Well in the summer i am doing a reasearch project that essential just amounts to me trying to learn a course in C*-algerbras and non-commutative geometry
My advisor is writing a textbook and he wants me to go through all the exercises and learn the material form his book and give feedback i can also ask him questions when i get stuck etc
the thing is theres like 4 undergraduate 3rd year classes that are required for it at our university and even then there still some graduate level material on functional analysis i will have to learn on my own before the research project starts
yeah we should defiantly do some functional analysis i got a textbook need to meet with my advisor and figure out what i need to learn then ill let you know
Okay, this is really informal, but the way I sometimes think about quotient groups (or rings) etc. is that we deliberately "forget" about something or that we force something to be the same. For example, when we look at Z/2Z we force all even integers to be the same as 0 (from this it follows that all odd integers need to be the same, too), so Z/2Z has two elements.
there are at least two ways to see this: you can note that the restriction of the quotient map $\Bbb R^\times \to \Bbb R^\times /\{\pm 1\}$ on $\Bbb R_{>0}$ is bijective, or you can use the map $\Bbb R^\times \to \Bbb R_{>0}, x\mapsto x^2$
The question is if i have 5 red balls, 4 green balls, 6 blue balls and we get 5 balls at random. What is the probability that AT LEAST one ball is blue.
@KasmirKhaan correct. Note that the multiplication law in the quotient group basically amounts to the rules for signs that you learned way back in school "positive times negative is negative", "negative times negative is positive" etc.
@Shago sometimes its alot easier to count the number of ways for something not to happen than it is to count it happening once , twice , three times , .... etc and suming them all together
It's a symmetric relationship. Having a homomorphism from $G$ to $H$, you need to know the direction of the mapping. Saying two groups are "homomorphic" makes absolutely no sense.
I was grading a LA exam which asked if two groups where isomorphic. The student wrote "$G$ is isomorphic, but $H$ is not isomorphic" and he had long "proofs" of those facts
@TedShifrin I'm not sure if I'm seeing an issue with one of Spivak's exercises. I was wondering if you were interested in giving me a hint or confirming my suspicion.