So I looked at wiki, @Thor, and I don't see how one has a meaningful notion. "$G$ is said to be an internal Zappa=Szép product of $H$ and $K$." OK, but how do we multiply?
Oh, the external notion looks like a generalization of semidirect products.
I see, so it's stupid. You multiply elements of $HK$ in $G$ and use the fact that each element of $G$ is uniquely in $HK$ to say that's the answer. I do not like this.
What should I do if I've noticed that a Wikipedia article states a formula several times, with a reference in which the formula isn't actually proved? Note that Prime-counting function is often used.
i have never edited wikipedia. maybe note it on the talk page? it may be howling into the void.
it would seem hard for random people in their basements (what i imagine most wikipedians to be) to analyze questions regarding what is or isn't proved in a textbook they might not have
the most recent posts upon it appear to be from 2019 and discuss a book saying certain formulas do not have proofs in the literature. maybe uncited formulas are running rampant on that page.
I feel like writing it on the talk page results in absolutely nothing. I'll ask a few people if they also think that there is no proof (at least not in the references) and then I'll just delete everything
If $x \in \mathbb{C}^{m}$ and $A$ is a $m \times n$ matrix, prove the following inequalities: (a) $\|x\|_{\infty} \leq\|x\|_{2}$. (b) $\|x\|_{2} \leq \sqrt{m}\|x\|_{\infty}$. (c) $\mid A\left\|_{\infty} \leq \sqrt{n}\right\| A \|_{2}$. (d) $\|A\|_{2} \leq \sqrt{m}\|A\|_{\infty}$. How to do this last 2 inequalities I know some how I need to use (a) and (b) and use operator norm but vector product is not defined for this case
Announcement: Because we are using approach0 to attend a math search competition, and to the best of my team interests, approach0 will resume service after May 12.
The question is: Define a first order language for trigonometry. State the arity of all the function and relation symbols you want your language to have.
My attempt: the language will be $$\mathcal{L} ~\text{is} ~ \{ 0, 1, +, \times, \sin, \cos , \tan , \leq \}$$
The arity of $+$ and $\times$ is two, and that of $\sin, \cos, \tan$ is one. The arity of $\leq$ is two.
I have a finite nonempty set G with an associative binary operation. Cancellation also holds on G. Then G is to be proven to be a group.
I understand that since G is given to be non empty, there is no harm in assuming that let $a\in G$. Let $|G|=m$. And by closure $a,a^2,a^3,\cdots, a^{m-1}$ should also be in group. It is to be noted here that since $G$ is finite for every $i\in \mathbb N$ there must exist a $j$ such that $a^i=a^j$
Case 1: $a,a^2,\cdots, a^{m-1}$ are all distinct. Then $a^m \in G$ by closure. It follows that $a^m$ can’t be equal to $a^j$ for any $j: 1\le j\lt m$.
I’m stuck here. Any hints on how to proceed? Thanks.
@Bhavay Yes, it's tilted, so we can rotate axis by say thetha , then in standard form, i.e when it's axis are parallel to coordinate axes coefficient of xy =0.
So I have just recently started exploring machine learning, and for a project I was required to train the YOLO v5 model. I first tried it on the coco128 dataset:https://www.kaggle.com/ultralytics/coco128..
repository of the yolo v5:
https://github.com/ultralytics/yolov5
I followed this tutorial: ...
Say we are integrating something as simple as $\frac{x}{e^{x^2}}$ and for some reason you mess up and u-sub. setting $u = e^{x^2}$. You get something like $\frac{x}{u} \frac{du}{2x e^{x^2}}$ as the integrand. It kind of looks like you could "re sub" for that $e^{x^2}$ in the second fraction to get $\frac{1}{2} \frac{du}{u^2}$ as the integrand, which still integrates to the correct answer. Just wondering if you can "double substitute" like that or if this is some coincidence.
note it's not 'resubstitution' in the sense of a 'substitution' being a change of variable in the calculus sense. it's substitution in the sense of replacing an expression with an equivalent expression.
which is more general and more valuable. but yeah, a lot of people forget that.
im not sure what that would look like, but the problem is basically diagonalizing a $3\times 3$ matrix. is this coming from a linear algebra context? (you were asking about strangs linear algebra lectures, right?)