It's not a proof, it's just a graphical verification.
I imagine the second downvote was due to someone seeing the first downvote and joining in, while the first one was because someone thought you thought yours was a valid proof (which it isn't). That's my psychological extrapolation.
Question: is there a software for which one can practice/use TeX to type papers from their computer? I've only been using Microsoft Word's Equations, but that stuff is weak. I want the real deal!!
@capItan: I use MikTeX for making actual documents (you'll need to know how to do a header). Otherwise there is codecogs' live sandbox for practice and wikipedia's write-up for general reference
Also verbosus or scribtex for online latex document creation (there's no point if you can figure out miktex though).
Notepad ++ is a great little text editor that has syntax recognition. It makes typing in a lot of parentheses easier and it also recognizes commands that are called in latex.
Yes. I'm looking through a problem and have almost no idea where to start. I do have an inkling of a cluster point, however, I am not sure how to approach proving that it's the only one.
well, "shift it" is rather vague. IMO, it's really due to the fact that the fraction is $\approx m^2/n^2$, and squares of rationals can approximate positive reals arbitrarily well just as rationals do.
You don't have to go out and read about it. The method is in my last comment: to approximate $x$ with squares of rationals, take a sequence of rationals approximating $\sqrt{x}$ and then square them.
Say I have a list that may be out of order.
For instance, the list [1,3,2,4] has 2 and 3 out of place.
This would correspond to a conjugacy class of (2), meaning only one set of 2 elements is out of order (there are six ways to have a conjugacy class of (2)).
My "operation" is selecting three ...
@SivaramAmbikasaran Awefully, if you read the OP's previous post and then trace back to his first post ever on this topic, you'd see Joriki's answer most explanatory. : (
And, the OP is not even aware of axiomatic look at groups.
Also, I wrote down an elementary group theory answer on conjugacy action, that requires minimal prerequisites and I'm pretty sure OP has not gone through them as well.
My experience with students, when I TAed is, not to throw new terminologies at them. Rather work along with them to motivate the procedure and finally tell them this can be done in a more general setting.
@Kanna: It's ultimately a word metric problem. The generating set is the set of permutations with cycle type (ab)(cd)(ef) (all letters distinct), specifically.
@SivaramAmbikasaran Analysis on real line and metric spaces(Ongoing: Riemann Integrals.) ; Groups, Rings and linear algebra(ongoing: Linear Algebra); Probability Theory.
@SivaramAmbikasaran That was the reply to the second half, required a shorter answer and hence wrote that first. Sorry if it was confusing.
@AsafKaragila In this post of yours there are a few typos (you tend to skip words) and one special grammar mistake that I've seen you make repeatedly. The reason I am even mentioning it is because it makes your posts a lot harder to understand.
@Ilya I went to bed at midnight and slept til 9.30, the girlfriend is still sleeping : D I think 9.5 hours is a good night of sleep.
@MattN I'd love to hear your comments. I just should mention that robjohn read it and had no remarked, I assume he's a native English speaker too... perhaps he didn't mind the mistakes.
So here we go (that's the special grammar mistake): In the first sentence you write "I think that first we need to review what is the axiom of choice, and what can happens in its absence." Can you spot the wrong word order?
We are not bloody Donkeys! tu-tum-tu-tum, tu-tum-tu-tum We don't need your carrot control! tu-tum-tu-tum, tu-tum-tu-tum (on the music of Another Brick in the wall)
Listen, I gotta go to the office now. Could you compile a list instead of leading me through a torturous "find your own mistakes, I'll just spot them for you" game, since I really have to finish the seminar preparations today...
I'll be on keyboard in about 25 minutes or so. Emails are fine too.
Can someone fix this one for me please: "It is possible by inspecting every pair individually we can distinguish between its two elements, and so by inspecting finitely many pairs we can still choose one from every pair."
@tb : let me know if you are a liitle bit free........I'd like to continue explaining my argument (the text in that answer is not clearly written, I know and i need to explain what i was trying to say there)
> The minimum value of $n$ = sum of, the number of times $f_1$ is differentiable at $\tau-x$ and the number of times $f_2$ id differentiable at $x$, $\forall x \in (0,1)$.
@tb : There i was trying to designate 'n' to a specific property of the function $f_3$ at a specific point $tau$. I just now found that there is lot of grammatical mistake in this sentence, and it is not conveying what i intended to say at the first place ...(to be continued)...
What I don't understand is that you want to know how often $f_3(\tau)$ is differentiable in a given point $\tau$ if I read you correctly. However, the condition you state depends on the variable you're integrating over.
Say I have a list that may be out of order.
For instance, the list [1,3,2,4] has 2 and 3 out of place.
This would correspond to a conjugacy class of (2), meaning only one set of 2 elements is out of order (there are six ways to have a conjugacy class of (2)).
My "operation" is selecting three ...
