« first day (4490 days earlier)      last day (827 days later) » 
01:00 - 21:0021:00 - 00:00

01:00
any interesting definitions of distance from total randomness? e.g., to describe how far away the movement of a particle is from being fully regular, or from being totally erratic
nevermind that, i need to find a nice definition of randomness first
No clue.
 
1 hour later…
02:13
Folks, help me out, I can't make sense of this. How can a median be completely out of the range? I take it 0,08 is the median, 0,13±0,02 is the average and the spread of values. "Biomass systems have the lowest median power density of 0.08 We/m2 (μ = 0.13 ± 0.02 We/m2), and the lowest maximum power density (0.60 We/m2)."
@shintuku Maybe the Random.org real-time statistics would be interesting to you: random.org/statistics
And these 2 videos are great: youtu.be/9rIy0xY99a0
02:30
@CottonHeadedNinnymuggins thanks for the reference!
@SergeyZolotarev your question doesn’t make sense yet. Median can certainly be lower than mean. It says lowest median, so presumably in other samples, medians are bigger.
does anyone happen to know if we have $M_n(R)$ (an arbitrary matrix ring), then can we write a subring of this ring in general as $M_n(S)$. I feel like no...but i also feel like yes. since any such subring must be a set of nxn matrices. I guess then it comes down to whether all matrix rings must be built on the structure of a ring, which again i think the answer is yes?
where $R$ is a ring and $S$ is a subring of $R$
the answer is no, but before spoiling with examples, you might think about why that 'maybe yes' doesn't really lead to 'yes'
consider looking for examples / counterexamples with e.g. n = 2 and rings R that have no proper nontrivial subrings
i think mean should be replaced by pleasant.
is $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ such an example of a ring with no proper nontrivial subrings?
02:42
@SillyGoose Think about subrings you know with $R=\Bbb Z$.
silly: that's a good example
P.S. do your rings have identity?
hm my rings and matrix rings are completely arbitray i believe
okay let me think about it for a moment thank you
Hm okay wait $R$ is a ring with identity $1 /neq 0$
And a subring must likewise have identity. This is important.
Why $QR$ factorization besides headache?
02:53
oh okay i think i see a counterexample. taking from ya'll's suggestions, even though $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ has no proper nontrivial subrings, $M_2(\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ does in fact have sub rings!?
thus it cannot be possible to represent all subrings in the form of $M_2(S)$ where $S$ is a subring of $R$
Useful in numerical (computer) applications, including finding eigenvalues/eigenvectors by iteration.
i see why looking at such rings is fruitful for counter examples now i think
What subrings does it have?
Oh, you’re so helpful.
Inane.
i think $\begin{pmatrix} \bar{0} & \bar{2} \\ \bar{0} & \bar{0} \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} \bar{0} & \bar{0} \\ \bar{0} & \bar{0} \end{pmatrix}$ is a subring of $M_2(\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$?
non empty, closed under sub and multiplication
where bars denote module 2
Huh? $\bar 2 = \bar 0$?
02:56
oh
oops
lol
You told me subrings need identity.
oh yes they do in the actual problem i am trying to solve, but i wanted to think through the more general case as well since leslie's suggestion came as a result from that original case
Well, Leslie’s suggestion is still good. Keep trying.
well if i replace $\bar{2}$ with $\bar{1}$ the resulting two matrices from above should form a subring?
What did I just say earlier?
03:00
oh this ring has identity i see, is that what you are referring to?
So, you need the identity. What else?
we need an additive identity as well if the result is going to be a ring
and those two are closed under sub and multiplication
err the subset of those two elements form a subring then
True. Good. Another nontrivial example?
03:05
i think the subset containing {1, 0, [1 0 \\ 0 0], [0 0 \\ 0 1]} is another example where ive omitted the bars
I can’t decipher that.
Oh, I see.
Any possibilities with non-diagonal?
Anyhow, you now see lots of examples.
yes! thank you
well this makes the problem more complicated xD
Such wonderful contributions by way of edits. This is what the rep system leads to.
Is there a mechanical algorithm/set of rules for doing forward induction on a game tree or is it an "every problem is too different" type of situation? I've seen a few examples, but their trees are so small I fear I may be using inapplicable logic and still reaching the correct strategy vector.
roughly i feel that as long as you aren't able to construct the four elements which generate the entire space [1 0 \\ 00], [0 1 \\ 0 0], [0 0 \\ 1 0], [0 0 \\ 0 1], you will have a subring that isn't proper
though perhaps that is trivial statement
03:12
Is there a WolframAlpha command to calculate QR factorizations?
do ya'll think that it makes a big difference whether one learns intro. topology or differential geometry first?
03:27
I hate this linear algebra class
silly: either one could work, depending on the instructor. at my undergrad, with my options, DG would have been a better first choice.
are topology and diffeg intertwined very much? or are they quite separate?
let's add real analysis to the question of topology or diff geometry first..............asking for a friend.........🙃🙃🙃
Also, from the previous discussion: is the correct statement that any subring of $M_n(R)$ can be written as $M_n(S)$ where $S$ is a subset of $R$?
well, i imagine that real analysis preceeds topology
03:42
What if the Real analysis book goes into measure theory as well?
get another real analysis book
don't use rudin to learn real analysis
Lol.....there are a few options.....this is for the future though.
I remember when the Internet told me that math stops being prerequisite soup after ODEs lol.
I think I had looked at Folland's, and Royden's
@SillyGoose At the undergraduate level, separate. At the graduate level, intertwined. Diff geo, at least as I taught it, is a blend of computation and proof at the undergrad. Topology is way more abstract and all proofs.
03:45
you cannot approach mathematics as something that you tick off prerequisites and then do
apart from anything else, you will encounter the same themes again & again
I'll revisit this question at a later juncture in a month or so when I should be done the linear algebra book.
intervleave them. they will help each other.
cross training for mathematics
04:03
That is how I have it somewhat on my study schedule, but I'm going to still be doing Ted's book by the time I'm done the linear algebra book. Ideally I would be doing them at the same time, but.......life 🤷🏿‍♂️🤷🏿‍♂️
04:25
You’re stuck with Ted’s book for an eternity.
@Xander @robjohn I suppose I'm out of line, but this nonsense is driving me nuts.
Let it go, professor; let them live entrapped in Plato's cave.
It's becoming rampant. Lots should be in caves.
True, true.
The internet has created these caves.
04:36
As much as we jest, your book has been a game changer for me Ted. I was thinking after I finish the linear algebra book I would have to make a huge deviation to look at the geometry of linear regressions....well you through column spaces and the business at me...so my deviation may not occur right away...
but I am stuck with Ted's book for eternity.
I sent you that MA thesis on the geometry/linear algebra in stats, didn’t I?
Yea you did. I got it. I glanced at it. Going to take a more in depth look at it after I'm done the linear algebra book. .
No matter. You’ll find it interesting, I suspect.
04:52
So tired
@Thorgott
I’ll try to show that a regular countable space has countable basis.
That’s not what Munkres suggested, although the proof may be similar to regular + 2nd countable implies normal.
Yesterday, I highlighted that part in the solution I wrote as I was not sure or wrongly thought that to be trivial.
@TedShifrin then how do we show that regular connected is uncountable?
(With more than 1 element)
just out of curiosity I googled regular countable space......is this a generalization of a Lebegue Number?
not sure. Lebesgue number comes handy in compact metric spaces.
05:01
Yea that's why I wonder if it is a generalization since this doesn't necessarily have a metric.....but don't let me distract you
Countable is Lindelōf and regular + Lindelöf is normal.
@Thorgott but that's easy.
Suppose that X is countable, then I show that X has a countable basis.
Let $\scr B$ be any basis. Let's enumerate elements of $X$ as $x_i$'s. Fix an $i\in \mathbb N, x_i\in B $ for some B is the basis. Call this B, $B_i$.
This way, we can get $\{B_i\}$'s out of $\scr B$.
@TedShifrin Have I given the correct argument for Lindelof?
That’s not what Lindelöf means. And I don’t see how you have justified you have a basis.
05:16
Lindelof means any cover has a countable subcover.
@D.C.theIII Which linear algebra book are you working through?
So you mean that I have $B_i$'s but do they actually form a basis.
@SillyGoose Friedberg, Insel, SPence
Ah
do you prefer that book for any particular reason
say relative to hoffman and kunze or halmos. i have only read through parts of kunze, but i have heard good things about friedberg and halmos
Well where I go to university it is the book used by the students in the Math Specialist stream, i.e the top dawgs
05:21
ah i see
as an added bonus, Ted recommends it at the back of his textbook for "further reading"
@SillyGoose it is a very thorough book....abstract, but thorough
05:42
2
A: Showing every connected regular space having more than one point is uncountable without using proof by contradiction

Henno BrandsmaThe conclusion of the theorem is that $X$ is uncountable. This is defined, usually, as "$X$ is not countable". And logically speaking (in first order logic) the way to prove a statement of the form $\lnot \phi$ is to assume $\phi$ and derive a contradiction from it (even Brouwer, in his intuition...

This answer does not explain why X is $T_4$.
@TedShifrin Did you see my latest post? It's about the question I asked yesterday. I thought using JCT is quite overkill but seems it's the usual argument.
I voted it's a duplicate btw. That question had already been asked several times on MSE
I know that when I wrote that qualifying exam question in 1995 I had in mind a proof without JCT. Simple connectivity should suffice. I’ll think more tomorrow.
@Koro I commented there. That proof uses no contradiction and the result was in the OP.
yeah, I understood.
The proof of regular Lindelof= normal is similar to regular + countable basis= normal.
05:57
Yes.
HB hasn't been online in a long time.
I hope everything's okay.
I don’t encounter him often.
This is the last contribution by Henno here in MSE. He passed away the day he posted this answer. See also this meta discussionArctic Char Sep 15 at 20:31
whenever I search any topology question either HB's or BMS's answer pops up to the rescue.
06:00
Oh dear. Sad.
@onepotatotwopotato That's so sad. May he rest in peace.
And I'd just dropped a comment under his post :(.
We can delete our comments?
Not that they’re disrespectful.
yeah, let me delete it.
done.
Wow, he was young.
06:23
i do not mean to impose. but, i was wondering if asymptotic mathematics is an active field of mathematics
sad when a contributor goes.
@Silly I don't even know what asymptotic mathematics means.
There are asymptotic techniques that show up in math, both pure and applied.
I see, so I suppose it is a physics thing, then? I am asking after watching a lecture by Carl Bender on perturbation theory. but, I thought such concepts would have a mathematical foundation
Indeed @copper. I don't expect to hang around here until my death, but one never knows.
That doesn't make it a field of mathematics, @Silly.
silly people doo all kinds of that within and outside of math but it isn't like a well defined thing
06:28
Yes, Bender and Orszag is a great introductory book to techniques of applied mathematics, and they talk about perturbative and asymptotic methods.
@TedShifrin i hope my last comment is "phbbhbhhtt"
@TedShifrin You never know. I suspect my waning skills will disappear first, I shall just hang around to bother yourself & Leslie.
and then i haunt everyone like a ghost
I guess I was thinking a technique of solving particular mathematical problems falls under some sort of mathematical field
silly if you get far more specific about what that meant in the context of the lecture, maybe we could be more specific here. 'perturbation theory' generally in math is super broad and could cover all sorts of techniques.
06:29
asymptotic mathematics is when one carries a twin primes proof around in one's head but never actually commits it to publication.
They talked on meta of getting family permission to "announce" the death on MSE (I agree there should be no religious associations, especially for us atheists).
None of my research falls under the "asymptotic" label in any sense.
But lots of things in PDE certainly do.
From my understanding (I have only watched the first lecture), an example of a concept of asymptotic mathematics is dealing with a relation ~ defined as asymptotic. a ~ b iff lim as x -> x_0 of $a/b = 1$.
@leslietownes That's pretty much your only substantive contribution most days.
as opposed to dealing with equalities
It's dealing with limits, @Silly. Pure and simple.
More like ... how does this function behave for large $x$ or something similar.
I do highly recommend Bender and Orszag's book.
When I taught the year-long applied math course almost 40 years ago, I used it as one of my references.
06:32
too many books to read in one life D:
Reading books can actually be better than reading wiki and watching random YouTube videos.
5
@TedShifrin otherwise you get stuff like "according to friends, most important to ted were his beloved georgia bulldogs. large contributions to the athletic sports fund can be made in his honor, and it is requested that people wear dawgs memorabilia for a year in honor of his memory"
that's Dawgs, not dogs.
Oh no I agree. Textbooks seem to have more thorough expositions than anything else; as well as exercises!
Oh, I wasn't complaining about family permission, @leslie, although I don't know who would give it in my case.
06:35
although, sometimes public professor/university lecture notes can be quite nice
Now, why the h*** is someone bumping this post from 2014? Hardly worth reading in the first place!
In my case, @Silly, those are a textbook, just not published by an expensive publisher.
The general status of MSE seems to be headed in a downhill run.
doesn't a bot periodically (but rarely) bump old posts with answers but no upvotes/accepted answer?
Well, a 2014 user is hardly going to accept the answer at this point. It said "community user," not "community bot."
Just plain stupid.
i need to get proactive about my jump suit
Get mine while you're at it, @copper.
06:38
@TedShifrin :-)
I'll pick it up if I ever make it back to the Bay Area.
adding random dashes seems to be an ideal recipe to getting the suit...
It wouldn't surprise me.
does anyone happen to have a good resource on proving that the Frobenius method works?
Anyhow, @Silly, both analysis and geometry have lots of asymptotic analysis when you deal with non-compact things (e.g., domains, manifolds) and behavior at infinity.
Which Frobenius method? For ODE singular points?
06:40
Yes
A good ODE book should explain that.
Abstract algebra has sort of turned me off of algebra for the time being XD I am excited to take diffeg/topology soon...
i'm popping back to ireland for a week in december to see my 94yo godmother. sound mind, body not so, unfortunately.
Good for you, @copper.
Do you have a recommendation for an ODE book? My uni uses Boyce and it seems a bit not good
06:41
It's an old-fashioned standard plug-and-chug book.
it is hard to find a book that covers all the little details that bug me so
A beautiful book (more about systems of ODEs and the relations to topology, with linear algebra and some analysis covered too) is Hirsch & Smale (with Devaney as a coauthor to the revision, but I don't know his contribution to it). For the stuff you're asking about, look at Birkhoff & Rota.
@copper.hat dianetics
@Sllly Download my free diff geo text from my webpage if you want to see what that course is about. What text do they use?
i always thought it was elron until i read the book.
yep, i read it.
06:43
the uni im plannign to take diffe g at uses do carmo
which i serendipitously picked up last weekend at a local used book store xD
without knowing they use it
i miss cody's books on telegraph
ill take a look! @te
that was the beginning of the end for me
@SillyGoose i think your keyboard needs some oil
DoCarmo is, I have found, too sophisticated for most undergraduates. Maybe your teacher will do a good job with it.
@copper Will some oil suffice?
it will certainly change things a bit
06:46
I really don't like having to teach the baggage of differentiable manifolds for dozens and dozens of pages to talk about surfaces in $\Bbb R^3$.
xD my keyboard needs replacing. i spilled apple cider on it the first day
Oh, well, just spill denatured alcohol on it now.
but that was like 2 or 3 years ago
Anyhow, I'm calling it a night. Take care, all.
it might because the students at that uni generally have a good background in math/phys before coming into college (im at a consortium) @TedShifrin
night
06:48
You in the US, @Silly?
my thesis advisor's name just appeared in a question.
The only consortium I know is in suburban LA.
it's that one !
i think there are consortiums in the east coast as well
Cool. I know several people there, not surprisingly.
06:49
though not as geographically close
Not quite like that. There are a few schools around Amherst, MA.
Do you know Professor Nelson?
Not that I know of.
Anyhow, g'night!
night !
im off to read abt frobenius cya'll!
Our professor told us integral equation is graduate thing...
07:06
I want to know what "burn the evidence" leads to?
@copper.hat I came here for copper I found gold.
He's got the Midas touch.
excellent :-)
when my daughter was 17 she gave me an xkcd book with a page on the mathematics of cunnilingus.
always broading minds...
sorry broadening minds.
07:14
1) challenges in frequency domain?
2) This poster actually inspired a two-hour powerpoint presentation that Al Gore gave around the country.
al, the inventor of the internet? omg
happy to see that holmes got 10 years.
watching ig shorts can be much better than watching youtube videos
Yup, attention spans are getting shorter and shorter.
dtn
dtn
I want to know if there are any tricks and ways to construct an approximate potential for an arbitrary vector field. Maybe some additional terms, multiplication by an exponent or other similar things. We need some material (books, publications, preferably simple ones) on this issue.
07:30
what, and give away all our secrets?
i was kidding (since i know nothing).
 
1 hour later…
09:04
$\Bbb R^n-\{x_1,...,x_k\}$ is homotopy equivalent to wedge sum of $S^{n-1}$, $k-1$ many times. Correct?
09:36
I can use Mayer-Vietoris to a space $X =A\cup B$ even if $A\cap B = \emptyset$ right?
No no I mean $A\cap B$ is disconnected space.
Sure, the torus covered by two sets intersecting in two disjoint rings is one of the standard examples you find worked out in books
I see. Thank you
 
2 hours later…
11:51
I feel like such an absolute idiot
So if $T = S^1\times S^1$ and $S^1\vee S^1\cong S^1\times\{1\}\cup\{1\}\times S^1\subset T$, there is no retraction from $T$ to $S^1\vee S^1$ because it will induce an injection $\Bbb Z*\Bbb Z\to \Bbb Z\times\Bbb Z$ using $\pi_1$. But I can't conclude such retraction does not exists using homology. Is there a way to prove the statement using homology?
12:19
@leslietownes If I understand correctly, it is not a bot, but an anonymous edit (I saw this explanation somewhere).
12:57
@TedShifrin Yes, I think that your comments are out of line. That said, I agree with the content of the comments, even if I don't like the tone.
Though it is also worth noting that the editor has enough XP that they no longer earn reputation by editing posts.
13:15
I don't feel so bad anymore, I was stuck seeing the details of the proof of the rising sun theorem. But now I get it
@Koro the issue is that this isn't true
I was wrong about it
trying to prove regular countable space is normal huh?
you prove it just like how you prove that regular second-countable space is normal, just modifying few details
iirc
@TedShifrin ah yeah. That's a nice way to show it.
13:32
a regular countable space need not be second-countable, is the issue
but it's Lindelöf, which suffices
funny thing is that I wasn't aware regular Lindelof spaces are normal until a while ago
and when I learned it I thought it's a nice compromise, seeing how compact Hausdorff spaces are also normal
13:48
@someoneinexistence good morning
@Goku good morning!
I have a question that's probably gonna make me sound dumb.
Why is the automatic base for a logarithm 10?
what's an automatic base
I don't know the proper term for it (as with many things)
It's the subscript under the logarithm.
Why, if it's not shown, is it assumed to be 10?
it's not always assumed to be 10
sometimes it's 2 or e
10 because we use numbers in base 10 so it's easier to comprehend for us
2 because computer uses binary
and e because logarithm has the nicests properties when it comes to derivatives etc. when the base is equal to e
I was taught that if it wasn't there, it was always 10. But 10 because that's what we usually use, 2 because binary, and e because it looks nice. Deep.
13:54
you can distinguish them by calling them, say, $\log, \lg$ and $\ln$
That makes more sense, for them to have distinct names.
but still some people use $\log$ to mean the logarithm with base e etc.
it's not universal
14:31
@Thorgott: countable space is Lindelof.
regular Lindelof is normal.
Earlier I thoughtlessly believed that Lindelof is also second countable but this is not true.
@Jakobian yes, indeed.
15:02
How do we prove that a metrizable space is perfectly normal?
@Jakobian I usually interpret $\log$ to be natural (base $e$).
especially if I see it in a math paper.
15:19
does someone know about transient states in probability theory?
to be more precise, in the topic of Markov chains?
nvm, I got that now.
I do know about Markov chains, but I haven't been learning about it for a while
Let me pick $x,y\in S$ s.t. $x\neq y$ and denote $T_y=\inf\{n\geq 1: X_n=y\}$ and assume that if $x\rightarrow y$ (which means $P_x(T_y<\infty)>0$) and $P_y(T_x<\infty)<1$ then I need to show that $x$ is transient. @Jakobian
In the hint they told us: use the strong markov property to establish that under $P_x$, with positive probability the chain visits the state $x$ a finite number of times.
So I denote $N_x=|\{n: X_n=x\}|$. Then I managed to show that $P_x(N_x<\infty)>0$ but I don't see why this helps me to show that $x$ is transient
Because I know that x is transient iff $P_x(T_x<\infty)=1$ iff $P_x(T_x=\infty)>0$ iff $P_x(N_x<\infty)=1$
15:41
why is a perfectly normal space completely normal?
Ah I think I got it. If I assume at the beginning of my proof that $x$ is not transient, i.e. it is recurrent then by definition $P_x(N_x=\infty)=1$ but this means that $P_x(N_x<\infty)=1-P_x(N_x=\infty)=0$ but this contradicts my proof that $P_x(N_x<\infty)>0$. So $x$ is transient @Jakobian
Suppose X is perfectly normal space. Let $Y$ be a subspace of X. I want to show that Y is normal. To that effect, let $A, B$ be disjoint closed sets in Y. So there exist closed sets $A_1, B_1$ in X (these need not be disjoint) such that $A=A_1\cap Y, B=B_1\cap Y$.
Since X is perfectly normal, there exist open sets $U_i$'s and $V_i$'s in X such that $A_1=\cap U_i, B_1= \cap V_i$. This gives: $A=\cap (U_i\cap Y), B=\cap (V_i\cap Y)$.
But I'm not sure how to proceed further. The problem is that $A_1, B_1$ need not be disjoint. If they were disjoint then by normality, they could be separated by disjoint open sets.
0
Q: Why is a perfectly normal space completely normal?

KoroSuppose that $X$ is perfectly normal space. To show that $X$ is completely normal, I must show that every subspace of $X$ is normal. To that effect, let $Y$ be a subspace of $X$. Let $A, B$ be disjoint closed sets in Y. So there exist closed sets $A_1, B_1$ in X (these need not be disjoint) such ...

16:51
@onepotatotwopotato have you tried $H_2$?
 
1 hour later…
18:07
To add to Lukas’s suggestion, note that $H_1$ won’t work because you’re trying to retract to the $1$-skeleton. But higher …
@Jakobian Most mathematicians (beyond calculus courses) use log for natural log. However, most other scientists (and engineers, etc.) for use log for base 10 and ln for natural.
18:33
I don't follow, $\mathbb{Z}$ retracts onto $0$, no contradiction there
Hmm, right, backwards. I didn’t think.
Bad Ted.
18:56
I don't think the cohomology ring helps either, I don't see a way around $\pi_1$
Agree. The subspace needs topology the ambient space doesn’t have.
And I can’t use differential topology because the subspace isn’t a submanifold.
19:27
Tietze extension implies Urysohn's lemma.
Proof: Let X be $T_4$. Suppose that A and B are disjoint closed sets in X. Define $f:A\cup B\to [0,1]$ as $f(A)=\{0\}, f(B)=\{1\}$. $f$ is continuous by Pasting lemma. By Tietze extension theorem, $f$ can be extended to continuous $\bar f$. QED.
Can someone help me here?
0
Q: How can I show that this Markov chain is irreducible?

user123234 Assume there exists at least one $z\in E$ such that $z\rightarrow y$ for all $y\in E\setminus \{z\}$ and $\Bbb{P}_y(T_z<\infty)=1$ for all $y\in E\setminus \{z\}$. I need to show that the Markov chain $X$ is irreducible. The problem is I don't know where to start. So I know by definition that $...

19:58
@Thorgott woops
20:13
@Koro they're all equivalent to normality
not like I ever applied that anywhere
what's important is that normality implies both
I think the fact normality does imply Urysohn lemma is one of the most remarkable theorems in topology
you're creating functions to real numbers out of scrap
hits fast forward on koro's speedrun through the most boring parts of topology
it's one of the few non-boring results in general topology
but, frankly, the first time I ever had to actually use this result was only very recently
and it was a pretty obscure application to understand germs of homotopy classes between locally compact subsets of ENRs
NR stands for something like neighbourhood retract?
yeah, and E for Euclidean
20:28
which one of you is talking
In my book, they say that the power rule holds for all $r \in \mathbb{R}$, $r \neq 0$ for $f(x) = x^r$. But why can $r$ not be $0$?

Is there any good reason for this besides that some people might interpret $x^0$ as the function $f(x) = 1$ and forget that $0$ is not in the domain? I don't think that's a good reason, otherwise you could say it only holds for positive $r$ because for $1/x$, $0$ wouldnt be in the domain for example
in a word, no
but, it's also just an interesting corner case of the rule that is maybe worth giving some attention
@ILikeMathematics huh? $0^0 = 1$
@leslietownes Why? $r = 1$ might be interesting, because after the rule, $(x)' = 1 \cdot x^0$, giving us a new domain, but it's actually just because of our notational need and the domain stays $\mathbb{R}$
They lied to you in school, $0^0$ is well-defined and equal to $1$
20:37
@Jakobian It has no agreed-upon value after Wikipedia en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_to_the_power_of_zero
it's like if 0 is a natural number or not
of course it is
@ILikeMathematics You asked this the other day. I answered.
$0^0$ is equal to $1$
there's exactly one function from the empty set to the empty set
and it's the only valid definition
@Jakobian Stop it.
Yeah, that's why I included "besides that some people might interpret ..."

I have a follow-up question: Why don't they restrict it to positive $r$ then?
Some people might forget that the domain is $x \in \mathbb{R}, x \neq 0$
20:39
The formula is valid on the domain.
Enough already.
Not defining 0^0 to be 1 just because of some continuity reasons is ridiculous
I'm stopping now though
Yeah, makes sense, also, all the definitions I can find don't mention the $r = 0$ case so it seems like it's really just my book.

Thank you and Leslie again
@ILikeMathematics i meant only that the fact that the rule has a corner case is worthy of attention. the functions behave very differently at 0 for r positive and negative, and it's helpful to know that. what happens in the case r = 0 itself is boring.
I do agree that $0^0=1$
the funny thing is that analysts agree with this too, whether they like it or not
every person who has ever written down a Taylor series in power series notation agrees
01:00 - 21:0021:00 - 00:00

« first day (4490 days earlier)      last day (827 days later) »