« first day (2547 days earlier)      last day (2471 days later) » 

4:01 PM
Salut Ted
 
Salut @Astyx
 
Ça va ?
 
Oui, ça va bien, merci, et toi?
 
Ça va ça va
 
@amWhy: anon has at least 3 or 4 names (not that I can remember them all) ... most often he is here now as ArcticTern.
Plus de nouvelles, Astyx?
 
4:02 PM
Pas avant demain visiblement
L'ENS n'a pas répondu à mon mail
 
ah ... il te fallait leur écrire un mail?
 
Pour vérifier une note oui ... enfin ça ne saurait tarder !
 
ah, je me demande s'ils vont te répondre ...
 
Je pense que si, je les ai appelé aussi et ils m'ont dit qu'ils le feront prochainement
 
eh ben ...
 
4:04 PM
Enfin cela dit, je suis étonné que ça ne soit pas déjà fait
 
Je suis sûr qu'ils sont tous bien occupés.
 
@amWhy The problem is that the people who are actually active in the 'chores' are not frequently there and even when they are they don't seem to wish to act on the posts mentioned there.
 
@Astyx It's summer holidays in France, no? Getting anything done then takes a while.
 
Yeah, but I'm still waiting for results, they should not be in holidays
 
LOL, almost August!
 
4:10 PM
The concours probably require a lot of paperwork
 
@user21820 But new faces can change things: We can suggest closures and deletions, why we vote as such..... We can also counter faulty requests for reopening/ undeleting, talk it out, etc. The dynamics there will change with more participation there. I'm just suggesting that it is a valid location to include when we think posts should be closed, deleted, discuss duplicates, and keep attuned what reasons others may have for actions they encourage.
 
I think each year they work during the whole summer (there will still be some results on the 9th of september)
 
Most likely they're really understaffed.
 
Probably ... I can't do anything but sit and wait anyway
 
au contraire ...
 
4:13 PM
I can stand up and wait
 
rolls 5 eyes
 
But that's tiring
 
hi Martin
 
hi all
 
@TedShifrin Rolls 13 eyes!
 
4:14 PM
That's getting up there in the eyeroll count ... But Balarka and DogAteMy have kept track of my maximum number of eyes.
 
@user21820 Somewhat related discussion with amWhy in c.r.u.d.e: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/2165/2017/7/25
 
Damn mutants everywhere!
 
Damn, Astyx, you really are bored.
 
At some point you "[rolled] eyes" ... how are we meant to guess how many that is ?
Eye am bored
 
4:16 PM
I need to think of a good hard problem for you.
 
Want some homework?
 
Hehe
 
Is there a formula for the Gram points?
 
@TedShifrin You've really done quite and amazing feat, in your leadership here. Someone mentioned tobias as a somewhat frequent visitor. Is that the Tobias as in t.b.?
 
hi @TedShifrin
 
4:18 PM
@amWhy It's Tobias Kildetoft
 
Nah, I don't think I've done that much, @amWhy. No, Tobias is Tobias K, Danish (I believe) algebraist (who, ironically, did a postdoc at UGA, so we met years ago).
 
@TedShifrin Aha!
 
hi Karim
 
Hi @Adeek
 
hi @Astyx
 
4:19 PM
So, @Astyx, what flavor problem should I be thinking of for you?
@Mats: What are the Gram points?
 
@Astyx you should do differential topology
 
The thrilling kind
 
it is very interesting to study
 
I'm already somewhat digesting that @Adeek :)
 
Um, what field, Astyx?
And please answer specifically and unpunnily.
 
4:20 PM
cool
 
https://oeis.org/A002505
Gram points are: "...points t such that Re(zeta(1/2+i*t)) is not equal to zero and Im(zeta(1/2+i*t))=0."
 
Have you actually learned transversality, Astyx?
 
No preference really @Ted, perhaps some fun combinatorics if you have that under your sleeve
Kinda, I need to re-read that yet
 
I'm not combinatorial, but I'll give you something from my probability course in a moment, Astyx.
 
@TedShifrin Oh, yes, I recognize that name. (Actually, t.b. was "Theo".) But Tobias K has been around from the start! Cobwebs now cleared!
 
4:22 PM
I have no knowledge, Mats. Far from my interests/knowledge, sorry.
 
I've read all first chapter of G&P and re-read the beginning of it (up to transversality, excluded)
 
OK, Astyx, I can always give you good G&P-type problems. But I'll give you a combinatorial type problem that Pedro helped me with years ago. Let me find it.
 
I should probably do the ones in the book first :p
 
There are some excellent ones in the book. Mostly Guillemin gives too many hints, but occasionally he gives too few.
 
4:24 PM
The thing I always find interesting in probability/combinatorics is the asymptotic aspects
 
I definetly am going to do them .. just not now
 
Which usually ends up meaning "stuff I can whack with the saddle-point approximation"
 
OK. The combinatorics question was ... What is $\sum\limits_{k=0}^m\binom mk\binom{m+n}{k+1}^{-1}$?
This arose from the following probability question (to which this can be applied): What is the expected number of cards I must turn over (52-card deck) to get my first ace?
 
Huh ?
Oh right
I probably have done this before
It'll be interresting to do it again
 
With what probability?
 
4:28 PM
lool
 
Like $3\over 5$
(not almost certainly)
Is that a thing in english too by the way ?
 
Another one of my probability favorites was: I go to a shop where they give me (at random) one of 5 possible prizes each time I go. How many trips do I expect to make to the shop in order to get (at least) one of each prize?
Yes, in English, too.
 
So you also have almost certainly converging sequences of random variables and cool stuff like that
I didn't know the english-speakers were that evolved
 
pfffffft
 
easy :p
Anyway I gotta go
Seeya later !
 
4:32 PM
Well, I gave you two good problems. Bye.
 
The way is not to actually try and compute that sum right ?
well, not directly
 
No, there's a closed-form formula for that sum.
 
::rolls $\aleph_2$ eyes, wait, that's a cyclops with an infinitely wide eye::
 
hell, Secret, I never got so advanced as to roll 100 eyes, let alone $\aleph_0$ of 'em.
 
I wish one day we humans will discover something physical that has size $\aleph_2$ that would be really awesome
 
4:35 PM
Do we have a physical model of $\aleph_1$?
 
well, we tend to treat things like time and temperature a continuum
 
eh, temperature isn't a great example since that's defined in terms of statistical mechanics
 
Everything I think of that's physical or chemical is just a large finite thing.
 
I'd put it a little differently than that.
Temperature is genuinely a continuous variable; there's no fundamental unit of it. However, temperature rests on a statistical description of the system, and so is not a fundamental aspect of the universe.
 
OK, well put.
Greetings, DogAteMy.
 
4:41 PM
Entropy, by contrast, really is a "large but finite quantity" in my understanding
 
Interesting: Secret raised the question but is strangely silent.
 
Well, I don't have much to add on that, semi seemed to explain that quite well
(and momentarily I was in physics meta chat doing stuff)
 
ah, stuff.
 
(Though the whole Gibbs paradox / entropy of mixing aspect creates issues as well.)
 
Some theoretical models did try to quantise time, though, but it is still not very popular
 
4:44 PM
I hope we aren't all going to turn into constructivists.
 
I did not say space because, well you have string theory, loop quantum gravity and many many many others who tried to digitalise spacetime
 
Imaginary time is weird enough for me :/
 
I can imagine.
 
whether we can have some fundamental aspect of the universe that has size $\aleph_1$, I am not sure, but my bets put on time
 
4:47 PM
Hi
@Secret Yeah but we need CH for that
 
(and that is assuming time is not emergent property of dynamics)
 
Eh, I think that blurs things a bit. There's a difference between 'digitalizing' space (distances occur in integer multiples of some discrete unit) and space as a concept not being meaningful below certain scale
 
There's only like continuum many open sets, right?
 
Quantum mechanics is far more in the spirit of the latter, in that the concept of particle trajectories in space cease to have any operational meaning
 
I don't know why I'm saying "like," there aren't any error bars on that
Continuum plus or minus 7
 
4:49 PM
Semi: That is true, I just mentioned there are popular mainstream models that try to does that, which is why I cannot say space is a continuum anymore when I factor all mainstream views
 
I guess my point is that one shouldn't lump string theory in there
 
right, in that case we should focus on the more relevant aspects when thinking about this problem
 
Whatever its faults with regard to prediction, it does respect both QM and Lorentz invariance
(As I understand it, anyways)
 
@AkivaWeinberger At least experimentally, there is no limit to how precise you can theoretically get a number to some physical quantity, thus it is perfectly fine to have something from the continuum (e.g. a real number) and some error to it
 
Um, Heisenberg might have something to say there
Though if you mean in a statistical sense I agree
 
4:54 PM
Hey guys.
Fast question: does $x^2 - 2y^2 = -1$ have infinite integral solutions?
 
I think heisenberg only works for conjugate observables, so if you are measuring two commmuting observables, there should be no limit on how precise it can get.

Even with heisenberg, I suppose one can measure one of these infinitely accurately and get a completely uncertain value for the conjugate variable, though I don't think heiseberg's equality will like having alephs plug into it
 
Pell's equation guarantees that $x^2 - 2y^2 = 1$ does, but the $-1$ makes the problem different.
 
@Secret No you misunderstood me
 
Do you have any solutions, @Lucas?
 
I meant like $|\Bbb R|\pm7$, as a joke
 
4:56 PM
@TedShifrin yes, $(7; 5)$
 
@TedShifrin Well $(1,1)$ certainly works
 
Akiva: O, in that case, I don't know, if the error is finite or even just countably infinite, it will make no difference because of cardinal arithmetic
 
Yes, DogAteMy, that's the one I'd found.
 
:39009955 yes, hahaha
 
You know the standard solution to the *regular version?
I have no idea why I said "formal"
I think I was thinking of "former"
 
4:58 PM
Here's a hint, perhaps, @Lucas. $(1,1)$ corresponds to the number $1+1\sqrt2$, perhaps.
 
what does "correspond" mean?
 
I mean we're thinking about the ring $\Bbb Z[\sqrt2]$.
 
@LucasHenrique Do you know how the other version, $x^2-2y^2=1$, is solved?
 
I tried to use the factorization but... I'm not used of using $\Bbb Z[\sqrt{2}]$
@TedShifrin exactly
 
The usual solution is to know that, in $\Bbb Z[\sqrt2]$, if you take the power of something of norm 1, you get something else of norm 1
So now you can multiply any of those with $1+\sqrt2$ to get something of norm $-1$
 
Anonymous
5:01 PM
In my book they write that: Any relation $F(y,y',...,y^{n},x)=0$ is called an ordinary differential equation. After that they say $F:\Bbb R^{n+1} \times \Bbb R \rightarrow \Bbb R$. What does the second part i.e. $F:\Bbb R^{n+1} \times \Bbb R \rightarrow \Bbb R$ mean? Could someone explain it to me in simple english?
 
Do you mean $f$ or $F$, @Blue?
 
Anonymous
@TedShifrin $F$, corrected now
 
Is $f$ a solution of that differential equation, @Blue, or are we talking about $F$?
 
@Blue $F$ has $n+2$ inputs and $1$ output
 
I have an iterative formula that finds the points "t" such that:
1) Re[Zeta[1/2+I*t]]=0 and Im[Zeta[1/2+I*t]] not equal to 0
2) Re[Zeta[1/2+I*t]] not equal to 0 and Im[Zeta[1/2+I*t]] = 0
3) Re[Zeta[1/2+I*t]] not equal to 0 and Im[Zeta[1/2+I*t]] not equal to 0 and Re[Zeta[1/2+I*t]]=Im[Zeta[1/2+I*t]]
4) Re[Zeta[1/2+I*t]] not equal to 0 and Im[Zeta[1/2+I*t]] not equal to 0 and Re[Zeta[1/2+I*t]]=-Im[Zeta[1/2+I*t]]
But the same points "t" can be found with the RiemannSiegelTheta function and the FindRoot[] command in Mathematica.
 
5:02 PM
Note that there are $n+1$ inputs coming from $y,y',\dots,y^{(n)}$, and then one more input from the independent variable $x$. That gives us $\Bbb R^{n+1}\times\Bbb R$.
So, for example, @Blue, the differential equation $y'^2 + 3yy'' = x^2$ would correspond to $F(a,b,c,x) = b^2+3ac-x^2$.
 
@LucasHenrique In any case, the answer is yes.
 
Anonymous
@TedShifrin Umm, what does $a,b,c$ stand for?
 
they're just variables
 
They're my variables in $\Bbb R^3$ ... you're going to put in $y, y', y''$ ...
heya @Alessandro
 
Hi @Ted
and everyone else as well
 
Anonymous
5:07 PM
@TedShifrin Oh, now that makes sense. $a,b,c$ are the sample values of $y,y',y"$ respectively.
 
Anonymous
I think I got it
 
yes, you can think of it that way
 
Anonymous
Thanks :)
 
Sure :)
 
@AlessandroCodenotti Helslo
Hlelo
 
5:11 PM
damn, you're confuzling today, DogAteMy.
 
A while ago I had fallen into the *habit of pronouncing "hello" weirdly
and I hadn't really paid much attention to it until a friend imitated me
 
habbit, hobbit ...
 
I also tend to say "food" more like "füd" 'cause why not
 
Hi chat
 
hi Eric
 
5:14 PM
hi
 
5:27 PM
bäː
 
hello...can anybody post some link or give some name of books where I can get details proof of RADEMACHER's theorem. I'm studying it from Evans, Gariepy's book but I'm facing a lot of problems there
please read my messege fully...thank you
 
I'm sorry, but I can't see how this fact trivializes the question
What's the construction that we can do with this fact?
 
Hi chat!
 
Hey!
 
hey Daminark
 
5:33 PM
Hey everyone!
 
hello :)
 
Why a line through origin is not a maximal susbspace of $\Bbb{R}^{3}$ where as a plane passing through origin is a maximal subspace!
for plane we can take the plane and any point in $\Bbb{R}^{3}/$ Plane and they together span whole of $R^3$
 
How's it going?
 
but what about the line
dont the line and a point in $\Bbb{R}^3$ / Line don't span the whole of $\Bbb{R}^3$ ?
 
@amWhy I am now.
What's up?
 
5:42 PM
@BAYMAX $\dim U + \dim V = \dim (U+V) + \dim (U \cap V)$
For vector subspaces $U,V$ of some vector space.
Actually, wait, nevermind.
That doesn't do much in this case, since you care about a point outside the origin.
Eitehr way, a line and a point outside that line will only ever span a plane.
 
yeah
 
@Baymax A line is generated by one point, so a line and a point will generate 2 dimensions
 
that's like it
 
Which isn't enough to generate $\mathbb{R}^3$
 
yes
 
5:46 PM
The other way to think about it is that it's not maximal because you can always fit a line in a plane, right?
So it can't be maximal
 
yeah because there is plane which is maximal
and we are claiming that a line isa maximal subspace
and the line fits in the plane
so we cannot say that line is a maximal susbspace
 
@AkivaWeinberger so if $a = x + \sqrt{2}y$ where $a\overline{a} = -1$, then... ?
I mean, I could construct $a^{2k+1}\overline{a}^{2k+1} = -1$. That would not necessarily mean that the number will be of the form $n^2 - 2m^2$
 
6:04 PM
user image
3
 
funny
 
6:40 PM
@LucasHenrique Yes it will. All powers of $a$ are of the form $n+m\sqrt2$.
Specifically, $a^{2k+1}$ is of the form $n+m\sqrt2$, and thus $a^{2k+1}\bar a^{2k+1}=(n+m\sqrt2)\overline{(n+m\sqrt2)}$
${}=(n+m\sqrt2)(n-m\sqrt2)=n^2-2m^2$.
Take $a=1+\sqrt2$.
As an example:$$(1+\sqrt2)^5=41+29\sqrt2$$
$$41^2-2(29)^2=1681-2(841)=-1$$
(On a related note, $\sqrt2-\frac{41}{29}$ is around 0.00042046)
 
7:11 PM
@user21820 @Adeek An uncountable $\Bbb Q$-linearly independent set is given in another answer: math.stackexchange.com/a/67751/166353
It uses the fact that there is an uncountable chain of subsets in $\Bbb N$, and then uses that to construct things of the form $\sum_{n\in A_r}\frac1{n!}$ with the desired property
 
7:32 PM
Is nobody here?
An assignment to "clean up" a proof that $e$ is irrational
 
That is the outline of the proof I always gave in my Calc Theory class (following Spivak's book).
 
isn't this proof in rudin
 
Yeah, I think it's the universal proof.
 
it's an oldie but a goodie
this reminds me that i dont know how to prove pi is irrational just off the top of my head
 
My calc prof did some weird stuff
I remember that day we proved both, and he was like "Yeah I'm not gonna do Spivak's proof, the only thing that accomplishes is scaring you", after which he did some integration stuff
Like I think he was integrating some expression involving cosine, by parts, and some witchcraft happened after that
 
7:46 PM
The $\pi$ irrationality proof in Spivak is pretty straightforward. The transcendentality of $e$ is a god-awful mess.
 
It was recursive integration by parts, in fact
 
@AkivaWeinberger oh, so
 
isn't transcendality usually just a very difficult thing
 
Like, $\frac{x^n(\pi - x)^n}{n!}{\cos(x)}$
That or sine, I forget
 
$\overline{a^n} = \overline{a}^n$?
 
7:48 PM
@Daminark sine
and then you integrate it from $0$ to $\pi$, if I'm not mistaken
 
@Ted I don't think he meant straightforward as much as, it felt like the sort of thing you just couldn't come up with
 
@TedShifrin we had 4 hours of non mandatort lectures devoted to proving that $e$ and $\pi$ are trascendental last semester, it was quite interesting
 
He said the proof he gave us, maybe we could come up with it, even if it took... a couple years
 
@Daminark integration by parts is literally most of my life honestly
 
Integration by parts is love, integration by parts is life
 
7:49 PM
@Steamy yeah that sounds right
And like, you sorta assume that $\pi = a/b$, and then define this $f(x) = x^n(a - bx)^n/n!$, which is a polynomial of degree 2n
 
Well, Munkres makes the point in his point set topology book that the first proof that the best student wouldn't come up with (given enough time) is that of the Urysohn Lemma. I have a hard time deciding what I might have come up with, given how much I've learned and already seen.
 
when people ask me what my job is this summer i usually respond "I integrate by parts"
 
= Stokes's Theorem ;P
 
Stoke;s's theorem
 
@LucasHenrique Yes. Try to prove it.
 
7:52 PM
So if you integrate that by parts 2n+1 times, $f$ will die off because of derivatives, and then things work out nicely
 
In fact, it's easier if we generalize it a bit first @LucasHenrique
 
The theorem of Stoke
 
Try to show that $\overline{ab}=\bar{a\vphantom b}\bar b$ @LucasHenrique
 
BTW, Eric, I'm still waiting for you to think about that $\int \tau/\kappa\,ds$ theorem :)
 
oh yeah i forgot about that
 
7:53 PM
@Ted Lol Soug went the opposite way with that equality
He was saying "Yeah so next quarter Schlag will start you off by talking about differential forms, which make the proof of integration by parts easier"
 
what equality?
oh.
 
Oh I spent a good amount of time thinking of that proof (Niven's proof of $\pi$'s irrationality) but I've forgotten most of it
 
You still haven't learned nearly enough about forms, Demonark.
 
Someone should make a similar "clean up this proof" sheet for me to work through
 
Oh yeah it was Bourbaki's proof I think
 
7:55 PM
forms are so great honestly
maybe my favorite mathematical objects
 
@Daminark Both Niven and Bourbaki use that function, more or less
 
I just read an article about how Alzheimers is essentially type-3 diabetes and that it's a matter of insulin resistance. Sadly, according to the formula she gives (in terms of glucose and triglycerides), I'm just over the danger threshold. :(
 
Oh I've only seen Niven's one-page proof
 
uh oh
 
I mean, I've read books that have had other proofs in them
I just never bothered to look at them because they just looked so awful
 
7:56 PM
Yeah that's true @Ted, I do hope to go deeper into those at some point
 
GRR.
 
Martin
 
"at some point" = perpetual procrastination.
 
@TedShifrin Yeah, I've heard about that
:(
 
It sounds pretty compelling, but even natural grains and legumes she says are horrible, DogAteMy ... sigh.
 
7:57 PM
Well, as of now I need to focus on complex, dynamics, and atop
 
I don't know that article, DogAteMy, but Elkies is one sharp dude.
 
cohomology is totally atop
 
stokes lets you prove that de Rham cohomology is the dual of simplicial homology
ergo go learn about stokes :^)
 
well, that's overselling a little bit ... Stokes's just tells you you have a chain map.
 
7:59 PM
(Re: link I just posted) I should learn to cook
 
Well, I guess the first thing to do is prove that deRham satisfies Eilenberg-Steenrod
 
I can give you serious cooking lessons, DogAteMy.
 
But that involves going to the store and buying ingredients and stuff and I'm lazy
 
cooking is like the most enjoyable activity imo
 
You're too young to be so lazy.
 
7:59 PM
@TedShifrin OK, when's the best time I should arrive in California
 
Eric, I think you and I form a significant minority.
 

« first day (2547 days earlier)      last day (2471 days later) »