« first day (676 days earlier)      last day (4642 days later) » 

21:00
@PaulSlevin i don't believe i did
@anon With the cubes, I think it was $4k$ and $4k+1$, was it?
i dislike your hodge operators and what not @PeterTamaroff!!!
well cube 0,1,2,3 mod 4 and find out
@anon I did that. I don't want to do it again.
in particular 3^3=27=4(6)+3, which is not of one of those two forms. however 4k+2 is ruled out
21:02
Or just test it for even and odd numbers. Eg write out (2k)^2 and (2k+1)^2
@anon this is kind of trivial with modular arithmetic isn't it?
yes
oh well
A somewhat more interesting problem is as follows.
Show that $n-1$ divides $n^k - 1$ where $(n,k) \in \mathbb{N}$
this is also trivial
21:04
By induction
???
why the heck would i do that?
@N3buchadnezzar $(n^k-1)=(n-1)(\text{gibberish})$
exactly
@Eugene Because it huuuuurtz
@N3buchadnezzar that's dumb. math is about elegance, not pain
4
21:05
My former teacher would dissagree about that
@N3buchadnezzar your former teacher is wrong then
$n^{k+1}-1=n(n^k-1)+(n-1)$, what do I win?
He kept giving us various exercises as show that $6^k - 1$ is divisible by $5$, show that $4^p$ is divisible by $3$.. And so forth.
@anon Beer, chicks, liquor!
I already have those!
21:07
anybody here?
@user1111261 Not really.
=D
shhhhh everyone keep silent
@user1111261 Nope
You know how I can calculate p-value?
@user1111261 You need to reveal yourself!
21:08
In this case:
not sure if we're good at stats...
0
Q: Statistic hypothesis testing - Standard deviation less than 0.4

user1111261There was too much snow on the highways, so the mayor of the town sent snowplows to spread some chemicals on them. There is a standard of how much of one specific substance should be present in the compound that is used for spreading... We measured how much of the substance was present in the com...

What do you mean "reveal yourself"?
I didn't kill anybody yet
@user1111261 user1111261 is not a cool username, IMO
I don't steal or tell lies
21:09
you already have an answer
How can I change it?
I thought I have to keep it forever
@user1111261 Go to your profile.
And change it,
no, my name was robjohn for April 1st
What should I change it to?
though technically the rules say you can't change a name more than once a month
21:10
@anon at first i tried beating him in rep for the month
@user1111261 Whatever you want. We have a username named "Potato".
then i gave up after he outgunned me by 100 pts
Though please: don't use famous mathematician's names.
Bob the builder is a good name though.
I knowm , I am gonna be called Gauss1777
haha
21:12
@PeterTamaroff potato is the name of a famous mathematician though
never heard of him
you musn't have done much math then
@user1111261 That username is already taken, try Gauss 1777.1
there is a number named after him
21:17
@anon indeed. well respected mathematician.
@Eugene Hhahahahahahah.
@PeterTamaroff once you learn more math you'll hear of him
@Eugene That page is a one way ticket to hell.
@PeterTamaroff since you're new to math i'll forgive your arrogance towards potato
any advice on $\int \frac{dx}{x\sqrt{4x+1}}$
21:22
@Jordan Think by yourself. Chew on it.
I have been for a long time
I don't have all day to go at my pace and study :P
@Jordan Well, it'd be good if you could separate that into fractions.
But because of the root you can't.
So try letting $4x+1 =u$
Then let $u=t^2$
I did that already
$$\int {\frac{{dx}}{{x\sqrt {4x + 1} }}} = \int {\frac{{du}}{{\left( {u - 1} \right)\sqrt u }}} $$
$\frac{1}{4} \int \frac{du}{\frac{u-1}{4}{\sqrt{u}}}$
21:24
Can I be called PierreDeFermat ?
$$\int {\frac{{du}}{{\left( {u - 1} \right)\sqrt u }}} = \int {\frac{{2mdm}}{{\left( {{m^2} - 1} \right)m}}} = 2\int {\frac{{dm}}{{{m^2} - 1}}} = \int {\left( {\frac{1}{{m - 1}} - \frac{1}{{m + 1}}} \right)dm} $$
@user1111261 You can call yourself Pierre.
@PeterTamaroff you say $t$ yet $m$ appears...
@Eugene Yeah, I changed my mind.
Why just Pierre?
m looks better
21:30
@user1111261 Because it'd be silly if you asked about your own theorem in the future.
I can have the same name as a famous French lawyer
;o)
He was not a mathematician
Hi there. Does anyone have a minute for a quickie in abstract nonsense?
@Paul, are you there?
AM, on page 29, have this remark:
@MattN That is so unappropriate, dude.
It is not true in general that if $$ M^\prime \to M \to M^{\prime \prime}$$
is an exact sequence that the sequence
$$ M^\prime \otimes N \to M \otimes N \to M^{\prime \prime} \otimes N$$
is exact.
$- \otimes N$ is right exact. So far so good.
Ah. Wait. Maybe I'm not confused.
I wonder why they mention that. All the functors so far encountered are left or right or just exact.
And that's defined in terms of short exact sequences.
But the thing up there^ is not a short exact sequence (because it's missing the zeros at the ends).
So no one expects its image to be exact for any functor. Right?
Looks as if all the abstract nonsense people are afk or perhaps asleep.
I'll bbl.
21:37
@MattN hey, im here for now
Aces : )
@MattN going soon tho, whats up?
I hope you found that answer useful
I think I figured it out already. The thing I posted above.
When I am doing integration by parts and I have a (I forget the word, a term with a square in it?) quadratic thing and I need to write out $\frac{A}{x-1} + \frac{Bx+C}{x^2+4}$ is there antoehr way to write Bx+ C seperately?
you could write $D/(x+2i)+E/(x-2i)$ with complex numbers
21:38
@PaulSlevin Yes, I did! Thing is, I'm feeling flooded with information. So I thought I should re-read it once I finish reading the two pages about algebras in AM.
@MattN No problem. I was confused by them - sometimes it is implicit in the definition of a module that it is actually an algebra over some ring
@MattN from what i've read in qing liu
@PaulSlevin Do I make any sense up there? The third last sentence, where I think aloud that we probably don't expect the image of $M^\prime \to M \to M^{\prime \prime}$ to be exact for any functor because it's not a short sequence?
it seems that the statement you made holds if $N$ faithfully flat
@PaulSlevin Thanks for pointing that out. Sounds like a useful thing to be aware of.
21:40
not all functors are exact. some are exact. some are left exact. some are right exact. some are not.
I must go I am desperate for a BigMac
Nooo, how can you eat at McDonald's!?
Inconceivable.
i like mcdonalds too...
@MattN Know that feeling bro.
@Eugene Seriously?
@PeterTamaroff : )
@PeterTamaroff yes
21:42
@Eugene Why?!
@PaulSlevin Yes. But their exactness is defined in terms of short exact sequences.
The thing up there isn't actually a short exact sequence. Right?
Oh noes. Now he's left for le BigMac.
@MattN anyway we have that if $N$ is faithfully flat then the sequence ($M' \rightarrow$ etc) is exact if and only if the second sequence is exact
@MattN I'd only eat a Royale. Just to honor Travolta
and just because it's missing zero i don't think that's a real for it not being a short exact sequence
21:44
So I am just checking if I have memorized the rule correctly $\int \frac{1}{(x-2)(x^2 +4)}$ turns into $\frac{A}{x-2} + \frac{Bx + C}{x^2 + 4}$
A left exact functor preserves left exact sequences $0 \to M \to M' \to M''$
@Eugene I think it is.
@Jordan Yeah Yo!
21:44
@PaulSlevin But we only have $ M \to M' \to M''$
@PaulSlevin Anyway: byee!
@Jordan Well, don't forget the integral sign.
@MattN oh well sometimes authors leave out the zeros but ok...
@Jordan AND THE DIFFERENTIAL!!!!
Ok thanks, I thought I messed up because I am getting some weird stuff like A = 1/8
@MattN if a functor preserves all exact sequences of that form then it is exact
21:45
Oh. So no zeros needed?
yeah
since it's left and right exact
@Jordan Why would the rational numbers be weird? Don't be a integrist!
No, you nearly had me confused there: $\otimes$ isn't exact.
I dislike fractions
@Jordan Then bad for you.
You should love them
21:46
Perhaps I should ask it on SE.
I still feel confused.
F is exact $\iff$ F is right and left exact
If it wasn't for them, you'd not have $\Bbb R$.
@PaulSlevin Yes. But I thought l/r exactness was defined in terms of short exact sequences. Which we don't have in this example case.
$F$ exact $\iff$ $F$ preserves exact sequences too (with 3 things in them)
yeah but they are equivalent if you think about it :)
anyway
if $N$ is faithfully flat you have what you want
21:48
$0 \to M \to M' \to M''$ is equivalent to $M \to M' \to M''$?
Hm...
no if $F$ preserves all right exact sequences and all left exact sequences $\iff$ $F$ preserves exact sequences with 3 things in them $\iff$ F preservies short exact sequences
@MattN $0 \rightarrow M \rightarrow M' \rightarrow M'' \rightarrow 0$ is
you're missing a zero
Ah! : )
you should prove it if its confusing you
@Jordan fractions are good for you =) A fraction a day keeps the bad grades away.
21:49
i know i sound like white noise most of the time...
I think now I understand what AM are saying: that $\otimes$ is not in general exact. : )
@MattN yes
@PaulSlevin I was going to by looking at this counter example but then I didn't even understand what it was trying to tell me.
cool. now I definitely must go
see you !
i guess i'll keep quiet now
21:50
@PaulSlevin Thank you very much! I think I'm not confused anymore. Won't keep you any longer from le BigMac!
: )
I'm going too. See you all later!
sigh. everything i said was ignored.
Why not thanking Eugene? Weird.
mostly because he wasn't paying attention to me anyway
Why not paying attention to Eugene? Weird.
oh well. forget it.
21:53
Why not oh well?
OK, OK.
 
1 hour later…
23:04
@robjohn It is pretty cool here!
@JonasTeuwen have you attended lectures yet, or does that start tomorrow?
@JonasTeuwen Whassap
@robjohn Starts tomorrow, I walked to the centre. People have dinner here at 10pm...
@JonasTeuwen that was 3 hours ago. What time do the festivities start tomorrow?
@anon Are you there?
23:10
@robjohn 9 :-).
Can anyone explain to me why $\int_0^1 \frac{3}{x^5}$ diverges?
Because only $1/x^\epsilon$ for $\epsilon < 1$ converges near $0$ as an integral.
I thought 1/x^2 converges
@Jordan Find it's primitive, and analize what happens when $x \to 0^+$
I dont know what a primitive is
23:12
@Jordan Anti derivative. [sigh]
you are being ridiculous using all the crazy talk
@Jordan Crazy talk?
seriously though, I am pretty good at math compared to most people in my school and I am more familiar with math terms and such than most people in my class and I have no idea what people are saying here half the time
@Jordan I prefer the term "primitive" rather than anti derivative or indefinite integral, that's all.
I dont think that word is even in my book
23:15
@Jordan Nevermind. Now you know it.
Profit.
@robjohn You know some number theory right?
@PeterTamaroff a little bit
@robjohn Ok. I want to prove the following:
For every $n \geq 1 $, there are uniquely determined $a>0$ and $b>0$ such that $n=a^2 b$, where $b$ is squarefree.
I'm thinking about induction.
Too many dollar signs.
Suppose we've proven the theorem for $n=1,2,\dots, k-1$.
Then consider $k$.
If $k$ is prime, then $a=1$ and $b=k$, uniquely, from FTArithmetic.
Assume then $k$ is composite.
@PeterTamaroff I think that showing the uniqueness would be the simplest to start with
23:21
@robjohn Hm. I suppose.
How would you go about it?
Suppose that $a^2b=c^2d$ where $b$ and $d$ are square free.
We can divide both sides by common factors to get that $(b,d)=1$
@robjohn Let me think about that.
What we're saying is
Assume that $b^2 a $ where $a$ and $b^2$ have no common factors.
@PeterTamaroff no, definitely not that
23:26
Suppose that $b^2 a = c^2 d$, where $c^2$ and $d$ have no common factors.
Then I don't follow.
I am saying that suppose we have two ways to write $n=a^2b=c^2d$
Right.
Where $b$ and $d$ are squarefree,
I guess the point is that let us say that we have found two numbers $a$ and $b$ such that $n=a^b$. Let us now assume we have found two other numbers such that $n=c^2 d$. The point to show uniqeness is to prove that $a^2b=c^2d$
We can divide $b$ and $d$ by $(b,d)$ and $a$ and $c$ by $(a,c)$
I am stuck, how do I evaluate $\int \sqrt{x^4 + \frac{1}{16x^4} + \frac{1}{2}}$
23:29
@robjohn And what would that yield?
Then we get $a^2b=c^2d$ where $(a,c)=1$ and $(b,d)=1$
@Jordan Complete the square.
Then each prime that divides $b$ has to divide $c^2d$
@robjohn Dread. I don't follow. Nevermind, I'll ponder on it and return.
oh lawd, that is a square
I don't understand how to complete teh square with a negtive expoenent
23:31
Just do not forget the absolute value.
@Jordan $$\left(x^2+\frac 1 {x^2}\right)^2 = x^4+2+\frac 1 {x^4}$$
$$\int \sqrt{ \left( x^2 + \frac{1}{x^2}\right)^2} \, \mathrm{d}x$$
So slow =(
@PeterTamaroff okay, perhaps think about the way to get $n=a^2b$, you take every prime with exponent greater than 1 and put the even number into $a^2$ and the leftover ones into $b$
is that a form I need to know? I dont recognize it
@robjohn Great.
23:33
(a+b)^2 = a^2 + 2ab + b^2 < you should know this =)
Note you have $(x^2)^2+2 x^2 \frac{1}{4x^2} + (\frac{1}{4x^2})^2$
@Jordan $a = x^2$, $b=\frac{1}{4x^2}$.
@robjohn I think I got it.
I follows from the fundamental theorem.
@robjohn There are people working downstairs... It is 1:39 AM.
Simply, as you say, we group the unique prime factors of $n$.
23:38
@PeterTamaroff It is very simple, really.
@robjohn Yes it is. I was overthinking it!
@PeterTamaroff the hard thing is to prove something that is obvious :-)
@Eugene sorry if I usurped you or anything I was just responding to the messages I was tagged in, it kept pinging as i was getting ready to turn off my computer
i didnt read any others
that is really hard to think of, completing the square with fractions, I have never had to do that before that I can remember. I think it is easier to think of with decimals though
20 minutes for 15 points to get one more day toward a gold badge (epic). :-)
23:41
@robjohn Which gold badge??
@PeterTamaroff epic
@robjohn That one is silver.... : /
@PeterTamaroff Is it really? people were making a whole deal about it, so I thought it was gold.
@robjohn Nay.
Without the FToA: Suppose $a,b,c,d$ are squarefree with $ab^2=cd^2$ and $(a,c)=(b,d)=1$. Then
$$b^2\mid cd^2,~ (b^2,d^2)=1\implies b^2|c\implies b,d=1.$$ Thus, losing the restriction $(a,c)=(b,d)=1$, we can apply the reasoning instead to $$\frac{a}{(a,c)},\frac{b}{(b,d)},\frac{c}{(c,d)},\frac{d}{(b,d)},$$ (which are also squarefree) thereby obtaining $b=d$ and $a=c$.
23:52
@anon Hm. Let me read it a few times.
I left out a lot of reasoning, but I think you can fill most of it in.
I have no idea how to do this $\int \sqrt{\frac{4x^2}{x^4 - 2x^2 + 1} + 1}$
do I want to add the one in to it somehow? Or do I try and split the fraction like a partial fraction thing and then try to complete the insane square?
Oh, well. I've spent too long on answers that have gotten very few votes. I think I will give up the 200 quest for today.
seeing as there are only 6 more minutes :-)
@anon That is basically a reduction/induction proof, right?
at least I broke 600 answers today :-)
23:55
I guess you could call it that
I mean, you get $$\left(\frac{a}{(a,c)},\frac{c}{(a,c)}\right)=1 $$
Same for the other.
@Jordan Yes, incorporate the $1$ to make it a single fraction under the radical. You will then notice both numerator and denominator are sqaures...
@anon That's what I was trying to get at. It's just hard to know what you can assume when proving something that is so basic.
Se we reduce the problem to the same thing we got before.
@Jordan Add the $1$ and then complete the squares in both the numerator and denominator.
23:56
That is what I tried to do before, see what I wrote to rob way up.
But I couldn't write it as neatly as you!!!!
no need to complete the squares, they will both already be squares!
@anon Yeah, this is what I wanted to say. Thanks for the correction.
You definitely know how to write a proof/reasoning out.
I think I messed up what is -2x^2?
@robjohn What did you do?
@Jordan $$x^4-2x^2+1=(x^2-1)^2$$
23:57
-2x^2 is just -2x^2
well
(-2x)^2
isnt that 4x^2
And $$4x^2 = (2x)^2$$
So you get
$$\sqrt {{{\left( {\frac{{2x}}{{{x^2} - 1}}} \right)}^2} + 1} $$
$$(x^4-2x^2+1)+4x^2=x^4+2x^2+1=(x^2+1)^2 $$
@PeterTamaroff WAT
@anon Typo dude!
I got $\frac{(x+2)^2}{(x-2)^2}$

« first day (676 days earlier)      last day (4642 days later) »