« first day (2739 days earlier)      last day (2578 days later) » 

10:18
I might have to later in this chapter, just started topology :) @AlessandroCodenotti
What kind of foreknowledge you should have before learning about topology ?
metric spaces i think
is this synonym for euclidean space ?
That's helpful but not necessary, in my general topology course we just treated metric spaces as a particular kind of topological spaces
10:22
:O
Please someone know how we get this
$(w_1^{1/p}|x|)w_1^{1/q}+(w_2^{1/p}|y|)w_2^{1/q} \leq (w_1|x|^p+w_2|y|^p)^{1/p}(w_1+w_2)^{1/q}$
$w_1,w_2>0$
@Shobhit ah, I see, it's weird to have Baire's theorem at the beginning of a first course in topology. But it's a cool theorem with quite a few useful applications
Depends what kind of topology
you just need set theory for point set topology
no, baire's theorom was not at the start of topology, but at the end of metric spaces @@AlessandroCodenotti
Ah, I see, it makes sense to see the "metric spaces are Baire" version then. There's another version of Baire's category theorem that says "compact Hausdorff spaces are Baire"
(The first one is more useful to be fair)
10:26
from what i have been reading, we are only talking on hausdroff spaces, are non-hausdroff spaces not interesting?
Most naturally arising spaces are Hausdorff
oh
@AlessandroCodenotti in my book, they talk of continuity of a function by defining oscillation of it around a point x. Let me write that...
@Shobhit Non-Hausdorff spaces are great
Ah, sure, they want to prove that the set of points of continuity is $G_\delta$?
Although they are not easy to deal with
A lot of theorems break down for non-Hausdorff spaces
10:33
let $N_{x}$ denote the collection of all nbd's of a point $x$. Define $w_{f}(x) = inf_{V \in N_{x}} \{sup_{y,z \in V}|f(z) - f(y)|\}$. How does this equating to zero shows continuity. From what i can see they are taking the infimum of the diameters of all nbd's of $x$
@Slereah any particular example of a non hausdroff space thats interesting? or any theorom related to it? From what i read, in non-hausdroff spaces sequences can converge to different limits. I was like...what??? no, not cool. XD
How do you define continuity
@Shobhit Leaf spaces of foliations
@AlessandroCodenotti yes they talk about $G_{\delta}$ right after this
Or extensions of manifolds
or boundary construction of manifolds
Think about this in $\Bbb R$ using the oscillation calculated in $(x-\delta,x+\delta)$ with $\delta\to 0$, convince yourself that this limit being $0$ is equivalent to continuity at $x$ and think about the general case later
i'll write them down, might deal with them later on
10:36
Odds are low :p
except the leaf space thing
ohk, thinkinh
Leaf spaces are basically the only common occurence of non-Hausdorff manifolds
oh why?@Slereah research thing?
Just an interest in 'em
I searched high and low for theorems on non-Hausdorff manifolds
they do have some neat properties
You can build non-orientable manifolds in one dimension
Or two homeomorphic manifolds that aren't diffeomorphic in one dimension, too
What's a non Hausdorff manifold? Locally Euclidean, second countable space?
10:38
i dont even know what a manifold is
@AlessandroCodenotti just locally euclidian
You can throw in second countable, too
(I think they're called $Y$-manifolds if they're second countable)
(but that was only in a single paper)
@Shobhit generalization of a surface, roughly
So something like the line with two origins
that is the most famous one, yes
@AlessandroCodenotti i am not getting it
Basically they're fairly annoying because there's no partition of unity on non-Hausdorff manifolds
So it's hard to build a lot of things
10:47
I am wondering about the topology of the line with $\omega$- origins
not terribly different from the like with $n$ origins
lots of charts, certainly
the weird Hausdorff manifolds are more like
the complete feather
Is a manifold basically a set of atlas, or is there something more? I knew for topological manifolds, you have a topology and the open sets are homeomorphic to euclidien space
You can define a manifold from the charts and transition maps
right, make sense
charts for putting in a coordinate system and transition maps for gluing
pretty much
 
2 hours later…
12:40
@Slereah Cool
@Slereah The what?
I imagine the nonorientable thing would be like $[0,3]$ where $[0,1)$ and $(2,3]$ are quotiented together by $x\sim3-x$
Like, a circle connected to a line segment by the "double origin" device
yeah something like that
It doesn't seem to have a canonical name but I just call it "the noose"
The complete feather is obtained using this procedure :
Take $\Bbb R$ copies of the real line, indexed by $x \in \Bbb R$
Glue each of them along $(-\infty, x]$
That is the feather
Repeat the process $n$ times to obtain the $n$-feather
the complete feather is the limit of this manifold
Every point of the manifold branches
there's variants where you also only glue them at point where $x$ is rational and such
I don't quite understand
Do you know the branching real line
For manifolds
No
Is this like two copies of the real line with the negatives identified?
Yes
Two charts $(\Bbb R, \operatorname{Id}_{\Bbb R})$, $(\Bbb R, \operatorname{Id}_{\Bbb R})$ such that the overlap is on $\Bbb R^-$, with transition $\operatorname{Id}_{\Bbb R^-}$
The feather is the same except for every point
hence the name
Complete feather is the process repeated so that every point of the manifold presents such a branch
Hi @Semiclassical
It’s -11 F / -24 C outside. Why do I live in MN
13:01
@Slereah Ohh. I think I get it. I have to think about this…
MN you mean Minnesota ?
We have 2+ Celcius outside
Could be Monaco
Or Montenegro
There are temperature ranges I can cope with
13:04
@Akiva It's $\mathfrak{c} \times \Bbb R \sqcup p \times \Bbb R$ quotiented by the equivalence relation $(x_0, y) \sim (p, y)$ whenever $y < 0$.
I wonder what would be peak negative temperature in celcius for current year
By $\mathfrak{c}$ I mean $\Bbb R$ with the discrete topology.
But while 0 C may be the freezing point of water, 0 F is my own personal freezing point
Below that I go a bit crazy
you can build weird versions of the complete feather where the only homeomorphism is the identity
$0\pm 10$ celicus would be what the temperature is usually around here
13:07
I meant $y < x_0$, actually
You're shifting the basepoint of the tripod as you're gluing various objects
@Slereah Right, it can be totally nonhomogeneous
@Tuki fun fact: in kelvin, one usually thinks about all temps as being positive (ie above absolute zwro). But if you use the definition of temperature coming from statistical mechanics then you actually can get negative temps
And they’re actually ‘hotter’ in some sense that positive temperatures
negative temps in kelvin ?
Oh wait, what I wrote is not a complete feather is it? It's $\Bbb R$ with a copy of $\Bbb R$ glued along $(-\infty, x_0)$ for every $x_0$
So those glued $\Bbb R$'s locally do not look like tripods themselves
Yeah. This won’t happen for most systems, though
The complete feather should be a very non-first countable space
13:09
yes i can see why
@BalarkaSen very much so
For it to happen, you need the entropy of the system to go down when you increase the internal energy
are there distinctions for manifolds with different cardinalities?
Like $\aleph_1$ basis versus $\aleph_2$ basis
In a typical gas, though, increasing the internal energy means the particles move faster and have higher entropy
13:11
Is that the Reeb foliation
Consider the quotient of this space with the equivalence relation $x \sim y$ iff $x$ and $y$ belongs to the same "leaf"
That's a 1 dimensional non-Hausdorff manifold
@Slereah Yeah
I think Reeb's the guy who really started to study non-Hausdorff manifold
He wrote the "big" paper on non-Hausdorff $1$-manifolds with Haefliger
I think i've seen this image before but cant remember the context ?
I linked it in this chat before
13:13
it's the standard image used for foliations I think
“Non-Hausdorff spaces, often regarded as a technical nuisance, sometimes produce a global disaster.”
– Geometry of non-Hausdorff spaces and its significance for physics by M.Heller et al

“Kelley’s book set the cat among the pigeons in 1955 by daring to omit the Hausdorff condition from many of its definitions.”
– On non-Hausdorff spaces by Ivan L. Reilly
Wise words
13:31
@BalarkaSen I feel like that should be homeomorphic to the first version, though
Quotienting based on $y<x_0$ versus $y<0$
(For the not-complete version)
Oh, wait. It's not
I mean the $y < x_0$ thing is homogeneous along the real axis
You can translate it along the real axis (and translate the attached feathers thereof) and that'd be a homeomorphism
No such thing in $y < 0$ where everything is toppled one after another at the single origin
There is no homeomorphism of the line with $n$ positive real axes which takes $0$ to $1$, eg.
13:58
[Random]
1. $$S =\bigcup_{i\in I} U_i$$
2. $\tau_1 = \{i \in I : U_i\}$
3. $A = \{x,y : xRy\}$
4. $A^{\ell} = \prod_{\ell \in L}A$
Hello, i want to calculate $\lim_{t\to0} \frac{|t|^p}{t},p>1$if $t\geq0 $ there is no ptoblem but if $t\leq0$ can i write $\frac{|t|^p}{t}=(-1)^p\frac{t^p}{t}$ ?
5. $\forall j \in J [\phi_j : U_i \mapsto B \subset A^{\ell}]$
6. $T_{a,b} : \phi_a(U_a \cap U_b) \mapsto \phi_b(U_a \cap U_b)$
@Vrouvrou The problem is that $t^p$ might be complex or undefined
Consider $t=-1$, $p=3/2$
then how to calculat the limit ?
So I think a better way to do this is to write it as $\frac{|t|^p}{-|t|}$, and use $|t|\to0$
14:09
it $t\leq0$ right
@AkivaWeinberger the feather without any non-identity homeomorphism is weirder
thank you @AkivaWeinberger
It's like the branching only occurs at rational points and every branching has a different number of branches
@BalarkaSen @Slereah I think this is homeomorphic to the set of functions of the form $f:(-\infty,a]\to\Bbb R$, where a basis is given by sets of the form $\{f|_{(-\infty,t]}|t\in(a,b)\}$ for arbitrary $f$
14:11
it's not very second-countable
(The complete feather one)
'Cause of the branching
@Slereah What different number?
Like, the denominator of the rational, or something like that?
Hello :) I need an example a function : 1. has two minimums, no maximum. 2.has two maximums no minimum.. :)
I'm guessing any bijection $\Bbb Q \to \Bbb N$ provides a scheme to get it
The basic trick is that any homeomorphism would map a point near $n$ branches to a point with $n'$ branches, I think
So it fails to work
@PabloZ392
It has a local maximum but no global maximum
@AkivaWeinberger Thank you :)
@Slereah Oh, and so it has no non-identity automorphism
Weird
yeah
that's why people ask for at least second countability for manifolds
14:18
That's not second countable?
Hm, i guess that one is, actually
Since it's just $\Bbb N$ copies of $\Bbb R$
That + Hausdorff condition
no idea
Strange millipede @Secret
otherwise you get the whole bloody manifold zoo
look at that madness
those are just the 2D ones
Akiva: I think I need to read more closely on the construction again to get the correct picture of all those feather manifolds
14:28
oh god those are only the Hausdorff ones, too
I have no idea what's the full set of 2D manifolds is like
I like how $S \times \mathbb L^+$ is called the long drink
what is $\Bbb{L}^+$, the long line?
long ray
ok
In mathematics, the category of manifolds, often denoted Manp, is the category whose objects are manifolds of smoothness class Cp and whose morphisms are p-times continuously differentiable maps. This is a category because the composition of two Cp maps is again continuous and of class Cp. One is often interested only in Cp-manifolds modelled on spaces in a fixed category A, and the category of such manifolds is denoted Manp(A). Similarly, the category of Cp-manifolds modelled on a fixed space E is denoted Manp(E). One may also speak of the category of smooth manifolds, Man∞, or the category of...
hmm... so that's how to map between different manifolds of the same differentiabiliy classes...
Category theory sure really satisfy my tendencies to work with general things
Gauld's diagrams are quite harrowing to look at
what trig substitution can be used for $\int \frac{dx}{(a^2 + x^2)^2}$ ?
14:36
That looks like one of the inverse trig ones
Try something like $y = \cos(x)$ or $\sin(x)$
Slereah: What are the arrows? (i.e. what is the directional info that relate the various classes in the diagram)
A->B, A supset of B?
Implication.
Some kind of butt foliation
I get a headache just looking at it
seems fine
14:45
is the long line useful for anything outside of counterexamples, anyway
not to me
well, according to the past discussion in the logic chatroom, $\omega_1$ does not really have a use other than counterexamples and stuff within set theory
The long line is entirely useful for [censored].
Top secret informations
I have been asking around for many months on where $\omega_1$ will arise naturally, but it seems uncountable well orderings are kinda a byproduct of the axiom of choice (and ZF in general)
14:48
This is why we need to overthrow the Axiom of Choice, and replace it with the Axiom of Monarchal Fiat
Just use Peano's axioms
YOU GET NO CHOICES, SIR!
ZF minus axiom of infinity is just Peano
where everything is nice and orderly
$\omega_1$ is impredicative and not very constructive. As far we knew, throwing all uncountable ordinals away will not affect most of mathematics
but but but... I needs my BANACH-TARSKI!
14:50
@XanderHenderson has a sphere business and he just gets free spheres from Banach Tarski
ssh!
those are protected trade secrets!
how did you manage to avoid signing the NDA?
ZF$\neg$C is worse than ZFC in some ways, tho
There are many useful results from the axiom of choice, such as nonmeasurable sets, infinite vector space having a basis, baire cateogry theorem and other things that makes real analysis straightforward to formulate
so I won't necessary want to throw it away
Does $a_n=1+1/2+\dots+1/n$ fit for requirements here?
As an analyst, I cannot imagine a world without AoC
14:52
On the other hand, in ZF, there are these infinite dedekind finite sets and amorphous sets which are very interesting and it can actually support a lot of structure
well, that's not entirely true; I just don't want to live in such a world
Let's also get rid of the axiom of the excluded middle

  Logic

This room is meant for discussion about logic, including found...
Slereah: You will like this chat room
user21820 is working on a type theory system that does not necessary have law of excluded middle (LEM)
@XanderHenderson Let's switch to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic
14:54
GAH!!!!!!!!!!!
NONONONONONONONONONONONO!
Why choosing, just pick them all:
Metalogic is the study of the metatheory of logic. Whereas logic studies how logical systems can be used to construct valid and sound arguments, metalogic studies the properties of logical systems. Logic concerns the truths that may be derived using a logical system; metalogic concerns the truths that may be derived about the languages and systems that are used to express truths. The basic objects of metalogical study are formal languages, formal systems, and their interpretations. The study of interpretation of formal systems is the branch of mathematical logic that is known as model theory, and...
also, time to take the small person to school
laters
later
in Logic, yesterday, by user21820
@Taroccoesbrocco: And I've in fact build my own alternative foundational system, which is most similar to a kind of type theory, but is based on Kleene's 3-valued logic instead of intuitionistic logic. I wrote a bit here to briefly describe the motivation. I understand the intuitionistic viewpoint, but I prefer to treat true and false on equal footing. =)
I think Robert Anton Wilson had a weird 7-valued logic
though not a formal one
"Robert Anton Wilson in The New Inquisition developed a non-Aristotelian system of classification in which propositions can be assigned one of 7 values: true, false, indeterminate, meaningless, self-referential, game rule, or strange loop. Wilson did not devise a formal system for manipulating propositions once classified, but suggested that we can clarify our thinking by not restricting ourselves to simplistic true/false binaries."
that's the one
15:13
@Secret if you want to construct the Borel sets iteratively you can't stop at any countable ordinal but need $\omega_1$ iterations. Dunno if this counts aa natural
15:23
Hi, has anyone seen the improper Riemann integral $\int_0^{+\infty} \frac{\sin(\pi x)}{\ln x}\,dx$ calculated somewhere?
15:34
Did you try Gradshteyn and Ryzhik
Hello, i have this function $\int_0^{|t|}\phi(s)ds$ where $\phi(t)=0$ if and only if $t=0$ , if i suppose that $\int_0^{|t|}\phi(s)ds=0$ how i can prove that t=0 ?
Is it continuous?
yes
$\phi$ is continuous
Please reply:
53 mins ago, by Silent
Does $a_n=1+1/2+\dots+1/n$ fit for requirements here?
I mean, is this sequence a good counterexample?
15:51
@Slereah
i just say by continuity of $\phi$ ?
i have also that $\phi(t)>0, t>0$ and $\phi$ is invreasing
@Silent isn't that the "standard example" from the body of the question?
omg! so sorry!
Is there any analytical method which could tell me the largest decreasing direction if i have function $f(x,y)=2x^2+3y^2+4\sin(x)\sin(y)$
gradient would give the largest increasing direction
$-\nabla f(x,y)$ is also increasing direction in this ?
at point 0,0 i mean
16:12
@Vrouvrou Then either $\phi > 0$ or $\phi < 0$ on $(0,t)$
Because $\phi \neq 0$ on that interval
and it is continuous
To switch from positive to negative it would have to cross $0$
$\phi(t)>0$ if $t>0$
then on (0,t) $\phi(t)>0$
@Slereah
Since $\phi(t)$ is $>0$ on $(0,t)$, pick any point $t' \in (0,t)$, then $$\int_0^t \phi(s) ds = \int_0^{t'} \phi(s) ds + \int_{t'}^s \phi(s) ds \geq \int_0^{t'} \phi(s) ds + \phi(t') [t - t'] > 0$$
(That's assuming $t \neq 0$, of course)
warning, use of $s$ as both a dependent and an independent variable detected :P
16:26
Hence contradiction
Oops
it was supposed to be $t$
ah, i get you
@Slereah do you want it edited?
(we're talking about the upper limit on the third integral, yes?)
It wil do
@AkivaWeinberger, $1/n$ converges, and difference of each successive term is $\frac 1{n(n+1)}$, while $1+1/2+\dots+1/n$ diverges and difference between each successive term is $1/n$. Does 'more' difference in second sequence has to do something with divergence?
I guess yeah, in the sense of the difference test, if $a_n$ and $b_n$ are positive but $\sum a_n$ diverges and $\sum b_n$ converges then $a_n>b_n$ for large enough $n$
(Here $a_n=\frac1n$ and $b_n=\frac1{n(n+1)}$)
I don't know if you want something deeper than that, though
16:43
Thank you!
ugh! The proof I wrote two years ago is not bullshit; there is a very clever multiplication by 1 that I did not make explicit, and which is non-obvious in retrospect
YAY!
WHY DID IT TAKE ME TWO DAYS TO FIGURE THIS OUT?!
I've made it explicit now. $\delta^{Q-Q} = 1$. Don't forget that.
16:58
Hey! Can anyone help me with an integral problem.How can I find the volume below a paraboloid and above the triangle on xy plane?
Substraction?
how is $\frac{sin 2u}{2} = sin(u)cos(u)$ ?
@Trey Magick.
$$\sin(a+b) = \cos(a)\sin(b) + \sin(a)\cos(b) \implies \sin(2u) = \sin(u+u) = \cos(u)\sin(u) + \sin(u)\cos(u) = 2\cos(u)\sin(u). $$
there's a bunch of proofs of the double angle identity
so it really depends on what you take as your starting point
it is really just an application of the angle addition formula for sine, which follows directly from the angle addition formula for cosine, which is DEEP MAGICK
or, as @Semiclassical you can find another proof that you like better ;)
17:10
@XanderHenderson now I see it. thank you!
okay, this is a funny failed mathematica animation
@Semiclassical is there any proof through euler's formula.
sure
that's a sensible one
@Abcd YES! And it is lovely!
@XanderHenderson please show.
17:13
urg... let me see if I can remember how it goes.
start from the right-hand side. then write down the euler's formula expressions for sine and cosine, multiply it out, and then express in terms of sine again
$\sin2\theta= e^{i\theta^2}$, as a starting point?
@Abcd no
Then $e^{i\theta}= cos\theta + i\sin\theta$
17:16
Yes.
$$\sin(2u) = \frac{\mathrm{e}^{i2u} - \mathrm{e}^{-i2u}}{2i}$$
I think we'll have to use De MOivre's theorem too.
@XanderHenderson Oh, I wanted to try too...
Let me continue without seeing yours.
factor the top as a difference of squares, then simplify, using the same idea for cosine
heh
$\sin 2\theta = (\cos 2\theta + i\sin 2\theta)$
that doesn't look right... or am I being dense?
$\mathrm{e}^{i\theta} = \cos(\theta) + i\sin(\theta)$; that's what you are trying to use, no?
17:19
@XanderHenderson I am trying to use $e^{i\theta^2}$
so whence $\sin(2\theta)$ on the left?
also, do you mean $(\mathrm{e}^{i\theta})^2$, or do you mean $\mathrm{e}^{(i\theta^2)}$?
your notation is ambiguous
and exponentiation is not generally associateive
@XanderHenderson 1st one
Oh wait
My integral proof was wrong
You should use the inf of $\phi$, not $\phi(t')$
$\implies \sin2 \theta (1-i)= \cos 2\theta$
It exists because continuous on an interval
17:22
$\implies \sin 2\theta = \dfrac{\cos2\theta}{1-i} $
Now we should write both numerator and denominator in euler's form, I think.
$\implies \sin 2\theta = \dfrac{\cos 2\theta}{(e)^{-1}}$
How to write $\cos 2\theta$ in euler form?
Lol, is this even true: $\sin 2\theta = e \cos 2\theta$
18
A: Reasoning that $ \sin2x=2 \sin x \cos x$

user63181$$\sin(2x)=\mathrm{Im}(e^{2ix})=\mathrm{Im}(e^{ix}e^{ix})=\mathrm{Im}((\cos x+i\sin x)(\cos x+i\sin x))=2\sin x\cos x$$

Best^!
17 mins ago, by Abcd
$\sin2\theta= e^{i\theta^2}$, as a starting point?
My this assumption was wrong^
is it possible to simplify $sin(arctan(x))$ ?
@Trey You might like that proof^
17:39
wow this chat is now buried even more
i'm looking for more info on the Transform $T$ that appears at the top of this question
did any of you see that before?
Poor Bouligand. He introduced two notions of dimension in a single 1928 paper: the Minkowski dimension, and the Assouad dimension.
He gets his name on neither. :(
Is it possible to find the function whose graph is like this^?
All horizontal lengths= all vertical lengths = 1 unit.
That isn't the graph of a function; it fails the vertical line test.
But if you assume that the vertical segments are "jumps", then that looks like the graph of the greatest integer function, i.e. $x \mapsto \lfloor x \rfloor$
floor/ceil?
Does anyone here read French and want to translate a couple of papers for me, gratis?
Anyone?
17:46
try google translate
@XanderHenderson How would you represent the greatest integer function? I mean what is its value?
@PeterSheldrick That would be neat, if the papers were in a machine readable format
all I have a low quality scans :(
ohhh
wasnt thinking of that
like $floor(x) = ....$
17:47
@Abcd USE TEH GOOGLE! google.com/…
Hmm, okay. I had a parabola and the greatest integer function. I was trying to find their intersection. Seems like it is not possible.
@Abcd Finding the intersection of a parabola and the GIF is a problem in Diophantine equations.
Those are, typically, quite hard.
"Ensembles impropres et nombre dimensionnel..." I'm just going to assume that those are all cognates, and that French grammars is exactly the same as English grammars
Oh, interesting. Anyway, it was a physics problem. I should rather discard this approach and think of other methods to solve my problem.
ooo... it looks like Bouligand uses mother f'n' mathfrak for content... maybe I'll do that for the Minkowski content from now on... how does $\mathfrak{M}_{\ast}^s(E)$ look?
hrm... no, I don't like that
nevermind
"Une limite supérieure de l'approximation sera $$\frac{\sqrt{3}}{N\partial^2} \mathfrak{M} $$ en appelant $\mathfrak{M}$ la masse totale." == "An upper limit from the approximation is given by $$\frac{\sqrt{3}}{N\partial^2} \mathfrak{M} $$ where $\mathfrak{M}$ is the total mass." (Again, I'm just going to assume that mathematical French is really just English with a funny accent.)

« first day (2739 days earlier)      last day (2578 days later) »