« first day (3408 days earlier)      last day (1908 days later) » 

05:00
where a and b could be half integers as well?
but with $a, b$ in $\frac{1}{2} \Bbb Z$
right
gotcha
I'm doing the $y^2 + 5 = x^3$ has no integer solutions thang
yeah
passing to Z[(1+sqrt(-5)/2] instead of Z[sqrt(-5)]
@BalarkaSen I'm back
from my deadline fighting
@ÍgjøgnumMeg what cool NT did I miss
05:03
o/
just
pretending to be able to compute class numbers
@BalarkaSen play?
@ÍgjøgnumMeg just use LMFDB
I think I reached my quota today lol
@BalarkaSen just use your next day's quota
05:04
I have to prove $y^2 + 5 = x^3$ has no integer solutions for ANT1
15 mins ago, by Balarka Sen
what's the class group of Q(sqrt(147))
i need to be awake enough to see the board bro
lmfao @BalarkaSen
How are you reducing to $\Bbb{Z}[\sqrt{21}]$ from $\Bbb{Z}[\sqrt{147}]$?
nah he's just saying all he was doing was computing the class group of Q(sqrt(21))
sqrt(147) is 7sqrt(3) my dude
05:05
Oh, ok
so what are we computing (read: looking up on LMFDB) now?
I guess $\Bbb Q(\sqrt{21})$
lol @ÍgjøgnumMeg forgot to check if it's square free?
ye
hahaha
lmfao
nice prank 10/10
05:05
rip rip
unintentional i promise
I'll just say that $\Bbb Z[\sqrt{21}]$ is the wrong ring
yeah
it is
Yeah
It's a non-maximal order
@BalarkaSen What's the significance of this here?
05:08
banter
compute class group of $\Bbb Q(\sqrt{9})$
nothing i say is of significance
@ÍgjøgnumMeg just mod 7
I'm probably being dumb, but I don't think $\Bbb{Z}[\sqrt{21}]\supset \Bbb{Z}[\sqrt{147}]$?
@Ted I did the square root wrong
rofl
Oh ok haha
05:09
;)
but 21 is the more interesting question is all
It's 6am here
I thought you were using some fancy techniques
just look it up on LMFDB
you said that 5 times now
05:09
So we want to find the class number for $\Bbb{Q}(\sqrt{21})$
ok
you have a great site to cheat with ok we get it
try and get a paper published and it's just a list of class numbers for real quadratic fields copied out of LMFDB
@BalarkaSen just 3 actually
@Ted this should be quite easy since the Minkowski bound is just over 2
So the discrim is 21?
05:11
precision
true number theorist
discriminant is $21$ because $21 \equiv 1 \bmod 4$
So only $3\Bbb Z$ and $7\Bbb Z$ ramify
you don't need to care about 3 and 7 because 7>3>2
rofl
I don't know the minkoski bound :P
05:12
Minkowski bound is $\frac{n!}{n^n}\left(\frac{4}{\pi}\right)^{r_2}\sqrt{\lvert d_K\rvert}$
where $r_2$ is the number of pairs of complex embeddings of $K$
$n$ is degree of $K$
So there is 1 pair in our case?
$d_K$ is discriminant
so $\dfrac{2!}{2^2} \left(\dfrac4\pi\right)^0 \sqrt{21}$
@TedE no there's only real embeddings
So $(2/pi)\sqrt{21} \approx2.9$
Oh right
so sqrt(21)/2 ~ 2.29
05:14
@Ted it's real quadratic
Oops :P
Minkowski bound is $2.29$ ish so you need only look at primes lying over $2$
could check that $a^2 - 21b^2 = 2$ has no solution in half integers or smth
there are none
What theorem are you using to make sense of 'you only need to look at primes lying over 2'
05:15
doesnt split
and by "reciprocity" you're just factoring $x^2-x-5$ over $\Bbb F_2$
How does the minkowski bound relate to the class number?
which is irreducible
so $e=1$, $f=2$, $g=1$
@Ted this is from Minkowski theory
@ÍgjøgnumMeg clearly superior to your "half-integer" method
applicable to monogenic number fields
05:17
and the fact that fractional ideals factorise uniquely into products of primes of your numbre field lel
@Leaky ye suprerieorer
also screw you guys for distracting me
We did no such thing
i have to do topology
i have forgotten topology
05:18
You brought this on yourself for not checking if $147$ was square free
I might go to the petrol station and buy Leibniz cookies
@Ted :(
:D
wtf is a Leibniz cookie
and then made it worse by not being able to take square roots
They're small
05:19
@Balarka it's a cookie that invented calculus first
is it like
you eat the cookie
vey small cookies
and suddenly you have calculus
nah that's a Newton cookie
@BalarkaSen a topology is a collection of subsets of a given set that is closed under finite intersection and arbitrary union
05:20
@LeakyNun You're missing an axiom
no I'm not
@Leaky I posit that your definition is wrong
empty set bro
empty set is empty union
@ÍgjøgnumMeg I posit that you are wrong
closed under arbitrary intersection and finite union
smirk
05:20
no
(measure theory lol)
chunter
Zariski or smth
I'm just being a bellend
his open sets are closed
@ÍgjøgnumMeg isn't it an elliptic curve
I coined the word unabgeschloffen in my topology seminar a few weeks ago
05:21
so just find its Jacobian or something
@Leaky yeah it is
hahaha I think that would be too high powered for ANT 1
nobody cares
use etale cohomology if you can
the guy marking my pset would care
hahahaha
how do you make Pic^0(X) a variety naturally
tensor product
05:23
e l a b o r a t e
no that's the group law lmao
Show that the existence of a solution would imply the existence of an elliptic curve that was not modular
lmfao
Pic^0(X) isn't necessarily a variety
Depending on your definition of a variety
05:25
for a Riemann surface X of genus g at least 1, Pic^0(X) is isomorphic to (C/Z^2)^g
so it's believable you can give it some abelian variety structure in a natural way
what if g=0
Well in that case its an abelian variety easily
@LeakyNun then it's zero. Boom!
@TedE Sure, but I think you can say something general for any arbitrary variety X
Also I don't actually know a direct isomorphism Pic^0(X) -> (C/Z^2)^g. I can derive it using Pic^0(X) = H^1(X, O_X) and running a sheaf cohomology long exact sequence
@BalarkaSen stacks project is not responding so...
An arbitrary smooth projective variety if you take variety to be integral separated finite type over an algrabaically closed field maybe
05:27
alas
No I am not a total loony
I mean a smooth projective variety over C
Then it seems believable
Brb gotta eat food
I can't even view it on firefox
maybe we'll have to wait until stacks is up again
tag 0B9R
also "the genus of $X$ is $g = \dim_k H^1(X, \mathcal O_X)$"
ye
I meant Pic(X) = H^1(X, O_X*) above
and the theorem that Pic is a scheme is 0B9Z
excited to learn some alg geo in semester 3 lol
05:33
which hopefully you can explain to me :P
Let me think for a bit before looking around. There should be some geometric way to understand this
what's the deal with Pic(E) again?
why is it isomorphic to E?
@ÍgjøgnumMeg @BalarkaSen
Points on E gives rise to divisors on E, and you can build a line bundle out of that
Addition of points correspond to tensor product of line bundles
And if you have like a line joining P, Q, R, then P + Q + R is a principal divisor (f)
f being the meromorphic function given by the line
principal divisors correspond to the trivial line bundle
so the group structures on E and Pic^0(E) are exactly the same
yeah how do you build a line bundle
here's how you do it for a Riemann surface for an instructive example. Let D be a divisor on X; so it's a collection of points with multiplicities on it
choose a cover of X such that every point is contained in a unique open set, so say D has points x1, ..., xn and they are contained in U1, .., Un
Choose a function fi on Ui which has (zero or pole, depending on sign) order ord(xi)
choose constant functions on all other open sets
Consider disjoint union of Ui x C and glue them along (Ui cap Uj) x C by the transition functions fi/fj : Ui cap Uj -> C^* = GL_1(C) - these form a cocycle by construction
this gives your line bundle, with a ready-made section defined by the fi's which vanishes on D with the exact multiplicities given
05:48
interesting
so if X=CP^1 and D=[0] then what do I do?
Good example. Take the two affine opens, and consider z on the lower hemisphere and 1 on the upper hemisphere
Verify that the line bundle you get is O(1)
Line bundles on CP^1 are classified by degree of the transition function C^* -> C^* given the standard cover by affine opens, in fact
that's why you have an O(n) for every n
Hi @TedShifrin
Ok, I am starting to see the picture
what's the picture
Consider the exponential sequence $1 \to \Bbb Z \to \mathcal{O}_X \to \mathcal{O}_X^* \to 1$, run the LES to get $0 = \mathcal{O}_X^*(X) = H^0(X, \mathcal{O}_X^*) \to H^1(X, \Bbb Z) \to H^1(X, \mathcal{O}_X) \to H^1(X, \mathcal{O}_X^*) \to H^2(X, \Bbb Z) = \Bbb Z$. The last map is actually the degree map $\text{Pic}(X) \to \Bbb Z$, so taking the kernel we have $0 \to H^1(X, \Bbb Z) \to H^1(X, \mathcal{O}_X) \to \text{Pic}^0(X) \to 1$.
By Serre duality, $H^1(X, \mathcal{O}_X) = H^0(X, \Omega_X^*)$, $\Omega_X$ being the sheaf of holomorphic 1-forms
So $\text{Pic}^0(X)$ is really $\Omega_X(X)^*/H_1(X, \Bbb Z)$, where I suppose $H^1(X, \Bbb Z)$ is embedded in $\Omega_X(X)^*$ by the nondegenerate pairing $\Omega_X \times H^1(X, \Bbb Z) \to \Bbb C$, integrating a 1-form over a 1-cycle
Fix a point $x \in X$. I will show there is a map $X \to \Omega_X^*$ which is well-defined upto $H^1(X, \Bbb Z)$. This is defined simply by taking any other point $y$, and integrating a form $\omega$ over a path joining $x$ and $y$.
This gives the map $X \to \Omega_X^*/H^1(X, \Bbb Z) = \text{Pic}^0(X)$
Somehow $\text{Pic}^0(X)$ has a nice variety structure, but I don't see why yet.
There should be some way to understand why a Riemann surface of genus g admits a map to a 2g-torus in a nice way
It's like abelianizing but at the level of the space
What does it do topologically? Take a surface of genus g, pinch to get a wedge of g tori, and embed it in the 2-skeleton of T^{2g}?
I realize I am using upper star for multiplicative sheaf and dual both... sigh
also i meant $H^0(X, \Omega_X)^*$
06:21
I'm still figuring out what on earth $1 \to \Bbb Z \to \mathcal O_X \to \mathcal O_X^\ast \to 1$ means
Oh that map $O_X \to O_X^*$ is taking a germ of a holomorphic function to exponential of it
$O_X^*$ is sheaf of nonvanishing holomorphic functions, under multiplication
Trivia: I am always queasy about writing the exponential short sequence sequence; really it should be $0 \to \Bbb Z \to \mathcal{O}_X \to \mathcal{O}_X^\times \to 1$ :P
I looked around a bit and apparently what I did was wrote down the Abel-Jacobi map
In dimension 1 the Picard group is the Jacobian variety, which I didn't know how to define before but it's exactly $\Omega_X^*/H_1(X; \Bbb Z)$
In general there's an Albanese variety, which is a universal abelian variety in the sense that any map from X to A factors through Alb(X) for any abelian variety A
It's exactly the abelianization huh
The Riemannian manifolds section explains this quite well!
am I missing something, I don't see why it's surjective
like what if $X = \Bbb C^\times$ and $f(z) = z$
log(z) is locally a holomorphic function whenever z is nonzero
you only care germ-level, right?
oh!
nvm I haven't seen sheafs for a long time
ok it's alright now
It's all good
06:35
what's $H^1(X,\Bbb Z)$?
So whenever you have a short exact sequence $1 \to F \to G \to H \to 1$ of sheaves on $X$, you have a long exact sequence of cohomology groups valued in those sheaves. In the case of the exponential sequence $\Bbb Z$ was the constant sheaf with values in $\Bbb Z$, the cohomology groups of the constant sheaf with values in $\Bbb Z$ are just plain vanilla cohomology groups with $\Bbb Z$ coefficient
So $H^1(X, \Bbb Z)$ is our friendly neighborhood singular cohomology group
(The theorem is that Cech cohomology with constant sheaf = singular cohomology with coefficient group of the sheaf)
oh right
what's the map $H^1(X, \mathcal{O}_X) \to \Omega_X^\ast(X)$?
Let $E$ be the sheaf of smooth $1$-forms on $X$. Since you can break up any $1$-form on $X$ in $(z, \overline{z})$-coordinates, you can write everything as $fdz + gd\overline{z}$. The differential map $d$ also breaks up as $\partial + \overline{\partial}$ in this process. So call $E^{(0, 1)}$ the sheaf of $(0, 1)$-forms, of the form $g d\overline{z}$.
For any smooth function $f$ on $X$, you can take $df = df/dz dz + df/d\overline{z} d\overline{z}$, so $\overline{\partial f} = df/d\overline{z} d\overline{z}$ is the $(0, 1)$-part
This gives a map $C^\infty_X \to E^{(0, 1)}$ at the sheaf level, which you can prove is surjective (a small PDE trick), and the kernel is $\mathcal{O}_X$ as $\overline{\partial} f = 0$ is exactly the CR equations
Run the sheaf LES on $0 \to \mathcal{O}_X \to C^\infty_X \to E^{(0, 1)} \to 0$, using that C^infty is a fine hence acyclic sheaf, to conclude $H^1(X, \mathcal{O}_X) = E^{(0, 1)}/\text{im}\,\overline{\partial}$
So $H^1(X, \mathcal{O}_X)$ can be thought as equivalence classes $[\eta]$ of germs of $(0, 1)$-forms. Using this you can define the pairing $H^1(X, \mathcal{O}_X) \times \Omega_X(X) \to \Bbb C$, $(\omega, [\eta]) \to \int_X \omega \wedge \eta$
The hard theorem of course is that this is a perfect pairing, which is what Serre proved (in a much greater generality)
That'll give your isomorphism $H^1(X, \mathcal{O}_X) \to \Omega_X(X)^*$
06:54
37 mins ago, by Balarka Sen
I realize I am using upper star for multiplicative sheaf and dual both... sigh
lol
Yeah there I meant the dual lol
Honestly the proof of Serre duality in Forster is a living nightmare
I skip proofs so it's alright
You can't tell what's happening but at the end of the day you have your result anyway
I am just saying in case you read the good Hodge theory proof someday and teach it to me; future investment
06:55
how did Serre prove it
lol
Oh I think he proved in some massive generality over Cohen-Macaulay schemes
that's the statement Hartshorne has with Ext sheaves flying around everywhere
it's horrifying
this is pure horror
07:10
lol
Milne has a construction of the Jacobian variety in chapter 3 of his Abelian Variety notes
I should read that some time. It looks involved
He's thinking about the group of divisors $\text{Div}_n(X)$ of degree $n$ on a Riemann surface $X$, then observing that the map $X^n \to \text{Div}_n(X)$ given by $(x_1, \cdots, x_n) \mapsto \sum [x_i]$ is a bijection modulo $S_n$, so essentially $\text{Div}_n(X) \cong X^n/S_n$. This is the $n$-th symmetric power of $X$, $SP^n(X)$, which is well known to be a complex manifold
So $\text{Div}_n(X)/\text{Princ}(X)$ is a quotient of $\text{SP}^n(X)$, and he argues this is going to be smooth as well, but I don't follow.
Something something
I don't get it
Oh, I see, not what I said. For high enough $n$, compared to the genus of $X$, every divisor class in $\text{Pic}_n(X) = \text{Div}_n(X)/\text{Prin}(X)$ contains an effective divisor, so the map $X^n \to \text{Pic}_n(X)$ I described is surjective.
07:30
How is $(xy)^{2/3}$ (a function with discontinous partials) differentiable at (0,0)?
In particular $\text{SP}^n(X) \to \text{Pic}_n(X)$. Then there's some complicated argument to conclude $\text{Pin}_n(X)$ is also smooth; he assumes this has a section, in which case he constructs an appropriate fibered produt, so on (and then proceeds to further complications).
And then the key fact is $\text{Pic}_0(X)$ and $\text{Pic}_n(X)$ are still in bijection for any $n$, so you get natural variety structure on $\text{Pic}_0$ once you get in on $\text{Pic}_n$ for high enough $n$
So complicated!
 
3 hours later…
10:24
almost one of the most tragic sentences I have ever read: "An example of a galactic algorithm is the fastest known way to multiply two numbers,[2] which is based on a 1729-dimensional Fourier transform.[3][4] This means it will not reach its stated efficiency until the numbers have at least $2^1729$ digits, which is vastly larger than the number of atoms in the known universe. So this algorithm is never used in practice. "
 
5 hours later…
cis
cis
15:29
Hey, does anybody know a good overview for all the *computation-rules* of the operators mod, div and ≡ I mean a list of rules like

(a·b) mod m = (a mod m)·(b mod m) mod m

and so on... (typesetted in LaTeX `\mod, \operatorname{div}, \equiv`) ?

I mean a list of rules like

(a·b) mod m = (a mod m)·(b mod m) mod m

and so on...
I am sorry, I killed my post, so once again:

Hey, does anybody know a good overview for all the *computation-rules* of the operators mod, div and ≡ ?

(typesetted in LaTeX `\mod, \operatorname{div}, \equiv`)

(a·b) mod m = (a mod m)·(b mod m) mod m

and so on...
 
2 hours later…
17:18
@Archer Having continuous partials is sufficient — but not necessary — for the function to be differentiable. The derivative at $(0,0)$ is $0$ and you can check the definition: $\lim_{(h,k)\to (0,0)} \frac{f(h,k)}{\sqrt{h^2+k^2}} = 0$.

« first day (3408 days earlier)      last day (1908 days later) »