« first day (2388 days earlier)      last day (2930 days later) » 

00:00
Yup, found it in the chem room.
Don't like the fb advertisement.
Actually, don't like fb period.
3
question would u substitution work for cos(x)sin^3(x) or should i use the by parts method ?
00:14
@AlessandroCodenotti There is a paper about constructing finitely generated groups with strange topological properties (I think it was something like they had no compatible hausdorff topology, besides the trivial ones and not quotients did either), and they end up showing there are tons of these groups by a Baire category argument.
I've heard it has a ton of applications (and saw a few of the standard ones), but I'm still wrapping my head around the theorem itself right now
It is a super cool theorem
There are some connections to topological games similar to the one in that blog post
damn i failed cos of one tiny error right at the start leading all my calculations afterwards to be wrong
this is what really makes me panic for my exam in june =/
I have to write something about Baire spaces and the Baire category theorem for a small uni project, it's a cool topic judging by the very little I've seen
I've read that there's a characterization of meager sets in terms of topological games but didn't look at the details (yet)
Lesson: be extra careful especially at the beginning @WDUK
00:23
i dont even get marks for applying the right logic even if my calculations were wrong :(
Learn from your mistakes.
Maybe I a mixing it up with something else, but I am pretty sure an analysis teacher I had in undergrad gave us some undergraduate thesis that had a lot of applications of Baire category
Yah some selection principles, and the corresponding games and ramsey theoretic statements have connections to meager sets (sort of mentioned in my post)
That sounds very interesting, what field of mathematics studies topological games? Descriptive set theory?
Yah. I think descriptive set theory for the most part encapsulates it. And there is set theoretic topology.
Well also infinite combinatorics (which I think is very connected to descriptive set theory)
00:38
I'd continue this conversation, but it's very late and I should really go to sleep now, good night/day everyone
Have a good one
01:04
Could someone suggest me a good reference for learning about harmonic mas forms and mock modular forms?
*harmonic maas
Is there any book in mathematics, suppose i say real analysis in which there would be objective questions for practice by which it would benifit for many competitive examinations??..any idea guys ?
01:55
Hmm... Just curious, how is arXiv supposed to be pronounced? "Arcks-ive?"
sound of a duck, quak
@Socrates ???
I pronounce it "Archive"
where's @Akiva when you need him most...
02:40
@ZachHauk ?
Heya DogAteMy!
There is no chat, @Semiclassic.
Hey everyone!
02:50
Oh, @Daminark is here. Now there will be chat.
Well, perhaps not.
Haha
Just say hi, get hopes up, and vanish into the void
Well, I'm about to go cook dinner.
Well, if only to liven up the chat (also because we're stumped), we have this problem and need just one clue left in the puzzle, that if $V$ is a closed subspace of a Banach space $X$, then $V/X$ is also a Banach space
Oh lol, see you around @Ted!
$V/X$? You mean $X/V$?
02:53
Oh right, yeah $X/V$
So where are you stuck?
And do you understand why you need closedness?
Sort of, like it's a loose picture in mind
And we're basically staring at if we have a Cauchy sequence $\{x_n + V\}$ in $X/V$, then we can say that $\inf_{v\in V} \|x_n - x_m - v\| < \epsilon$ for $n,m$ greater than a sufficiently large $N$
Wait. How have you defined $\|x_n+V\|$ in the first place?
$\|x_n + V\| = \inf_{v\in V} \|x_n - v\|$
OK, and note that because $V$ is closed, that inf is attained; right?
02:58
We take some minimizing sequence and it should have a convergent subsequence, where the limit attains the infimum?
For a fixed $x$, there's a unique $v\in V$ closest to $x$.
Can we say that in infinite dimensions?
I just did. :P
Haha, that's true
Isn't the inf attained for any closed subspace (vector or topological)?
03:01
h
G'night, @MikeM
Right yeah it does work generally
@Daminark: So here's a question for you. How are $\|(x+V)-(y+V)\|$ and $\|x-y\|$ related?
It should be that $\|(x+V)-(y+V)\| \le \|x-y\|$
Since $0\in V$
03:05
You were mentioned in the grad lounge today.
So here's another question. If $\{x_n+V\}$ is a Cauchy sequence, can you choose $v_n\in V$ so that $\{x_n+v_n\}$ is Cauchy?
Me, @MikeM? Yikes. Why?
You have GP errata.
LOL, oh.
Not so flattering after all.
My immediate guess is that we choose $v_n\to v$ where $v$ attains the infimum
Whose infimum?
03:10
The limit of the $x_n$
Wait
Nevermind I'm being stupid
We don't know yet necessarily that $x_n$ converges
In fact, the $x_n$ needn't, @Daminark. But I'm claiming that if you adjust by appropriate things in $V$, it will.
Go play in your sandbox :P
I'll check back later, @Daminark.
Alright
I'll try to solve this problem, and maybe see if there's a non-quotient way to do what I'm trying to because Schlag isn't assuming we've done them at all
The actual problem is to show that if $X$ is a Banach space, $W$ is a finite dimensional subspace, and $V$ is a closed subspace, that $V+W$ is a closed subspace as well
03:25
@Mike Hi
Is $T_p S^n = T_{-p} S^n$? Help me win an argument against @Ted
hi @pval
@hi semi
I should probably try to pick your brains about fibration stuff.
But my brain isn't coming up with anything right now.
@PVAL-inactive Yeah
I did remember something a little hilarious. Namely, the term physicists use for exact crossings of energy levels, which when properly viewed are nodes of a particular curve.
Namely, they call them 'diabolical points.'
Not because of anything devilish, though, but because the 'double cone' you get at the intersection reminded one author of the Italian 'diavolo' i.e. a certain kind of yo-yo.
04:31
Alright so I do have a somewhat long (in the sense of, a lot of crunching) problem left, so unfortunately @Ted I had to suspend that approach temporarily
To everyone else who might be able to help out
The new idea is to consider that we can assume, without loss of generality, that $V \cap W = \{0\}$
So every element in our Cauchy sequence $x_n$ can uniquely be represented as $v_n + w_n$
Since the $x_n$ are bounded, we can see that if $w_n$ are unbounded, we have $v_n$ are unbounded
So that we have $\|v_n + w_n\| \le M$
Reverse triangle inequality gives us that $| \|v_n\| - \|w_n\| | \le M$ while each blows up
@PVAL-inactive Wait, by equal, do you mean as subspaces of $\Bbb R^{n+1}$, where $S^n$ is realized as a unit sphere? Otherwise I can't make sense of that.
05:19
OK actually got it by some tinkering with projections
06:17
Hi @KanwaljitSingh
@BalarkaSen Heyo
So I did my diffgeo exam---I made some really lame calculational mistakes but other than that it went OK.
also
I just started going htrough my daily arxiv email
> principle bundle
Cry every time
06:26
I have heard that Taubes is good
He's one of the gods of gauge theory
Which is why this spelling mistake (in the abstract, no less) surprised me.
doesn't he write his papers in ms word or something
mhm
Now I'd like to know where the Vafa-Witten equations come from
Vafa is another one of these extremely good mathematical physicists
heard of 'em all. no idea about their works
This is the one it came from apparently: arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9408074
07:23
If the ellipse $\frac{x^2}{a^2} + \frac{y^2}{b^2} = 1$ is to enclose a circle $(x-1)^2 + y^2 = 1$, what values of a and b minimize the area of the ellipse?
Reviewing some calc 3 methods and this lagrange multiplier problem has me kind of stuck...
Should there really be two constraints in my solution, or would 1, requiring the ellipse's equation for y in the first quadrant to be larger than the circle's equation for y, suffice?
08:13
Many thanks for your remarks about my last question, I believe that yes. I thought it was a difficult question since the Möbius function diverges, I usually combine with this result but this time I was confused @Jacob
i. i'm sure you guys know about the second degree polynomial, where f(0)=c and f'(0)=b there is showing us the tangentline in x=0 on the graph.

Do you know if there is anyting equal to the cubic polynomial?
 
1 hour later…
09:31
how is the set of all differentiable functions called? I don't meant continuous differentiable!
Hi @Alessandro
Been doing anything cool?
Baire category stuff
prove that there's no injective space filling curves
R --> R^2 if you want
09:47
guys do you know if the cubic equation has a discriminant? my teacher states they don't I do......
That'd be a homeomorphism
@Alessandro Why?
The domain is R, not [0, 1]
Ah, wait, I ws thinking about curves as the continuous image of $[0,1]$
Thought so
That's still the idea, though.
You can restrict your curve to a closed interval of arbitrary length
09:51
shh
but yeah
I don't know to how to continue from the last line in this answer. Any ideas? math.stackexchange.com/questions/1321208/…
hi @BalarkaSen
Hi @Adeek
Ah, I think I got the idea, I consider $C_n=f([-n,n])$, since compactness is preserved through continuous functions $C_n$ are closed. Since $\bigcup C_n=\Bbb R^2$ there's one containing an open ball, by Baire category. It also contains a closed ball so I can work with its preimage and it's the $[0,1]$ case again
Hm, wait, that's not right, the preimage of a closed ball doesn't need to be an interval
But it's disjoint union of a bunch of intervals right
10:03
Nevermind, it does, the restriction of $f^{-1}$ to this closed ball is continuous, an homeomorphism even
Wait, I'm getting confused, the image of closed subsets of the $C_n$ with the ball is closed, not sure about going backward, let me think about it for a moment
@Alessandro Sorry I was gone for a while. What you want here is complement of $C_n$ is dense and open
I don't think it's dense?
$V $ is normed space, $A \subset V$ is open set and $B \subset V$ another set. i need to prove that $A+B$ is open. any suggestions?
10:18
$f:[-n,n]\to C_n$ is a continuous bijection, so an homeomorphism, and $C_n$ is a connected subset or $\Bbb R^2$ containing a ball, I feel there's an obvious contradiction there but I don't see how to show that formally
if $x_n \to a+b$ and $x_n $ does not converge to $a$ , can i get to a contradiction ?
@Semiclassical I have found a solution to your Rabbit Hole Problem:
I will start by definining the problem becuase English is oo vauge, then I will answer it for the case in which the number of elements is 4. I wll then extend this to an infinite list.
Let us consturct a list of statements A,B,C,D
A is the statement $A=\forall S (S\neq A) Q(S=0)$
which reads for all S (S is a statement) where S is not A, the statement S is false
B C and D are defined similarly.
All that changes is A becomes B C or D in the expression
Now: Ill will start with the case A=1 (we will take 1 to mean true in this solution)
this menas that every statement after A is re-writen B=0, C=0 and D=0
hi guys
woops that should be A=0 earlier
however writing that is equivilant to A(0)+$\bar A$(1)
@Semiclassical
Which means the whole A statment is now its negated version. This means that there exists a statement after B
could someone help me with the following proof:
10:25
in Linear & Abstract algebra, 3 mins ago, by BAYMAX
Guys how to approach these type of questions -- 1) if $|G| = p_{1}^{2}p_{2}^{2}p_{3}^{2}....p_{n}^{2}$ where $p_{i}$ ' s are distinct primes , then show that $G$ is Abelian iff all the Sylow subgroups of $G$ are normal. and 2)if $|G| = p_{1}p_{2}p_{3}....p_{n}$ where $p_{i}$ ' s are distinct primes , then show that $G$ is Abelian iff all the Sylow subgroups of $G$ are normal.
Let $a,b,c\in \mathbb Z_{>0}$. Show that $c\cdot\gcd(a,b)=\gcd(ac,bc).$

Consider $d\in\mathbb Z$ such that $d\mid a$ and $d\mid b$. We have $m,n\in\mathbb Z$ such that $a=md$ and $b=nd$. This gives $ac=mdc$ and $bc=ndc$. Therefore $cd\mid ac$ and $cd\mid bc$. We now have to show that the common divisors of $ac$ and $bc$ are the same numbers as $c\cdot\gcd(a,b)$. Consider $d'\in\mathbb Z$ such that $d'\mid ac$ and $d'\mid bc$. We have $q,r\in\mathbb Z$ such that $ac=qd'$ and $bc=rd'$. But from here on I can't continue?
I think @ShaVuklia we can use the approach of $d =ax + by$ gcd can be written as linear combination of $a$ and $b$.
Yea, I just read that somewhere else on the forum too! I'm gonna try it
so $c.d = ac(x) +bc(y) $
Haha, it's really easy then
10:30
$c.d = gcd(ac,bc)$
Thank you!
Yes@ShaVuklia!
you are welcome!
@Semiclassical This means that there exists a statement after A which is true. We will take B to be true for this example.
Now since B is true C must = false. Which means we once again have a negated statement. Hence the next statement is true. However; earlier we said that D would be false. In this case D=1=0. Which results not in a negated statement but a statement that is always 0. (Regardless of what it contains).
So to sumarise so far:
A is negated ($\lnot A)$, B is true (B) and C is negated ($\lnot C)$ while D is always false (0).
Guys any body on Abstract Algebra?
Ok @Balarka I was being stupid, $f:[-n,n]\to C_n$ is a continuous bijection from a compact to an Hausdorff so it's an homeomorphism. That means $f^{-1}$ is continuous when restricted there and now I do the usual "I remove a point which is not an endpoint from $[-n,n]$" argument
10:41
@Semiclassical Adding a new statement (e) we will see a similar pattern emerge. What occurs is e begins it life as just e, then due to the statement C it becomes $\bar e$. (D has no effect beucause D is always false and the statement is in effect 'gone'). B ensures e must be negated as well.

the next statement (f) to be introduced must be true becuase (e) ensures that it is. Howver the earlier statements make it false. Hence e=1=0. Which means e is a statement that is always 0. (like D). THe next element will be negated, and the one after it 0, and so on.
@user400188 I advice you to... improve your ability in writing logical statements
Yeah I didnt put much effort into it once I realsed it wouldnt work without the drawing I out on paper.
Plus I was fracticly typing to ensure it wasnt lost in the rest of the text
A is the statement $\forall S: S \ne A \implies \neg S$
but you can't define B similarly
you might just use a function $f:\{0,1,2,3\} \to \{ \top , \bot\}$
I wanted to make A ∀S(S≠A)Q(S=0)
the reason for this is becuase I wanted to be able to define the negation of Q(S=0)
I wanted it to give S=1 when negated
what is Q(S=0)? what is Q?
10:50
its any function you can think of that will give S=1 when negated
how is does so is not important so long as that is "all" it does
also, I have reminded you that $\forall S(\cdots)\cdots$ is not valid syntax
we have $\forall S:\cdots$ or $\forall S \in T:\cdots$, where the latter is a shorthand for $\forall S:S \in T \implies \cdots$
also, you have $\top$ for true and $\bot$ for false
I know I had T for true and ⊥ for false; hwover I was going for speed in writing it and it was quicker to type 1 and 0. I mentioned that they were each defined to be true and false.
In retrospect I should have writen it all in latex first and checked over it becuase responding
@DHMO Anyway; what was where these harder questions about The Axiom of Union you had?
@user400188 if C is negated, then that means at least one statement after C is true, so D must be true
@user400188 well, find Y when X={{{}},{{{}}}}
Let $a,b\in\mathbb Z$. Show: $\gcd(a,b)\cdot\operatorname{lcm}(a,b)=|ab|$.

I tried the following:
$$
\gcd(a,b)\cdot\operatorname{lcm}(a,b)=\prod_{p\text{ prime}}p^{\min\{\operatorname{ord}_p(a),\operatorname{ord}_p(b)\}+\max\{\operatorname{ord}_p(a),\operatorname{ord}_p(b)\}}
$$

But I don't really know how to continue... Is this the right approach?
@ShaVuklia try to let h=gcd(a,b)
and write a and b in terms of h
10:57
Ok, I'm gonna try it
@DHMO Be careful fo the distintion between X=True and 1. In my above solution when something is made true it is taken into the opperation of if and only if true (which is different to AND'ing it with true.
Actualy they would be the same for the true case but not the flase one
Anyway I think we should drop the Rabbit hole for the moment and focus on THe axiom questions
@user400188 and we haven't gone to the hard questions lol
@user400188 what is the negation of C?
Serious joke question: how to prove human stupidity is indeed an infinite set. What is its cardinality?
That there exists a statement after it that is taken into the operation of if and only if true. Namely D=T
@Secret har?
@user400188 exactly
11:01
@dhmo thought after reading this summary on infinities thestandnews.com/cosmos無限是甚麼/
D will become D=T; however when this statement is AND'ed with what it would be when we have consided B (namely D=0) we obtain a 0 for D. Which is different to D=0
Its the difference between D=0 and (D=0)&(D=1) The first just says NOT D while the second 0
So we have $h=\gcd(a,b).$ Then there exist $m,n\in\mathbb Z$ such that $a=mh$ and $b=nh$. So we get
\begin{align}
h\cdot\operatorname{lcm}(a,b)&=|mh\cdot nh|\\
\operatorname{lcm}(a,b)&=h|m\cdot n|=|an|=|bm|.
\end{align}
And because we had chosen $h$ as the greatest common divisor, we got the smallest values for $m,n\in\mathbb Z$. This also gives the smallest common multiples for $a$ and $b$.
Is my reasoning at the end sufficient?
More on human stupidityhttps://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/education/2012/apr/‌​09/improbable-research-human-stupidity?client=safari
@ShaVuklia where does $h\cdot\operatorname{lcm}(a,b)=|mh\cdot nh|$ come from?
See the line above
$a=mh$ and $b=nh$
11:04
@user400188 are you from a CS background?
I'm using their equality
and showing it is correct
@ShaVuklia are you using the theorem that you are trying to prove? That isn't good practice
Or should I work towards the equality?
Nope. But I learned Boolean ALgebra before anything else. ANd we used 0 1 x and + for true false AND and OR. We also had X (dont care)
I thought I could show that the equality was correct, but what other approach is there then? Should I write both sides of the equation separately, and then show at the end that they are the same?
11:06
@ShaVuklia just reverse your proof (start from the bottom)
yea you're right
thanks for your comments!
@user400188 statement D is either true (D=1) or false (D=0)
you can't have both
and you can't AND them together to pretend that you have both truth values at once
what I did was 0=(A=1)(A=0)
I assigned a truth value to a statement about that statment as opposed to the statement itself
In fact; everything in the solution is statements about the statements. I never directly assign a truth value to them.
if you find that statement D has to be true and false at the same time, you reject your statement
yes that is exactly what I did. ANd by rejecting it the statement will have no affect on what follows it
its actualy really cool, the first statement is negated; the second left the same, the third negated and the forth rejected
then after that it repeates with negation and rejection
11:13
let's go back to my question
indeed; i obtained that y is either {{}} or it is {{{}}}
which I guess means that y is { {{}} , {{{}}} }
it works if u is {{}} becuase then z is {{{ }}} which is in X
try again
hmm wairt it wont work for u is {{{}}}
in that case Y must be {{}}
??
I suggest you follow my format lol
deduce step by step
by transforming statement 2!
Ok ill give the proof in your format
but just so you know what went throuhg my head then: I Anded the first statement "{{}} or it is {{{}}}" with "it wont work for {{{}}}". And arrived at {{}}.
1. u is in Y. Hence Y has at least 1 bracket.
2. z is in X. So z is either {{}} or {{{}}}. U is in z, so u is either {} or {{}}
From 1 and 2, Y has at least 4 brackets.
3 and 4. For all u this must work and both 1 and 2 must fail at once. It will fail if Y is {{{}}}. It will not for Y is {{}}. They will both fail at once when u is {{{}}} and Y is {{}}. Hence Y is {{}}
@DHMO
11:22
Hi @DHMO do you know xomplex analysis?
@KasmirKhaan depends on your question
@user400188 the answer is {{},{{}}}
I'm sorry that I'm asking again, but I'm still confused. I tried reversing the order.
$$
|ab|=|a\cdot hn|=h|an|=h|bm|.
$$
But how do I know that $h|an|=h|bm|=\operatorname{lcm}(a,b)$? I know it has something to do with the fact that $m$ and $n$ are the smallest values that give $a$ and $b$ when multiplying by a common divisor (because we use the greatest common divisor), yet I can't connect things together.
yes
@user400188 which is why I don't recommend bracker number analysis
its about finding the maximum value of analytic function in the unit circle @DHMO
@DHMO Yeah, I'm still trying to work out why Y is {{},{{}}}
11:29
@KasmirKhaan which function?
Suppose that f(z) is analytic in the unit disc D = \lbrace z: |z|<1 \rbrace and continuous in the corresponding closed disc \overline{D}=\lbrace z: |z| \leq 1 \rbrace. Suppose also that f(z)/z^3 can be extended to be analytic in all of D (including the origin). If |f(z)| \leq 5 in \overline{D}, what is the maximal value that |f(0.1)| can assume under these conditions?
@user400188 if you do it step by step without resorting to bracket number analysis then you will understand
this is the question i hope you can read it easy
I'm atempting that now
@KasmirKhaan you better find others
11:32
okay thanks anyway:)
@DHMO I spotted my mistake. What I had done wrong was when I OR'ed "Y is {{}}" together with "Y is {{{}}}" I got { {{}} {{{}}} } instead of { {} , {{}} }.
This was because I forgot that the brakcets on the outside are treated differently to those inside.
When you OR two sets you ignore the outmost brackets becuase they are the container not part of one of the elements
@DHMO How can I do series expansion in complex numbers?
sin(4z) / ( z^2+2z-3) for example
1. u is in Y.
2. z is in X. So z is either {{}} or {{{}}}. U is in z, so u is either {} or {{}}

In order for 1 to be true at the same time as 2; Y must be { {} , {{}} }
In order for 1 and 2 to fail at the same time; nothing else msut be in Y.

Hence Y is { {} , {{}} }
@DHMO
11:48
@KasmirKhaan the same way as normal numbers
that taylor ?
you mean?
yes
okay thanks !:)
@user400188 what is Y when X={{a},{b,c},{d}}?
b,c is nothing on its own right? if u was in {b,c} u would be {b} or {c} ?
11:52
yes
DHMO can wolfram alpha do that problem?
i want to check my derivatives
in that case y is {a,b,c,d} Shall I write out the proof?
sin(4z) / ( z^2+2z-3) at the origin ,series expantion of order 4
@user400188 so do you understand what this axiom means
I belive it is an axiom about how to add new elements to sets. We do so by taking the union of them; which acts like a logical OR operation.
At least thats what I've learned by doing examples with it
11:55
is every set with strictly positive Lebesgue outer measure measurable?
I don't like the fact that you use OR for union
wow @AlessandroCodenotti you are doing measure theory
I suppose I could just restrict my thoughts to not thinking of it that way; and just thinking of union as its own thing. But it will be hard becuase I have been thinking of union as OR since 2012
@user400188 do we have any questions?
What was the intent of the Axiom of Union? What was it meant to do when it was concieved?
12:00
to declare the existence of the union
declare and define or just declare?
axioms do not define
by define I mean name a logical phenomenon.
i think this definition would not mean anything if the statement by you would have been true ------ "If $E$ is measurable then for any $A \subset \mathbb{R}$ ,$ m(A) = m(A \cap E)+m(A \cap E^{c})"$ ?
@AlessandroCodenotti
@user400188 axioms do not define
12:03
I'm sorry. I just cant think of a way to declare existsance without spesifying what you are declaring to exist. I know I have just seen it done in the axiom but I'm still confused.
Hi there, any Maple experts out there?
@user400188 we did specify, just not by putting a name
what is the advantage of not putting a name?
thats just not what axioms do
I suppose it is not nessesary.
12:15
Meow.
@DHMO On to the next Axiom I suppose
Although I should tell you I will only be on for another 45 mins
@user400188 Axiom of Power Set: $\forall X \exists Y [\forall u [u \in Y \equiv u \subseteq X]]$
for all X, there exists a Y, such that for all u, u is in Y if and only if u is a subset of X.
and do you understand this?
It will take a while to wrap my head around it
12:23
@BAYMAX I'm not sure what you mean
take your time
@AlessandroCodenotti I don't understand the formulation of the set comprehension axiom
We start with X, then we have a Y; wich is smaller or the same size as X. Next we define u to be a subset of X if and only if u is always an element of Y.
@DHMO
Hey, I have a small understanding problem.. Why is $gcd(x^4-2x^3+x^2-2x,x^3+2x^2-x-2)=1$ and not equals $x$?
@user400188 again, Y does not have a domain
this means that Y is equal to X or it is a smaller set than X that contains elements which are all present in X
How should I think of Y without assigning it a domain?
12:26
@jublikon x does not divide the latter
@user400188 no idea
@DHMO which formulation?
@AlessandroCodenotti may be i am poor in writing..please refer this -- math.mit.edu/~ebelmont/114-notes.pdf .... see page 6/91 sec 2.1
I have thought of it as this so far: If X has a domain then although y does not have a domain; if one is created for it somewhere down the track it would have to be smaller.
@DHMO
@user400188 and I have told you many times that is not how it works
@DHMO THX
12:28
I feel so bad...
I'm still not sure how to think of it.
I'm not able to read what you wrote earlier at the moment, but
Oh yeah that comment was a mess. Sorry :/
I should have taken my time to set it out.
If you only take a finite number of statements of the form "every statement after this is false" then there's nothing paradoxical
I tried to extend it to infinte by rephrasing the question and then rejecting every statement after the 3rd
12:33
That shouldn't work. But one moment.
@Semiclassical Hey =)
Got time to look at a simple equation? I have seen myself blind on it =(
hi semi
@Semiclassical do you know complex analysis ?
I'm typing from my phone right now, so I can't really respond at the moment
@Semiclassical This may be a bit easier to understand:
It should be along the lines of this:
The first is false. By false I mean S=0. Since S=0 is equivalent to S(0)+$\bar S$(1). Setting S to 0 in that manner (S=0) makes the statement that was S become NOT S ($\bar S$)

Next because the first is false the next statement is true. Which means that everything after it is false.

The third statement must be false as per the second. When we make a statement false; we perform the S=0 operation. This results in the statements negation.
@KasmirKhaan for complex analysis you can join complex analysis room----chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/12256/complex-analysis
@KasmirKhaan
12:45
@BAYMAX right, but a set can be nonmeasurable with a positive outer measure
Yes there are uncountably many non-measurable Vitali sets...@AlessandroCodenotti..
You're not following the statements properly. For the second statement to be true, EVERY statement after must be false.
The first statement being false has no bearing on whether the second is true/false
If the first is false there must exist at least one true statement after it
actually Lebesgue outer measure is non - negative @AlessandroCodenotti
Sure, but that doesn't mean that it needs to be the second.
12:48
@DHMO It's not extremely clear to me either, what do you not understand specifically?
@BAYMAX sure, my doubt was whether every nonmeasurable set has outer measure 0 or not
@Semiclassical . I only wanted to solve the question in the spesific case where the one after it is true. It was too hard to solve for an arbitary one.
ok... @AlessandroCodenotti
@AlessandroCodenotti why does a property take two inputs?
thanks @BAYMAX @Semiclassical
@DHMO btw, I made a bigger number
12:50
the complex analysis room is empty tho
well, you should find that the second statement also can't be true
Compute all terms up to order 4 in the power series expansion at the origin of f(z) = \text{sin}(4 z)/(z^{2}+2z-3)
Yes , it was unfrozen after some requests , @KasmirKhaan
oh okay
12:51
And neither can the third, fourth, etc
how are you defining truth?
@AlessandroCodenotti I just saw it and I still don't understand what a "parameter" is
I don't enough about formal logic to answer this question sorry
@KasmirKhaan please type in LaTeX format
@Semiclassical
how are you defining truth?
Are you replacing a statement with true or false? Or are you negating a false statement and not negating a true one?
@Everyone
I've heading off to bed now. Goodnight
Thanks for the help @DHMO. And thank you for been patient with me @Semiclassical @DHMO . I know it was hard.
12:59
goodnight

« first day (2388 days earlier)      last day (2930 days later) »