« first day (2572 days earlier)      last day (2745 days later) » 

00:24
It's like a church in here
@Faust7 What do you mean?
silent
I am here now, so it will be very noisy, because I have a big mouth.
00:50
hi @Ted
01:12
Hi @PVAL
whos running the show now with Bannon out?
Was it always pence?
Steven Miller?
well, Kelly's the chief of staff now
Alright time to break out the rum
Don't forget mine, Faust.
01:21
Hey i can finally drink again i broke out the 30yr bottle =)
i still think you should come visit and do a lecture for us on geometric integration
i'll supply as much rum as you want ;P
"geometric integration"
not sure what that refers to?
Something interesting i stumbled upon that apparently Ted understands and i would simply love to.
advanced stuff?
Yeah i think so
ah
"Homological integration – a method for extending the notion of integral to manifolds."
01:25
but im not really the person to ask i spent a lecture and few hours with my notes attempting to fully understand it and failed
In the mathematical fields of differential geometry and geometric measure theory, homological integration or geometric integration is a method for extending the notion of the integral to manifolds. Rather than functions or differential forms, the integral is defined over currents on a manifold. The theory is "homological" because currents themselves are defined by duality with differential forms. To wit, the space Dk of k-currents on a manifold M is defined as the dual space, in the sense of distributions, of the space of k-forms Ωk on M. Thus there is a pairing between k-currents T and k-forms...
never messed with true manifolds yet
i know the theory but no analytical look at it yet
I had a prof show us a neat theorem on it in a dif geo class
nvmd
sadly none of the 6 of us ever understood it
i thought manifolds were surfaces
my mind melted
@Faust7 yer a grad student?
01:27
nah it was a soft course on dif geo so it was taught at the undergraduate level to undergrads
but none of us really understood much i dont think
never had such a course
alot of unis dont offer it at the undergrad level
its really intresting
based on what i was doing in the computer graphics class with tube plots, I would probably enjoy such a class.
01:28
theres some truly beautiful theorems and i rather liked hyperbolic geometry
we have a concepts in geometry course
which is primarily vector based geometry
i did some extra stuff though
Integral geometry :)
im taking eucledian geometry next semester going to odd one i thinke an a
some of which was studying a bit of the hyperbolic geometry chapter in the textbook
and spherical geometry
tbf, hyperbolic geometry was very complicated
Geometric integration is different, guys.
01:30
@TedShifrin i got the right two words thats like 50% right?
@TedShifrin it's not Hological integration?
oooh
integral geometry?
You've mentioned currents before, as a kind of distributional differential form.
so using integrals in geometry?
i dunno it was thing with a bunch of lines and distances for integrating something
heh
01:31
LOL, Faust.
in the end a mobius strip poped out
O.o
o.O
>> tired and tipsy
can't tell if that should be popped or pooped :P
lol
01:31
it's pooped
Möbius strip = space of nonoriented lines in the plane
it pooped out of the giant turtle
which pooped out of the bigger giant turtle
This conversation is getting wierder and wierder
turtles pooping all the way down
and if you ask where the infinite turtles came from..... it's turtles all the way outward
01:33
i dunno man if u give turtles enough food they will literally pop not poop
@Faust7 wanna know where the turtle at infinity came from?
just feed them enough to poop out the next one.
it came from a divergent chicken as it flew to infinity
@Typhon sure
and the chicken
01:34
O.o
it came from a very crazy integral
regarding the collatz conjecture
feel free to try and prove me wrong
@TedShifrin what is euclidean geometry like? is it in anyway related to diff geometry?
Euclidean geometry is just classical plane geometry.
^^^^^^
like polygons?
01:36
like anything involving parallel lines which stay the same distance apart.
and infinite repeating paterns of shapes?
tesselations, sure.
@Faust7 high school geometry
straight lines
circles
angles
i went to "Red Neck high school"
etc.
@Faust7 then let me define euclidean geometry for you. You familiar with the term axiom?
If so, here are the five axioms of euclidean geometry
01:37
yea lol
1. A line segment can be constructed between any two points
2. Any line segment can be extended infinitely in either direction
3. A circle can be produced given any line segment as the diameter
4. All right angles are equal
5. Parallel lines never intersect
(the 5th one is notable for being wordy)
it actually says:
that sounds simple
so it must be really hard
If a line segment intersects two straight lines forming two interior angles on the same side that sum to less than two right angles, then the two lines, if extended indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles sum to less than two right angles.
01:40
Yo Yoneda laida problem on meh: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2398668/…
@Faust7 Indeed. it is heavily proof based. If it like mine, you'll start using vectors as points and radians for angles. In high school, points were just abstract objects. More like "prove this quality exists for this shape"
there's a lot of definitions
but that is the core of it.
probally will be ok
hyperbolic geometry differs in that the 5th postulate is replaced with
"Given a line segment and a point not on a line, an infinite number of line may be constructed such that they do not intersect the original line"
with spherical geometry, there are no parallel lines
in euclidean there is always exactly 1
suprised you know the actual axioms
I wrote a roughly 30-50 page paper for that class for an extra project
01:42
what was it on?
Yeah, I know the axioms.
Comparing hyperbolic, spherical, and euclidean geometry
i love doing extra cool projects
explaining the different concepts in each
ooo
can i reads it?
proving some of the original euclidean postulates
i cannot seperate my personal identity from it
so id prefer not to share
01:43
i understand
(I'll see if I can rework the latex later)
if you can id love to read it
and I also wrote a section where I took each axiom and tried to come up with surfaces satisfying the others but the negation of that one.
postulate 4 is the tricky one
that one actually creates.... non-topological surfaces
(I only realized recently when i was messing with 3d models and stuff so I never wrote about it)
youve taken topology>
well in combination with the negation of 1
sorry
01:45
?
basically 4 states that rigid motions preserve right angles
in combination with 1
you end up with
(getting a link)
7
Q: I would like help identifying the rigorous classification of this 'surface' geometry based on my interpretation of 3D models.

TyphonI want to try and identify a geometric structure I thought up while doing some weird stuff with making things walk on the surface of a 3D model and trying to incorporate backface culling into the surface geometry itself. See, in computer graphics each side of a polygon or triangle are considered ...

not all of them are like this of course
but these probably satisfy them. Might also need to negate postulate 2 as well
@Faust7 I'll look into modifying the paper. I might not be able to. Plus, there's the issue of plagiarism or what have you by not crediting the professor
they didnt actually help write it, but still
if its too much of a pain i understand
(for the most part they just looked at it once or twice and said "yeah, you're doing good. Keep going. O.O")
hehe
i wasnt planning on sharing it
just reading it
fair enough
shrugs
well I have to go in a bit. Oh cmon. Stupid spam flag keeps hitting me on every single post.
01:50
its cause type at $ \frac {1}{0}$ words per minute
(when you have to staple multiple times throughout the pages to hold it together, you know you probably did too much, lol)
ironically, I had a proofing class the subsequent semester and my only thought is "I really wish I knew how to put math in sentences before. It was sufficient but... uglier."
mostly a formatting issue
hehe
i gotta be careful
or i will accidently put the wrong meaning
when i convert it into leet math
no
i meant
you put your formulae in sentences
when I wrote it, I put every step and formula on newlines and not actually in sentences
so it's a little ugly in that sensee
Is anyone familiar with Hilbert's fifth problem?
Well i construct strings of gibberish, but sure someone may mistake them for a sentence...
01:53
i wrote proper sentences
I just made the mistake of treating math like figures rather than nouns and words to be integrated into sentences
y'know?
For instance "Adding we obtain $a + b = 5$."
rather than "Adding we obtain the following formula."
"$a+b=5$"
@anakhronizein ive read it before but understand what it says, no
@Typhon i literally have no idea what you mean i have dysgraphia the entire english language is a giant ? mark to me
i take words and i hit people over the head with them till they understand me m8
@Faust7 When you do proof writing.
do you put your formulae in the sentences
or do you refer to them as either images or figures off to the side?
i try and break it dont into a series of boolean statements i guess
down*
01:58
hrmm
you've never done real formal proofs have you?
:p
well yes
abstract algerbra is fairly proof heavy
4
Q: Proof for elements of $\textbf{Z}[\sqrt{3}]$ regarding the existence of the norm.

TyphonSo for some context, I was in a proof writing class a couple months back. I really liked it and did quite well, but midway through the course we were doing things regarding the norm of these other kinds of integers (elements of $\textbf{Z}[\sqrt{3}]$). Basically things like the fact that there is...

see my answer
so is multivariable calculus
uuuuh
my multivariable calc class was more computation heavy

« first day (2572 days earlier)      last day (2745 days later) »