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?
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]
@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)
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
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 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 $v_n$ ?
I 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}...
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
For 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 ...
Let $G_{1},G_{2},\cdots, G_{n}$ 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}...
I 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...
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
@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...
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...
@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.
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.
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.
Today 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
...
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?
$a+c$ 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 $5 \in 6\mathbb{Z}$
Question: 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...
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 $(\alpha^2)(v)$?
@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.
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.
For 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.
[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
@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?
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!
@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.
[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):
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
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 $\alpha=\alpha^*$