« first day (2964 days earlier)      last day (2354 days later) » 

17:00
the exercise say let $(E,d)$ a metric connected space with an unbounded distance
why do you think it is the discrete distance
what number is $|3-1|_{\Bbb Q}$ ?
I don't know, for the topological space yes, but for the distance I don't know
but you can't do the exercise if you don't have a good idea of what $|\cdot |_{\Bbb Q}$ is
that is why i ask
maybe you could ask your instructor ?
or pore over the book to see if they gave a definition of that distance ?
but I really really think they meant that it is the usual absolute value
they really is no reason to think otherwise
17:08
$|3-1|_{\mathbb{Q}}=2$
okay
then it is the normal distance and not the discrete distance
and in particular it is unbounded
do you know how we find the induced distance in general
you pick the distance on the bigger set and you restrict it to the smaller set
if you have a metric space (X,d)
and a subset Y of X
the restriction of d on Y is a metric on Y called the metric induced by d
17:16
yes
and usually if someone talks about an induced distance, you should have a pretty good idea of who X and Y are
got a really weird paradox here:
The three triangles should all be similar to each other due to all having the hypotenuse of slope 2
Using these, we have:
So I wrapped my head around why $\pi_3(S^2)=\Bbb Z$ and why $\pi_4(S^3)=\Bbb Z_2$ but I keep on trying to visualize $\pi_4(S^2)=\Bbb Z_2$ and failing
Curse you, higher dimensions
$\frac{e}{b-a\pi} = \frac{e}{ae} \implies b = a(\pi +e)$
But using another triangle, I get instead:
17:19
and your wibbly wobbly spheres
Howdy, DogAteMy
$\frac{\pi e - (\pi +e)}{a\pi e + b} = \frac{e}{ae}\implies \pi e - (\pi +e) = \pi e + \frac{b}{a} \implies -a(\pi + e) = b$
So combining the two results together, we got $b=-b \implies b= 0$ which is absurd because the y intercept as shown clearly equals to something
DogAteMy: How did you wrap your head? Do you know about the Thom-Pontryagin result relating this to framed cobordism?
I don't
All I have are pictures
17:23
$\pi_3(S^2)$ is this:
I guess I'd dig up a fiber bundle and play with the long exact sequence. That's not exactly going to be a picture.
So those are each meant to be solids of revolution around the $y$-axis
so like the second picture is two sphere bits connected by a cylinder
I don't get it.
The Hopf map generates, and I don't see a picture like that.
I think it is $S^4$ that you should wrap around your head, not the other way around
This is a movie of a sequence of slices of a map from $S^3$ to $\Bbb R^4\setminus\{\text{line}\}$
17:25
what is the significance of that map?
Even if I understood the pictures, how does that prove that you get $\Bbb Z$?
aka an element of $\pi_3(\Bbb R^4\setminus\{{\rm line}\})$
sup my dudes
There's @Eric !!
I inquired of Demonark the other day if he'd seen you.
i have returned to the western hemisphere
17:26
Western?
i was in taipei and then tokyo for the past few eeeks
Oh wow.
In the second frame, that's two sphere parts connected by a cylinder. In the next frame, it transforms to a one-sheeted hyperboloid which transforms into a double cone, 'cause you're rotating the inner sphere
I'm trying to show the inexistence of a holomorphic function f = u + iv, who's modulus = K/coshx. After differentiating the squared modulus of the function w.r.t to x, and y, and applying Cauchy-Riemann, I am arriving at (1/v)(du/dy) = tanhx, but I don't see how that's a contradiction.
eatin the good foooooood
17:27
In the frame after, you continue rotating the inner sphere so it goes back to a cylinder
I guess Demonark is taking the GRE today.
Sounds exciting, Eric. I hate you.
should be done by now
Aren't the subject tests usually in the PM?
lol i would hate me too Ted
I technically don't have a proof that it's not nullhomotopic or that it generates everything, but that is the Hopf map
17:28
i think both the ones in the chicagoland area were 8am
DogAteMy: I realized years ago that, although I'm quite geometric, a lot of the pictures in topology aren't intuitive to me.
@JoeShmo: Graph the function $K/\cosh x$ and think.
@TedShifrin Here's an interesting picture. Imagine a cylinder
OK, I have a cylinder. ... Oh, btw, the Gauss-Bonnet thing is finally settled.
So that's two circles on top of each other, and each point on the top circle corresponds to a point in the bottom circle and they're connected by a straight line segment
and those line segments together make up the side of the cylinder
Yup, a simple developable ruled surface.
17:31
So if you rotate the bottom circle by a small amount, but keep those lines straight,
Yes, I know this. I've even done it in class.
the side of the cylinder becomes a one-sheeted hyperboloid. Yeah?
Yup.
More amazingly, it's doubly ruled.
And as it continues to rotate, the hyperboloid gets sharper and sharper until - for an instant - it intersects itself and looks like a double cone
Challenge: Classify all the doubly-ruled surfaces.
Yup.
17:32
and then it continues to rotate until it's back to where it started.
OK?
I think once it tangles, it stays tangled (at least with physical string).
Not if the strings can pass through themselves
Well, they can't with real strings.
This is true.
Anyhow ...
17:33
But yeah, you get the picture?
Yes, sure.
Now
Look at the second frame
If you rotate that around the y-axis, you get two sphere bits connected by a cylinder, yeah?
I mean, if you make the surface of revolution
Sphere bits?
It's closer to a torus.
How?
It's two concentric spheres, but you punch a circle out of each sphere
and connect them with tubes
Oh, that's what you meant.
17:36
The y-axis is the line of symmetry
So yeah, if you rotate the inner sphere, the cylinder goes through the same transformation we did above
(hyperboloid, double cone, hyperboloid, back to cylinder)
(if you do it 360 degrees)
And then we can nullhomotope our two-bulbs-connected-by-a-tube thing to zero
So that's the animation I drew above. A sphere starts as a point, turns into two bulbs with a tube, the inner bulb twists, and then it goes back to a point.
And this is happening in $\Bbb R^3\setminus\{p\}$.
This sequence of maps $S^2\to\Bbb R^3\setminus\{p\}$ starts and ends as a constant map, so you can think of it as a sequence of slices of a map from $S^3\to\Bbb R^4\setminus\rm line$.
(And since $\Bbb R^3\setminus\{p\}\cong\Bbb R^4\setminus{\rm line}\cong S^2$, you can think of this as a map from $S^3\to S^2$.)
You don't have the constant map in this picture.
17:41
And I claim, but will not prove, that that map is homotopic to the Hopf map.
@TedShifrin At the very start and end of the animation
Oh, well, I didn't draw it
I drew it as a small ball
I see that when the rulings all cross at a point, the resulting shape is contractible, but I don't see a constant map.
Well, it starts as a point (aka a constant map), then grows to a small sphere, then grows to the two-bulbs-and-a-tube shape
You don't need to keep repasting the picture. :)
So what's the point of the transformation with the crossings in the middle? That seems contractible to me. But what's the relevance?
17:44
You know how a 4D object can be visualized as a movie of 3D slices?
@EricSilva: You missed my whole stooopidity about non-orientable Gauss-Bonnet.
Sure, DogAteMy.
This is a movie of 3D slices. The instant with the double-cone is the middle slice.
whos dogateme?
8
Q: Uses of ordinals

Akiva WeinbergerAre there any interesting theorems outside of set theory that use ordinals in their proofs? The only example I know of is Goodstein's theorem, and I haven't been able to find anything else. In other (more vague) words, what is the use of ordinals? (Other than Goodstein.) Theorems that use the w...

17:45
But why do we need that middle slice?
I'm totally missing the point.
Pun perhaps intended.
@AkivaWeinberger I would never have guesssed that you posted it
Hey everyone
hi Perturb
@TedShifrin what entailed the stoopidity
Hi @TedShifrin
17:46
If the animation was just a sphere appearing, growing a bit, shrinking a bit, and disappearing, that would also correspond to a map from $S^3\to S^2$,
but it would be a boring map 'cause it'd correspond to the zero element of $\pi_3(S^2)$
It'd be nullhomotopic
Somehow, it has to get tangled with $p$
Eric: I always thought orientability was necessary. I thought I'd done the computation for the Möbius strip in $\Bbb R^3$ that contradicted G-B. But I finally realized yesterday that I was off by a sign on the geodesic curvature on part of it. See this.
($p$ being the point I deleted from space, shown in blue)
DogAteMy: I don't offhand see what this has to do with the Hopf map.
@Ted, I'm plotting sech, tanh, but i have no intuition
lol i’ll bookmark this for later
i still have travel brain
17:48
@JoeShmo: Forget about $\tanh$. What is the plot of $\sech$?
Oh, maybe my solution uses something you haven't done yet.
its a smooth bump that peaks at y=K
This is why out-of-context questions on MSE suck.
Right, @JoeShmo: It's a bounded function.
@TedShifrin The Hopf map is a map $S^3\to S^2$ that can't be homotoped to zero. This is a map $S^3\to S^2$ that can't be homotoped to zero.
@JoeShmo: I guess you weren't asking for a global holomorphic function. The question was to show no local function? Or no global function?
You can show that they're the same map (up to homotopy) but it's more pictures, and I don't know how to draw them
17:49
Show that there does not exist holomorphic functions of z = a + ib whose modulus is equal to K/ cosh a,
where K != 0 is a constant
Maybe if you think of the linking circles description of the Hopf map you can show the connection, DogAteMy.
@JoeShmo: Again. That's vague. Does the holomorphic function need to be defined on $\Bbb C$?
@TedShifrin bonsoir, s'il vous plait y'a t'il une définition pour la distance induite comme pour la topologie induite
If so, it cannot exist.
17:50
suppose all of C
cosh(a) is zero sometimes
$\pi i$, no?
that's the problem verbatim ^. i know that its vague
Hello everyone
@Poline: Bien sûr. On emploie la même formule.
17:52
Hey @Dami
DogAteMy: We're saying $|f(z)| = K/\cosh(\Re(z))$.
@JoeShmo: So if it's a global question, I don't need Cauchy-Riemann or anything.
So $f(z)=r(z)e^{i\theta(z)}$
If you've proved Liouville's Theorem.
17:53
nope
@Daminark were you doing gre?
Note: Try and solve this problem without using theorems of complex analysis we will see later in the course.
Lectures 1, and 2 are sufficient here.
I presume the question means there's no holomorphic function on any disk around $0$.
Oh, well, that was useful information, BTW.
Yeah I did it this morning. Could've gone either way
complex complex analysis theorems
17:54
So, Demonark, you're still alive!
No, very simple theorems, JoeShmo. Complex analysis is very elegant.
donc s'il vous plait, $|.|_{\mathbb{Q}}$ est la distance discrète ? ou c'est juste la différence entre deux nombres rationnelles @TedShifrin
Obviously, we can assume $K=1$
La deuxième, bien sûr.
@Ted, yeah, so far the statements i'd seen can be enigmatic, but the proofs are straight forward.
So, how can a holomorphic function have a modulus that's constant on all vertical lines?
We need something like $e^z$ for that. Aha.
17:55
mais la topologie induite sur Q est la topologie discrète? @TedShifrin
$f(z)=e^z$ does
how do you know that?
Non, @Poline. Vraiment pas.
LOL @Grr
17:56
I hope I'm safely 700+, I dunno if I'm 800 or not
So look at $\ln f(z)$ (noting that $f(z)\ne0$)
When I took it it was out of 990. How confuzling.
3 mins ago, by Akiva Weinberger
So $f(z)=r(z)e^{i\theta(z)}$
@TedShifrin l'intersection de chaque intervalle avec Q c'est les points de Q
DogAteMy: They know basically only Cauchy-Riemann at this point.
17:57
It still is but they often curve it so the max score is less on any given test
$\ln f(z)=-\ln(\cosh a)+i\theta(z)$
How ridiculous, Demonark.
@TedShifrin So no $\ln$? Fine
@TedShifrin comme la topologie induite sur N
Do those scores for the GRE equate to like percentages on a test? @Dami
17:57
Remind me what C–R actually says?
statement about the equality of partials
@Poline: Comment pensez-vous que la topologie soit discrète?
In the field of complex analysis in mathematics, the Cauchy–Riemann equations, named after Augustin Cauchy and Bernhard Riemann, consist of a system of two partial differential equations which, together with certain continuity and differentiability criteria, form a necessary and sufficient condition for a complex function to be complex differentiable, that is, holomorphic. This system of equations first appeared in the work of Jean le Rond d'Alembert (d'Alembert 1752). Later, Leonhard Euler connected this system to the analytic functions (Euler 1797). Cauchy (1814) then used these equations to...
DogAteMy: It says the derivative matrix is a scalar times a rotation matrix.
Clearly, $\frac{\partial u}{\partial y}=0$
17:58
yeah
but that doesnt take me far
You're writing $f = u+iv$?
I'm confuzled.
or.. i arrived at (1/v) du/db = tanh(a)
yes
Er, $x+iy=a+ib$
let me share work
17:59
So $u^2+v^2$ doesn't depend on $y$.

« first day (2964 days earlier)      last day (2354 days later) »