« first day (2429 days earlier)      last day (2595 days later) » 

3:00 PM
The person that used to be in charge of the math department at my school was a complete hardass. I've heard that at one point someone had to be rushed to the hospital immediately after a final (I think a high fever) because the guy refused to reschedule any final ever
 
damn.... :l
 
pleae, i can't see where is the problem: if $U\cap V=\emptyset$ then $\forall x\in U, x\notin V$ this equilvalent to say that $\forall x\notin (E\setminus U), x\in (E\setminus V)$ then $C_{E} U\cap C_{E}V=\emptyset$ but if i take $E=\{1,2,3\}, U=\{1\}, V=\{2\}$ it is clear that $U\cap V=\emptyset$ but $(E\setminus U)\cap (E\setminus V)=\{3\}$
 
We now just grade differently: if you didn't pass the original test with a score $T_1$, and you have score $T_2$ on the retake, the score you get is $\max\{T_1,T_2\}$
errr
 
oh that's pretty decent
with us, it's just $T_2$
no matter if $T_2<T_1$
 
I'm surprised they'd be allowed to do that.
 
3:01 PM
$T_1 + T_2$ would be nice
 
hahahaha
 
can someone help me please ?
 
and if you did pass the original test with a score $T_1$ and you do a retake, scoring $T_2$, the score you get is $\max\{10,T_2\}$
 
Typically there are some university policies that you're supposed to honor, and if you don't then you'd have cause to appeal.
 
(we grade on $20$)
So you can get a lower score by doing the retake, but you can't fail the course anymore
 
3:02 PM
huh!
that's absolutely weird
so you just have to show up at the retake
and you pass?
 
10 is the pass line?
 
10 is the pass line, yes
@ShaVuklia because you already passed the exam the first time
 
ohhh right like that
 
On another occasion, he called an airline using a student's phone and rescheduled his flight so he could take the exam. Side note: the guy is the type who would literally throw a phone out a window or stomp on it if he ever heard it go off in class
 
The idea is: once you pass a course, you've passed it. But if you want to get an even better grade, the risk is that you actually end up with a lower one.
 
3:03 PM
...
 
yea, that's actually a good system
I guess
 
@Daminark That sounds like it would be a criminal offense
I mean, professors would definitely get reprimanded or even fired for that here
 
They're definitely abusive.
 
??
 
@Daminark what is wrong with that guy XD jesus
 
3:05 PM
I think everyone was made aware enough of that that people accepted it as part of terms and conditions
 
I can believe that.
 
hahahaha!:P
 
Doesn't make it not abusive.
 
Terms & conditions are invalidated when they are unlawful
 
(Abusive practices in academia infuriate me. Both obvious cases like that, and more systemic cases.)
 
3:08 PM
I mean it's not official, more like, if that were to happen, the student would more likely than anything else say "I guess I screwed up" and that would be the end of it. So its legality becomes a moot point
 
(The latter I can at least understand under the rubric of the university being a giant machine; it doesn't have human sympathies built in.)
 
he quick question though, does anyone know where I can find a proof for the product rule of functions $f,g:\mathbb R^n\to \mathbb R^m$ (which are differentiable at $\vec a$)? Do I really need the chain rule to prove that $D(f\cdot g)(\vec a)=f(\vec a)Dg(\vec a)+Df(\vec a)g(\vec a)$ ?
 
(But profs being directly abusive to students? To hell with that.)
 
someone have an idea about my simple question ?
 
I was hoping to prove it from definition, but I failed, and I was wondering if there's any proof out there (I couldn't find it)
 
3:08 PM
That's not chain rule, it's bilinear operation rule @ShaVuklia
 
Leibniz product rule, yeah.
 
@Astyx I meant using the chain rule to prove the product rule
or "dot" product rule, I guess
 
@sha Spivak Calc on Manifolds has it, I think?
 
And you'd have to define what you mean by this product also in $\Bbb R^m$
IIRC the result follows from the definition
It's a little technical but you get there
 
is it similar to the one-dimensional case?
where they add a clever zero?
@Daminark I'll see if I can find it online!
 
3:10 PM
Hey chat
 
Probably the thing to do is to directly write $(f\cdot g)(\vec{a})=\sum_{k=1}^m f(\vec{a})_kg(\vec{a})_k$.
 
If you check the book of the guy were just talking about, it'll say "Look in a rigorous calculus book" :P
 
I don't think I know what you're talking about @ShaVuklia
Hi @Alessandro
 
first I did this:
Say $f,g\colon R^m\to R^n$ are differentiable at $\vec a\in\mathbb R^m$. That means that
$$
\lim_{\vec h\to\vec 0}\frac{f(\vec a+\vec h)-f(\vec a)-Df(\vec a)(\vec h)}{\Vert \vec h\Vert}=\vec 0,
$$
and the same for $g$. Now what I need to show is that $f\cdot g$ has the following derivative: $f(\vec a)Dg(\vec a)+Df(\vec a)f(a)$, so we need to show that
$$
\lim_{\vec h\to\vec 0}\frac{f(\vec a+\vec h)g(\vec a+\vec h)-f(\vec a)g(\vec a)-f(\vec a)Dg(\vec a)(\vec h)-Df(\vec a)(\vec h)g(\vec a)}{\Vert \vec h\Vert}=\vec 0,
 
@Astyx please can you help me on my question
 
3:11 PM
I don't know what it is @Vrouvrou
 
(His book was what we used along with Rudin first quarter and it's awful, though the topics are neat)
 
Can I use the analogy of the one-dimensional case? I'm not sure if this holds:
$$
\lim_{\vec h\to\vec 0}\frac{f(\vec a+\vec h)-f(\vec a)}{\Vert \vec h\Vert}=Df(\vec a),
$$
 
Which is to say, it probably reduces to the case of $m=1$.
 
that's what I wrote down earlier today
 
@Astyx pleae, i can't see where is the problem: if $U\cap V=\emptyset$ then $\forall x\in U, x\notin V$ this equilvalent to say that $\forall x\notin (E\setminus U), x\in (E\setminus V)$ then $C_{E} U\cap C_{E}V=\emptyset$ but if i take $E=\{1,2,3\}, U=\{1\}, V=\{2\}$ it is clear that $U\cap V=\emptyset$ but $(E\setminus U)\cap (E\setminus V)=\{3\}$
 
3:12 PM
Can I use you guys for a quick sanity check?
 
You're assuming we're sane. That seems...questionable.
 
@ShaVuklia Oh no, you'd have to use Taylor expansion (is that the correct term ?) of order 1 (which is the defintiion of the derivative)
 
Taylor expansion?
that's confusing
 
You'll want to look up the definition of Df, probably.
 
@Vrouvrou What you're saying is wrong : $A\implies B$ is not $\overline A \implies \overline B$
 
3:14 PM
well $Df$ consists of the partial derivatives
 
Wikipedia gives it here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
 
Write $f(x+h) = f(x) + Df_x(h) + o(||h||)$
 
Oh, just interpreted in terms of partials. Hmm.
 
It could also be interesting to do the cases $\mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}^n$
 
That doesn't look right.
 
3:15 PM
and see if that gives any inspiration to do the general case
 
It wasn't
 
@Astyx oh right, I was following Ted's lectures on differentiation, and he doesn't use the o-symbol
 
@Astyx i say if $x\in U $ it is equivalent to say that $x\notin E\setminus U$
 
my teacher does do it however, so I guess I'll have a look at his lecture notes
and then come back to it
 
@SteamyRoot I think that the case of $\mathbb{R}^n\to \mathbb{R}$ is probably sufficient.
 
3:16 PM
Well, in this case, you could just interpret $o$ as "higher order terms"
 
So take the function $f:[0,1]\to[0,1]$ such that $f(x)=0$ if $x$ has an infinite decimal expansion and reverses the expansion if it's finite ($f(0.354678)=0.876453$) and so on, pick you favourite convention regarding repeating 9s
 
Since the dot product is just a bilinear sum.
 
$o(||h||) = ||h||\epsilon(h)$ where $\epsilon$ is continuous at 0, and $\epsilon(0) = 0$
 
Hmmm, I guess so
 
This function has a graph which is dense in $[0,1]^2$
 
3:17 PM
@Astyx yea, I'm going to read those lecture notes first!
 
Now I think that this function is measurable, because the preimage of open sets not containing 0 is countable and the preimage of open sets containing 0 has a countable complement
 
@AlessandroCodenotti Ew.
 
So it is Lebesgue integrable with integral 0 being 0 almosy everywhere
Does this make sense?
 
@Astyx?
 
well, any irrational number will have infinite decimal expansion
and the irrationals have full measure
But, yeah, the measurability...
 
3:19 PM
@Vrouvrou yes I'm looking at it
Hi @Akiva
 
Can you argue that the non-zero set is a subset of the rational numbers, and therefore measurable?
 
You can't conclude that $C_EU\cap C_EV = \emptyset$
 
But, yeah, any countable set is measurable for the standard Lebesgue $\sigma$-algebra
 
Why @Astyx where is the problem in what i wrote please
 
3:22 PM
I just told you, you can't conclude that
 
Is there a subset of the rational numbers which is not measurable?
 
Or at least I don't see why you could
 
@Semiclassical no, every measure 0 set is measurable
 
I know that there are subsets of the real numbers which aren't measurable, but of the rationals?
That's what I figured.
 
Well, you can just show that a singleton is measurable
 
3:23 PM
@Astyx i found i coutre example but i don't see the error in what i wrote
 
Any subset of a measure-zero set is also measure-zero, then.
 
What are these called in english ?
 
And then any countable set is a countable union of measurable sets...
 
Series expansion?
 
@Vrouvrou The fact that $\forall x\notin (E\setminus U), x\in (E\setminus V)$ does not imply that $C_{E} U\cap C_{E}V=\emptyset$
 
3:24 PM
@Semiclassical yup. A measure, such as the Lebesgue one, with the property "every subset of a null set is measurable" is called complete
 
Well, that page is about cutting the series expansion at some point
 
Neat.
@SteamyRoot Point.
 
so, probably the $n$-th order Taylor polynomial?
 
Right, in France we get to know these much sooner than series expansion
 
Well, the page refers to "développement limité d'ordre n"
 
3:25 PM
For example the Lebesgue measure restricted to the Borel $\sigma$-algebra of $\Bbb R$ is not complete
 
So, Taylor polynomial of order n
 
Because of the Cantor set, its subsets, and cardinality reasons
 
Measure theory is weird.
But then again, anything which has to address the Cantor set is going to be weird :)
 
Speaking of measure theory, I'm about to have measure theory right now
See you guys around!
 
Have fun!
 
3:28 PM
BYe @Daminark
 
to find that $C_{E} U\cap C_{E}V=\emptyset$ i must conclude that $\forall x, x\notin U\Rightaroow x\in V$ ? @Astyx
 
Yes
 
now i don't understand it is confused in my minde
mind
 
$U\cap V = \emptyset \iff \forall x\in U, x\notin V$
$C_EU\cap C_EV = \emptyset \iff \forall x\notin U, x\in V$
 
?
 
3:41 PM
Sorry I made a typo, which is corrected now
@ShaVuklia Re-reading what you wrote, it seems to me you are confusing the differential and the partial derivatives ?
 
any help ple
pls
0
Q: Implication of retractions existing for a map

sashasDefinition Let $f$ be a map $A \to B$. Retraction for map $f$ is a map $r$ such that $r \circ f = I_{A}$. Let $f$ be a map $A \to B$, $h$ a map from $A \to C$. Then the problem of finding a map $g$ $B \to C$ such that $g \circ f = h$ is called a determination problem. Let $f$ be map $A \to B$,...

 
4:02 PM
@Astyx thank you
 
My pleasure
Hi @Balarka
 
Hi.
 
Hello.
 
Hi @skillpatrol
 
How's it going?
 
4:06 PM
@Astyx oh yea, that's possible. I'm rereading on Taylor's theorem now, so I hope I'll solve it soon!
 
Fine and you ? @skillpatrol
 
Fine thanks :-)
 
It's not so much about Taylor really, it's about the definition of the differential @ShaVuklia
 
What do you call this notation in coordinate geometry?
S1
S11
Equation of tangent = $S_1$
 
4:21 PM
Finished the proof of Banach-Tarski today
 
Hi @Ted @arctic
 
Hi @Ted
 
Hi Astyx, Demonark, Balarka
 
@Astyx yea, but in the definition of the differential they use Taylor
Hi @Ted
 
Hi Sha
 
4:32 PM
Comment débute ta journée @Ted ?
 
Malheureusement je suis malade, et des amis viennent bientôt me rendre visite.
 
Hope you feel better @Ted
 
Tanx, Demonark.
 
Ah zut :/ j'espère que tu te rétabliras vite
 
Any math happening?
 
4:39 PM
Not anything interresting for my part
 
Hi Prof @TedShifrin
 
Hi skull.
 
How's it going?
 
Meh. Sick.
 
Nothing serious, I hope.
 
4:43 PM
Nah.
 
Cool.
 
G'night, @MikeM
Not exactly.
 
/joke
 
Sorry to hear, @Ted.
 
4:49 PM
Maybe @BalarkaSen gave it to you
 
Not exactly.
/bad joke
 
5:04 PM
We finally have a chalk site for analysis!
 
Oh, neat. My BCH question on MO got a Terry Tao comment.
 
wee
 
"The hardest part in solving a though problem is getting Tao interested in it"
10
 
Is there an English word for when you note you can write out an inequality with some constant? For instance: $\lvert\sin (x)\rvert\leq 1$. In Dutch we say, we "schatten af" $\sin(x)$ to 1.
hm, I guess I'll just have to describe it, instead of having a shortcut-word for it
 
You bound it
 
5:14 PM
ohh of course
I've been asking myself this for 7 months now :P
 
Though that doesn't specify a constant exactly
 
we bound $\sin x$ by 1; we can say that right
 
Like if you say $|f| \le |g|$ that is also a bound
 
bound it by 1
 
But yeah
 
5:15 PM
in Dutch we have separate words for "boundedness" and the verb for bounding I guess
so I didn't really think of it
 
Ah, I see
 
Heya chat
I see Dutch
 
Hi Krijn
haha:P
 
@ShaVuklia Begrensdheid en begrenzen?
 
no sure, but we always say "afschatten" instead of "begrenzen"
 
5:17 PM
Hi @Krijn
 
I see German, but I don't get what $\sin$ has to do with shadow :/
 
have you ever said "we begrenzen $\sin x$ met 1" ? :P
actually
we do say that
but there's a subtlety. it doesn't matter XD
i got my answer
 
Kek
 
Hello
 
@ShaVuklia I see your point
 
5:19 PM
hi
 
@ShaVuklia, how are you?
 
pretty good, and you? @LeonhardEuler
 
@ShaVuklia, can you help me in proving That $A-B=A$ implies and implied by $A\cap B =\emptyset $
 
@AlessandroCodenotti what's a "though problem"?
 
I think so... What do you think $B$ is, if $A-B=A$ ?
 
5:22 PM
@ShaVuklia, I did not get? Please, what do you mean?
 
@Semiclassical It looks like the asymptotics can have arbitrary polynomial blowup
 
Say, $b \in B$ and $A \setminus B = A$. Can you prove that $b \notin A$?
@Leon
 
Maybe you can start by contradiction. So you assume $A\cap B\neq\emptyset$. That means there is an element in both $A$ and $B$. Then you can use Krijn's hint!
 
No @Krijn
 
Do you understand that if $b\in B$, then $b\notin A\setminus B$ ?
 
5:26 PM
@ShaVuklia, not the second part!
 
Maybe you can write it out as follows:
$A\setminus B=\{x\in A: x\notin B\}$
that is what $A\setminus B$ means
 
Yeah @ShaVuklia
$A\setminus B=A$@ShaVuklia
 
now how can we have that $b\in A\setminus B$, if we have that $A\setminus B=\{x\in A: x\notin B\}$. That would mean that $b\in B$ and $b\notin B$
 
So for $"\implies"$, use contraposition: you assume $A\cap B\neq\emptyset$. Then there exists $x\in A$ and $x\in B$. Can it be true that $A=A\setminus B$? @LeonhardEuler
 
5:33 PM
Hello everyone and good afternoon
 
Sid
hellp
hello
 
If $F$ is a finite field, and say $a \in F^*$ where $F^*$ is the multiplicative group of nonzero elements of $F$, then $\Pi a = -1$
 
Rehi @Ted!
 
What is $\Pi$ ? @HarryEvans
 
I know that since $F$ is a finite field, then it it is a simple extension of the field $\mathbb {Z}_p$ where $p$ is prime, and therefore, $|F| = p^n$ where $[F:\mathbb {Z} _p] = n$. Since $F^*$ is a field, then every element has a multiplicative inverse, and unless $p=2$, then there is an even number of elements in $F^*$, thus every element has its multiplicative inverse pair.
 
5:39 PM
@AntonioVargas you may be right, alas.
 
Hi, @Astyx, the product of the non-zero elements of the finite field $F$ is -1
 
@HarryEvans Some numbers are their own inverse
 
Can't answer it without knowing more about the group formed by X,Y
 
I.e. 4 in $\mathbb{F}_5$
 
Yeah, what Krijn said
 
5:40 PM
Which should also solve your problem, I think
 
do i split this into two cases?
so how do i show that the product is -1?
 
Well, you were right about the rest
Let $x^2 = 1$ then $x = \pm 1$
The other $q - 3$ have their own inverses
So $$\prod_{a \in \mathbb{F}_q^*} a = -1 \cdot \prod_{a \in \mathbb{F}_q^* \setminus \{\pm 1\}} a = -1$$
 
do i split this into two cases, case 1 is where each has a multiplicative inverse, and case 2 where one is its own?
 
@HarryEvans I already did that for you, just read it really carefully
 
OK thanks, @Krijn!
 
5:46 PM
How does one prove all fields of cardinal $n$ are isomorphic ?
 
@Astyx, $n$ must be prime, otherwise, it's not a field?
 
Oh is that so ?
 
Then form the extensions of $\mathbb {Z}_p$, $F$ and $G$ such that $[F:\mathbb {Z}_p]=[G:\mathbb {Z}_p]=n$ and exhibit an isomorphism
 
I want to show that $x\neq O(x^2)$ for $x\to0$, using contradiction. So assume $x=O(x^2)$. That means there exists $C\geq0$ and $d>0$ such that:
$$
\vert x\vert\leq Cx^2\quad\text{for all }x\in(-d,d).
$$
No I would like to divide by $x$, so I have to consider 2 cases: $x\in(-d,d)\setminus\{0\}$ and $x=0$. However, I wouldn't know how to divide an absolute value by $x$, without making stuff really complicated, by again considering cases. Is there an easy (easier?) way to do this?
 
How can we check whether a function in $\mathbb{R}$ is analytic? E.g. what means do we have to check whether a function accords with it's taylorseries?
 
5:53 PM
oh I think I know a way to do it
 
@ShaVuklia You just need to check $x\over x^2$ is not bounded
 
Analyticity is for complex functions
Differentiability is for real-valued functions
 
Thanks @HarryEvans
 
@Astyx but isn't that for the small o-symbol of Landau? or am I using then that $x\neq o(x^2)\implies x\neq O(x^2)$ ?
oh wait
i get what you mean
 
5:55 PM
What does $O$ mean to you ?
 
what i wrote out with the $C$ and $d$
but I get your hint!
 
Cool :)
 
@HarryEvans as far as I know a function is said analytic if it's given by it's Taylor series in a open set. And every holomorphic function e.g. a function that is complex differentiable is analytic and vice versa, no?
 
@Felix.C, yes, if a complex-valued function is analytic it is also holomprphic
the fact that it is infinitely differentiable means that it has a Taylor Series expansion
 
@HarryEvans In $\mathbb{R}$ how can we check where a function is analytic?
 
6:00 PM
I guess a real-valued function is analytic if it has a power series expansion that converges within an open interval, $(-R,R)$, where $R$ is the radius of convergence
 
well...
 
Thus, by that definition, $e^x = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \dfrac {x^n}{n!}$ is analytic
Since the radius of convergence is $\infty$
 
I also need to verify whether it is true that $\sin(x)=O(\vert x\vert)$ for $x\to0$. I'm guessing it's not true. I know the following:
$$
\sin(x)=x+O(\vert x^3\vert).
$$
Can I use this somehow to derive a contradiction if there exists $C>0$ and $d>0$ such that
$$
\lvert\sin(x)\rvert\leq C\vert x\vert\quad\text{for }x\in(-d,d).
$$
So we have $\lvert \sin(x)\rvert=\vert x+O(\vert x^3\vert)\vert\leq \lvert x\rvert + O(\lvert x^3\rvert)$. But I'm kinda stuck now... is this the right way?
oh never mind
I can say directly that $\sin x=O(x)$ of course
 
6:16 PM
Okay. I am trying to show that Aut Z_p is isomorphic to Z_{p-1}, where Z_p denotes the congruence class of integers mod p and p a prime. I have shown Aut Z_p consists of p-1 elements, using the fact that a homomorphism is uniquely determined by how it maps [1], the generator of Z_p; the only element it cannot be mapped to is [0], otherwise [1] --> [k] \neq [0] extends to an automorphism.
Now I am trying to show that Aut Z_p is a cyclic, and show that mapping the generators between Aut Z_p and Z_{p-1} defines an isomorphism. However, I am having trouble showing this. I could use some hints.
 
@user193319 Use the fact that $\mathbb{Z}_p$ is a field, so multiplication by any element other than 0 will yield an authomorphism Z_p to Z_p
 
@Krijn Unfortunately, at this point fields haven't been discussed yet.
 
Then write down what you think will be the isomorphism
You have already given it, but maybe not explicitly
Namely for your automorphism $f$ you get the element $f(1)$
 
@Krijn The problem is I don't know what the generator of Aut Z_p is
 
Why do you need that?
Show that the map is injective, surjective and a homomorphism
 
6:22 PM
I don't have any map. That's why I am trying to find the generator of Aut Z_p, so that I can map it to [1], the generator of Z_{p-1}, and show it extends to an isomorphism.
 
I just gave you a map
 
I don't see it. How are you defining the map?
 
$f \mapsto f(1)$
Note that you need the multiplicative group on the right, so $\mathbb{Z}_{p-1}$ with multiplication instead of addition!
Now I'm off, good luck!
 
Okay. Goodbye. I don't see how that would be a map from Aut Z_p to Z_{p-1}. It's true that f is an element in Aut Z_p, but f(1) is not an element in Z_{p-1}, so I don't see how this would be a map from Aut Z_p to Z_{p-1}.
 
@user193319 The mapping $f\mapsto f(1)$ is a homomorphism from $Aut(Z_p)$ to $Z_p^*$. The latter is also isomorphic to $Z_{p-1}$, but that is more difficult to show.
 
6:49 PM
@Astyx it can also be a power of a prime
 
Right thanks
 
(It's going to be isomorphic to $\Bbb Z/p^q\Bbb Z$ in that case)
It's not*
 
Yeah, $\Bbb Z/p^q\Bbb Z$ isn't a field right ?
For $q\gt 1$
 
$\Bbb Z/n\Bbb Z$ is a field iff $n$ is prime (it's an easy to prove fact)
 
Yup
 
7:08 PM
@AlessandroCodenotti lol. it was a good comment, too, since it pointed out why I was probably being too naive.
 
7:50 PM
Hi everyone! Need some help with some
Let's say $x$ is a normal random variable and I have some real function of this variable, say $f(x)$. I estimate the sample mean of $f$ given a set of samples drawn from the distribution; i.e., $\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}f(x_i)$. I want to say that this sample mean will eventually be eqaul to the real mean of the distribution, if $N\to\infty$.
 
@AkivaWeinberger It's been a while since you posted it but I just carefully read that today. Yeah, really nice. Didn't think about going 'round the arc and smudging stuff at the end.
 
That is, under mild conditions I could can find a (weak/strong) law of large numbers that implies the desired (in probability/mean square/almost surely/whatever). Apologies for the poor usage of the terminology... Could you help?
Thanks a lot :)
 
Hello.
 
@Akiva Actually, I'm not convinced. Why do the $\epsilon$-neighborhood needs to be a manifold? Can't smudging happen in a way so that you get a non-manifold near where it smudges?
Ok, I was thinking of a tripod and taking the vertex of the tripod to infinity. But the epsilon-neighborhood of that is of course a manifold.
 
Alternatively, take two loops around the arc that are next to each other and go in opposite directions (so their sum is zero).
 
7:59 PM
Why is it true that $o(\Vert t\vec u\Vert)=o(\vert t\vert)\cdot\Vert\vec u\Vert$.

I would say that we have some function $r(t)$ for which it holds that $\lim_{t\to0}\frac{r(t)}{\Vert t\vec u\Vert}=0$. We can rewrite:
$$
\frac{r(t)}{\Vert t\vec u\Vert}=\frac{r(t)}{\vert t\vert}\cdot\frac{1}{\Vert\vec u\Vert}.
$$
So how do they obtain $o(\Vert t\vec u\Vert)=o(\vert t\vert)\cdot\Vert\vec u\Vert$?
 

« first day (2429 days earlier)      last day (2595 days later) »