« first day (2755 days earlier)      last day (2563 days later) » 

08:00
why not? The requirement that any open set is measurable seems like a compatiblity condition to me
Zee
Zee
ya But not more than that
Borel measures are exactly the measures which are compatible with the imposed topology
What do you mean by "more than that"?
Zee
Zee
Metric gives which sets are open but that’s it
Seems like a very weak relation to me
what is your point
Ah, well, yes, it's not per se strictly dependent on the metric but the metric topology
Zee
Zee
08:01
My point is that a Borel measure and a metric have little to do with each other
My point still stands that it's not interesting if you just have a measure and metric on a set with no relation whatsoever
@Zee if you want a measure given by the metric, use the Hausdorff measure
Zee
Zee
@MatheinBoulomenos two structures can’t have no relation whatsoever so your statement is about degree not if they have a relation
And since the relation between a metric and a measure is weak yet they have produced interesting result by their interaction, you I may say , are wrong
@Zee two structures can have no relation whatsoever
Zee
Zee
I would love to see an example of that !
08:05
You were just giving an example of that
Zee
Zee
????
A metric space (X, d) with a random ass measure on a random ass subalgebra of P(X)
The structures have no relation or compatibility whatsoever, which is why we were saying it's a useless structure
Zee
Zee
They still have a relation albeit a very weak one
Maybe philosophically but not mathematically. Sorry.
Take any bijection between $\Bbb{F}_p((x))$ and $\Bbb{R}$, pull back the metric from $\Bbb{F}_p((x))$ to $\Bbb{R}$ via that bijection. Please tell me is there any relation between that metric on $\Bbb{R}$ and the Lebesgue measure?
Zee
Zee
08:08
@BalarkaSen alright , in that case am willing to retreat
Well measure and metric both go to real numbers ...
There is a difference between "point of similarity" and "relation".
Even if we're ranting philosophy :P
Zee
Zee
Both are closed under countable unions
But I’ll accept what @BalarkaSen said
You're describing similarities between measures and metrics in general, not between the two specific examples I gave you
In functional analysis and quantum measurement theory, a positive-operator valued measure (POVM) is a measure whose values are non-negative self-adjoint operators on a Hilbert space, and whose integral is the identity operator. It is the most general formulation of measurements in quantum physics. Since projective measurements on a large system—i.e., measurements that are performed mathematically by a projection-valued measure (PVM)—will act on a subsystem in ways that cannot be described by a PVM on the subsystem alone, the POVM formalism becomes necessary. POVMs are used in the field of quantum...
Quantum mechanics gain no love
In particular if you go down the rabbithole of similarities you speak of, you'll end up defining exactly the Borel measure
Which concludes the conversation and settles why we think compatibility of structures are natural to assume
Zee
Zee
08:13
Well that’s obvious , otherwise you just study each structure in isolation if they are not related
@Zee that was my point all the way!
Zee
Zee
yes but I was bringing a philosophical point but since Sen shot that angle down I accepted your argument
Anyway while we are on the topic
Let me ask you all something
So , it seems to me that lots of fields in math have a “metric space “ analog
“Geometric measure theory on metric space “ “metric geometry “
“Conformal mapping’s on metric spaces “
“Geometric group theory “
Is it me or is math getting metrizable ?
Even “sobolov spaces on metric measure space “
that's one way to think. Gromov was the first person to transfer a lot of differential geometry to metric spaces, it has turned out to be a rich field since then
Zee
Zee
That certainly isn’t true
rekt
Zee
Zee
08:19
The whole metric geometry revolution been going before Gromov but he was a big figure
@BalarkaSen Metric geometry has a habit of crediting Gromov with things he didn't discover
the Hopf-Rinow theorem being a prime example
no less than Gromov dawg
Zee
Zee
I love Gromov but he is a young buck compared with the old Russians
You say "lots of fields", but all this stuff seems to come from the same corner (except maybe geometric group theory)
Length space Hopf-Rinow was discovered in 1935
Zee
Zee
08:20
What corner ?
agree with mathinboulo
@Zee geometry
Zee
Zee
Analysis too ...
Skullpatrol: Seem we have a bomb run need to do on periodic table...
in The Periodic Table, 4 mins ago, by Gaurang Tandon
yesterday's chat tells me your coefficient of stickiness is quite high ;)
It's all stuff from the intersection of analysis and geometry (not sure if that's geometric analysis or if that term has a more specific meaning)
08:21
doing geometry with analsis is one way to go
Zee
Zee
can you do analysis without geometry?
yes
people use "geometry" very loosely, but yes
Zee
Zee
Maybe if you didn’t read folland you wouldn’t have that opinion
08:22
example?
In fact, it is not entirely clear to me what geometry actually is in mathematics
geometry is the study of space :p
What does high level geometry look like without all the analysis machinary?
geometry is the study of PDEs involving a Riemannian metric.
Zee
Zee
Nothing
Geometry is analysis or algebra
everything else is Gromov or algebra.
08:23
it comes from the greek word geo (earth) kai metro =distance
@0celo7 what about foliation geometry
and* metro*
@BalarkaSen topology
no it is not
@0celo7 that's just analysis
Zee
Zee
08:24
Topology is algebra or analysis
Zee
Zee
These are the only machinery we have
Zee
Zee
I don’t do cryptography
topology is again geometry what language ou will use(algebraic or analytic) is something else
08:25
[ ] is such a good reference
I should do that
The blankerence
topology is neither analyis nor geometry nor algebra
Zee
Zee
Lol
how come it is not geometry?
is its own thing
Zee
Zee
08:26
All math is algebra or analysis
is the study of shape
topology is kinda itself, it does heavily involve logic when you are dealing with things that live in set theory
@Zee are you named after the author
It is still not clear to me whether he is A. Zee who authored that QFT book
the qft book is garabge
the GR book is fantastic
08:27
@Zee can you give any reason for that astounding claim?
he has a GR book? ._.
of course
Einstein Gravity
@ManolisLyviakis I'd say geometry is more rigid. Like geometrically, a square and a circle are different, but topologically they're equivalent
Zee
Zee
@MatheinBoulomenos geometry and topology are like physics , they use math to study An object
The nice thing is that , this object tends to bring new math
@MatheinBoulomenos what else is there? :P
Zee
Zee
08:29
@skullpatrol visual reasoning?
That's geometry.
in geometr indeed you study the distance (metric) of things
found something interesting: Geometry without points
Zee
Zee
I tried ambushing Gromov when he came to my school , he went through my heart like a hot knife through butter
If you came at him like you're talking here, no wonder
3
08:31
Ouch!
does any1 know the book inroduction to calculus and analysis hijab omar?
Zee
Zee
Nah , I was nice , I think couse it was cold and his wife was with him
ill read it for a review on calculus seems really good.Some1 from here introduced it to me
@0celo7 Gromov thinks we always try to reduce entropy
@Manolis Does it work in a smooth $(\infty, 1)$-topos?
Zee
Zee
Am gonna be the next Gromov
Good luck
I think @BalarkaSen will be Gromov-Yau-Federer.
haha no idea
God forbid
That seems like an awful mix
Zee
Zee
08:34
He can keep yau Federer
You’ll write the Bible on differential topology
Critical information density
maybe the lvl is too low for you guyz but for me its not
Basically a black hole
The hardest proofs will just be sketches you made on the sidewalk with shitty chalk
I'll adopt the writing style of my latest answer
Zee
Zee
08:35
Yau and Federer aren’t bad , right ?
I might have to get balarka to teach me some differential analysis some day...
Zee
Zee
It’s only my father who writes like crap
Do we really need another analysis book
What’s wrong with Rudin or Abbott
Zee
Zee
I used to like analysis , until i learned about LP space interpolation
08:37
I used to like analysis, but everything changed when the fire nation attacked
Zee
Zee
Am like a professional mathematicians stalker
Whenever any famous one of them comes I am just him
I’ve gotta sleep. Cheers
Zee
Zee
And y’all his ear off
Ya am too drunk for this
Zee
Zee
Bye fellow math people
Remember, math is only worth doing if your getting laid
Or not ... just do math
Or not ...just get laid
Or not ...am gonna stop taking now
08:40
lol,,, you're drunk
@Zee that's a good idea
Zee
Zee
NO, you should not drink and derive
Jun 22 '17 at 16:59, by Semiclassical
@0celo7 friends don't let friends drink and derive.
"choiceless" >:(
Zee
Zee
08:41
I like semi
He cool
@AlessandroCodenotti oh sorry, I missed that. I don't think there's a choiceless proof of that personally
I mean one inclusion is obvious and true without choice
If this keeps up I'm gonna find something even stronger than GCH that I'll make append to ZF instead of GCH
@MatheinBoulomenos Indeed
But without choice you can have weird things like rings without prime ideals
Zee
Zee
@Daminark I see you are still a formlist
08:42
while I do dab into choiceless stuff before, the fact that I don't have the background to comprehend the following means I cannto help $$\sqrt{J}=\bigcap\limits_{\substack{P\in\text{Spec} A\\ P\supseteq J}} P$$
Formalist in the sense of Plato's theory of the forms?
I haven't really gotten too much into the metaphysics of math but I think I'm closer to that than the opposite
Zee
Zee
I see your still a philosopher ...
You have my sympathy
@MatheinBoulomenos Ah, right, that does sound like a problem
Eh, not really
Joke: I am a dense set in almost every field of human knowledge you can name (except for those of zero measure)
08:44
Like, I have some ideas in the back of my mind about things being "ontologically" true that I couldn't really see being possible otherwise, but I don't often debate such matters
I only said that because you said formalist
Take for example an infinite product of fields $\prod_{i \in I} F_i$. One can show that prime ideals of this thing correspond to ultrafilters on $I$. If we take the ideal generated by all elements with finite support, then the prime ideals which contain this ideal correspond to non-principal ultrafilters. It's well known that you can't prove the existence of non-principal ultrafilters on infinite sets in ZF
And that's what I usually associate with it. If you mean into formal math, like maybe? Geometry is a bit less my thing
Exception: I don;t understand almost everything with the word "prime" in it
@Zee That's why we're doing it :).
Zee
Zee
@Daminark ya , I meant into formal math
08:46
Oh okay I misunderstood
Sorry
Zee
Zee
No don’t be
Am not sure that what I meant ONLY
@AlessandroCodenotti I think the existence of non-principal ultrafilters on $\Bbb N$ is weaker than choice, but I don't know about non-prinicpal ultrafilters in general
I'm not sure, I know very little about filters
Uh, sorta, at this point I'm still an undergrad so I'm just kinda doing things around
Zee
Zee
Do your thing man
08:48
Like, there are 3 classes I'm definitely doing next quarter, and for the fourth, I'm deciding between algebraic topology, algebraic number theory, or geometric measure theory
One of these things is not like the other two
Zee
Zee
Lol ya
At least I can prove that if $I$ is the ideal of elements with finite support in $\prod_{i \in I} F_i$, then you can't prove in ZF that there is any prime ideal containing $I$
@Daminark do ANT
Zee
Zee
I think you should do GMT and topology
See the thing is, I think the professor for that is supposed to be quite bad
Zee
Zee
Then don’t , it’s all about the professor
08:49
@MatheinBoulomenos Yeah it makes much more sense now that that statement about radicals requires some choice
algebraic topology is de way
Zee
Zee
You can always learn on your own , a huge part is getting to now the professor
This is true
speaking of algebra what's the easy proof that if $k$ is algebraically closed than the maximal ideals of $k[X_1,\cdots,X_n]$ are of the form $(X_1-a_1,\cdots,X_n-a_n)$ for some $(a_1\cdots,a_n)\in k^n$?
08:51
Uh, isn't that weak Nullstellensatz?
@Slereah I recall you knew non principle ultrafilters? See above discussion of the guys for details
"the easy proof"? Hmm, I think you need to do some work for that, no matter how you approach it
If you have Noether normalization, which we talked about earlier, you can use that
Zee
Zee
Wasn’t it something like ultra filters and ZF gave you Hahn Banach ?
Miles Reid goes like "ah that's easy, $(X_1-a_1,\cdots,X_n-a_n)$ is a $k$-vector subspace of codimension $1$, done" but I'm not seeing it
08:54
Ah, wait, he also says that there's a better proof in an exercise, let me check it
I think if you know $k$ is uncountable you can be sneaky
Something like
If $m$ is a maximal ideal in $k[X_1,\ldots,X_n]$, you know $k[X_1,\ldots,X_n]/m$ is a field extension of $k$
@AlessandroCodenotti I mean that proves that this thing is a maximal ideal, sure, but I don't see how that proves anything about the other direction
So it's either $k$ itself or transcendental
But if it's transcendental, then it has uncountable dimension, which is shit for reasons I forget, so the only option left is that it's $k$, and somehow that does it for you
I remember looking this up when our prof mentioned it but I forget offhand
That statement, weak Nullstellensatz and strong Nullstellensatz are all equivalent for $k[x_1, \cdots, x_n]$
So there is no easy proof
Zee
Zee
Anybody read algebra by Robert ash ?
08:59
once you know that the quotient $k[X_1, \ldots, X_n]/m$ is isomorphic to $k$, it's not hard to see that it must be of the form.
@MatheinBoulomenos He uses the weak nullstellensatz to say that $k[X_1,\cdots,X_m]/\mathfrak{m}$ for a maximal $\mathfrak{m}$ is an algebraic extension of $k$ (hence $k$), then shows $\mathfrak{m}\supseteq(X_1-a_1,\cdots X_n-a_n)$ (where the $a_i$ are the images of the $X_i$ through the quotient map), so that showing maximality of the latter is enough to conclude
okay, if he uses the weak nullstellensatz, that makes more sense
Anyway friends, I should sleep now, so see you
See you @Daminark
Zee
Zee
Sounds like a good idea
C ya
C* topology ya
Haha I have such a bad humor
09:03
I follow his argument up to the point where he claims the codimension $1$ fact above, however he has an exercise proving the maximality of $(X_i-a_i)$ using the kernel of the evaluation map in $(a_1,\cdots,a_n)$ which makes much more sense to me
Well, if the quotient has dimension 1, then it must have codimension 1, but I don't see how you show that without passing to the quotient anyway
kernel of the evaluation map seems like the natural thing to do
Yeah, I like that approach
@AlessandroCodenotti since you're into logic, I think there's a proof of this whole Nullstellensatz business using the model-completeness of ACF or something
I didn't understand it, because I know almost 0 logic yet, but I'm sure you would
@MatheinBoulomenos I've seen that Marker talks about the Nullstellensatz and other algebraic facts in his model theory book, I want to read it at some point
09:10
Hi @ÍgjøgnumMeg
09:40
Can somebody suggest a sequence of functions, $f_n$ which are Lipshitz of order 1, such that $\sup|f_n|$ is constant as $n\to\infty$, but $\sup |\frac{df_n(x)}{dx}|$ increases as $n\to\infty$? I have $f_n(x)=sin^n(x)$ but it is a bit cumbersome to use for my application.
09:57
Hey.
Is interior of $\mathbb{R}$ in $\mathbb{C}$ empty?
10:33
Hey everyone
@feynhat Think of the interior of a plane (or a circle say $S^1$) in $\mathbb{R}^3$
Suppose $S^1$ had nonempty interior in $\mathbb{R}^3$, then pick a point $p \in \text{Int}(S^1)$ and observe that any neighbourhood (open ball around $p$) can't be contained in $S^1$, a contradiction, so there aren't any interior points
So $S^1$ would have empty interior
guys
which book says about these things?
most likely im looking for a change of variables chapter rigorous enough.
@ManolisLyviakis is something missing from proofwiki?
nope
i wanna understand what im actual doing when im chaning variables
is it a linear transformation
or i just say x=rcosθ y=rsinθ and thats all
:p
i think there is some hidden diff.geometry in these things.
10:54
Hi
A sequence of real functions $f_n \in C^3(\mathbb R)$ with :

1) $\exists M>0, \forall n\in \mathbb N, f_n ''' \leq M$,
2) $\exists N>0, \forall n \in \mathbb N, \max(|f_n'(0)|,|f_n''(0)|)\leq N$
3) the sequence simply converge to $g$.

Is-it true that $g \in C^1(\mathbb R) $ ?
11:06
$$C^{*\theta (a^b\log_p(\Bbb{Q}_s))}/\aleph_0$$
$$C^{C^{D^{E}}}$$
$$f"(dee)=\int_{0}^n g(x) \frac{y^z^{o}}{jpm} d\mu$$
Oh come on...
Anagram:
Gramana
If $M > 0$ then $V < \vee^{\bigcup_{0}^\Bbb{\aleph_{\omega}} \alpha + \omega_{k}}$
(Ok, now where is my note on that OCF I am developing...)
can some1 explain me the first figure?
im still in standard coordinates
The directions
of increasing r and θ are defined by the orthogonal unit vectors er and eθ.
i get it about $r$
i dont get it why he draws the orthogonal unit vectors $e_r$ $e_θ$
since i can find r and θ by simple trigonometry
cosθ=x/r
11:32
Unlike cartesian coordinates, in polar coordinates, the unit vectors change from position to position
The point of polar coordinates is to notate all information in terms of $\theta$ and $r$ only, making no reference to $x,y$
Quick question, If $D \subseteq X$ is any subspace of $X$ that is homeomorphic to a closed set $E \subseteq Y$ and $Cl_Y(Int(E)) = E$, then does $Cl_X(Int(D)) =D?$
11:52
@Secret how is that procedure of defining a coordinate system on the point A is called?
12:03
choosing a frame of reference?
(at least that's how we call that in physics)
12:42
"Unfortunately, a book must be projected in a totally ordered way on the page
axis"
God I love Lang
Q: Patients arrive randomly and independently at a doctor's clinic from 8 AM at an average rate of one in five minutes. The waiting room holds 12 people. What is the probability that the room will be full when the doctor arrives at 9 AM?
I would have solved it like 1 - P(1;12) - p(2;12) - P(3;12) - ..... - P(11;12)
But can it be done without Poisson distribution?
 
2 hours later…
14:31
Hello people
@AkivaWeinberger Hullo
@AkivaWeinberger I'm in the university library banging my head against a textbook
Lang Alg. number theory
14:34
What sort of stuff happens in that
So you have rings and stuff happening in the rings means stuffs happen in $\Bbb Z$?
Hahaha
sure
0
Q: Corollary of Proposition 11 in Lang's Algebraic Number Theory

ÍgjøgnumMegThe following proposition comes from Lang's Algebraic Number Theory on page $12$: Let $A$ be a ring integrally closed in its field of fractions $K$. Let $L$ be a finite Galois extension of $K$ with $G := \operatorname{Gal}(L/K)$. Let $\mathfrak{p}$ be a maximal ideal of $A$ and let $\mathfrak...

tfw you're idly scrolling down math.se and see "Historic-geographic spread and variations of the children's rhyme "My friend Billy had a 10-foot willy"" in your HNQ feed on mythology.se
Jesus fucking christ

« first day (2755 days earlier)      last day (2563 days later) »