« first day (665 days earlier)      last day (4651 days later) » 

10:00
No, more Riesz spaces or Banach lattices.
vector lattices?
hhh
hhh
@Jordan Do not drop out, aksk more questions -- keep going :)
With some Banach structure, yes.
Or Von Neumann algebras or whatever.
This class is just too much I think, I don't have time to complete the homework before the next day, I learn too slowly
@Jordan Okay, then go flip hamburgers. Nothing wrong with that. Just don't whine. That will not help you finish your homework.
10:01
why is that the only option?
I could just drop out of the class, try and follow along and then take it again in the fall
It isn't, pick something else!
hhh
hhh
@Jordan I had 24/7 Calculus 2 course but I asked over 50, perhaps 100 questions here in Math SE and passed :D
If you fail calculus you're not suited for this.
hhh
hhh
(so not impossible)
What do you want me to say? It is so sad for you that you only whine about failing.
Or that you get up at 4am to do your homework.
That's just not how it works, so do something else.
10:05
@Jonas...perhaps i just don't like inequalities. it's not that analysis doesn't seem to have some first-rate ideas...it just doesn't move me emotionally.
No, I was not born that way. I actually tried to learn this by myself, not postpone everything until the last moment and then claim I don't understand. Of course you don't understand if you don't work hard.
@DavidWheeler There are not much inequalities in operator theory!
I have never said how good I am at math or how easy it is, you're just saying that to shift the blame to me, while you are the one that doesn't seem to work...
@JonasTeuwen well maybe i will learn some before i die. it could happen.
@DavidWheeler Hmm, some inequalities you need.
But that is very little, they can be quite elegant too.
He's gone guys. Please move along
Okay. Thanks.
@DavidWheeler Not all analysis are inequalities.
10:07
@Jordan look, if you hate calculus so much, drop it.
I didn't ban him manually, just for the record
@DavidWheeler I said, please move along
@badp: thanks, that was awkward
also I need to leave
laters
@badp: good bye
@DavidWheeler There is very algebraic analysis.
(operator theory!)
10:07
@badp my apologies, some delay in processing
np
Who are we talking about?
@JonasTeuwen perhaps i will look into that after representation theory makes more sense to me
Who got banned?
@JonasTeuwen btw, that wasn't very polite, too. I'm quite surprised
10:09
It will never make sense until you see some applications 8-).
@MattN: gtalk
@Ilya I know. Sorry. But I did not call names!
@JonasTeuwen unfortunately for me, that is unlikely.
@Jordan: What was the problem?
@Gigili: forget about him (see badp's suggestion)
10:09
Hello @Ilya.
@Gigili: hello.
@Gigili hi there!
@Ilya (I don't like it when people claim I have said some <insert bad thing> and I have not). I'll go for lunch now. See you!
@JonasTeuwen do you mean myself?
Hello, David.
10:11
@Ilya No of course not.
Wth, where is the small arrow?
@Gigili this one?
Yes, that. I can't find it.
@Gigili me neither
@leo I've added my answer to the mix :-)
10:12
@Gigili do you wanna start talking on this topic?
it's to your left
leo
leo
@robjohn nice!
I'll see it
@Ilya You'd be surprised if I show you how this chat room looks like in FF.
@Gigili show me
surprise me
@Gigili why would that surprise Ilya?
leo
leo
@robjohn You are assuming too that $g$ is continuous, right?
10:15
leo
leo
in order to use the FTC
@Gigili Microsoft Media Player?
@leo where do I assume that?
@robjohn Why not?
@leo No, you don't need that for the FTC
10:17
@Ilya McAfee antivirus, even.
@Gigili you said that it would surprise him. I was asking why.
leo
leo
@robjohn At least as stated here
@leo $F$ is the $f$ in the question and $f$ is $g$
leo
leo
@robjohn yes
10:20
@leo There is no assumption about the continuity of $f$ there
@JonasTeuwen: Do you like it if I call you a dog? I don't know about your culture but it's an insult here.
leo
leo
so Riemann integrability of $g$ is enough to get $$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}\int_a^x g(t)\mathrm{d}t=g(x)$$?
I'd call you a virus because you look like one, but I don't since I wouldn't shame you in public.
leo
leo
But in that place says: "Let f be a continuous real-valued function defined on a closed interval [a, b]. Let F be the function defined, for all x in [a, b], by

$$F(x) = \int_a^x f(t)\, dt...$$ "
As an aside, I want to help you @Jordan. I'll give you my email address so we can talk about your calculus course in private.
10:22
@Gigili There is an idiom, "Let sleeping dogs lie." I think he was poking fun with it, although the idiom itself doesn't apply here.
@leo Yes. I see what you are talking about. They do state that $f$ is continuous there‌​, but that is unnecessary.
well! if i'd know it would have garnered me your e-mail, i'd have behaved more badly in the past. is it too late for me to start proclaiming: i suck at math?
@mixedmath I tried to laugh, didn't succeed. He said something like infest or whatever it was which didn't make sense.
@leo a Riemann integrable function is continuous except on a null set.
Good that I'm not in the mood for flagging today.
leo
leo
10:25
@robjohn If that's the case, we are done! No Lebesgue is needed. Can you link a proof of that without the assumption of continuity of $f$. Is it standar? I do not remember
@DavidWheeler I think this room was overly harsh on him, regardless of his work ethic.
I wish I'd been paying attention to the chat at the time - it was very unkind
perhaps in this one instance. i sympathize with him, i honestly do.
And I don't know who starred Jonas' comment, but I also find that inappropriate
but he has worn thin the patience of those who might have helped him, perhaps subverting his own intentions.
@DavidWheeler He didn't behave badly, at least not today. Mind you, I'd react the same if I were him.
10:27
and Jonas no doubt reacted as he did, due to Jordan's rude assessment of his sexuality.
He woke up to do his homework and needed help.
yes, I have helped him before as well. It certainly demands patience
ah, I missed that part. Those comments are now removed
I see that I should perhaps leave it alone - I do not know everything
@leo separate out the set where $f$ is not continuous into a subset of the partition whose total length is less than $\epsilon$, then do the proof there‌​.
the situation rapidly devolved
leo
leo
@robjohn So the result holds via Lebesgue theory
10:29
@leo why do we need Lebesgue theory?
@leo null sets can be defined without Lebesgue theory
@robjohn: does this work as an answer, how do you think?
leo
leo
@robjohn To integarte over a null set
@Ilya I just read that myself. I like your last paragraph in particular. I am a bit more hesitant about 0 + 0 + ... being any number.
@mixedmath I should have written that the first part of the answer is as formal as the approach he applied :) let me do that now
although, for the measure we have $\sigma$-additivity, so yeah - a countable sums of zeroes is zero again
@mixedmath: you were right, I've just eliminated that part of the asnwer
leo
leo
For example take the constant function $1$ over $[0,1]$. It is Riemann integrable. Then restrict it to $\Bbb Q$ (a null set) then you can't use Riemann
10:35
I recall we had something like that, sum of limits is equal to limit of sum. Or whatever it was.
leo
leo
You can take a Riemann integrable function so that its restriction to a null set isn't Riemann integrable
@leo look here
The OP's second reasoning makes perfect sense to me.
@leo I don't know what you get when you restrict a Riemann integral to $\mathbb{Q}$.
@Ilya It is good, but the last sentence bothers me a bit...
@Gigili: were you always that kind?
10:41
Ilya, it looks great. If I weren't already your upvote, I'd upvote it again
@mixedmath: thanks
@Robjohn: yeah, is it unclear?
@Ilya I would say that $n$ is fixed inside the summation on the RHS and so the limit is meaningless or the $n$ in the limit is different from the $n$ in the summation.
@Gigili Did you mean this? I just searched for tags fake-proofs and limit.
@robjohn: changed, is it better now?
@Ilya much better (+1)
10:44
@robjohn thanks
I'll go for lunch
@Ilya enjoy!
BTW we now have users with usernames doit and did. Kind of nice...
@Robjohn: Thanks! Should I read "All Quiet on the Western Front" while eating, how do you think?
@Ilya Interesting, but I really recall something like that from high school.
@Mar: indid :)
10:46
@Ilya Uhum. The kindest person ever.
the thing is: the limit of the sum is only the sum of the limits for FINITE sums. with infinite sums, all bets are off.
Cool, I didn't know about $\vdots$ and \$ddots$
hhh
hhh
@Jordan: one martial artist once said to me, never be afraid to fail -- be afraid "not to fail". The Samurai principle works also in Math -- details matter -- do not care about the failing comments at all. Just push on.
@DavidWheeler Oh, that's the point. takes notes
Umm, +1 @Ilya.
@Ilya whatever makes the food digest better :-)
10:49
See you all later!
@Gigili thanks, the kindest person ever
Have fun, Matt.
Who thought Matt has already gone, raise their hand(s) :)
raises her hand
@leo: However, to insure that the derivative exists everywhere so that we can apply the Mean Value Theorem, something else is needed...
10:50
0
Q: Integral of $\int_0^{\pi/2} sinx^7cosx^5$

JordanI am trying to find this by using integration by parts but I am not sure how to do it. $$\int_0^{\pi/2} sinx^7cosx^5$$ I tried rewriting as $\int_0^{\pi/2} sinx*sinx^6*cosx^5$ = $sinx(1-cosx^3)*cosx^5$ but that seems to only give me a very, very long loop that doesn't help me at all. How do...

I'm so proud of you, @Jordan.
@leo: For example, let $g$ be $0$ for $x<0$ and $1$ for $x\ge0$
@Gigili you also ignore differentials?
Whatfferentials?
@Ilya It'd be hard to drive a car without a differential. Best not to ignore them :-)
hhh
hhh
@Jordan: the problem is that if you are traumatized now with unthinkable comments, you pretty much sacrify your greatest asset i.e. "your ability to think". There is nothing bad with failing but learn to fail, do not run away.
leo
leo
10:52
I see
@robjohn :)
Juhuu, I can edit on my own and there's no need to be approved by other users.
@Gigili why didn't you say earlier - I would approve your edits
@hhh wth?
hhh
hhh
10:54
@mixedmath: I am getting Integral-sum-integral- .... some sort of repeating thing?
Fancy handwriting.
@leo $\frac{f(1)-f(-1)}{2}=\frac12$ but $g$ is nowhere $\frac12$
@Gigili kindest
hhh
hhh
(err I have old ideas jammed with new ideas, second...proof-reading)
@Gigili Seductive hand :P
(but now proof-reading...)
@leo: back to rework :-)
hhh
hhh
10:56
(or fingers with smiles...)
@Ilya smooch
leo
leo
@robjohn :-)
@hhh pretend the $e^{inx}$ are basis vectors
write down f in this basis
@hhh: You can't get away without evaluating an integral here or there. Instead of consistently substituting (only the first sub is necessary), just evaluate the integral
what i'm trying to get at, is if we define: $\langle f,g \rangle = \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} f(x)\overline{g(x)} dx$ then the formula for the $c_n$ follows from the orthogonality of the basis functions.
11:04
@Gigili Sorry. But I don't mind: Call me a dog if you like. Wrafff.
in much the same way as if we define a vector in the standard basis $u = a_1e_1+\dots+a_ne_n$ then the j-th coordinate is $\langle u,e_j \rangle$ where we take the "usual" inner product (aka dot product)
(It is a saying in Dutch, so probably something got lost in translation. It means something like if it is silent then don't get something that makes it noisy).
And also, if I mishbehaved: Sorry. I don't really like that attitude of doing nothing and then complaining that you don't understand (after trying the same thing several times...). I'll shut up next time.
@hhh Okay, I've checked your handwriting. You're messing it up. See the thing as an inner product, not a integral and the same thing with the basis vectors.
it looks like it's circular, but sometimes the inner product can be calculated easier than the function itself (it depends on how bad f is)
You have: $f = \sum c_n e_n$. So, what is $\langle f, e_n \rangle$? This is $$\langle \sum c_n e_n, e_m \rangle = \sum \langle c_n e_n, e_m \rangle.$$
Now make sure you understand why we can switch the sum and inner product.
is there an echo in here? :P
2
11:09
Perhaps, I did not read everything :P.
inner products are bilinear!!!!
ok, sesquilinear in the complex case...but it's the first variable
I see that my maintaining to first principles is a different vein than the approach you two favor
Of course, you can just plug in the series, but you must remember that the convergence is in $L^2$, not pointwise.
For pointwise convergence you need some kickass theorems.
Hi
11:14
You can do that and pretend everything is okay, but then you do still need some other stuff to prove the result.
well, yes, since we need <f,f> to mean something, right?
Does anybody know where can I find a proof of the theorem of stability by first approximation (by regular time-depending matrix)?
@DavidWheeler Left.
i am left-handed. right?
11:18
Rili? Great.
@mixedmath: Jordan edited his question. Just saying.
thanks for that
I wonder how you make that rigorous, just plugging in the things, the series does not converge pointwise a priori.
@Gigili you may want to use the more standard notation $\sin^k(x)$ and re-edit
You actually need Carleson's theorem for that I think.
@Nimza Floquet theory?
11:21
@Ilya Floquet? Periodic systems? No...
@Jonas: there already
@Gigili: I missed your hugs, if smooch means hugs
had a lunch
in my country "smooch" means "the sound of a kiss", and therefore, by extension, a kiss
@Ilya people like such approximation of a nonlinear system: $\dot x = f(t,x) = Ax + g(t,x)$, but in my case $A = A(t)$.
not necessarily the amorous kind, it's often used as a salutation betwixt family members
Which country is this, David?
11:25
where you kiss your family members, yeah :)
the federated states of demerica, or something like that. i don't keep up on these things.
@Nimza if you do $\dot x = A(t)$ you can describe any systems, can't you?
Well, I was wrong. My edits still need to be approved by someone else.
Annoying system.
@Gigili call me for your edits
Aha, let me see.
11:26
@Ilya yes, but here $\dot x = A(t)x$, not $\dot x = A(t)$
@Gigili I think you better also put some space between $\sin x$ and $dx$.
even more freedom ;) хотя куда уж больше
I learn Russian in the wrong way...
что???!!!
5
Hm... 8-).
11:29
@Ilya I know one proof of such theorem but it takes 3 x A4 sheets :)
oops, google translate knows that :)
wow, that was inappropriate...
@Nimza would you state at least what is the Theorem about?
I try to learn Russian by reading Достоевский.
@Jonas: we use that to express the highest form of surprise
11:29
@Nimza: That reminds me of that scene in X-Men: First Class when the Russian captain orders "огонь!"
@Илья устойчивость по первому приближению с помощью непостоянной правильной матрицы
methinks they hired Google Translate
@ZhenLin огонь instead of...
@Ilya You use сукин сын for that?
@JonasTeuwen no, ебать-колотить
11:30
presumably some verb meaning "fire [guns]"
Google translate actually switches around the words.
@Zhen: we use "огонь", so that was right
@Jonas сукин сын is just son of a bitch, nothing else
светило?
@Ilya what should we use for "Fire in the hole"?
Yes, so like some kind of amazement.
11:31
Huh, interesting. I thought огонь was just a noun.
@ZhenLin it is, but we use it for a command of fire
na
@JonasTeuwen Светило???
idi na $xy\overline{u}$
render
11:32
Идив Дурак, Дурак!
охохонюшки
our professors like to use $f(x,y,\overline{u})$
@Nimza: ah, that should be a legend :)
@Ilya Дурак is the bar near the trappistenlokaal on the other side!
really?
11:34
Yes.
"Doerak".
well, to make it focused: @Jonas - do you have ideas about the integral?
Maybe they like Достое́вский?
@Ilya Your inequality? No, I am still thinking to see if it is actually correct.
@JonasTeuwen copied from wikipedia, we don't use е́
@JonasTeuwen well, it is equivalent to the yesterday's one, isn't it?
@Ilya about legend: look page 103: Следовательно, ... mph.cs.msu.su/stud/2009_ODU-2-RazgulinDenisov.pdf
.su? что???
11:37
@ZhenLin excuse me?
Soviet Union :D
@Ilya Yes, I did, I wondered how they wrote it :-).
sorry, guys - it's funny here, but I have to work
@Jonas: shall we meet at 3.40 in your office?
@Ilya Tomorrow is better for me :-).
it's weird to see domain names for countries that don't exist anymore...
11:39
But if you cannot you can come today, yes.
@Zhen .su shouldn't be for USSR
@JonasTeuwen aren't you coming to Markus' presentation?
@Ilya Oh yes, of course. Yes come.
:)
Forgot about it...
lobster fists of rage
@Nimza: seen that?
11:43
Heyo, I just finnished my exam!
Congratulations!
in what?
hhh
hhh
@mixedmath $\int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \left( \sum_{m=-\infty}^{\infty} c_m e^{imx-inx}\right) dx$ where $c_m=c_{m}(x)$. The hard point is $c_{m}(x):=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}f(x) e^{-inx} dx$ -- now getting integral inside integral and $f(x)$ is the sum with integral....I cannot see how you evaluate this...
(I did only one substitution but I think I need some clever way to go around the $c_m$...)
The series does not converge pointwise a priori. You cannot just do this.
hhh
hhh
$\int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \left( \sum_{m=-\infty}^{\infty} c_m e^{imx-inx}\right) dx$ <-- is this corrent so far?
(just one substitution)
where $e^{inx}$ is like a basis vector (David's idea)
($e^{imx-inx}$ also like basis vector?)
(so $c_m$ has some other basis vector with respect to $e^{inx}$)
so shortly $\int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \sum_{m=-\infty}^{\infty} f(x) \bar{g}(x) dx$
@ZhenLin Hey you know how in ravi vakil's notes he gives the result on the bijection between homogeneous prime ideals in $A$ and prime ideals in $A_0$?
hhh
hhh
11:53
(looks dump the complex conjugate but hopefully clear enough)
I asked a question about that before...
I don't understand what is the map from $A_0$ to $A$?
Should it not be the other way round?
Because now I have a problem
I have a ring $A$
and a homogeneous element $f$ of degree 1
and a prime ideal $P$ of $A$
$A_0$ is a subring of $A$. Of course there is a map $A_0 \to A$.
oh the inclusion map
Because now my problem is the other way round
hhh
hhh
Well that is pretty close to $<f,g>=\int f(x)\bar{g}(x) dx$
11:55
I already know that $P$ being a homogeneous prime ideal in $A$ that is disjoint from $U$ by definition
hhh
hhh
I have just the sum there, thinking.
then
then $R[U^{-1}] P$ is a prime ideal in $R[U^{-1}]$
@BenjaminLim: I think you need to wait until @hhh is done with his problem.
@ZhenLin I want to prove that the image of $R[U^{-1}] P$in $R[U^{-1}]_0$ is a prime ideal
@Gigili I am discussing this with Zhen.
@BenjaminLim ben!!!!
11:57
10
Q: The bijection between homogeneous prime ideals of $S_f$ and prime ideals of $(S_f)_0$

Zhen LinIt is well-known that if $S$ is a graded ring, and $f$ is a homogeneous element of positive degree, then there is a bijection between the homogeneous prime ideals of the localisation $S_f$ and the prime ideals of $S_{(f)}$, the subring of $S_f$ comprising the homogeneous elements of degree $0$. T...

@DavidWheeler yes?
help meh
@ZhenLin Well I think ravi vakil has changed his notes a little now it's an exercise
@DavidWheeler how can I?
@ZhenLin My problem is more general than yours above though...
@ZhenLin In the proof he does it the other way round though.....
I.e. getting a prime ideal in $A$ from one in $A_0$
is an extension of F11 of order 4 cyclic?
my problem is the other way round....

« first day (665 days earlier)      last day (4651 days later) »