« first day (665 days earlier)      last day (4650 days later) » 

12:00
No, it's the same problem.
@DavidWheeler Every finite extension of a finite field is cyclic
@DavidWheeler Is this from a problem on Math.SE?
so, the galois group cannot be Z2 x Z2, correct?
@ZhenLin Wasn't your question on how given a prime ideal in $S_(f)$ we can recover one in $S_f$?
@DavidWheeler yes. Wait is this for a question on math.se?
No, read the question.
umm, no...
@hhh i don't know why you keep wanting to take the sum "inside the integral"
12:02
@DavidWheeler Ok.
do you happen to know an irreducible quartic in F11[x]?
@DavidWheeler No I don't, but I do know of an irreducible quintic :D
i know one, too...i need a quartic
hmmmm....
@ZhenLin I have looked at the version of the notes in your question, and exercise 5.5.B is not on the problem in your question...
on a related note, i think $F_q(\sqrt[q-1]{x})$ is a cyclic extension of $F_q(x)$
$F_q(x)$ isn't finite....
12:06
ah sorry
but $F_q$ contains all q-1-th roots of unity, right?
Admittedly, I wasn't quite sure whether I was going to make it from the train stop to the university building.
hold on
12:07
I thought I was going to faint.
finite field...cyclic multiplicative group....order of....
@BenjaminLim: The exercise asks you to construct a bijection between the prime ideals of $(S_f)_0$ and the homogeneous prime ideals of $S_f$. What's the problem?
@DavidWheeler Hold on if it does contain all of the $q - 1$ -th roots of unity
then the element you adjoined is a $q-1$ - th root of unity
and then the extension is trivial no?
@MattN Wow?
@Gigili Yeah. Stress + heat = faint. : )
12:09
@ZhenLin Actually my problem is a little more than that
I want to show that given a prime ideal in $A$
the image of such a prime ideal in $A_0$ is a prime ideal.
@MattN Very tempting.
The correspondence doesn't tell us how these things are related no?
What's $A$?
Where do you get a map $A \to A_0$?
Would be nice if anyone could have a look at the perfect fields post. I should go back to doing commutative algebra and avoid distractions.
no, i adjoined a q-1-th root of x, which certainly isn't in $F_q(x)$
12:11
@ZhenLin My $A$ has a homogeneous element $f$ of degree 1. We define a map on homogeneous elements that sends $x_i$ to $x_i/f^i$
where $x_i$ has degree $i$.
That's not a ring homomorphism.
are you serious?
What happens to inhomogenous elements?
we extend the map to inhomogeneous elements
for example
if $x = x_1 + x_2 + \ldots x_n$
then this maps to $x_1/f + \ldots x_n/f^n$
yeah, but they don't multiply correctly anymore
12:14
@ZhenLin I think I checked that they do....
whatever
you shouldn't use such a map
@MattN I would if I knew what perfect field is.
@ZhenLin why not?
well, it's not in Vakil's hints, is it?
it's not yes
but however I think it's a ring homomorphism because Akhil used one like that in his notes
@ZhenLin However like I said my problem is not exactly ravi's problem in the notes
I have got a map
some homogeneous prime ideal
and need to show that the image of such a prime ideal under my map is prime
12:16
you seem to be confused
@DavidWheeler Ok that is correct I believe.
one of your rings is graded, the other is not
yes I know that
sorry
I meant prime
@DavidWheeler Now you are working over an infinite field of prime characteristic, how do you you have a separable extension?
bleh, I'm not in the mood to work this out from scratch
@ZhenLin Hey in akhil's notes
what is $D'$ of stuff?
12:19
the homogeneous version of D
And he defined $D$ before in the notes?
read my notes :p
because the irreducible polynomial $t^{q-1} - x$ splits into distinct factors
what page of your notes zhen?
@DavidWheeler that is normality
Hi @tb
12:20
I'm not a huge fan of the question but I happen to agree with Georges here, please vote to re-open if you agree.
Hi @BillDubuque
@DavidWheeler Separability is when we want the minimal polynomial of every $a$ in our extension to be separable
Akhil defines D' after Definition 1.18.
@ZhenLin Ok I got it
thanks
@Ilya I go for a short while, should be back by 15.40 :-).
hhh
hhh
12:32
@DavidWheeler perhaps this explain?
@DavidWheeler You may not have a separable extension, so you may not be able to consider the galois group
how can i check if its separable?
that's going to be tough.....
hhh
hhh
Now I have situation like $\int_{-\pi}^{\pi} c_m \bar{e}(x) dx$ and I was trying to show $c_n=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}f(x) e^{-inx} dx$ with $<f,g>:=\int_{\pi}^{\pi} f(x) \bar{g}(x) dx$.
Because there is a classic example of an inseparable extension of an infinite field of non-zero characteristic...
@DavidWheeler TBH I have only dealt almost exclusively with separable extensions all along....
hhh
hhh
12:38
('i don't know why you keep wanting to take the sum "inside the integral"') <-- answering to the comment...
@hhh what i am thinking of is $f = \sum_n c_ne_n$
@DavidWheeler actually we only need to check that the minimal polynomial of $\sqrt{x}^{q-1}$ over the ground field is separable
get its minimal polynomial then take the derivative
therefore: $\langle f,e_j \rangle = c_j$
@Ilya: You're very active today.
why the square root of $x^{q-1}$?
hhh
hhh
12:41
@DavidWheeler You can express that one as $\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}f dx$? No difference between $e_{n}$ and $e_{m-n}$ because infinite sum!?
the inner product is the definite integral of f times the conjugate of g. here, we let g = a basis function $e_n = e^{inx}$
and $\overline{e^{inx}} = e^{-inx}$
@DavidWheeler Sorry I meant $\sqrt[q-1]{x}$
the minimal polynomial is $t^{q-1} - x$
leo
leo
bye
are you sure? It could be reducible?
12:46
which has derivative $(q-1)t^{q-2} \neq 0$ since $q = p^n$ so p does not divide q-1.
@DavidWheeler We only know the minimal polynomial divides your polynomial above...
sure. but consider the constant term of any collection of factors.
it going to be some element a of $F_q$ times a q-1-th root of $x^k$ for k < q-1
ok
I think your argument should work because
you go up to a splitting field
that's not going to be in $F_q(x)$
forget what I said
but I think it's ok
the minimal polynomial divides that
because
and if it is not separable
it will have a double root
hence your polynomial above will have one too, contradiction
12:50
Benjamin's ramblings! Hi @BenjaminLim.
@JonasTeuwen what ramblings?
Something I don't understand.
and it doesn't have a double root since the only root of the derivative is 0.
i mean, the power of q-1 is kind of special in this regard, other powers (like p especially) would not work.
@DavidWheeler yes. Will you be around tomorrow morning? I probably have to go to bed now I am so tired......
12:54
@BenjaminLim i dunno. but thanks for your input :)
@BenjaminLim Good night!
@BenjaminLim Pierre will be here next week :-). Exciting!
@DavidWheeler no probs next time let's work over finite fields or char 0 :D :D
@JonasTeuwen yes that's end of semester for us
bye!!
@hhh are you still working on that?
hhh
hhh
12:56
@DavidWheeler: yes
(I had to drink some water, they were all day out....for some odd reason so now perhaps better focused)
ok, do you see how $f(x) = \sum_{n = -\infty}^{n = \infty} c_ne^{inx}$?
so hot!
duck!
i understand we want to figure out exactly what $c_n$ is, but basically it's the coefficents in some infinite sum
Holy cow, still this? The series converges in $L^2$, not pointwise!
stop the hot weather, save the sad duck!
13:02
You need to "guess" the formula for $c_n$, then fill in $f(x) - \sum c_n e_n$ and use Cauchy-Schwarz.
Save the hot duck.
@Jonas, yes, we are taking f to be square-integrable.
Pointwise convergence of that thing is like Carleson's theorem, a 70 page proof.
hhh
hhh
@DavidWheeler I have always taken that as a definition.
13:08
mmm, Carleson's theorem...
@Ilya And Matt.
so what do you get when you take $\langle f,e_n \rangle$?
@Matt: hot weather + sad duck = very sad duck
@JonasTeuwen why are you bringing up "pointwise convergence"?
@DavidWheeler Because he tries to plug in the series.
13:13
i want him to just "do the algebra" of $\langle \sum c_ne_n,e_j \rangle$
Yes, that works.
I have already computed that!
what i'm trying to get across to him is: "forget about the integrals" for the time being, until we have something like $\sum_i c_i \langle e_i,e_j \rangle$
It is way harder with integrals.
You can apply some generic theorems in that case, otherwise you need to use the triangle inequality and Cauchy-Schwarz.
if we know, however, that $\langle e_i, e_j \rangle = \delta_{ij}$ (the kronecker delta), then we can "put the integrals back in" after.
Nice of you that you do this, but it seems like it is not of any help...
hhh
hhh
13:22
At the bottom trying to calculate things with the new ideas by David
(I am missing the borders there with def integral but...hopefully clear enough)
@Gigili who is the hot duck?
@hhh where you have [2]...don't put the integral on the RHS, just evaluate the inner product using linearity in the first variable....
@hhh: why do you star boring math advice?
<u+v,w> = <u,w> + <v,w>
it reduces the number of nonsense messages in the starred list
3
if someone reads the star list and see messages you starred, he may think we're nerds here :)
13:25
@Ilya I am. Pah, Chrome is getting on my nerves.
@Gigili you're a duck?
A Doc, preferably.
so you want $\langle \sum c_ne_n,e_j \rangle = \sum c_n \langle e_n,e_j \rangle$
then the question is: what is $\langle e_n,e_j \rangle$?
Apparently, every $R$-module $M$ is the quotient of a free module. The proof has been skipped in my notes. So if $F(S)$ denotes the free module generated by the set $S$, we define a map $f: F(M) \to M$ as $$v=(0, \dots, 0, 1, 0, \dots, 0) \mapsto m$$ where the vector $v$ is one at coordinate $m$ and zero otherwise and $$(0, 0, \dots, 0) \mapsto 0$$
Then by the first isomorphism theorem, $M \cong F(M) / ker(f)$ since $f$ is surjective. So far so good.
What disturbs me is that I think the kernel of $f$ is $0$. Something is wrong here.
If $f$ really had kernel zero then every module $M$ would be isomorphic to $F(M)$.
i am confused...you are assuming M is finite?
13:41
That should've been: $$v=(0, \dots, 0, 1, 0, 0, \dots) \mapsto m$$ and $$(0, 0, \dots ) \mapsto 0 $$
ok, so we're taking M as a basis for F(M)
now, what happens if m is a torsion element in M?
because you're going to extend f R-linearly, yes?
i would call v, $v_m$
and then you have for a torsion element m, $f(rv_m) = rm = 0$
since F(M) is free, $rv_m \neq 0$, so the kernel isn't just the 0-element of F(M).
things that aren't 0 in F(M) can add up to 0 in M, see?
@MattN You have tons of relations in $M$ that are non-existent in $F(M)$. For example $\lambda m$ and $m$ are independent in $F(M)$. So $(\lambda m) - \lambda \cdot m$ is nonzero in $F(M)$ but is sent to zero in $M$ under $f$.
in F(M), you have R-linear combinations of the v's, all of which are non-zero, except the 0-combination
in M, these same linear combinations may "evaluate" to 0
@tb What's the difference between $(\lambda m)$ and $\lambda \cdot m$?
@tb i thought you didn't like algebra?
13:56
@MattN $(\lambda m)$ is a basis element in $F(M)$ and $\lambda \cdot m$ is $\lambda$ times the basis element $m$ of $F(M)$.
@DavidWheeler Right. Not particularly.
@MattN $\lambda m = v_{\lambda m}, \lambda \cdot m = \lambda v_m$
But isn't multiplication with elements $r$ in $R$ for $(m)$ in $F(M)$ defined as $r(m) := (rm)$?
one has 1 in the $\lambda m$-th place and 0's elsewhere, one has $\lambda$ in the m-th place, and 0's elsewhere
Oh. Wait.
two distinct elements of M give rise to 2 distinct basis elements of F(M)
F(M) is a LOT bigger than M
we give each element of M "it's own space" and then multiply everything in each space by every element of R
whereas in M, R just moves things around in M
14:03
So let's see what these things are: $m = (0, 0, \dots, 0, 1, 0, \dots, )$. Right?
for example, suppose M = Z, the integers. this is a free Z-module of rank 1. but F(Z) assigns a distinct element for each integer, so you have a free module of infinite rank
With one at position $m$.
Then $\lambda \cdot m = (0, 0, \dots, \lambda, 0, \dots )$
@tb Everything right so far?
yep (if that last thing has an entry in "m'th position".)
Yes.
Now. I want to figure out what $(\lambda m)$ is.
I think basis elements of $F(M)$ look like $(0, \dots, 1, 0, \dots)$.
Maybe you just use David's notation and write $v_{\lambda m} - \lambda v_m$. Where $v_x$ is the basis element in $F(M)$ corresponding to $x \in M$.
14:07
in my example, we might have 2 = (0,0,0,1,0,0,.....) (if we list the integers (0,1,-1,2,-2,...etc). but 2.1 = (0,2,0,.....)
but both of these elements will map to the integer 2 under f.
@tb Got it. Thank you.
Now I need to read your first comment again and see if I understand it now.
@tb Yay!! : )
@tb Thank you! : ) So the kernel of $f$ that seemed so obviously zero isn't zero.
the "sequence" notation is sort of bad, because R (the real numbers for example) is a module over Z, but you can't "list" the basis elements that way
I agree
it would be better to use an "index set"
@MattN far from it!
14:13
every "free thing" i've come across usually seems to be huge. except vector spaces. for some reason, they behave.
@tb See you later! And thanks. You saved me from a moment of panic there.
As David said, the free module $F(M)$ on $M = R$ has rank $\#R$. So it's huge in comparison with the free module $M$ of rank $1$.
@MattN later!
and no problem.
I should be going, too. See you, David
Thank you for helping everyone @DavidWheeler.
If you want another drink, just help yourself.
Water.
14:28
Any ice?
:D
Do you have straws?
hhh
hhh
@DavidWheeler I skipped integrals but then I tested novel ideas with inner-product rules but cannot now see the goal
(I think I better go back to book -reading, got bit diverted here)
@hhh What is that big gold ball in your gravatar?
hhh
hhh
@skullpatrol Hunderwasser hause in Madgeburg, how come?
...of course, you know the artist :P
...and me touching the ball :D
(with some friends)
Anyway, I think I bet find some English book about Complex Analysis or the latter thing covered -- my lecturer book is pretty much unreadable, hand-written book not latexed)
@hhh Never heard of it :(
hhh
hhh
@skullpatrol Well for some reason, the avatar has just stuck -- I like it, it is a bit perfectionist trying to become a bit better...but never really finishing.
Like here, I have still the puzzle to be solved...I think David meant some inner-product -manipulation thing
@skullpatrol And it is just fun, the artist design things well in a bit funny way, floors not flat etc :P
14:50
@hhh Thanks for the info :)
hhh
hhh
...and well there is a philosophical point also: I think it was Poincare diminishing the distinction between art and science -- when doing things just a bit better every day, it is amazing that science feels like art and vice versa...
true that
If you want another drink of water, just help yourself :D
I'm not sure if we have straws or ice though.
hhh
hhh
Yes not bad idea, thank you.
15:06
hi
hi ... is there a way to simplify this ...
0
Q: simplify $(a_1 + a_2 +a_3+... +a_n)^m$

experimentXHow to simplify this best $(a_1 + a_2 +a_3+... +a_n)^m$ for $m=n, m<n, m>n$ I could only get $\sum_{i=0}^{m}\binom{m}{i}a_i^i\sum_{j=0}^{m-i}\binom{m-i}{j}a_j ... $

yeah ... it seems interesting!!
but isn't $ k_1+k_2+ ...+k_m=n $ again going to be combination of k's??
15:28
@hhh "Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things."
like??
Like a dictionary does.
Hi @PaulSlevin
@Ilya 8-)).
@PaulSlevin What do you think of Poincare's quote: "Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things."
15:33
It's something I think about sometimes
like what if you spend years doing some maths but it turns out it's already been done
well thats giving different names to the same thing
there was a guy doing Part III who had 2 consecutive lectures and the material was identical, but the notation was totally different so he thought they were completely different
Ouch :(
Those are two cruel lecturers.
:D
Heya =)
@JonasTeuwen what?
@Ilya Do you think he knows something that might help you?
@Jonas: seems so, anyway - thanks for putting me in touch. In any case, I liked the talk today
15:39
@N3buchadnezzar Yo whatz up?
Relaxing after exam ! Need to study soon though
What's next up?
@Ilya Great!
Philosophical history or something..
Good luck :D
15:42
@N3buchadnezzar I'm sorry to hear that.
@JonasTeuwen It shucks, but luckilly it is the only non-scientific course in my degree though! =)
"Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things."
"Music is the art of making different noises"
The music of the spheres :D
@N3buchadnezzar I had about 10 courses in my BSc in Pure Math which were not natural sciences
economy, philosophy, rhetoric, sociology, psychology, politology...
15:45
"The art of art is art"
@Ilya Fun ?
@N3buchadnezzar some of them were interesting, some of them awful - depends on the professor
Yeah, we have a really gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooood professor, but alas the subject is dull.
@Ilya Nikita will be a PhD student here in September, will be fun. Then he can learn me all kinds of dirty Russian words!
@JonasTeuwen ah, that's where you got all this f-words from
@Ilya No, from some Ukraine guy.
15:49
@JonasTeuwen babushka!
@N3buchadnezzar huyabushka
But maybe Nikita also doesn't want to say them...
Well, you only need to know a few words in russian.
@N3buchadnezzar Иди! сукин сын!
Spasiba, Stolichnaya, Puzhalsta, Vodka.
15:55
@N3buchadnezzar "Более водки!" Is all you need?
Maybe also "Больница!"
@N3buchadnezzar Vodka is all you need ;-)
I think they are singing about vodka ;)
I drink to forget about my drinking problem ? ..
It is only a problem if you admit it is.
@JonasTeuwen БольШе, not Более
@JonasTeuwen I missed it - what was there?
16:00
@Ilya I missed it too.
you removed there
@Ilya Thanks. Learning...
@Ilya Oh, it was related to what you said and removed :-).
ah
Let's have some vodka :D
Oops, I found a pretty bad mistake in my argument 8-))).
The bloody $t$ goes all down to $0$ where it goes BOEM.
16:08
hi @DylanMoreland
@Jonas your bloody time goes all down?
@Ilya Yes, it is very sad...
oh, don't say that
Oh, it might be bounded from below... in a very ugly way 8-))).
:D
16:38
@robjohn I noticed my chat rules answer has been removed; did it get too many down votes?
@Ilya I haz upper bound!
And this is now linked to the "Chat Rules" @robjohn
@skullpatrol I don't know. Let me look into it. I didn't remove it.
@skullpatrol : It's strange, because it was not only deleted, but shows the post by "user22862", and the user name is grey and unclickable, like it would be if the account were deleted. When accounts are deleted, posts with negative score are automatically deleted.
@JonasMeyer Thanks for looking into it for me.
16:54
Too much Jonas here! 8-). Hi @JonasMeyer!
hi @MarianoSuárezAlvarez
@JonasTeuwen Hi Jonas Teuwen. If you don't mind my asking, how is your first name pronounced?
@JonasMeyer Something like Yonas I think.
Hi @DylanMoreland glad you made it back :D
I definitely never TeXed a longer answer.
17:00
@JonasTeuwen : Thanks.
@DylanMoreland Hi
@JonasMeyer How about yours?
@JonasTeuwen Hello
17:02
Hi.
Stereotyping is stereotypical :D
@skullpatrol C-C-C-C-Combo Breaker!
@skullpatrol okay. Problem?
17:08
@PeterTamaroff How long did it take you to TeX that answer?
@skullpatrol Probably 20 mins? I used MathType for some parts, but it was a though one.
@robjohn Did you mean is there a problem with "stereotyping"?
@skullpatrol it appears that they were deleted by votes or mods. People over 10K can still see them.
@robjohn What happened? Was there a discussion here?
@JonasTeuwen Like in the Weezer song, with an English "J" sound. "Voiced palato-alveolar affricate"
17:12
@robjohn OK
@skullpatrol No, I see that there is a link there. Why were you pointing it out?
@JonasMeyer Yes, mine is different.
@robjohn I just wondered if you saw the contents of that link?
@skullpatrol You mean the question asked by Ben Lim?
@robjohn Yes.
17:20
@skullpatrol He is asking a question to clarify what the rules are, if any, about the situation. What do you find objectionable?
@skullpatrol Do you think I should add to the rules something about not being rude?
That seems pretty undefinable and even less enforceable. It seems to me that it probably needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis.
@robjohn I find absolutely nothing objectionable with the question, I just happened to stumble upon it when I was looking for my answer :D
@robjohn Yes "rudeness" is an extremely subjective judgement (in my opinion).
@skullpatrol There is this that should probably apply to SE as well.
as far as 'rude' can be judged
@robjohn As long as someone doesn't appoint themselves as judge, jury, and executioner :D
17:36
@skullpatrol Bwahahaha! :-D
17:57
Home.
No place like it...

« first day (665 days earlier)      last day (4650 days later) »