« first day (3521 days earlier)      last day (1490 days later) » 

12:00 AM
Oh but this is $R(\gamma', X)\gamma' + \nabla_X \nabla_{\gamma'} \gamma' + \nabla_{[X, \gamma']} \gamma'$, and the first and second term goes away since $X(0) = 0$ and $\gamma$ is a geodesic. Something bad should happen to the third term; Oh it vanishes because $X$ and $\gamma'$ commute.
$f'''(0) = 0$
I don't want to compute $f''''(0)$
How do people even do Riemannian geometry
 
oof
another wall of @Balarka
 
I am depressed that people call this geometry
I mean the results are great, it's just these computations; they are so meaningless lmao
 
that's how I feel trying to learn general Hecke theory
 
yeah dude all math is technical these days
 
altho they're obviously not meaningless but I can#t see the motivation atm lol
 
12:20 AM
OK, I computed $f''''$ elsewhere. It is $K(\gamma_0', \gamma_1')/3$
 
@BalarkaSen Ask Erico maybe
 
So it seems if $\gamma_0$ and $\gamma_1$ are close enough geodesics starting at $p$ with tangent vectors $u$, $v$ at $0$, $\text{dist}^2(\gamma_0(t), \gamma_1(t)) = t^2 \|u - v\|^2 - \frac{1}{3} K(u, v) t^4 + o(t^4)$
I like this estimate
@MikeMiller Good point. @ÉricoMeloSilva How do you do Riemannian geometry
Er, by $K(u, v)$ I meant $\langle R(u, v) v, u \rangle$. Or $K(u, v) (1 - \langle u, v \rangle)$
This should be enough to show if any manifold of sectional curvature $\leq K$ has Alexandrov curvature $\leq K$, i.e., every point has geodesically convex $\text{CAT}(K)$ nbhd
So I am happy
 
@TedShifrin Hello Ted
How are you sir?
 
12:41 AM
what are you doing
i cant read walls of text
@Balarka
 
some trash. i was trying to prove that if $\gamma_0, \gamma_1$ are nearby geodesics starting at a point with tangent vector $u, v$ then distance squared between $\gamma_0(t)$ and $\gamma_1(t)$ is $t^2 \|u - v\|^2 - 1/3 \langle R(u, v)v, u \rangle t^4 + o(t^4)$
and use this to prove little triangles in manifolds of sectional curvature $\leq K$ are thinner than corresponding comparison triangles in a surface of constant Gaussian curvature $K$
 
ah alexandrov stuff
 
yeah
but how do you compute this shit, it took me ages to do the Jacobi fields computations
i kept Taylor expanding everything and something happened
is there like anything conceptual to these calculations or do u just do it
 
that's how i usually do things
 
lmao
 
12:45 AM
that's what the ancients did so its good enough for me
 
its so hard lol
 
your computations look to be in the correct spirit but i didnt read any of them close
 
np; thanks for skimming!
 
@BalarkaSen maybe im just an idiot but honestly like, ok there is a deep geometric content to pushing symbols around in riemannian geometry but it's hard for me to see without just computing a lot
maybe Bridson-Haefliger is good to check out if there's any good conceptual approach to be gleaned, I read some of it years ago so it has vanished from me
 
yeah i am not asking if there's like a magic way to do these things that avoids completely any computations; mostly i want to get good at the computations somehow because they lead to rather pictorial, nice results.
Alright, I'll check that book out
Oh ok this book
 
12:53 AM
Yeah for dumbasses like me I think the answer that seems to work best is to just do them a lot until some coalescing happens in my dome, but maybe you'd get better faster than I do and figure shit out
i liked part 1 a lot, didn't read much more than that
 
i was reading Ballman, lectures on spaces of nonpositive curvature, actually
 
never read that one
 
i loved how the usual Hopf-Rinow and Cartan-Hadamard theorems both push through in the synethetic setup; those proofs feel much cleaner to me
but then these dudes came up with definitions like CAT(k) because of ^^^ above computations
so
 
it makes sense because somehow a lot of riemannian results should be stable under limits in GH or whatever sense that might preserve some metric "curvature" info
 
ah thats a nice perspective
 
12:57 AM
this reminds me i wanna read that hyperbolic groups paper by daddy gromov
 
if you read it i will read it absolutely
 
it's too long but still
 
Bridson-Haefliger is massive, but seems more explanatory than Ballman, which is like a short 200 page lecture note
 
yeah BH is a tome
 
i'll have a bite
 
12:59 AM
Ive got it accumulating dust on my shelf, but it seems quite useful in chunks from my (little)experience
 
Teaching some very basic group theory to a friend is making me feel more powerful than I care to describe
 
 
2 hours later…
3:26 AM
$C(I, M, p)$ be the space of smooth maps $\gamma : [0, 1] \to M$ with $\gamma(0) = p$. Define $E : C(I, M, p) \to \Bbb R$ by $E(\gamma) = \int \|\gamma'\|^2$.
For $X \in T_\gamma C(I, M, p)$, $dE(\gamma)(X) = \partial_s \int \|\gamma'_s\|^2 = 2 \int \langle \nabla_{\partial_s} \partial_t \gamma_s, \partial_t \gamma_s \rangle$
 
@BalarkaSen any good with weak derivatives?
 
idk much
 
Oh okay.
How are you this morning?
 
@BalarkaSen By switcharoonie this is $\int \langle \nabla_{\partial_t} \partial_s \gamma_s, \partial_t \gamma_s \rangle = \int \partial_t \langle \partial_s \gamma_s, \partial_t \gamma_s \rangle - \langle \partial_s \gamma_s, \nabla_{\partial_t} \partial_t \gamma_s \rangle$
That integrates to $\langle X(1), \gamma'(1)\rangle - \langle X(0), \gamma'(0) \rangle - 2\int \langle X, \nabla_{\gamma'} \gamma' \rangle$
So I do need the space of paths with both endpoints fixed for doing this. Unfortunate.
@anakhro Not bad
I haven't slept at night but that's all fine
 
3:44 AM
I just woke up
 
If $\Omega_{p, q} M$ is the space of all smooth paths between $p$ and $q$ in $M$, then the subspace of Jacobi fields in $T_\gamma \Omega_{p, q} M$ is indeed $\ker dE$, where $E: \Omega_{p, q} M \to \Bbb R$ is the energy functional as above I think
I forgot everything, damn. $E$ is actually a Morse function on $\Omega_{p, q} M$; of course $dE$ needs to have finite rank kernels for that to make sense which it does because Jacobi equation
 
4:08 AM
Garbage, what I mean is, $dE$ has critical points on the geodesics joining $p$ and $q$. $dE_\gamma = 0$ iff $\gamma$ is a geodesic. Now if $p$ and $q$ are conjugate points, then the subspace of $\Omega_{p, q} M$ consisting of all geodesics joining $p$ and $q$ is a finite-dimensional submanifold, whose tangent space is the space of Jacobi fields
Let's work out the relationship with Morse theory actually. What is the Hessian of $E$?
The obvious thing is to choose a two-parameter variation. $hE_\gamma(X, Y) = \partial_v \partial_u E(\gamma_{u, v})$ where $\gamma_{u, v}$ is a 2-parameter variation of $\gamma$ with $\partial_u \gamma_{u, v}(t) |_{u = 0} = X(\gamma_{u, v}(t))$ and $\partial_v \gamma_{u, v}(t) |_{v = 0} = Y(\gamma_{u, v}(t))$
I bet the submanifolds of geodesics are the stable and unstable submanifolds of the Morse function $E$
Let's try. $\partial_u \partial_v \int \|\gamma'_{u, v}\|^2$. I will shorted $\gamma'_{u, v}$ to $\gamma'$ from now on. Differentiate under integral sign: $2 \partial_u \langle \nabla_v \gamma', \gamma' \rangle = 2\langle \nabla_u \nabla_v \gamma', \gamma' \rangle + 2\langle \nabla_u \gamma', \nabla_v \gamma' \rangle$
I can do many switcharoonies, but the question is where should I do it
The second term should obviously be $\langle \nabla_{\gamma'} u, \nabla_{\gamma'} v \rangle$
$\nabla_u \nabla_v \gamma' = \nabla_u \nabla_{\gamma'} v = R(u, \gamma') v + \nabla_{\gamma'} \nabla_u v$
OK, that's it
$\langle \nabla_{\gamma'} \nabla_u v, \gamma' \rangle = \partial_t \langle \nabla_u v, \gamma' \rangle - \langle \nabla_u v, \nabla_{\gamma'} \gamma' \rangle$ and the second term dies because $\gamma$ is geodesic, first term dies in the integral by fundamental theorem of calculus and good behavior of $X$ and $Y$ at the endpoints
So the final thing is $hE_\gamma(X, Y) = \int \langle R(X, \gamma') Y, \gamma' \rangle + \langle \nabla_{\gamma'} X, \nabla_{\gamma'} Y \rangle$
Oh shoot okay. If we switcharoonie around a little we get $hE_\gamma(X, Y) = 0$ for all $Y$ iff $X$ is a Jacobi field
It was the nullspace of the Hessian!
Of course that makes sense, I am an idiot.
But then $E$ is not a Morse function. Hessian of $E$ is not nondegenerate at many critical points
But maybe that's the point; it's Morse upto finite rank kernel
Can't expect to have discrete critical points when the domain is infinite dimensional; finite dimensional critical submanifolds is the next best case
I knew all this but forgot lmao. That's got to be what an infinite dimensional Morse function is; the Hessian has finite kernel
Welp time to go back to Milnor
 
 
1 hour later…
6:17 AM
@EnjoysMath I need your help with something
 
 
4 hours later…
10:43 AM
@CaptainAmerica16 Ok! Thank you so much!! :-)
 
11:06 AM
@ÉricoMeloSilva which hyperbolic groups paper by Gromov?
 
@AlessandroCodenotti MVL with the h4 h5 hype
 
11:45 AM
I come to a plain contradiction using theorems on algebraic groups and I don't understand why.
Let $F$ be an algebraically closed field of positive characteristic $p$ and let $G=GL(2,F)$, Let $a=\left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{array} \right)$ and $b=\left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 \end{array} \right)$, so that $b$ centralizes and not centralizes $\langle a\rangle$. Now, both $a$ and $b$ are semisimple (i.e. diagonalizable) in $G$. Now, take $B$ to be a Borel subgroup of $G$ which contains $a$.
This means that the subvariety $X$ of $a$-fixed points of the projective space $G/B$ is non-empty. $\langle b\rangle$ is solvable, connected and is simply seen to act on $X$, so we have that both $a$ and $b$ are contained in a Borel subgroup $C$ of $G$. However, this is impossible, since $\langle a, b\rangle$ would be contained in a torus of $C$.
That's it. I hope I've not come into some very silly mistake
 
12:05 PM
@LeakyNun MVL winning would be huge since he'd be tied up for first place. But Nepo knows so he might just play for a draw today
 
 
1 hour later…
1:11 PM
@Thorgott You there?
 
1:41 PM
yes
 
1:59 PM
yoyoyoyoyoyoy
I know you needed me, so I'm back online for you....
 
is there anyone here willing to help understand how to apply the hochschild serre spectral sequence to find the group coho of $D_8$?
 
Can $\frac{d\frac{dy}{dx}}{dy}$ be simplified?
 
@Thorgott Please look that proof
 
2:16 PM
@Knight look into any real analysis book.... It's ezy
@user10478 $\frac{d^2 y}{dx^2}$
That's epsilon delta definition of limit
 
@AbhasKumarSinha That would be $\frac{d\frac{dy}{dx}}{dx}$. I'm looking for $\frac{d\frac{dy}{dx}}{dy}$. Are they really the same?
Maybe I should say $\frac{\partial\frac{dy}{dx}}{\partial y}$.
 
@user10478 okay, then can't be simplified... I guess
@user10478 that's 0
 
Oh, that's what Wolfram said but I didn't believe it.
 
@user10478 That's supposed to be '0'
 
Okie, thanks
 
2:30 PM
k
 
@Knight 1. You don't want to assert $\left\lvert\frac{x}{e^x}-0\right\rvert<\varepsilon$, you want to assert $\left\lvert\frac{x}{e^x}-0\right\rvert<\varepsilon$ *for sufficiently large* $x$. That's an important detail.
2. Now you want to find a number $R$ such that the above bound holds for $x\ge R$ (as per the definition of limit). Be clear about this. You are manipulating inequalities at seemingly random, which is bad form. Be clear about what you're doing and what your objects are.
3. If you consider appropriate $x$, you don't need to assert WLOG, because $x/e^x$ is positive for positi
 
@MaryStar Yep! :)
 
2:52 PM
@JackOhara what's up?
 
@EnjoysMath Hey ! I need your help with installing a program
I assume you are very good with these things :D
 
Sure which one
 
let me invite you to a room
 
3:19 PM
Hello
How to prove that this expression holds if we change its argument to the same argument multiplied by a constant rotation matrix.

$\int D_{m_{1}, m_{1}}^{(j)}(R) D_{m, m_{2}}^{(j)}(R) D_{M M^{-}}^{(j) *}(R) d R$
 
@Thorgott Let me prove that $$ \frac{x}{e^x} \lt \frac{1}{x} $$ $$ \frac{x}{e^x} = \frac{1}{1/x +1 + x/2! + x^2/3! +....} $$ Which is indeed less than $\frac{1}{x}$ for positive values of $x$. Now consider an $\varepsilon$ such that $$ \frac{1}{x} \lt \varepsilon$$ for sufficiently large $x$.
$$ \frac{x} {e^x} \lt \frac{1}{x} \lt \varepsilon \\ x \gt \frac{1}{\varepsilon} $$ so for $x$ greater than $\frac{1}{\varepsilon}$ we can we make $\frac{1}{x}$ less than $\varepsilon$. Thus, for $x$ greater than $\frac{1}{\varepsilon}$ we can make $\frac{x}{e^x}$ smaller than $\varepsilon$.
 
@Knight That's just a simple epislon delta definition of limit.
 
@AbhasKumarSinha It’s not that easy bro! I’m doing it but it’s not possible to isolate $x$ from $\frac{x}{e^x}$
 
@Knight yap... Bolanzo Weierstrass theorem...
@Knight $x(e^{-x})$
there's a similar question...
1.6.13
 
@AbhasKumarSinha What is 1.6.13 ?
 
3:32 PM
of Problems in Calculus of One Variable by IA Maron
@Knight See that problem number of that^ book
 
@AbhasKumarSinha I ain’t got the book
Post it here
 
Hi @Ed
Please post it Abhas I’m on mobile
 
k... 1 sec
 
Yeah, that method is correct, though the presentation can be improved
 
@AbhasKumarSinha Can you write it down over here if you’re on computer ?
@Thorgott Is that proof correct ?
 
@Knight Yes your proof is correct, just misses modulus thing...
^that's not required here
it's correct without that too
 
@AbhasKumarSinha Thanks
 
@Knight yes
@Abhas that's a completely different thing lol
 
3:45 PM
similar thing if you want to find the method.
 
hello
@AbhasKumarSinha hi!!!!! :-))))))))
 
hello...
 
@AbhasKumarSinha How are you Abhas?
 
Suffering lockdown
21 days too!
 
@AbhasKumarSinha I see....
 
3:47 PM
that's a different method though
 
@Wiktoria Is there any lockdown there?
@Thorgott just a bit
 
in that example, the base goes to infinity, not the exponent
 
@AbhasKumarSinha yep...
 
not to mention that the additional factor complicates matters
 
@Thorgott just to see the method..
@Wiktoria What are you doing?
 
3:49 PM
@AbhasKumarSinha Chatting with you! :-)
 
@Wiktoria No... not in that way... I mean what are you doing in lockdown...
 
@AbhasKumarSinha Learning to cook, reading....
 
@Wiktoria cook what? Indian or Polish? :P
 
my point is that these two methods are completely different
 
@AbhasKumarSinha Just basics... I may try advanced ones in near future...
 
3:50 PM
@Wiktoria Just don't forget to invite me tho...! :)
 
@Thorgott IA Maron’s problem didn’t require any extra steps, all it required was to understand the problem
It was straightforward
 
@AbhasKumarSinha I have no problem coming to me for eating....
 
@Wiktoria hahaahhah XD
@Knight whole book is very straight to complex... JEE Levels...
 
<3
Bye...
@AbhasKumarSinha I've to go...
 
4:15 PM
hey chat
my calc teacher taught us about 1-differential forms
like, $\mathrm df = \sum \frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i} \mathrm dx_i$
however, i got lost after explaining what $(\mathbb R^n)^*$, the vector space of linear transformations of $\mathbb R^n$ to $\mathbb R$
i know that a 1-differential form is a function $\omega\colon\ \mathbb R^n \to (\mathbb R^n)^*$
He claimed that every 1-differential form can be written as $\omega(\mathbf x) = \sum \omega_i(\mathbf x) \mathrm d x_i$
but i don't even know what $\mathrm dx_i$ is supposed to be...
 
@Lucas Given a vector space $V$ do you know how to get a basis of $V^\ast$ given a basis of $V$?
 
and I don't understand where calculus appears in all this linear algebra construction. and why $f(y)\,\mathrm dy = g(x)\,\mathrm dx$ (in the differential form sense) $\implies \int f(y)\,\mathrm dy = \int g(x)\,\mathrm dx$ (in the Riemann integral sense)
@AlessandroCodenotti yeah.
 
Then $\mathrm{d}x_i$ is the dual basis to the standard basis of $\Bbb R^n$
 
@Knight in your attempt, you got the structure of the proof wrong. Your 'proof' is the rough work you do before $\epsilon-$proofs. The final version of the your proof should mimic the definition.
 
$\{e_1,\ldots,e_n\}$ is a basis of $V$ $\implies \{e^1,\ldots, e^n\}$, where $e^i$ is the projection onto the vector $e_i$, is a basis of $V^*$
@AlessandroCodenotti alright.
wait
ok
so $\mathrm dx_i = (x_1,\ldots,x_n) \mapsto x_i$
 
4:32 PM
@LucasHenrique If you take a function $\omega\colon\Bbb R^n\to(\Bbb R^n)^\ast$ you can write it as $\omega(x)=(\omega_1(x),\ldots,\omega_n(x))$ for some functions $\omega_i$, but that's just saying that $\omega(x)$ has coefficient $\omega_i(x)$ along $\mathrm{d}x_i$, from which you get this expression
 
i'm pretty sure that my description of the basis of $V^*$ is wrong. but i meant that $e^i$ is the function that takes a vector and it outputs the value of the coordinate $e_i$
 
Nah your description was fine
 
okay. so those $\mathrm dx_i$ are not differential forms, but linear functionals, right?
 
It's usually written as $e^i(e_j)=\delta_{ij}$ and extended by linearity to the whole space
 
alright. I understand what a 1-differential form is
 
4:36 PM
Yes but you can think about them as forms by picking the constant function $\omega\colon \Bbb R^n\to(\Bbb R^n)^\ast$ with value $\mathrm{d}x_i$
 
now: why differential? i know derivatives (in arbitrary spaces) are linear operators, but I don't know why we're building all this machinery - in fact, none of those definitions used calculus.
 
The point is that forms generalize well to manifolds
So they allow you to do calculus on manifolds different from $\Bbb R^n$
 
"analysis is just local non-linear linear algebra" - some MO comment
7
 
hahaha
 
oh. that felt a bit unnecessary to solve separable differential equations hahahah
prof was explaining why "multiplying the dx" is not wrong - but just if you know why
 
5:02 PM
thanks @AlessandroCodenotti :)
 
it isn't wrong per se, it's just not formalized @LucasHenrique
and that whole dual space thing is a way of formalizing it
 
5:45 PM
Let $N=$ $\{ f\in C[0,1] : f(0)=1 \}$. Show that $N$ is not nowhere dense with respect to the $d_1$ metric
any ideas?
$d_1$ is the integral of abs value
from 0 to 1
 
@topologicalorientablesurface in fact $N$ is dense...
 
@LeakyNun not with the $d_1$ metric
oh, dense.
@LeakyNun what function can be found in any ball centered around a continuous function and is in N as well?
 
6:05 PM
that's the same question
 
@LeakyNun You mean that function proves both claims?
 
that's the same as asking whether it is dense
 
yes, I know @Thorgott
I don't have an idea
though
 
I'm just explaining what Leaky (presumably) meant, he already gave the answer as well
 
@Thorgott yeah, I understand that dense implies not nowhere dense
i\m trying to show its dense
@LeakyNun
 
6:18 PM
Pick any function $f$ in $C([0,1])$. Can you draw another function $g$ such that $g(0)=1$ and the area between $f$ and $g$ is small?
 
@AlessandroCodenotti $g= f+\frac{rf}{2||f||_1}$?
 
By draw I literally mean draw
 
oh wait
@AlessandroCodenotti thats what i\m having issues with
yeah, I can draw it
 
Then you're done
 
 
2 hours later…
8:32 PM
Not a lot of activity tonight
 
No Riemannian geometry spam tonight
 
True
What's the paper by Gromov on hyperbolic groups you and Eric were talking about?
 
Oh the Essays paper
the famous one
 
Asymptotic invariants of infinite groups?
The 200 pages "paper" from '93?
 
No, no, just titled "Hyperbolic groups"
 
8:37 PM
Uh let me look it up
 
Yep
 
The typesetting makes my eyes bleed, but the content heals them
 
lol i like typewriter fonts
 
8:38 PM
The font is fine as long as there are no formulas
 
8:56 PM
Hi! I have a small question: Before you read my question, make sure that you have wash your hand for 20 seconds.
Question: Give examples of divisors of zero, of degree 0, 1, 2, in Z_4[x]?
what does he mean by divisors of zero? Is the same as zero divisors where for any a, b in Z_4[x], then a and b are not equal 0, then ab=0
 
9:10 PM
@AlessandroCodenotti Thank you!
 
9:40 PM
@JackOhara ping me whenever
 
10:05 PM
@user777 What does degree mean?
Greetings, a @balarka and demonic @Alessandro.
 
Did I miss anything good?
 
Hi @Ted
Nah
 
Oh well.
 
Here's a cool fact. If $T : S^n \to S^n$ is a fixed-point-free involution, for any map $f : S^n \to S^n$ of odd degree, there is a point $x$ such that $Tf(x) = fT(x)$.
 
10:20 PM
So $f$ and its conjugate under $T$ agree somewhere.
 
Mhm
 
if $f$ is some continuous bijection of open path-connected set $D \subset \mathbb R^n$ onto $f(D) \subset \mathbb R^m$ and $g$ is some other such bijection, what can be said about how are $f$ and $g$ related?
 
I wonder if it's the usual degree homotopy contradiction game.
Why should they be related at all?
 
intuitively, they should, at least i think so @TedShifrin
 
Even if they were homeomorphisms, why ?
There are zillions of homeomorphisms of the unit disk. How are they related?
 
10:25 PM
is the number of them of the cardinality of $\mathbb R$?
 
I have no idea. At least.
 
yes, i think also at least
that is not much in the sense of cardinality
 
Balarka might know.
 
@BalarkaSen any ideas of the cardinality of those mappings?
 
There's a homeomorphism of the unit disk taking any point in the interior to any other point, so at least that of the continuum, yeah. I don't know if it's exactly that but suspect so.
 
10:29 PM
why some continuous bijections fail to be homeomorphisms, generally?
 
Properness
 
Lack thereof :)
 
i have been reading something about topological invariants and it seems that not all of them have been found and are known, so topology is still much of an active field (i am writing from a rather amateuristic viewpoint)
 
@TedShifrin It should follow from Lefschetz, right? $\langle T \rangle = \Bbb Z_2$ acts freely on $S^n$, and $f$ is $\Bbb Z_2$-equivariant under this action. This induces a map $f : \Bbb{RP}^n \to \Bbb{RP}^n$. If $n$ is even, the odd degree conditon is useless; $f$ always has a fixed point since $\Lambda(f; \Bbb Q) = 1$
If $n$ is odd, $\Lambda(f; \Bbb F_2)$ is sum of $n-2$ many $\pm 1$'s because the trace on $H_0$ and $H_n$ are both $1$ - here we are using $f$ is odd degree -, which can never be zero. Lefschetz works with any field coefficients, right?
 
I wondered about Lefschetz. Is $T$ necessarily conjugate to the antipodal map, or are you saying the quotient is h e to proj space?
Yes, any field.
 
10:42 PM
Ah, I suppose I don't know if the only free $\Bbb Z_2$-action on $S^n$ for $n$ odd is (conjugate to) the antipodal action
For $n$ even that is most certainly true.
It's true for $n = 3$ by geometrization lol; any action is linear. For high $n$ there might be many nonlinear actions and the claim is probably untrue.
 
10:55 PM
Although any free $\Bbb Z_2$-action on $S^n$ is "homotopic" to the antipodal action, because if $1$ acts by $S^n \to S^n$, that has no fixed point, so is homotopic to the antipodal map.
I wonder if the quotients really are homotopy equivalent if that's true
@TedShifrin Yeah $S^n/\Bbb Z_2$ for any free $\Bbb Z_2$-action on $S^n$ is homotopy equivalent to $\Bbb{RP}^n$.
Take $\phi : S^n \to S^n$, $\phi(x) = (x - 1\cdot x)/\|x - 1\cdot x\|$, where $1\cdot x$ is the action of $1 \in \Bbb Z_2$ on $x \in S^n$. Then $\phi(1\cdot x) = -x$
So it gives me a map $S^n/\Bbb Z_2 \to \Bbb{RP}^n$.
$\phi$ is homotopic to the identity map, so since upstairs it was a homotopy equivalence it must be so downstairs as well
 
What tools are there to bookmark a question/answer other than marking the question as favorite? And it seems you can only mark questions, not answers, as favorite. And I mean on MSE. Obviously, you can bookmark the link in your browser.
 
@MikeMiller Can you actually construct homotopy $\Bbb{RP}^n$'s like this? What is a non-linear free $\Bbb Z_2$-action on $S^n$, man?
Oh, is it this. The group of exotic $7$-spheres is $\Bbb Z_{28}$, so pick an element $S^7_e$ not of order $2$. Choose a homeomorphism $S^7_e \to S^7$ and conjugate the standard antipodal action on $S^7$ by this.
 
11:15 PM
$M=\begin{bmatrix}1&2&3&0&0\\1&2&3&0&0\\1&2&3&0&0\\1&2&3&0&0\\\end{bmatrix}$
is there a name for this kind of matrix?
 
Sorry, that's nonsense. That's a free $\Bbb Z_2$-action on $S^7$ which is not a smooth action.
Or something. Because $S^7_e$ does not admit a self-reversing diffeomorphism.
By construction it's conjugate to the antipodal action
 
I'm not sure what it would mean to conjugate by that
 
$S^7_e \to S^7 \to S^7 \to S^7_e$ where the middle map is antipodal on the standard $S^7$, I meant.
That's a free involution on $S^7_e$ which gives a free $\Bbb Z_2$-action on $S^7_e$
 
I guess, but non-smooth, at which point you're just talking about an involution on $S^7$ conjugate to the antipodal
 
Yeah, so it doesn't help.
I want an example of a free $\Bbb Z_2$-action on $S^n$ quotienting by which you don't get something homeomorphic to $\Bbb{RP}^n$
I suppose the element of order 2 in $\Bbb Z_{28}$ might have a $\Bbb Z_2$-action which is not conjugate to the antipodal action. It's not clear if the self-reversing diffeomorphism will be fixed point free, so that might not work either.
 
11:34 PM
@Simple give it a name, but choose more general matrices of that form
 
Bob
Does anybody here have a model that will tell me when the peak cases of the virus will occur in the US?
 
@Simple looks Vandermondeish
with some obvious differences
 
@TedShifrin degree of polynomial, this is taken from a chapter about Polynomial Rings.
 
@Ante I see, thanks you
 
all the columns are integer-multiples of the first one, so choose a nice name @Simple
 
11:42 PM
each column is not necessary to be the multiples of the first column, my case is that each column has repeated values
sorry for the confusing
 
@BalarkaSen I dunno man I would do it by constructing a fake RP^n and then seeing the existence of fake involutions.
 
$M=\begin{bmatrix}a&b&c&d\\a&b&c&d\\a&b&c&d\\a&b&c&d\end{bmatrix}$
 
@MikeMiller Oof
 
@Simple ok, then again each column is a multiple of the first one (and so every of each one), but not over $\mathbb Z$ but over $\mathbb R$, or over more general fields
unless a=0
why are you interested in those matrices?
 
is a problem from a deep learning book
 
11:59 PM
@Simple i see, please think carefully do you want to build robots that are going to solve math´s unsolved problems
 

« first day (3521 days earlier)      last day (1490 days later) »