« first day (2712 days earlier)      last day (2606 days later) » 

01:04
15 hours ago, by Alessandro Codenotti
Transfinite metachemistry is a prominent area of research in logic, just fyi
On a more serious note, cannot think of anything that can be made at least countable in chemistry
Hm, I guess a way to evert a torus is to think of it as $S^2 \# T^2$, where the sphere is very large and the punctured torus is attached to a very small deleted ball inside a chart on $S^2$ (i.e., sphere with a very small handle), evert the punctured torus thusly and then evert the sphere.
Should generalize to eversion of arbitrary genus surfaces.
@BalarkaSen
@Adeek What's up?
how r you
01:07
I am taking several variables complex analysis this semester.
It is pretty cool because I already finished chapter 0 of GF
GH*
not GF
Well I guess that will make sense, since half of chemistry is about identifying unknown substances with a variety of techniques
and only the other half is about making stuff
Hmmm. A small calculation using the holonomic approximation theorem implies that immersions $M \to N$ upto regular isotopy are classified by homotopy classes of maps $M \to \text{Hom}(TM, TN)$ (IIRC this is the so called Hirsch-Smale theorem). If I look at immersions of the torus in $\Bbb R^3$, this implies these are classified by $[T^2, \Bbb{RP}^3] \cong [T^2, \Bbb{RP}^\infty]$ which is just $H^1(T^2; \Bbb Z/2)$.
01:16
so metachemistry is about producing and identifying unknown unknown substance or substances of possibly metaphysical origin
Which is $\Bbb Z/2 \oplus \Bbb Z/2$... so there are 3 distinct immersions which are not regularly isotopic to the identity. I wonder what those are.
The chemical revolution, also called the first chemical revolution, was the early modern reformulation of chemistry that culminated in the law of conservation of mass and the oxygen theory of combustion. During the 19th and 20th century, this transformation was credited to the work of the French chemist Antoine Lavoisier (the "father of modern chemistry"). However, recent work on the history of early modern chemistry considers the chemical revolution to consist of gradual changes in chemical theory and practice that emerged over a period of two centuries. The so-called scientific revolution took...
so that's the event that splits chemistry from alchemy
20 mins ago, by Secret
15 hours ago, by Alessandro Codenotti
Transfinite metachemistry is a prominent area of research in logic, just fyi
And therefore, transfinite chemistry, if we can made it into a real discipline, is chemistry involving atoms that behave like infinite objects under some given formal system
that will surely be interesting to worldbuild upon
Imagine molecules and substances of infinite complexity such that no analysis machinary can or will ever tell more about its structure, yet its reactions are well known. Now if such substance behave like an infinite object, then we already have something within the domain of transfinite metachemistry
Since there are no experimental ways to play with infinite objects, it follows the investigation is formal and thus transfinite metachemistry is indeed a subset of logic
01:34
@BalarkaSen This is not carefully written. Immersions $M^q \to N^n$ are classified upto isotopy by $\pi_0\text{Hom}(TM, TN)$. If $N = \Bbb R^n$ and $M$ is parallelizable, this group is $[M, \text{Gr}(q, n)]$, and the rest of the calculation follows.
This does not look right. $[M, \text{Gr}(q, n)]$ is isomorphic to the space of $q$ dimensional vector bundles on $M$... lots of different rank $q$ bundles other than $TM/M$
I guess that's what my error was. There's merely an inclusion $\pi_0\text{Hom}(TM, TN) \hookrightarrow [M, \text{Gr}(q, n)]$.
01:52
Suppose $\vec{v} ,\vec{w} \in \Bbb R^n$
are both nonzero. Complete the statement:
If $\vec{x}$ = $\vec{x_0}$ + t$\vec{v}$ s.t $ t \in \Bbb R$ and $\vec{x} = y_0 + s \vec{w}$ s.t $s \in \Bbb R $ represent the same line
then . . .
wth is this asking?
It's asking you what happens when the two vector equations represent the same line. Can you say something about all the variables involved?
well i mean $y_0 $ is on the the other line for some value of t
v and w seem to be in the same direction
That's it.
wierd
Or at least that should constitute an answer.
01:57
it asks me to prove the statement i make
I agree it's a little vague about what it wants.
@Faust Do it!
so i guess that kind of makes sense
Yep.
It's probably worth writing something like "$\vec{v} = c\vec{w}$ for some $c \neq 0$" rather than writing it in words.
(Similar for the first comment)
showing $y_0$is on the other line is easy but the same direction part is alittle more thinking
Do think about it.
02:03
i want to use geometry lol
Hint: parallel
Hint: One of the variable controls where the line is positioned in space
well yeah the initial point controls the location
but im trying to show the vectors are parrelle
ohi guess thats one argumment
Hey, does Math.SE have a community wiki? I see it referenced too from time to time, but I don't see it on the page
I'm still new to SE so maybe I haven't unlocked it yet?
i could argue that the intial condition merely moves around the vector in space it cant shange the direction that the vector is pointing
i was think of how to actually show it directly
but w.oany points thats more difficult
@CookieToast Community wiki is an adjective for posts made on SE, not a terminology for a wikipedia-sorta encyclopedia inside SE that you can read. meta.stackexchange.com/questions/11740/…
02:13
Oh...I'm honestly quite taken by how intricate this site is with its method of post ownership, reputation, etc... Pretty cool
@Faust The line is a vector sum, note the initial condition is a vector of fixed length, thus the best it can do is position things around. The line itself is embodied by the span of the remaining vector, that's your direction of the line
only the direction vector is multiplied to all real numbers, thus that is the only vector with a variable length
@CookieToast It's one of the distinguishing features of this site from other forums in the internet
And one of the reasons it's so popular, too
@Faust sad react
I am confused
I am become confused
What of confuzzle?
02:26
10
A: What is Modern Mathematics? Is this an exact concept with a clear meaning?

Tom BoardmanFurther to the other answers, which are indeed correct: no technical definition exists- barks $\iff$ dog, frankly- but 'modern' is a well defined concept outside of mathematics; and to a certain extent it is one to which the barkings of modern mathematics agree. It was once the case that mathema...

So it seems our modern mathematics is actually postmordern
@Secret yeah it just seem like a wierd thing to "prove"
@Daminark Troll wut?
user21820 taught me that even mathematical proofs are not without assumptions, because the assumptions are grounded by things like what inference rule and axioms you believed to be true or natural
So in the end of the day, you gotta believe in at least something before you can start reason about proofs
Thus in theory one can reject proofs if they don't agree with the assumptions.
One example I can think of is the axiom of choice back in the early days, since it is independent of set theory, you can choose to accept it or reject it
0
Q: Linear Programming Problem/Integer Programming Problem Bounds

ALannisterConsider the Integer Programming Problem (IPP) $$\text{minimize}\, \langle c,x\rangle \\ \text{subject to}\, Ax \geq b,\\ x \geq 0, \quad x-\text{integer} $$ in which the matrix $A$ has integer entries. I need to prove that its optimal value is not smaller than the optimal value of the Linear Pro...

Reality however is often a really good guideline on what are considered natural beliefs though
Trying to change the title to make it more palateable to those who could potentially help
02:38
@BalarkaSen This is nonsense. You got confused with all the Grassmannians and classifying maps flying around... $[M, \text{Gr}(q, \infty)]$ is isomorphic to the space of rank $q$ vbs on $M$. What happened up there is that $\text{Gr}(2, 3) \cong \text{Gr}(1, 3) \cong \Bbb{RP}^3$.
Getcho shit together Balarka
4
Okay, but this does not justify that every map $M^2 \to \Bbb{RP}^3$ does indeed correspond to a bundle monomorphism $TM \to T\Bbb R^3$.
03:01
This was a non-issue after writing everything out.
Hirsch-Smale is an isomorphism $\pi_0\text{Imm}(M, N) \to \text{Hom}(TM, TN)$, where the latter is the space of bundle monomorphisms $TM \to TN$ covering (homotopy class of) some immersion $M \to N$ in the base.
The point is, if $N = \Bbb R^3$ and $M$ is the torus, that space is a $\text{Hom}_f(TM, f^* T\Bbb R^3)$-bundle over $\text{Hom}(M, \Bbb R^3)$ where $f : M \to \Bbb R^3$ is some chosen immersion. But the base is contractible, so this is a trivial bundle, i.e., homotopy equivalent to the fiber.
There is an isomorphism $\text{Hom}_f(TM, f^* T\Bbb R^3) \to \text{Iso}_f(f^*T\Bbb R^3, f^*T\Bbb R^3)$ now, where the map is given by extending $TM \to f^* T\Bbb R^3$ to the normal bundle of the immersion $f$ (which we can do, by orientability).
This inverse direction is what I was worried about but this is trivially obvious now, as $\text{Hom}_f(f^*T\Bbb R^3, f^*T\Bbb R^3)$ is the space of bundle isomorphisms covering a fixed immersion, namely, $f$. So there is a natural embedding $TM \to f^*T\Bbb R^3$ given by $df$ :P
In any case, $\text{Iso}_f(f^* T\Bbb R^3, f^* T\Bbb R^3) \cong [M, SO(3)]$ by taking the "Gauss map" sending each point in the base to the isomorphism of the fiber (which we can assume to be an isometry).
Regular homotopy classes of immersions of the torus in $\Bbb R^3$ then does indeed correspond to $[T^2, \Bbb{RP}^3] \cong H^1(T^2, \Bbb Z/2) = (\Bbb Z/2)^2$. But that's scary because that means there are 3 distinct immersions which cannot be regularly isotoped to the standard immersion.
I have no idea how to see these.
It's not the "inverse" embedding because of this.
(small corrections: $\pi_0 \text{Hom}(TM, TN)$ in the first line, "... over $\text{Imm}(M, \Bbb R^3$)" in the second line)
 
1 hour later…
04:49
What usefula can we say when the triangle inequality is an equality for vectors in R^n
i mean its true when they are orthognal
but is that it?
05:02
it probably means the vectors all lie along a straight line
my initial thought, but you might try proving it
@Faust
05:33
@LeakyNun Hey remember you asked me about torus eversions once
@BalarkaSen hmm
I gave a short construction of one
But it seems there are 3 distinct eversions of the torus modulo isotopy which are in fact not isotopic to the standard embedding
what is the rigorous definition of torus eversion? @BalarkaSen
@LeakyNun The standard embedding of the torus can be thickened to an embedding of $V = T^2 \times (1 - \epsilon, 1 + \epsilon)$. Torus eversion is a regular isotopy of the standard embedding to some other embedding which switches the exterior and the interior components of $V \setminus T^2 \times \{1\}$.
i.e., if you restrict the final embedding $f$ of the isotopy to $V$, it maps points on the exterior component to points on the interior component and vice versa
pretty easy to define...
The mapping class group of $T^2$ is $\text{SL}_2(\Bbb Z)$, so every special linear 2x2 matrix gives a unique diffeomorphism $A : T^2 \to T^2$ upto isotopy. If $i : T^2 \to \Bbb R^3$ is the standard embedding, I wonder if it is true that $i \circ A$ is regularly homotopic to $i$.
I suspect it is. Those 3 immersions would be really wild.
@LeakyNun Oh I made a typo in the second message. I meant to say 3 distinct immersions, not eversions. Pardon.
05:54
@BalarkaSen I see
I was thinking, homotopies should have homotopies
I gave a construction of an eversion according to the definition above, however.
5 hours ago, by Balarka Sen
Hm, I guess a way to evert a torus is to think of it as $S^2 \# T^2$, where the sphere is very large and the punctured torus is attached to a very small deleted ball inside a chart on $S^2$ (i.e., sphere with a very small handle), evert the punctured torus thusly and then evert the sphere.
what is #?
Connected sum. Think of the torus as a large sphere with a tiny handle attached to it
@LeakyNun It does
It's like morphisms between morphisms in category theoretic terminology
I also wonder if there is an isometric sphere eversion in $\Bbb R^3$. There should be.
(i.e., at each stage of the eversion the immersion is an isometry)
06:20
27 mins ago, by Balarka Sen
The mapping class group of $T^2$ is $\text{SL}_2(\Bbb Z)$, so every special linear 2x2 matrix gives a unique diffeomorphism $A : T^2 \to T^2$ upto isotopy. If $i : T^2 \to \Bbb R^3$ is the standard embedding, I wonder if it is true that $i \circ A$ is regularly homotopic to $i$.
let's say we look at $\begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & 0 \end{bmatrix}$
it generates a diffeomorphism $A : T^2 \to T^2$
is $i \circ A$ really regularly homotopic to $i$?
@BalarkaSen
I don't know. I have no reason to believe it isn't, though
It's a good candidate.
I'd have to check explicitly what map $T^2 \to SO(3)$ it induces
That determines the regular homotopy class
Maybe it's a calculation
@BalarkaSen how does that work?
Right so that's exactly the power of h-principles. Two embeddings $f : M \to N$ as regularly homotopic iff $df : TM \to TN$ are homotopic as morphisms between their tangent bundles.
Somehow embeddings upto regular homotopy are determined by the homotopy class of their first order Taylor series.
06:27
ok
In this case, we have $T(T^2) \to T\Bbb R^3$. But the tangent bundle of the torus is trivial, so just $T^2 \times \Bbb R^2 \to \Bbb R^3$.
Define the map $\alpha : T^2 \to \Bbb{RP}^3$ by defining $\alpha(p)$ to be the subspace inclusion $\Bbb R^2 \hookrightarrow \Bbb R^3$
(RP^3 is the space of 2-dimensional subspaces of R^3)
In this case $di = (\partial/\partial x, \partial/\partial y)$ and $d(i \circ A) = (\partial/\partial y, -\partial/\partial x)$ in local coordinates...
This seems promising. Hm, let's try to see what the corresponding $\alpha$ are
@Adeek So good :D.
06:46
@Leaky Aha! See the last page of this paper by Phillips
I guess I should have seen that. Nice examples, nonetheless.
I am very curious why we can't get more examples by introducing similar singularities along the $(p, q)$-curves on the torus.
Visually, at least
I already know the homotopy theoretic calculation...
The previous picture seems to also give a much simpler eversion of the torus. You don't have to evert the sphere at all, it seems. But they're using my punctured torus eversion idea, apparently
"James and Thomas showed that if the Euler characteristic of a surface is X, then the number of regular homotopy classes of regular maps from that surface into three-space is 2^(2 - X)" This agrees with my calculation! If $M$ is orientable genus $\geq 1$, $[M, SO(3)] = H^1(M; \Bbb Z/2) = (\Bbb Z/2)^{2g}$, and $2g = 2 - \chi$ indeed.
Guess I don't need to read James and Thomas's paper :P
 
1 hour later…
07:58
@Secret @LeakyNun new revision to my paper. I added a ton.
it is a paper on how to handle piecewise constant functions in differential equations in case anyone is interested
and it has a ton of neat proofs about differential equations and other related stuff
it has 31 pages
 
3 hours later…
11:19
if $f$ has zero of order $k$ at $z_0$, is it true that $f \ ^ n (z_0) = 0$ for $n \lt k$ ?
($f ^ n$ is n-th derivative )
$f^{(n)}$
right
so what do you think ?@LeakyNun
yes, it is true
i need to it for something, and not sure how to show it, can you explain why?
what is the assumption on $f$?
smooth? continuous? analytic?
11:26
analytic
so $f(z) = (z-z_0)^k g(z)$ where $g(z)$ is analytic
yes
differentiate it $n$ times (using Leibniz rule)
i want to show that this $g$ is $\sum f \ ^ {(n+k)}(z_0) (z-z_0) \ ^ n /(n+k) ! $
why do you need to show it?
11:28
$$f has zero of order $k$ and $g$ has zero of order $k+1$ i showed $f/g$ has a simple pole
now i want to show $Res(f/z) =( k+1 )f \ ^ k (z_0) / g \ ^ (k+1) (z_0)$
it follows if i can show what i wrote
you don't need that complicated thing
what's complicated?
you really only need to differentiate it $n$ times
i just need to show $f \ ^ ({n})(z_0) = 0$ for $n < k$
for example $f'(z) = (z-z_0) \ ^ {k-1} (kg(z) + g'(z))$
exactly
$\displaystyle f^{(n)}(z) = \sum_{r=0}^n ((z-z_0)^k)^{(r)} g^{(n-r)}(z)$
11:32
wait, got it :P
thanks
$\displaystyle f^{(n)}(z) = \sum_{r=0}^n k^{\underline{r}} (z-z_0)^{k-r} g^{(n-r)}(z)$
@Liad next time, think about it for more than 1 second before asking
i dont need this expression
alright , thanks. bye
12:16
[Random]
A near ring on tuples:
Consider a near ring over a group as follows:
$\mathbf{x}=(a,b,c), a \in G$
$a(\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{y}) \neq a\mathbf{x} + a \mathbf{y}$
This is a random thought that arises when doing the PhD data analysis and wonder how much more hell it will be if scalar multiplication of vectors don't distribute
because then, it would be important to first center all your vectors and then take their averages rather than doing it in reverse
12:59
Hello.
Let $V,W$ be normed metric spaces, $D \subseteq V$, and $f: D \to W$. Then $f$ is continuous iff every of it's components is continuous.
I only saw this theorem proven for $V = \mathbb R^m, W = \mathbb R^n$. Is this true in general?
what do you mean by components in infinite dimensions?
@MatheinBoulomenos Ok does it then hold generally for any finite dimensional normed metric spaces?
yes. Because all norms are equivalent
(in finite dimensions)
Ok thanks!
13:29
Is this proof okay?

Let $V,W$ be two finite normed vector spaces, $D \subseteq \mathbb V$, $f: D \to \mathbb W$ be a function and $x_0 \in D$.

> $f$ is continuous in $x_0$ $\iff$ every component $f_j$ is continuous in $x_0$.

"$\implies$":

Suppose $f$ is continuous in $x_0$ and let $\varepsilon \gt 0$. Then there exists $\delta \gt 0$, such that for all $x \in D$ with $\Vert x-x_0 \Vert \lt \delta$ we have $\Vert f(x)-f(x_0) \Vert \lt \varepsilon$. Then it follows that

$$\Vert f_j(x)-f_j(x_0) \Vert = | \pi_j(f(x))-\pi_j(f(x_0)) | = | \pi_j(f(x)-f(x_0)) | \le \Vert f(x)-f(x_0) \Vert \lt
--> I'm unsure if $\pi_j$ can be written with only absolute value bars.
13:57
the step $| \pi_j(f(x)-f(x_0)) | \le \Vert f(x)-f(x_0) \Vert$ is not valid
it depends on what you norm looks like
@MatheinBoulomenos $v = \sum \pi_j(v)$ right
nvm, that doesn't prove that
I thought the proof would work regardeless of the specific type of norm...
Or is there no way to prove this without specifying a norm?
you can use $v = \sum \pi_i(v)$ to make it work, though. This implies that $\pi_j(v) = v - \sum_{i\neq j} \pi_i(v)$, so $\| \pi_j(v) \| \leq \|v\|$ by the triangle inequality
now if you want to pass from $\| \pi_j(v) \|$ to $|\pi_j(v)|$ you can use that the image of $\pi_j$ is a one-dimensional vector space
Thanks!
So there is no problem using the absolute value on every one-dimensional vector space? I worried that it might just be defined on $\mathbb R$ or $\mathbb C$.
Namely, we want to prove that there is some $c>0$ such that $\|\pi_j(v) \| = c |\pi_j(v)|$ for all $v \in V$
every norm on a finite-dimensional vector space defines the same topology
14:08
Ok I will just use the norm instead of the absolute value for $\pi_j$.
it's really easy to define such a $c$. Just take any $v$ such that $\pi_j(v) \neq 0$ and define $c = \frac{\|\pi_j(v)\|}{|\pi_j(v)|}$
Can you take a look on the second part of the proof too?
"$\impliedby$":

Suppose $f_j$ is continuous in $x_0$ and let $\varepsilon \gt 0$. Then there exists $\delta_j \gt 0$, such that for all $x \in D$ with $\Vert x-x_0 \Vert \lt \delta_j$ we have $\Vert f_j(x)-f_j(x_0) \Vert \lt \frac{\varepsilon}{n}$ for $j = \{1,\ldots,n\}$. Choose $\delta := \min_{1 \le j \le n} \delta_j$. Then for all $\Vert x-x_0 \Vert \lt \delta$ it follows

$$\begin{align} \Vert f(x)-f(x_0) \Vert &= \Vert \big( \pi_1(f(x)), \ldots, \pi_n(f(x)) \big)^t - \big( \pi_1(f(x_0)), \ldots, \pi_n(f(x_0)) \big)^t \Vert \\ &= \Vert \big( \pi_1(f(x)-f(x_0)), \ldots, \pi_n(f(x)-f(x_
for the other direction you use $v = \sum \pi_j(v)$ and the triangle inequality
yes, that's alright
Thanks. Specifically I was unsure if I can justify the step

$\Vert \big( \pi_1(f(x)-f(x_0)), \ldots, \pi_n(f(x)-f(x_0)) \big)^t \Vert \le \Vert \pi_1(f(x)-f(x_0)) \Vert + \ldots + \Vert \pi_n(f(x)-f(x_0)) \Vert$

for the same reason as above.
as long as you use norms and not absolute values after the projection, it's fine
14:16
Alright thanks a lot @MatheinBoulomenos
The justification for that step should be clear if you think of $\pi_j(f(x)-f(x_0))$ as the the vector which has the value $\pi_j(f(x)-f(x_0))$ in the $j$-th place and $0$ everywhere else
I was unsure if it was possible that the norm of the whole vector could be bigger than the sum of the norm of each of the components, because I wasn't specifying the type of norm.
There are a lot of norms out there.
for every vector we have $v= \sum \pi_j(v)$ and for every norm we have $\|v+w\| \leq \|v\|+\|w\|$
And depending on the norm there could be equality in the inequality of my previous message?
sure, there is a norm that is given by taking the sum of the absolute values of the components
14:28
Ok got it. Thanks
I really need to study more linear algebra
in Rambles, 46 secs ago, by Secret
...
ok gg, does not work, as for every such shift, there will be some irrational $r < \pi$ which then becomes $r > \pi$ thus ordering was flipped for these entries
Claim: There are no describable uncountable proper subset of the irrationals that are not cocountable
What does describable mean?
Is $[0,1]\setminus\Bbb Q$ described?
the set itself can be uniquely specified with a finite string of symbols
(O cr***, forgot to rule out intervals \ Q examples)
Claim, refined #1: There are no describable uncountable proper subset of the irrationals that are not cocountable subsets of real intervals
14:46
So a copy of the Cantor set contained in the irrationals would be ok?
Wow, never thought about the cantor set, but yeah it does make a good counterexample to the claim
hmm... finding really messy subsets of irrationals is hard...
15:22
there is only countably many sets that you can describe
i.e. uncountably many sets that you can't describe
and you literally have no way to describe them
so the answer is "yes, but don't expect to see any example"
Can someone explain me why: diagonalization of a linear operator turns that operator into a scalar multiplier on the vector?
@Monolite let A be the operator which you diagonalize to PDP^-1
if a1 is the first column of P, then Pe1 = a1 where e1=[1,0,...,0]^T
15:26
so P^-1(a1) = e1
and then De1 = d1e1 where d1 is the first entry in D
and then Pd1e1 = d1a1
so in conclusion PDP^-1(a1) = d1a1
i.e. A scales every vector in the column of P
@AlessandroCodenotti the famous boi
oh wow ok let me think
thanks
@LeakyNun the one alessandro has in mind can be seen
in fact in multiple ways
15:28
well, I'm talking about indescribable sets
I guess you can get weird subsets of the irrationals by picking your favourite surjective and continuous map $\Bbb R\setminus\Bbb Q\to\Bbb R$ and taking the preimage of weird sets of reals?
hmm, do you have a map R^2->R that maps every line segment to some superset of some interval?
@LeakyNun this is true as you say only for the vectors in the column of P, so any generic vector will not do correct?
@Monolite because of some results in linear algebra, you can express every vector in terms of the columns of P
and every component will be scaled (albeit to a different extent)
15:31
yes great
@Monolite this is not true. The diagonal entries can be distinct
@MatheinBoulomenos do you have any idea?
about what?
@MatheinBoulomenos a map R^2->R that maps every line segment to some superset of some interval
15:35
What about R^2 -projection-> R --> R where the second map is a homomrophism R --> (-2, 2) composed with the inclusion (-2, 2) --> R? Everything gets sent to some superset of [-1, 1]
In particular line segment gets sent to some superset of [-1, 1]...
homeomorphism?
@BalarkaSen except, you know, the vertical ones
oic
Well, you didn't make the question clear enough then. The vertical ones do gets sent inside (-2, 2), which is a superset of [-1, 1] :P
You want to have it inside the superset minus the interval presumably
the vertical line segments do not get sent to any supserset of any interval, that's what I mean
15:40
The vertical line segment gets sent to a point in (-2, 2). That's an element of the superset of the interval [-1, 1]. That's not what you mean.
You want an interval $I$ and a superset $J$ of $I$ such that $I \subset f(\ell) \subset J$, I believe.
hello guys brief question about p-norms...if I have a function with finite p-norm does that imply finite p'-norm of that function when p' > p? Assume only functions $f:\mathbb{C}\to\mathbb{C}$
or equivalently is $L^{p'}\subseteq L^p$ for $p'<p$?
Hey @Eric
That depends on the measure space you're working with
if $(X,\mathcal A,\mu)$ is a measure space with $\mu(X)<+\infty$ we have $p<q\implies L^q(X)\subseteq L^p(X)$
But the opposite chain of inclusion holds for $\ell^p$ spaces
I don't know if anything nice can be said with $\Bbb C=X$
@BalarkaSen for every line segment L, I want an interval I such that $I \subseteq f[L]$
@AlessandroCodenotti you're sure about the order of p,q not every bounded function is absolutely integrable
15:48
@AlessandroCodenotti a curious ordering of the equality
hm ok...thank you very much
@Felix.C A finite measure space is needed
@LeakyNun Right, which is not what "maps every line segment to some superset of some interval" means.... a better parsing is that image of every line segment is a superset of some interval
@BalarkaSen sorry
Any restrictions on $f$?
15:50
@AlessandroCodenotti @AlessandroCodenotti I have to admit that I never had measure theory..I'm just a lousy electrical engineering student ;P
@BalarkaSen no
the context is to have a conway-base-13-type function on R^2 @BalarkaSen
cool question tho
i.e. image of every line segment is the whole of R^2
I figure if you can map it to R first, then you're basically done
I see
R^2 doesn't have a order, which is the troublesome part...
@Felix.C Oh, I see, actually I don't think there is any nice inclusion here, if we work on $\Bbb R$ we can consider functions of the form $\frac1{x^a}$ with $a<1$, if you put a big enough exponent on it it isn't integrable in $0$ anymore
15:55
@Felix.C Don't call yourself lousy! =)
idk the answer to this question
@BalarkaSen another idea is to project to X and then project to Y, then do the conway on both
but this maps R^2 to R U R instead
What about conway x conway?
how does that work?
yeah guess it doesn't
my brain cells are dying fast
i haven't gotten a decent sleep
15:58
@LeakyNun Be careful here. It's technically not possible to say "describe" in the way you're using it.

« first day (2712 days earlier)      last day (2606 days later) »