« first day (2358 days earlier)      last day (2958 days later) » 

19:00
I hate antibiotics... ugh
Yeah, Balarka, you're having to take way too many of 'em. Gotta try to figure out how to avoid getting sick so much ... (I know ... duh).
Let $f(\lambda) = \det(M-I_n + \lambda I_n)$. It follows that $f$ is a polynomial in $\lambda$. Write $f:\lambda\mapsto a_0 + a_1 \lambda + \dots + a_n \lambda^n$. It follows that $\det(M+I_n) = f(2) =a_0 + 2a_1 +\dots + 2^n a_n$ has the same parity as $a_0 = \det(M-I_n)$. The result follows
@TedShifrin Fixed.
@Semiclassical Heya ^^ Got a minute?
19:02
hi
Wow, haven't seen @N3buch in ages.
Ask, don't ask to ask.
Hey guys! quick question. Suppose I have a prime integer that can be expressed as p=a^2-ab+b^2, where a and b are integers. How can i conclude that p neither divides a nor b and that b is a unit. I know this conclusion is correct.
Working on it, @Ted. It was just too darn cold for me this time.
@TedShifrin Been busy with life, how is it going?
19:03
I suppose that beats being busy with death, @N3buch :) Good to see you.
I am TA'ing in a course on multivariable analysis again this semester =)
Good stuff :)
@JonathanKrill Maybe you can use the fact that $a^2-ab+b^2=(a^3+b^3)/(a+b)$?
@Jonathan: So you're working in $\Bbb Z[\omega]$, where $\omega$ is a primitive cube root of unity.
Any ideas?
19:04
u are correct ted
@Semiclassic: I think you need to change two signs, but, whatever.
In where?
In your factorization.
$(a^3 - b^3)/(a - b)$
@Astyx Nice!
19:05
@Ted So would you like to see the linear algebra proof I have, or do you not care ?
@TedShifrin $(a^2-ab+ab)(a+b)=(a^3-a^2b+ab^2)+(a^2b-ab^2+b^3)=a^3+b^3$
At some point, @Astyx, you should look in Babai's lecture notes on linear algebra and combinatorics. There are all sorts of amazing such things in there. (I sent @Alessandro a copy.)
@SteamyRoot Is there another way of seeing this ? (perhaps discussing about volumes ?)
I think the inequality should be reversed, but I am not comfortable enough in the field to say this with any degree of certainty.
Oh, oops @Semiclassic. I should just resign.
19:06
@Ted Thanks for the reference !
@Jonathan: So if $p|a$, then $p|b$, as well. So $p^2|p$?
LOL @Lucas. Totally my fault.
My original proof was somewhat similar. Letting $f(x) = a_0 + \cdots + a_nx^n$ be the characteristic polynomial of $M$, then $\det(M -I) = f(1)$ and $\det(M+I) = f(-1)$. Taking the sum, you get $2a_0 + \cdots + (1 +(-1)^n) a_n$.
Yeah, it's the same thing really
19:09
My promotor's proof was, well, shockingly short.
I still have to spend the proper amount of time on that, but I agree that they're great @Ted
"Promotor's proof"?
That sounds like the question I had yesterday while doing research (it also dealt with why a certain characteristic polynomial was even)
Is that another way to say the final version? @SteamyRoot
@Semiclassic: Yes, it does sound remarkably like what we were discussing.
19:10
Modulo $2$, $M+I = M-I$ hence the determinants are equivalent mod $2$, and thus the sum is equivalent to $0$ mod 2.
this is correct @TedShifrin, but i still dont see why b is a unit, is it euklids lemma?
You should know a bit of introductory abstract algebra before reading them though in my opinion
No, it's the proof my promotor (maybe advisor is a better word?) came up with when he read mine.
Basically the same thing again I reckon
19:11
@Jonathan: I hadn't got that far yet. But by symmetry, then, $a$ must be a unit, too?
Something's wrong.
@TedShifrin What's funny about this "dual-shoelace formula" is that I had an actual research reason for wanting to remember it. Namely, to make a certain calculation in a paper simpler
You mean unit in $\Bbb Z$?
unit in Z_p sorry forgot to mention
(I wonder what the dual of a shoelace would be. An aglet?)
19:13
But everything's a unit in $\Bbb Z_p$ :)
(Though I guess that'd be two-to-one :) )
smacks @Semiclassic
colace
I approve.
19:14
I'm gonna inflict co-lateral damage.
So @Ted in office hours, Schlag actually talked about lifting maps for the problem about curves with the same winding number being homotopic
cant follow, why should everything be a unit in Z_p
@Daminark: Sounds familiar :P
Everything other than $0$ is a unit, @Jonathan. And we already said $p\nmid a$ and $p\nmid b$, so the residues of $a$ and $b$ are nonzero.
@Daminark Did you look at the picture I linked you?
@JonathanKrill because it's a field
19:16
Well, @Alessandro, of course I lied when I said "everything."
What's the forms-definition of winding number again? $\int_\gamma \omega$ where $\omega$ is $(-ydx + xdy)/\|\mathbf{x}\|^2$?
And $1/2\pi$, @Balarka.
Also, it seems like we're shifting gears a little bit in class. When Schlag found out that we didn't discuss manifolds in the context of implicit function theorem and all, so since we're interested in it, he'll do some stuff on that.
Ah, right.
That's just the imaginary part of $dz/z$, BTW.
19:17
Right.
Which might cut down a bit on ODEs
Those $2\pi$'s are a bit annoying.
Though not avoidable.
There's way too much jammed in that course, @Daminark. My course went reasonably fast as it was!
0 is not in $\Bbb N$, why should it be in $\Bbb Z_p$? :P
smacks @Alessandro twice
19:18
Lol
Besides, it's $\bar 0\in\Bbb Z_m$, not $0$.
And @Semiclassical I have looked at it, but I haven't yet gotten the chance to work on it
I deserved both to be fair
Main point is just that, if you ignore either one of the punctures, then the contour is contractible.
19:19
We need to have a MSE Chat party in Europe somewhere when I show up :P
I'll treat to dinner.
@Daminark: You won't understand this yet, but it illustrates the difference between homotopy and homology.
Which means, based on what you know about homotopy on the singly-punctured plane, that said contour has zero winding around both punctures.
Yep. That's fun.
That follows without anything homotopy-ish, @Semiclassic. It follows just from Green's/Stokes's Theorem.
@Jonathan: Are we OK now?
Sure, I was just pointing out the connection.
The significance of that contour is that it has zero winding number around both punctures but is nevertheless not contractible.
If you've just got one puncture, that's impossible.
Hey guys
Hi @Sylent
@Jonathan: Are you headed to proving something about what $p$ must look like mod 3?
19:22
Have a question* Is it possible to represent a bitwise operation AND with an equation? I tried looking online but I couldnt find anything
Huh, that's interesting. I'll definitely look into it a little bit @Semi. I will definitely look into it once I finish the problem set.

@Ted Yeah we have quite a lot going on. I'm not sure what Schlag will do with ODEs given that we might do more discussion on manifolds, it wouldn't surprise me if he just cuts that out (he was only going to do it for a few weeks anyway) and then jump right to Banach/Hilbert space theory.
@TedShifrin In the context of complex analysis, that contour is pretty much why I got interested in homology vs. homotopy.
@SylentNyte What do you mean by that ? Could you illustrate it ?
What are we talking about
It helped that our book did a chapter on contour integrals in terms of homotopy which teased the connection to homology at the end.
19:23
@Daminark: This is why I detest that course at UC. There's way too much multivariable calc/analysis to learn without trying to skip over it all so fast.
@TedShifrin yeah you are correct, im using the book learning modern algebra from cuoco
Oh, the Pochammer contour
@Balarka: Why $K=0$ implies locally isometric to the plane?
Yeah, Pochammer is nice.
@TedShifrin trying to understand what you said
19:24
Though I always think it's spelled with two h's.
I don't know the book, @Jonathan.
@SylentNyte that's addition in $F_2^n$ as a vector space over $F_2$ for $n$-bits long strings
@Astyx For example; have a = 5, b = 3. Binary(A) = $0101$, Binary(B) = $0011$, therefore $4 AND 3 = Binary(A) AND Binary(B) = 0001$
@TedShifrin I thought a little, I dunno. I just suck at these computations, I'll get back to your when I actually am more proficient at it.
Have you proved that every non-zero element of $\Bbb Z_p$ has a multiplicative inverse? That is the Euclidean algorithm. @Jonathan
19:25
@AlessandroCodenotti vector space?
And what kind of equation do you want ?
Woops no wait, mine is a XOR
Can someone see my proof to a problem? My proof is totally different from the book's but I think it's right
I had to do a project for that complex analysis course, and I chose to do it on the connection of homology to complex analysis
@Balarka: What do you know about every closed form on a ball in $\Bbb R^2$?
19:25
A large part of which was me taking theorems/proofs in the book and recasting them in homology language.
It's $a+b+ab$ @Alessandro
@TedShifrin Ah. It's exact too.
e.g. Cauchy's theorem as "Homologous contours give identical integrals."
@TedShifrin no i havent but this seems like a usefull statement in the context
Think I allmost got it
19:26
This seems like really fancy stuff to be doing without having done easier stuff first, @Jonathan, but, yes, figure that out now.
I think I lost that paper in a laptop disk failure, alas. I was rather proud of it.
@Semiclassic: The importance of saving to Dropbox :P
@Astyx I was just wondering if its possible to express it with an equation of any sort? Right now all I know is to convert to bin and to compare the 1's and 0's, was looking for another method
@Astyx yeah, in $F_2^n$ as a ring
A few years too early for that.
You might recognize the name of the prof who taught it? It was David Bressoud.
19:27
@LucasHenrique (Mathematical Circles) The alphabet of a language has 22 consonants and 11 vowels. A word in this language is any string formed by these letters that does not contain two consonants together and no letter is used more than once. The alphabet is divided into 6 subsets. Prove that the letters in at least one of these groups form a word in the language.
Cauchy is secretly Green's theorem.
Not very secret.
@SylentNyte I doubt there is any faster method, but I might be ignorant
If you assume smoothness, it's totally not secret. Then there's the fancy Goursat version with weaker hypotheses.
He was president of the MAA at one point, so being in one of his courses was rather neat.
19:28
Well those analysis dudes like to prove it through Goursat's lemma because they don't want C^1
I agree, @Balarka. In the graduate course I did both.
Yeah @Ted, it is a lot to digest, though it is a fun experience. The problem sets do fill in a lot of the holes, which means that we're consistently plugging in 25+ hours into the class, so it's somewhat painful, but we do get to some cool stuff.
Bressoud is an interesting character, @Semiclassic. I have corresponded with him.
Well, @Daminark, perhaps some of my videos will be helpful, in fact.
19:29
Fair enough. I don't actually remember Goursat; it constructs a local antiderivative by hand, right?
Is that what makes him interresting ?
I only knew him through the class, so I have no idea what he was like outside of that.
No, @Balarka: It's a successive bisection argument, plus contradiction.
@Astyx: Ha ha. He has learned/written about quite a bit of history.
I think that's how it applies. It proves it for triangles first, which helps constructing local antiderivatives for any hol. function.
No, you just reduce to a nonzero integral around a tiny triangle and contradict continuity.
19:31
Ah, alright.
Heya @AndrewT.
Hellu @TedShifrin
@Ted Yeah, a friend of mine named Chris used those videos in order to get a better handle on differential forms, and also to see them in more generality since we're just doing them in the plane
I wish I still had my complex analysis book from back then. I was quite fond of it.
I have more on manifolds and on integrating over a few 4-dimensional ones, @Daminark, too.
19:33
isn't finding and proving new knowledge cool
and also ridiculously hard
what's your definition of "new"?
@Ted Nice, at some point when I've got a bit of time I'll definitely look over the stuff
@SAWblade sure is
hi @Tobias
@TedShifrin Hi
19:33
its "new" if nobody "knew" it before
nobody? ah ...
@Ted For me it's "Everyone in the field knew it but didn't bother to write it down"
lmao
reminds me of that one algebraic topology proof
@MikeM: There is a lot of that. My favorite example is Poincaré duality and intersection. Before Bott/Tu, it truly was not written down.
I dug up a Samelson reference for locally flat submanifolds, but it really wasn't everything.
@MikeM: Did you truly lose your laptop?
There's still a lot of really basic ideas in differential topology that are word of mouth.
Yeah. I hope it's just at lost and found at the airport.
19:35
I think proper morse functions is one such idea.
Is there any way you can contact the airport and let them know?
That's the most basic idea I don't know if theres an exposition for.
Did Hirsch not put some of that in his book, @PVAL?
Yes. I've done this. Calling they tell you to email, emailing they say nothing.
19:36
gosh that image is small
(Test) \(Test\) \\\\\(Test\\\\\) \\\\\\\\\\\(Test\\\\\\\\\\\)
ROFL @SAWblade
@Ted I don't know. My adviser said he didn't think it was written down.
Damn @MikeM.
what are you testing this time, DogAteMy?
I don't think its in Hirsch, I'm not sure how much he even does in the compact case.
19:37
sometimes math tumblr pulls through
for funny math images
alright back to staring at graphs
That's one thing I was thinking of.
I still don't know how to prove Poincare duality vs. intersection. I can mumble about it given a fact about triangulations.
I've done some stuff in grad courses that I haven't found written down anywhere. I guess my students' notes doesn't count?
looooool
i love that
spouting off unwritten knowledge to fresh grads
It's done very nicely in Bott/Tu, @Balarka. Thom class, tubular neighborhood thm, and explicit bump function stuff
19:38
@Balarka Define everything in terms of manifolds in the first place. Then it's a triviality.
Triviality, MikeM, seriously?
Mathematical research as oral history, heh.
I hate it when math people throw that word around.
Oh, sorry, I can't mumble about it either. I can just mumble about it if the submanifolds are dual dimensional.
19:39
@TedShifrin I was helping a team with the MIT mystery hunt this weekend, not sure if you have heard of it. Lot of fun
I think the cases I'm interested in (where homology classes are represented by actual smooth maps) aren't so bad.
@SAWblade: Totally routine stuff to classic people like my adviser, but not typically written down in modern books.
When it comes to math/theory, "trivial" and "inelegant" are fighting words.
@Ted: a k-dimensional cohomology class is a proper map from an (n-k)-dimensional singular smooth manifold
ah, fair enough
19:40
@Tobias: One of their IAP activities.
modulo proper singular bordism
@TedShifrin IAP?
if somebody says "trivial" to me at this point in my career i just start bawling
cup product is defined to be intersection
QED
Hi would you mind help me?about my question'
19:40
Oh, @MikeM: I thought we were still talking about Poincaré duality and intersection?
@MikeMiller Ah, right, I remember this.
I don't like wishing this away and saying it's a definition.
@MikeMiller So then why is the form non-degenerate
@Tobias: January is Independent Activities Period.
That is in fact the point.
19:41
@TedShifrin Ahh
What is your question, @somaye?
@PVAL Yeah yeah. I know.
oh thanks
@TedShifrin I have never been there myself. I was helping remotely since a friend of mine has been a postdoc there and is part of one of the teams
@theHumbleOne this is to do feedback for your question about the Gamma function. Two important facts are Stirling formula and Watson's lemma, (I say additionally with definition, functional equation, product representattion....) Garrett explains it in his lecture notes (available from his home page). Search Garrett, Asymptotics of integrals. Is not required a response, good luck.
19:42
i asked it at page of calculus'
They didn't have a treasure hunt when I was either a student or a postdoc, @Tobias, but they had all sorts of stuff. I taught a mini-course, and there was a math competition. There were also math department chamber music concerts :)
@somaye: Please give us the link here.
I think I had a reasonable smooth proof at some point but I never wrote it down.
I don't like appealing to Thom.
The mystery hunt seems to have gotten absurdly big
I think that's awesomely cool, @Tobias.
-6
Q: would you mind help me why it is not always correct?

Somaye$ \nabla^{2}_x \Delta ^{-1}(P)=P $ Is it correct ???? why not?

19:43
So it is probably a good thing that the winning teams tend to be very large, or they would not have the manpower to organize the next one
@somaye: First, you need to define your notation in the question. Second, it's probably needs a better tag.
What are $\nabla_x^2$ and $\Delta$ and $\Delta^{-1}$, and what is $P$?
you are right
what tag is better?
Ummmm @MikeM
That's...ugh.
I've never seen him show any disrespect to a speaker, even if it was totally uninteresting to him.
He's very attentitive even at number theory colloquims
19:47
Audibly to me sitting next to him.
I think he was just astonished at what we'd managed to get into within half an hour, and supposedly in doing topology.
I'm not sure I know who this is, but at conferences things tend to move quickly :P
@somaye: The question still makes no sense to me.
Most famous topologist at my university.
Oh, now I know.
He used to be totally polite :)
I would be very surprised if he cared about this.
He tells all kinds of stories about other mathematicians
He still is.
19:50
Sigh. First answer to my question entirely misses what I indicated about "not wanting an algebraic proof".
Apparently one time, here there was a dinner at a restaurant with SD and at the end they all were fumbling with the check. The waitress came up and said (to SD) "Dont worry. Not everyone can be good at math."
Expecting people to read is perhaps expecting too much, @Semiclassic.
I guess.
I mean, sure---Cramer's theorem probably can be used to show that they're equivalent.
@PVAL: Since my grad school days, mathematicians have been notoriously terrible at handing checks after dinner. I remember times it took over 10 minutes.
19:51
But Cramer's theorem by and large is just a black box.
Cramer's Rule is not a black box. But ...
SD is the one whose solo author book I have in my backpack at all times?
probably
I haven't thought about Cramer's Rule in terms of duality, but perhaps I should.
Eh, maybe that's not the right word for it.
19:52
then yeah
funny
Oh, that SD
wow
What is given is tidy enough algebraically. I just don't consider it to be helpful to the question I actually asked.
It's been a long time since I've even used it but it's for old times sake.
I think we should draw the two triangles in the elliptic model, @Semiclassic. Presumably there's a simple isometry.
Hmm.
You mean, the initial triangle and its dual?
19:55
Right. The normal vectors to the lines become the new vertices.
Gotcha.
Actually, can it be an isometry? The point-wise version (shoelace) is just a determinant, but the line-wise version is rescaled by the cofactors.
why is assuming the statement to prove a fallacy?
OK, so it's not an isometry. :) But that's the thing to consider.
@Socrates: Assuming what you want to prove and saying "I'm done" doesn't seem like a proof.
19:58
@Socrates Give an example of what you've got in mind.
Suppose A. If A, then A. Therefore A.
Assume all cows have five legs. Therefore all cows have five legs. QED
. math.stackexchange.com/questions/2101957/… here i make a very basic error
assuming the statement i want to show (using the implication arrow in the wrong direction)
I think of everything that's changed I'm mostly not used to checking the arXiv in the morning instead of evening.
@Ted I came up with a nice proof involving group theory
Sorry, @Astyx, I have some urgent stuff I need to spend a few hours on ...
20:09
No problem
@Astyx Proof of what?
@Tobias I have $2n+1$ pebbles. If I take $2n$ among those, I can always separate them into two stacks of $n$ pebbles of which the total mass is the same. What can one say about the mass of each pebble ?
@TobiasKildetoft hi Tobias, seems you are good in algebra. do you know dirichlet characters?
hi guys
@Astyx Well, if there is a general answer then the $n=1$ case says they must all have the same mass
@euclid I have read a little about them, but I don't really know them
20:13
how to think on this question , x^2+y^2+z^2= 9 and 8z = x^2+y^2 , find volume of that region enclosed
@Astyx I suppose they're equal
@KasmirKhaan The first one is a sphere of radius 3
i set (x^2+y^2 )/8 <z< (9-x^2-y^2 )^2
yes and the other is a paraboloid
@Astyx No idea how one would involve group theory there
i drew the picture but how to find the projection on xy plane ?
20:15
@Tobias @Lucas Yes, and I have two nice proofs, one involving linear algebra, the other gorup theory. However my goal was to find one relying on diophantine equations, which I failed to do yet
i tried to set them equal to each other but did not get clear region
(x^2+y^2 )/8 = (9-x^2-y^2 )^2
:(
Random question - I study for olympiads and I'm already studying ring theory. Should I study group theory?
(I'm a highschooler)
Will it make you happy?
@LucasHenrique I think neither ring theory nor group theory tend to be in olympiad problems, do they?
I also want to study analisys (I do already know calc 1 and 2, studying diff eqs and vectorial calculus)
@MikeMiller I dunno, I don't even know what a group is xD
@TobiasKildetoft Nope
20:18
Figure out what makes you happy, and then do it
good advice balarka
But the way to think and the technics might be useful
@LucasHenrique Then you need to decide if you want to study for the olympiad or study some more advanced math
Of course, I recommend everyone to study group theory
@TobiasKildetoft maybe you know this is true or false? $\sum\limits_{o(\chi ) = d} 1 = \phi (d)$
Probably won't be long before I try to explain it to my daughter whether she wants to learn it or not :)
20:19
Nice Tobias
@euclid where $\chi$ runs through what?
any help on this guys ? how to think on this question , x^2+y^2+z^2= 9 and 8z = x^2+y^2 , find volume of that region enclosed
Probably she should learn to subtract and multiply first though
@TobiasKildetoft order of $\chi$ is d
20:20
Classification of finite simple groups is important
I agree that you should teach it to her
nah but neither is subtraction
@euclid I realize what the o was for, but that does not explain what sort of things the $\chi$ can be
@Tobias Let $(m_i)_{i\in [1, 2n+1]}$ be the masses, define $\delta_{i,j} = m_i - m_j$ and let $p_i$ be the mass of one of the stacks when you take out $m_i$.
It follows that $2p_i + m_i = 2p_j + m_j$ ie $\delta_{i,j} = 2(p_j-p_i)$.
However $p_j-p_i$ is in the subgroup $G$ of $\Bbb R$ generated by the $\delta_{i,j}$.
What follows is that for all $i,j$ $\delta_{i,j}\over 2$ is in $G$, which is absurd since $G$ is generated by the $\delta_{i,j}$ (a little more work should be done here, but I'm pretty convinced what I'm saying is true)
@TobiasKildetoft $\chi$ is a character mod p that p is a prime
@euclid You mean you sum over all of those?
20:23
@TobiasKildetoft it means the number of them
@euclid Right (terrible way to write that)
@TobiasKildetoft ok again can you tell me that the number of characters mod p that p is a prime number and $d|p-1$ equals $\phi(d)$
@euclid Well, a character mod $p$ is "really" just a character of the cyclic group of order $p-1$, right?
yes
@Tobias Actually replace "which is absurd" by "which implies $G = \{0\}$"
20:29
and the set of characters of an abelian group is isomorphic to the group itself
I hate that how I am such a complete sucker at computing stuff in differential geometry.
@TobiasKildetoft yes
@euclid So this is just asking for the number of elements of a given order in a cyclic group
@TobiasKildetoft i dont get
can someone give a quick example of a case where we "can" calculate a limit, but show that the sequence doesn't converge.
20:40
converge in what sense
pointwise, uniform?
@Socrates What is that supposed to mean ?
usually we can only say something is a limit, if we shown that it converges
Well if it has a limit it converges
but can we calculate a incorrect limit if it diverges?
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but if I do, no
20:43
when we have shown that something converges, we can set $a_n=a_{n+1}$
but is there a case where we get a sensical looking limit, but we know it diverges
Well the first one to come to my mind is the controversial $\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} n = -{1\over 12}$
Which is obviously wrong

« first day (2358 days earlier)      last day (2958 days later) »