Anyway if I wanted to understand something as complicated ad the role of the media in society, I'd probably look for something beyond a neat sounding catch phrase,
In perhaps my favorite novel ever (Sometimes a Great Notion) , there is a character who comes up with these kinds of quips in some hope for understanding mankind. It doesn't go to well for him.
Hey, I'm trying to look up some information, but don't know what to search for. I'm looking for something like the PDF of sample mean, only for sample maximum.
If I take the maximum of 5 samples, what would the PDF look like. Is this a standard math concept?
I wanted to ask the following question I am solving from Michael Atiyah. Let A be a ring, I be an ideal, M an A-module. Show that $(A/I) \otimes M$ is isomorphic to $M/IM$. The way I solved it was consider the following sequence $0 \rightarrow I \rightarrow A \rightarrow A/I \rightarrow 0$ this will induce the following exact sequence $I \otimes M \rightarrow M \rightarrow A/I \otimes M \rightarrow 0$. To finish the proof I want to show that $I \otimes M \cong IM$. I showed that the map
$a_1 \otimes m \mapsto a_1m$ is well defined and surjective.
I know it's probably been a little while since you've done calculus, but is it true that a homeomorphism with one direction smooth is a diffeomorphism? I'm inclined to say not but it'd be nice if this were true...
@Daminark (using your legal name for ping): No, there's a very famous homeomorphism that is smooth but whose inverse is not even everywhere differentiable. Think most basic precalculus.
@arctictern: I hope you feel better soon. I have been sick for almost a month now. :(
@Ted Early in my grad career I wrote a proof that every twisted sphere (including all the exotic spheres in higher dimensions) was smoothly homeomorphic to the standard sphere using a version of stuff Bing did.
The problem says to show that if the boundary of a compact, convex set is a manifold, then it's homeomoprhic to the sphere. The idea is to push the set so that the origin is inside, and then surround the set in a large sphere (radius $r$) and push out by $f(x) = r\frac{x}{\|x\|}$.
Loosely speaking I just said that this map in general has rank one less than the dimension of the space, which is in fact the dimension of the sphere and of our manifold, so that should suffice to say inverse function theorem locally. Since it's a bijection, that's enough to say total diffeomorphism
A folk theorem says that star-shaped open subsets of R^n are diffeomorphic to R^n.
Is there a citeable reference for this result?
For the sake of being definite, let's say that
“citeable” means indexed by Mathematical Reviews or Zentralblatt,
or available on arXiv.
(The answer https://mathoverf...
Ad question 1): Yes, all open star-shaped subsets of $\mathbb{R}^n$ are diffeomorphic to $\mathbb{R}^n$.
This is surprisingly little-known and there is a proof due to Stefan Born.
You can find this (fairly complicated) proof in Dirk Ferus's course notes
http://www.math.tu-berlin.de/~ferus...
By the way, an analysis question motivated by probability that I was discussing with Balarka yesterday. Supposw that $f:\Bbb R\to\Bbb R$ is analytic in a nbhd of $0$,what kind of conditions do I need to ensure that the power series will converge in a disk if I plug in a complex variable instead?
I was wondering about it while thinking about the moment generating function and the characteristic function of a random variable, because if I have a series expansion for the first it seems like I can just plug in $it$ for $t$ and get the second @Ted
What you know about convergence of (real) power series will go over immediately to complex power series — think about the proof of the ratio test, root test, whatever.
I wasn't really referencing Bing's death, but that works too (given my location).
Just not too much people thinking about that stuff since I guess he died and lots of his students retired/moved on to different research/focused on teaching.
I would imagine though that you might have known that if you identify all points on a line (and nothing else) in $\Bbb R^n$ you still get back $\Bbb R^n$
If $F$ is a field and $a \neq 0$ is a zero of $f(x) = a_{0} + a_{1}x + · · · + a_{n}x ^n$ in $F[x]$, Then $1/a$ is a zero of $a_{n} + a_{n−1}x + · · · + a_{0}x^{n}$.
I thought of this a s applying continuously inverse of $a$ $n $ times
If $F$ is a field and $a \neq 0$ is a zero of $f(x) = a_{0} + a_{1}x + · · · + a_{n}x
^n$ in $F[x]$, Then $1/a$ is a zero of $a_{n} + a_{n−1}x + · · · + a_{0}x^{n}$.
I thought of this -
As $a$ is a zero of $f(x)$ so $f(a) = a_{0} + a_{1}a + · · · + a_{n}a
^n = 0$
Now as $a \in F$ so inverse of ...
@BAYMAX A chord will be given by some line, so set the equation of a circle equal to the equation of a line, and use the endpoints to compute the arc length
Determine $$\iint_S \textbf{A} \cdot d\textbf{S}$$
where $$\textbf{A}(x,y,z) = (xz^2,x^2y,xyz)$$ and S is the sphere $(x-1)^2+(y-2)^2+(z+3)^2=4$
Attempted solution
Let's use Gauss' theorem. We obtain $\nabla \cdot \textbf{A} = x^2+z^2+xy$. A parametrization of the sphere is given by:
$$\Phi(r,\...
Hello dear fellow, I asked a question yesterday but had no luck as of yet : maybe someone here would be kind enough to give me a hint ? math.stackexchange.com/questions/2242005/…
@TedShifrin "Congratulations, you are a grammar master! You have a superb understanding of even the trickiest grammar rules. Not only do you know the difference between affect and effect, but you also never confuse your tenses. You must be an English scholar because only 4% of Americans can get a perfect score on this test." XD
Let $z_1$ and $z_2$ be two distinct complex numbers and let
$\,z=(1-t)z_1 +tz_2\,$ for some real number $t$ with $0<t<1$. Then we have to prove
$$\begin{vmatrix} z-z_1 & \overline{z}-\overline{z_1} \\
z_2-z_1 & \overline{z_2}-\overline{z_1}
\end{vmatrix}\;=\;0$$
I thought about it, but don't ge...