« first day (4107 days earlier)      last day (1210 days later) » 

16:03
there's a version of that going on with a midterm i looked at
problem is intended as simple, but the wording opens it up to a much harder version
@Semiclassical What? Why did you tag me, I don't understand what you are saying "no, it's not" to?
hm, looks like the thing about one of the four answers being correct. i get a little arrow i can click on to see what the tag refers to. correctness of one answer is a safe assumption on many multiple choice exams (indeed, a key part of taking most such exams) but an assumption that does not hold in this case.
@leslietownes Did not know you could do that thing with the arrow, thanks for the little tip!

All I said was, that one of the answers is correct, just like @Koro's teacher also confirmed it. Later I just helped him a bit with the answer, since "e^x" is a special rule when derivating.
ah yes, koro. always stirring up trouble, that one.
my wife is trying to change her name on her frequent flyer miles so that the airline will recognize a trip she is about to return from. this appears to be more complicated than actually changing her name.
she realized the mismatch at the airport and committed the cardinal sin of racking up miles that went unallocated.
side note, she does not even remotely travel often enough for it to make a difference, but i suppose it's the principle of the thing.
i had 'silver status' on delta for a year, it was great. very hard to go back to being a normal person.
@NemanjaVuksanovic ?? what was confirmed?
16:17
@Koro Sorry, I meant @S.M.T. I mixed you two up, pardon me.
it's OK to blame koro for something. he must have done something.
hit dogs holler, as they say somewhere.
16:32
@NemanjaVuksanovic do you mean that one of the listed answers given for derivative of x^2 e^x is correct?
Or a different problem
@leslietownes :(
he admits it!
fin
fin
hi everyone
good morning, fin.
fin
fin
i hope im not asking stupid questions but like i have physics questions
so one second
16:34
F = ma. not mb or mc. ma. this is important.
fin
fin
im really confused on how i know what $d\ell', da', d\tau'$, etc. etc. are?
little bits of length and area and volume. from the hallowed tradition of speaking like that about things being integrated.
fin
fin
yea but like
there's something a little gross to me about speaking of charge "smeared out over a surface."
fin
fin
yea isnt everything in point charges?
16:36
if I recall correctly,they correspond to three things-1) line density, 2) area density, 3) volume density of charge
fin
fin
at the most basic level
Not in applications they arent
fin
fin
yea but like if you zoom in enough
once you're integrating you think of the line, surface, or volume as itself imbued with charge.
fin
fin
obv its useful to consider a surface of constant charge
16:37
at some extremely micro level everything may be quantized but that's not the scale at which these calculations take place.
fin
fin
no i know im just making sure
If you zoom in far enough you don’t have classical electrodynamics to begin with
fin
fin
@Semiclassical true
i'll defer to real physicists, i am talking out of my hat at this point.
fin
fin
so we tend to use these continuous charge distributions in most applications?
16:38
Maxwell’s equations entirely don’t care about “everything is point charges.” They work for smooth distributions just as well
i think the point charge is more of an abstraction than these other things. at our scale.
fin
fin
but yeah i feel terible for asking this but like say i have some path $\gamma(t)$ with constant charge per unit length $\lambda$
sure. A charged wire
fin
fin
or actually
ignore that whole equation
what do i do from here
to find $\vec{E}(\vec{r})$
and this isnt like im asking for homework questions i genuinely dont know where to start
and this isnt homework lol
First you write down a parametrization of your curve
fin
fin
16:42
okay
wait is it ok if we dont specify a parametrization
so i can see the general way of solving this
If you don’t then there’s not much to say. Lambda is uniform, so the field (up to prefactors) is $\int_C (\vec{r}’-\vec{r})|\vec{r}-\vec{r}’|^{-3}|d\ell’$
(Using the usual trick of direction vector = vector / magnitude)
fin
fin
yup
but what about $d\ell'$ is what im confused about
im sorry i dont have a good intuition on that stuff
You have some arc-length parametrization
fin
fin
ok so lets say $\gamma(t) = (t, t^2, 0)$
from $0 \leq t \leq 1$
Is that supposed to be a linear charge density or a parametrizef curve
fin
fin
16:49
sorry
used the wrong greek letter lol
its a parametrized curve
Fair. Then $|\gamma’(t)|=\sqrt{1+4t^2}$
fin
fin
yes
so what is $d\ell'$?
And the physics notation is $d\ell’=\sqrt{1+4t^2}\,dt$
fin
fin
and then the $\vec{r}$s become $\gamma(t)$?
The primed r’s
fin
fin
16:53
i thought $\vec{r'}$ was the location of the charge and we integrated over $\vec{r}$
wait
Other way around, hence why the electric field is a function of the unprimed r
fin
fin
ahhh
Also think about how notation works: it’s more natural for the primed variable to be a dummy variable
The integral is quite painful, mind
fin
fin
@Semiclassical also so if $\gamma$ was parametrized differently but described the same path (not necessarily at the same speed) id get the same value?
fin
fin
16:57
and also this means that $d\ell'$ is basically the displacement per unit time?
as a vector?
Distance travelled, not displacement. And no “per unit time” yet
fin
fin
oh right $\frac{d\ell'}{dt}$ would be that right
@Semiclassical ahh gotcha
Ya. Then it’s the tangential velocity
fin
fin
im gonna try to solve one of these by myself gimme a sec
Tho usually we don’t say that, b/c there’s no reason to treat a parametrization as being the trajectory of an actual particle
fin
fin
16:59
yea yea
velocity doesnt make sense here
btw when we're considering $d\textbf{something}$
thats always just relative to the other $d$'s?
fin
fin
ok that makes a lot of sense thank you
Np
In practice we just do cases where the surface is simple in some coordinate system
So some standard choices of parametrization
And Griffiths gives them in the front (back?) cover of the book
fin
fin
is griffiths a good book for ED
electrodynamics not erectile dysfunction
i like it so far
hi ted
good morning
Hi fin
fin
fin
17:04
im starting to get better intuition for more complicated integrals
i guess i kinda just gotta work with this stuff til it becomes second nature
Did you ever learn line integrals and surface integrals? Green, Stokes, divergence theorems? You see all that for E&M..
fin
fin
yeah
OK, good
fin
fin
i have some intuition for those
Physics notation is typically different, though.
fin
fin
17:05
like how the flux through a closed surface is the volume integral of divergence inside the surface?
or is that wrong
since flux determines flow through the surface and the divergence describes how much were "sucking in" or "blowing out"
That’s right.
fin
fin
okay awesome
which one is that
greens theorem?
Look at the names.
fin
fin
lol okay
imma try one of these problems with a continuous charge distribution
ted you were in my dream the other day and you had a huge brain like megamind
youre probably one of the smartest people i know
getting older is actually kinda nice im a way better person than i was 4 years ago
in most ways
Weird dream. Thanks, but …
fin
fin
17:11
but?
I’m just a usual math prof sort …
fin
fin
have you ever studied physics in depth? there seems to be a lot of math involved
like way more than i expected
ok wait this makes so much sense now
yall are the best
@Astyx @AlessandroCodenotti @user2103480 Porcupine Tree! They're back!
fin
fin
hi balarka
Hi fin
fin
fin
17:20
youre also really smart
i used to be hella jealous as a kid
now im just amazed
Thanks for the kind compliments. :)
fin
fin
youre welcome
17:36
@BalarkaSen ??
Hello To prove that $(]1,+\infty[,d)$ where $d(x,y)=\left|\frac{1}{\ln(x)}-\frac{1}{\ln(y)}\right|$ is not complet i consider this sequence $(x_n)=\exp(n)$

it is a Cauchy sequence because

$$\lim_{p,q\to+\infty} \left|\frac{1}{\ln(\exp(p))}-\frac{1}{\ln(\exp(q))}\right|=\lim_{p,q\to+\infty}\left|\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}\right|=0$$

but it is not convergent.
if we suppose that it converge to $\ell>1$ then


\begin{align*}
\lim_{n\to+\infty} d(x_n,\ell)=0&\Longleftrightarrow
\lim_{n\to+\infty} \left|\frac{1}{\ln(x_n)}-\frac{1}{\ln(\ell)}\right|=0
please can someone see my proof if it is correct ?
thanks for the info!
@fin i prefer the Dylan line: "Ah, but I was so much older then/I'm younger than that now."
Hello,

If we want to proof the following:
$$
\lceil \frac{n}{k} \rceil =\lfloor \frac{n-1}{k} \rfloor +1
$$
+
Why we start with assumption:
$$
\left( a-1 \right) k<n\le ak
$$
17:49
Salut @Astyx, hi, a Balarka
Salut
I mean why we don't start with other assumoption like:

(a-1)k$\le n <ak$?
you can
@Astyx. But it might not give us the proof we want?
Hi @Ted
17:54
So we start with what will lead us to the proof?
It would if we had $$\lceil \frac{n+1}{k} \rceil =\lfloor \frac{n}{k} \rfloor +1$$ instead I think
@Astyx. So what is the general thumb rule here to follow if any :/
suppose $n=a k$. then the statement to be proven is $\lceil a\rceil=\lfloor a-1\rfloor+1$
ugh
oh. i missed the difference
@Avra you want to replace the floors/ceils by integers
should start with $n=(a-1)k$
so $\lceil a\rceil = \lfloor a-2\rfloor+1$
17:59
Hello all. I am struggling with a differential equation: $$\frac{f'\left(x\right)}{f'\left(1-x\right)}=\frac{x}{1-x}$$
Does anyone know a name for something like this?
@Astyx. I see most of mathematicians like to start with base cases trying to build more complex proofs :/
The main point is that $\lceil x \rceil =\lfloor x \rfloor +1$ for all $x$ but integers
Is this your trick?
Seems pretty elementary, and I can tell that quadratic f() works, but I don't know how to solve it generally.
@CommonerG looks like a delay differential equation. very much not elementary
18:01
I came across those. It's not x-1 though. It's 1-x.
yes, but that's going to make it worse not better
Ok, I take back what I said about elementary.
@Avra is what my trick?
It seems "simple enough" :-D
18:02
@Astyx. Start with base cases and build up while trying to proof
I encountered it and though "I can figure this out, no problem"
thought*
well you could
But I don't even know the name of something like this.
@Astyx. Ever heard of Lasso theorems?
the way I see it is puting n/k and (n-1)/k on the real axis and seeing what happens
the rest is pushing symbols
18:03
Just asking no question follows
no
do you have boundary cnditions?
@Astyx. Non-convex optimization?
maybe
Wow! I see you are pure mathematician
I noticed that a lot of mathematicans like the pure side of it
18:05
Don't have any.
Convex optimization seems more applied to you
also non-convex
"Functional differential equation" seems to be the term for this at least.
@Astyx. Don't tell professor Copper that I asked you please
I am declaring this month "Work from Homevember."
huh
18:07
They are installing backup generators in my building, so there is going to be no power on Wednesday, so I need to work from home then.
And I am going to have family in town for Thanksgiving, and want to work from home for that period of time, too.
But it is a pain in the ass to transport and set up all of my equipment every time I move from one place to another, so I am going to do it only once (each direction), and work from home, starting tomorrow, until December.
what equipment? other than a laptop?
Laptop, 32 inch television I use as a second monitor (so that I can see my students), Wacom Cintiq display tablet (for writing), camera, headset.
makes sense.
And the associated cables and whatnot.
you need an office rv
18:11
Heh.
hello
@CommonerG one difference that does seem significant for your ODE vs the delay version: in the latter case, you're evaluating $f(t)$ at $t$ and $t-1$, so you're always looking at two different times. but when $t=1/2$, the functions $f(t)$ and $f(1-t)$ measure the same point in time
which feels like it could make things nifty
18:29
Now that I have worked the section again what I do have is precisely a delay differntial equation. I had a sign wrong.
$$\frac{f'\left(x\right)}{f'\left(x-1\right)}=\frac{x}{1-x}$$
I am still underwater trying to solve it, but at least I can search around now
the weird thing is that, if you let $g(x)=f'(x)$, then this becomes $g(x)/g(x-1)=-x/(x-1)$
so a functional equation
i think you'd usually write it as a system of equations: $y g(x)+x g(y)=0$ where $y=x+1$
though i forget exactly why
Nah nevermind. I had it right.
18:35
Just needed a negative on the right
$$\frac{f'\left(x\right)}{f'\left(1-x\right)}=-\frac{x}{1-x}$$
right
that said, substituting $g(x)=f'(x)$ still makes sense
so $g(x)/g(1-x) = -x/(1-x)$
might be best to focus on how to solve that functional equation
oh. something weird has to happen when $x=1/2$: $f'(1/2)/f'(1/2) = 1= -(1/2)/(1/2) = -1$
so that's problematic
best I have so far is that ax^2+c solves this.
But I don't know if that's all that solves this.
Let me try that substitution
18:54
@Balarka I saw! Hopefully they're better than Wilson's last solo works tho
Ok so I see what you are saying. Something funky happens at 1/2
$$\frac{f'\left(x\right)}{-f'\left(1-x\right)+f'\left(x\right)}=x$$
That's the untransformed version.
Can see what the issue is now at 1/2
The transformation wasn't valid there
Hi demonic.
Ok, returning to the function that I took the limit of to get this thing, it holds trivially at 1/2.
So 1/2 is not an issue
Hello everyone i asked a question on MSE today and still havnt recieved an answer, its kinda urgent, do you guys mind taking a look. its on contractive sequences math.stackexchange.com/questions/4293293/…
19:10
Hey @Semiclassical thanks for the help. I posted a question about it.
I'll keep messing with the functional form you suggested.
Here's the question in case you are interested. math.stackexchange.com/questions/4293796/…
@JoeShmo you should try to show they're jointly gaussian because then their uncorrelatedness implies independence
@BalarkaSen smh tagging me about bands that I'm too uncultured to have ever listened to
19:33
proving that they're jointly gaussian should be a matter of calculation, but you can also skip that if you hide the calculation in theorems. Since X and Y are independent, (X,Y) is jointly gaussian and then
$$ \begin{pmatrix}
X+Y \\
X-Y
\end{pmatrix}= \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1 \\
1 & -1
\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
X \\
Y
\end{pmatrix}$$ is, as a (nonsingular) linear transformation of a gaussian variable, also gaussian with covariance matrix $\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1 \\
1 & -1
\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
19:44
@JerryCohen why is it urgent? maths is not exactly er triage.
How would I go about evaluating the closed path integral $\oint_C{ay dx + 2xy dy}$ without greens theorem.
I tried to parameterise but that didnt work - I guess I could try and find a function which has that as its gradient?
@copper.hat well homework-.--
fin
fin
20:17
can someone help me with this problem
the formula we're given is $\vec{E}(\vec{r}) = \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_o}\int \frac{\vec{r} - \vec{r}'}{r^3}dq$
i know $dq = \sigma dA$
and i can obviously parametrize the surface
but idk what to do with that
@ user2103480 yes, that's what I ended up doing
Problem:Let $f$ be entire such that $f(z)f(1/z) = a \in \Bbb{C}$ for every $z \in \Bbb{C}$. Prove that there exists $n \in \Bbb{N}_0$ and $b \in \Bbb{C}$ such that $f(z) = bz^n$.
First, I tried to consider power series, but I couldn't see how that would help. Then I found this post: math.stackexchange.com/questions/82288/…
I was thinking, maybe if I could first argue that $f$ is a polynomial, then from $f(z)f(\frac{1}{z}) = a$ I could deduce that the right coefficients are $0$.
Not entirely sure. I could use some hints/pointers.
From $f(z)f(\frac{1}{z}) =a$, I think we get $f(0) \lim_{z \to \infty} f(z) = b$, but I'm not sure what to conclude from this.
20:34
i'm not sure i understand the hypothesis. is it only for z nonzero?
i'm thinking about where the roots of f, if any, have to be.
The problem states that the equation holds for every $z \in \Bbb{C}$.
well this needs care in its interpretation at zero, anyway. this isn't physics. :) the same a for all z, i presume?
Yes, all equations hold for all $z \in \Bbb{C}$.
note that if a is nonzero, then if f has any zeros at all, they have to be at zero. this is why i was concerned about zero. certainly f(z) can't be nonzero at nonzero z.
also, a can't be zero unless f is identically zero. that ought to be an easy argument, because zeros of an entire function are isolated.
Sure, that sounds right.
20:51
so if f is not identically zero, there's some smallest N where its Nth taylor coefficient at 0 doesn't vanish. power series representation. the function f(z)/z^N (removable singularity at 0) has no zeros. we just need to figure out why it's constant. maybe it's bounded away from zero in modulus? that would allow an application of liouvilles theorem to f^{-1}.
Why does $f^{-1}$ exist?
Oh, you mean $1/f$?
Ah, okay. This is nice.
i'm trying to do as little work as possible, there's always some silly trick involving liouville's theorem. we haven't really used the hypothesis yet, only that f had, at most, zeros at zero.
i get paid every time i say 'zero,' by the zero foundation. i should point that out. this is sponsored content.
@leslietownes Sell out!
I remember when you used to be in it for the roots, man!
20:59
@robjohn Apparently I can no longer find a post (that the OP saw fit to delete? I can't be sure) to which I wrote an answer. I used to be able to find these on my computer. This was a post asking if two surfaces with the same Gaussian curvature had to be isometric.
But now, big ZERO owns your SOUL!
I'm annoyed by the deletion, but even more annoyed that I can no longer find it.
@fin take a look at Griffith's discussion of area elements in cylindrical coordinates
there's an expression for $dA$ you'll use again and again when integrating over disks using cylindrical coordinates
(getting comfortable with the factors that arise from cartesian/cylindrical/spherical coordinates is a Big Deal, hence why they're in the front cover iirc)
@Xander Yup, that one. I guess it got closed for multiple answers. Moishe didn't link to mine, of course. Grr.
How come I can't find it anymore? I used to be able to see deleted questions (I thought) if I had something to do with them.
21:06
i think you're able to see such things if you have the link, but maybe they don't appear on your list of answers anymore.
it's a pain, yeah
Working with the kroncker delta, why is $\delta_{i}^{i}=4$ if we work with "4d" space?
shouldn't it be 1?
It doesn’t show up even under all my activities …
sounds like the trace
but why isn't it 1?
Einstein summation, monoidal
21:08
You also sum in $\delta^{i}_{i}$ ?
ah makes sense
One reason I always wrote summation signs when I taught or wrote papers .
right
i thought the summation convention was when we have two 'things' in our expression, like $A^iB_i$
No, upper and lower indices, however.
right, yeah
thanks @TedShifrin
21:10
the conspiracy minded among us would believe that the convention is designed to keep people out.
There are lots of traces in geometry and physics.
yeah, I was confused because $\delta^i_j$ was defined to be $1$ if $i=j$ and $0$ if $i\neq j$, but apparently, $i,j$
and so I thought that meant $\delta^i_i=1$
but glad you cleared it up
Only if you specify no summation.
expressions like $\delta_i^i=4$ are great if you're absolutely sure of context
but boy are they risky if you not
@user193319 note that h(z) = f(z)/z^N satisfies h(z) h(1/z) = c because f does. h not having zeros means there are 0 < a < b with a < |h(z)| < b on the closed unit disc, and then |h(1/z)| = |c/h(z)| > |c|/b holds for all |z| < 1, showing that h is also bounded away from zero on the complement of the closed unit disc. so 1/h is indeed a bounded entire function and constant.
21:25
@Semiclassical if the context is physics (which one infers from dim 4), then no doubt! :)
fin
fin
if i have a surface integral with $dA = r dr d\theta$ can i also do it by $dA = r d\theta dr$?
if its easier
Hello all. I have a question about notation, which is almost certainly too trivial for a post. In this: math.stackexchange.com/a/4290572/822508 answer to my recent question, the second and third to last equations use an angled bracket notation which I'm not familiar with. It doesn't seem to indicate a vector (otherwise it would indicate a vector being equal to a scalar). Before I comment on the post, perhaps it's immediately clear to someone else?
fin
fin
or like what are the conditions to swap integrals like that
@fin there's some discussion on it here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_integration_(calculus)
but basically you can trust that any examples you'd see in the context of electric fields will be fine
@10GeV it appears to be their notation for a dot product.
fin
fin
21:28
thats weird
physicist functions are allowed to be weird (e.g. we love our delta functions) but not in a pathological way
$\langle a, b \rangle$ meaning $a \cdot b$.
@leslietownes Thanks! I had thought so, however I've never seen angled brackets used in this way.
i don't know how commonly it is used for the dot product. it's sometimes use for a more general thing that might or might not be a dot product, but i don't see any context suggesting that here.
some people feel that $\cdot$ is overloaded.
@leslietownes in physics you'll see $\langle a|b\rangle$ as the analogue of that in QM, b/c huzzah for braket notation
21:31
@TedShifrin Since you have answered it recently, you can find it by clicking the link "recently deleted answers" in the answer page
@fin to put a finer point on it: if the counterexample is one you'd need a mathematician to come up with, it's probably fine in physics
i really don't ever find myself having to worry about "can i justify swapping the order of integration"
@Arctic Thanks so much. I never knew about that little link!
@fin if you’re curious, watch my video(s) on Funini’s Theorem, with lots of discussion.
my advisor used to call the interchange of variables in a multivariable supremum the 'supini theorem.' nobody found it funny, which was exactly why he did it.
So i'm working on a problem here in my measure theory class, that asks "if g:R->R is continuous and f=g almost everywhere, then f is continuous almost everywhere". I have a feeling that maybe this should be true, but then I was thinking if I can get f to disagree with g on a dense measure zero set, then maybe it isn't? Could someone give me some guidance here
It looks like the spider caught a couple of flies :)
fin
fin
21:47
@TedShifrin does your textbook have a lot of practice problems for more complex integrals
id like to gain some comfort being able to solve and have intuition about these integrals before i dive in to E&M
k: that seems off to me. there's definitely a difference between a function h being literally continuous a.e., and there existing a continuous function g for which h = g a.e. as you suggest for example, the characteristic function of the rationals (a good dense measure zero set) does not have the first property although it has the second.
unfortunately sometimes the latter is what people mean by 'continuous a.e.' some books break this down and others don't.
@fin Plenty, but as I warned you the other day for line integrals and surface integrals I used differential forms. I did explain it with classical terminology as well.
Don’t know why that linked to the wrong message.
@leslie seems like the ruler function is an example. Continuous precisely on the irrationals, and it is $0$ a.e.
Comment for @K.defaoite This fits your description. The Thomae function is the common name, I think.
oh yeah, that one.
22:36
Yes, what they said.

« first day (4107 days earlier)      last day (1210 days later) »