@amWhy The fur collar and the mask were almost too much, so I almost left the fur collar off of the suit while wearing the mask; but that didn't look right either. I kept the collar.
@TedShifrin In the end I think my goal of giving tastes of both algebraic and geometric topology was not the right choice. Jack of all trades problem. I think I would probably try to use surfaces (manifolds) as a source of ways to understand the previous constructions until the end of class, when we try to introduce a tool (like homology or pi_1 or such) to distinguish surfaces. But time constraints prevent one from introducing both effectively.
I have outgrown the StackExchange hat event. Instead I write a list of things that I think I deserve a hat for, and send it to my friends and family.
I think one could probably write a great topology course which uses surfaces as its primary examples and motivations. You will occasionally run into walls (like proving that interior points are not boundary points) which you will axiomatize until the last week of the course, when you will prove them with H_1 or whatever.
@MikeMiller I like that alternative! Yeah, I've slowly lost interest in wearing such hats. I'd rather have a custom made hat that 10% or more of math.se users are not also wearing!
Yeah, @MikeM, it's always tempting to try to do too much. I never tried to define manifolds in point-set, always saving those for differential topology instead. But doing surfaces and some of the fundamental group stuff could be quite coherent. I think homology is just too much.
My final "challenge problem" sheet investigates isotopy classes of embedded discs as a way to define w_1: pi_1(S) -> Z/2 and orientations. I expect some 3 people will do it.
I think there's basically no way to make this accessible to everyone within a 1-sem course. Just not enough time.
Yeah, I have been posting challenge sheets since about the midway mark, called "Curios"
I might do the same for my computational linalg course next semester. It would be nice to give ways to engage with the deeper material for my math major studens
The other good thing is that if your best students work on those (and you are doing the grading), you can write good letters for them if/when they go on to grad school.
Yes, that's good advice (and saves you work), but if you teach an advanced course and they engage more with you than with other profs, then maybe not. I think I remember writing for a few people from my MIT postdoc days, and certainly during my early years (pre-tenure) at UGA.
Yes, you're exactly right. I learned a lot from seeing your HWs where you gave different levels of assignment. The idea to try to write "two courses" tailored to different levels of student was fantastic and I internalized it right away.
I'll try to do that in a more formally codified way next time instead of giving non-credit bonus material.
That diff geo course was actually 3 levels (with all students required to do one medium-level problem each assignment).
But the computational-only level of that course is not present in most advanced courses, I guess.
As I explained to you, though, I was worried about good students who would dumb themselves down to be lazy or ... As I said, that really only happened a few times (one the exceptional case of an A+ student who should have done more medium/challenging ones). It puts the onus on the student to self-challenge, which I suppose is good.
Yes, I agree. There are multiple problems. Do you focus the course on too advanced topics (suitable for some math majors, but not all), thereby leaving some students behind and giving a warning at the start of the course? Or do you focus on the students who need a lot of patience, thereby leading the advanced students to feel bored? Obviously neither is an acceptable/desirable solution.
This ignores your third level (the grad-student level).
Well, my third level was intended for the best undergrads too (like ones intending to go to grad school). Obviously I wanted them all to do a blend of levels. ... The problem you state is really a problem with every course, even calculus. My personal taste was to teach to the upper-middle, try to get the bottom to work with me to improve (heavy office hours), and challenge the best with the challenging exercises, not particularly my lectures.
The problems are actually even more clear at the calculus level
since you have plenty of students who are strong enough to (and want to) become math majors, but those courses are not at all written for aspiring math majors
I'm really looking forward to linear algebra
I think I can write a good course that caters to the weaker student, the strong applied student, and the strong math student
I don't know that. LOL, yes, that's fine with me. But this sounds more advanced. Our course at UGA was introductory level. Strang is sort of standard, but there are newer applications than he covers.
What I wanted to say was that it has the right mixtures of applied and pure topics. It's too high-level for the "average" student in a first linalg course.
Ah, so your course is also first. Ours was intended for CS and stat majors, but now most math majors who are "applied" take it instead of the proof-based one (in which a lot of faculty didn't really teach proving much anyhow).
The frustrating thing is that while I don't care that a good linalg student understands proofs, I do care that they understand what's going on (especially with change of basis stuff and eigenvector stuff)
And it's hard to imagine a course that gets people to really understand what's going on without proofs
It's a good course for teaching proof-writing, because the proofs are so basic (at least for the first half). Change of basis is not really a proof. It's just an equation that makes perfect sense, although some books do obscure that.
But, yeah, students struggle with change of basis because sometimes the "old" basis is really the new one and the "new" one is really the old (standard) one. But I found it better to always have the old one be standard and just let them rethink the formula.
I will have to think of this with my prep work, which doesn't begin 'til the break starts.
If you have suggestions for good applications to cover I'd be glad to hear them. I'd like to include the "curio" model I used with topology, but with both pure and applied curios. I think it can be made to work.
I could ask my pal and co-author Malcolm Adams, who's taught the applied course, what applications/sources he decided to include. Or you could email him on my suggestion. :)
Well, let me assure you that I'm pretty close to the amount of scotch I can consume while remaining productive, so at least I'm having a good time tonight
How can I show that a geodesic on a surface of revolution could not be asymptotic to a latitudinal curve unless the latitudinal curve is itself a geodesic?
Just wondering, is there a term for an open set which is the interior of its own closure? Or for a closed set which is the closure of its own interior?
Hello!! I have written the formula of Newton's method to appoximate $a^{1/n}$. Now I want to show the inequality $x_{k+1}-a\leq \left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )(x_k-a)$.
Since we subtract at the left side $a$ instead of $a^{1/n}$ we cannot consider it as the error, right?
I achieved to show the inequality but for $a\geq 1$:
$$x_{k+1}=\left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )x_k+\frac{a}{nx_k^{n-1}} \leq \left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )x_k+\frac{a}{n\left (a^{1/n}\right )^{n-1}} = \left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )x_k+\frac{a}{na^{1-\frac{1}{n}}} = \left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )x_k+\frac{a^{\frac{1}{n}}}{n} $$ Then subtracting at both sides "$a$" we get $$x_{k+1}-a\leq \left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )x_k+\frac{a}{n}-a=\left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )x_k-\left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )a=\left (1-\frac{1}{n}\right )(x_k-a)$$
We have that $x_k\geq a^{1/n}$.
Could you give me a hint for the case $a<1$ ? Or is there an other way to show the inequality without taking cases for $a$ ?
I saw the below sentence in some notes:
Let $A\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ be a not necessarily symmetric, strictly positive definite matrix, $x^TAx>0$, $x\neq 0$ und $Q\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ an orthogonal matrix, then $B=Q^TAQ$ has a LU decomposition.
I want to understand this implication,...
"The hand of God" was a phrase used by the Argentine footballer Diego Maradona to describe a goal that he scored during the Argentina v England quarter finals match of the 1986 FIFA World Cup. The goal took place on 22 June 1986, at the Azteca Stadium in Mexico City. Under association football rules, Maradona should have received a yellow card for using his hand and the goal disallowed. However, as the referees did not have a clear view of the play and video assistant referee technology did not yet exist, the goal stood and Argentina led 1–0. The game ended with a 2–1 win for the Argentines, thanks...
Fact. Given any triangulation of the sphere, you can come up with a circle packing on the sphere whose nerve (vertices are centers, geodesic edges between vertices of tangential circles, faces made up of triples of tangential circles) is isomorphic to it.
Right. You can delete the face at infinity, and make it a thing about finite planar triangulations if you want.
Kind of clear in retrospect, isn't it? Like, draw small circles around each vertex of the triangulation, slowly bloat them and see where tangency is achieved.
Take any planar domain $\Omega \subset \Bbb C$. Pick a small radius $\varepsilon > 0$ and consider the standard hexagonal circle packing on $\Bbb C$ by circles of radius $\varepsilon$. Draw all the circles which appear inside of $\Omega$ in this packing. This gives a finite planar triangulation; by Fact you can construct a circle packing of the unit disk whose nerve is this triangulation.
This gives a map $\Omega \to \Bbb D$. Thurston: Let $\varepsilon \to 0$, and you converge to the Riemann map.
So if the first equality above^^ is true, and the starting point is s=1/3+14*I then there is no scenario where the nearest Riemann zeta zero rho (closest to s) is not on the critical line.
Yeah I guess that's correct. So eg the circle packing on $\Omega$ never reaches $\partial \Omega$, it just gets very close to it, whereas in $\Bbb D$ the corresponding packing actually have horocircles; it's an honest packing of the closed disk.
Which explains why $\Bbb D \to \Omega$ would extend to the boundary, but not the other way
It's like, if you had "flexible" disks whose radii would shrink if you applied force to it (whilst still remaining a circle), and if you tried to squeeze the boundary of the domain in the left to a circle, you'd get a picture on the right, and that'd be approximately biholomorphic
Hm, I'm confused. The maps you get by circle packing are not holomorphic, how do you plan to use Montel?
I am saying by uniform quasiconformality, they are equicontinuous and clearly bounded, because maps to D. By Arzela-Ascoli you get a convergent subsequence
And thus the limit function. Now the limit is (1+vareps)-quasiconformal for all vareps
I would like to know what you guys/girls think of starting a textbook by its exercises, and then going back to theory to learn how to solve each problem.
Consider the equation
$\frac{\partial{y}}{\partial{t}}+y\frac{\partial{y}}{\partial{x}}=\Gamma \frac{\partial^2y}{\partial{x}^2}$
where $\Gamma$ is a constant term.
Given that $y=\frac{y_0}{2}-\frac{y_0}{2}tanh(\frac{x-ct}{L})$ satisfies the equation above, find $L$ and $c$ in terms of the const...
let's say you have a matrix transformation acting on points in $(0,1)^2$, given by $h_s$=$\begin{pmatrix} e^{-e^{s}} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{-e^{-s}} \end{pmatrix}.$
and another matrix transformation acting on points in $(0,1)^2$, given by $g_s$=$\begin{pmatrix} 1-e^{-e^{s}} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{-e^{-s}} \end{pmatrix}.$
obviously these transformations "overlap." So how exactly would you combine $g_s$ and $h_s$ to recover a net transformation? I think $g_s \circ h_s$?
I heard that the monkey saddle is an example which shows that the converse of Gauss remarkable theorem does not holds in a sense that rotation along $z$-axis does not change the Gaussian curvature but not isometry.
But rotation along $z$-axis is isometry isn't it? It's a rigid motion
There's a standard example of a diffeo between two surfaces that preserves curvature but is not an isometry. Any rotation will not map the surface to itself. Please give the exact, precise statement and the source.
I have a question on isomorphic vector bundles. How continuous maps that maps fibers to fibers isomorphically then it has to be a homeomorphism. In the Milnor-STASHEFF's book the authors proved it locally and concluded that bundles should be homeomorphic. But why?
I think he gets somewhere with the diffeo given by rotating in the $uv$-plane. If we trust that horrible formula. We have to see what the first fundamental form is.
So the point is that you need f^{-1} to be continuous as well. It suffices to check this locally because it suffices to check continuity locally in general.
Your map f is locally of the form (x, v) mapsto (x, A_x(v)) where A_x is a family of matrices, continuously depending on x. Here I have chosen trivializing charts for both E and F.
OK, @love_sodam, so rotation of the uv-plane induces a diffeo of the surface that is not an isometry but preserves curvature. But nothing to do with rotating in space.
Then f^{-1} is locally (x,v) mapsto (x, A_x^{-1} v). If you can show that this is continuous, then f^{-1} is locally continuous, hence continuous everywhere.
But as composites of continuous maps are continuous, it comes down to showing that the inversion map GL(n) -> GL(n), A mapsto A^-1, is continuous
Let me point out here that the authors did not show that "locally, E and F are isomorphic". They already have a purported isomorphism from E to F. They just need to check that its inverse is continuous.
And continuity of a given map may be checked locally.
I'm not going to click the link, I have other things to do if you can't say why I didn't already answer your question
Sorry
f^{-1} is a function, which you are trying to show is continuous. For any function between topological spaces, if that function is locally continuous (for every x in the domain, there is an open set around x so that the function is continuous on that open set), then it is globally continuous.
That is all they're using here
@BalarkaSen Do you happen to know an example of a meromorphic function which has an antiderivative, but for which it isn't obvious?
Something meromorphic at 0 where you can check that the integral around 0 is 0 perhaps
@MikeMiller Well, Lets to apply this proof to mobius strip and cylinder. I think One can find a local continuous map between them that maps fibers to fibers. isn't?
Thursday we will talk about the FTC from real calculus and how it holds over in complex calculus; the contour integral is still an antiderivative evaluated at endpoints, but now you only get an antiderivative if your contour integrals are path-independent. It would be nice to illustrate the latter point with an example.
On the other hand, "residue theory" is no more than the observation that your function is a polynomial in 1/z plus a holomorphic function, so that you can just apply Cauchy
Is there any general terminology about this: The distance circle of radius $r>0$ about a point $p$ in a regular surface $S$ is $C_r(p)=\{q\in S: d(p,q)=r\}$ where $d(p,q)$ denotes the intrinsic distance (or geodesic distance I think)