« first day (4535 days earlier)      last day (782 days later) » 

04:42
enigmatic
with or without dragons
and an asterisk without an attachment
πŸ²πŸ‰*
but where is here
04:47
Perhaps the entirety.
05:04
@copper.hat at the very center of the asterisk
very fractal
Did you do anything for New Years?
@robjohn welcome, for the first time in like since all my time here, did I not see you yesterday!
@robjohn went to my in-laws for indonesian food. delicious. how about yourself?
Also, Happy New Year everyone!
05:09
We went to a friend's house to watch the parade and some games. Same thing as I've done for as long as I can remember.
The friend was a friend of my mother's and so she's known me since I was 2.
nice!
:-). on new year's eve we went to a party at a friend's house. my limited social skills have become awfully rusty
Pardon me for the intrusion.
what intrusion?
@InanimateBeing no intrusion
Oh thanks guys :)
05:12
convos overlap here
some are threads stretching over days and even longer
I thought I was invisible, so just left a message, lol
:-) just hard to keep track of all the interactions
@InanimateBeing I wrote an answer yesterday, so I must have been here yesterday.
@robjohn I just edited this message to remove the part where I thought you didn't understand my previous message. But then Yesterday or day before yesterday, for the first time, I didn't see your rms in the room's avatar collection box (it got a name?)!
(rms=root mean square)
06:04
@robjohn Wait! You were 2?!!
06:49
Circa ~11 years ago
Oct 23, 2011 at 13:51, by t.b.
@robjohn: you're mean squared :p
You're not just mean, you're mean squared :p
Source: profile link
07:13
@user4539917 Fun Fact: When I was new to this site, and somehow interacted (or wanted to interact) with robjohn for the first time, I didn't follow-up (or interact) because of their avatar. I mean it was already frowning! lol XD.
07:25
:-)
 
2 hours later…
09:16
@InanimateBeing Even 11 years ago, I was mean.
back then, my avatar was generic.
but you weren't
09:54
Why is delta min(1,epsilon/4)?
isn't delta=epsilon/4 enough?
@robjohn oh so you were squared later? (like just some weeks ago you were mean (only) again?)
10:20
@user7269591 what's the objection
10:40
I have a proof for the general Schwartz inequality $ sum_(i=1)^n x_{i}^2 sum_(i=1)^ny_{i}^2 β‰₯ (sum_(i=1)^n x_{i}y_{i})^2 $ now if i put the complex conjugate of $ y_{i} $ in place of $ y_{i} $ the proof is complete right (for the complex number case)
And also adding a modulus sign to the RHS
*
I misread it so sorry ignore me
I am an idiot
Here $\phi[h]=\deltaJ[h]$. Right>
The statemnt in the box is confusing for me.
which one is a variation?
$\epsilon$ or $\phi[h]$?
Please help me in understanding the definition.
11:38
2 days ago, by one potato two potato
6
A: Euler characteristic of a manifold is odd

Najib Idrissi$\newcommand{\Q}{\mathbb{Q}}$PoincarΓ© duality tells you that there are non-degenerate pairings $H^i(M) \otimes H^{n-i}(M, \partial M) \to \Q$ for all $0 \le i \le n$. Using the long exact sequence of the pair $(M, \partial M)$, the known facts that $H^n(M) = 0$ and $H^n(M,\partial M) = \Q$ (Poin...

11:50
I understood that $\Delta J[h]$ and $\deltaJ[h]$ must have same sign in the small neighbourhood of $\hat{h}$
What is the use of expression in the box?
This one proves by the method of contradiction. I undertood.
Then suppose there exist an admissible function such that $\delta[h]\neq 0$
Without loss of generality I can assume $\delta[h]> 0$
or $\delta[h]< 0$
Then why did the author took $\alpha>0$?
Then suppose there exist an admissible function such that $\delta[h]\neq 0$ (say $h_0$)
Since variation is linear, I can write $\delta J[-\alpha h_0]=-\delta[\alpha h_0]$
How does the proof goes after taking $\alpha>0$?
Please help me.
I have no Idea.
12:35
0
Q: why did the author took $\alpha>0$?** How does the proof evolve from there?

Unknown xA necessary condition for the differentiable functional $J[y]$ to have an extremum for $y=\hat{y}$ is that variation vanish for $y=\hat y$, i,e., that $$\delta J[h]=0$$ for $y=\hat y$ and for all admissible $h$. I was referring the following proof given in The Textbook Calculus of Variation, Gel...

i suggest you make a more descriptive title
otherwise people might downvote
 
1 hour later…
13:56
@TedShifrin Hello, in Exercise 3.3.4 of Multivariable Mathematics on page 102, you write: "An ant moves along a helical path with trajectory $\mathbf{g}(t)=\begin{bmatrix}3\cos(t)\\ 3\sin(t)\\ 5t\end{bmatrix}$" but isn't the image of $\mathbf{g}(t)$ the trajectory and $\mathbf{g}(t)$ just a parametrization (what is called in physics the "motion equation")? Or have I misunderstood? Thanks
14:12
6
A: How to show $R_l$ is Lindelöf space?

MatematletaSome copious hints: $1).$ It is enough to show that every open covering of $\mathbb R_{\ell}$ by basis elements has a countable subcover. $2).$ Let $\mathscr A = \{[a_i, b_i) | i ∈ J\}$ be such a cover and consider the union of intervals $A' = \bigcup_{i\in J} (a_i, b_i).$ $3).$ If $x\in \math...

In (5) in the attached answer, why is true that A' has a countable subcover?
I know that every open set in R can be written as a disjoint union of open sets.
Hi all. When we're talking about absolute minimum without denoting an interval, the interval should be understood from the context, right? For example, in real analysis we take it to be $\mathbb{R}$? I have some problems as homework and it has true/false questions of the form, "If f has a local minimum, then it has an absolute minimum." Should I just infer that the interval is real numbers or can I give a counter-example defining f in a subset of real numbers instead?
14:31
If/when I delete my profile, all the answers/comments stay on the site right?
15:29
@Gokuγ‚«γ‚«γƒ­γƒƒγƒˆ yes but your name will be removed from them and "user1527352" (some random numbers) will be shown instead
@lorenzo what's wrong, i can't tell. it is a parametrization that designates the trajectory
@Koro Because $\Bbb R$ is hereditarily Lindelöf
16:32
2
Q: Why do every strong extremum is simultaneously the weak extremum?

user464147 My Doubt Here $||f||_{1}=\sup_{x\in[0,1]}|f(x)|+\sup_{x\in[0,1]}|f'(x)|$ where as $||f||_0=\sup_{x\in[0,1]}|f(x)|$. We can easily prove from definition that $$||f||_0=\sup_{x\in[0,1]}|f(x)|\leq \sup_{x\in[0,1]}|f(x)|+\sup_{x\in[0,1]}|f'(x)|=||f||_1$$ Using the above inequality, ...

The answer given by Ted Shifrin was wrong. right?
Let $\hat y$ be an weak extremum of the functional $J[y]$, then there exists $\epsilon>0$ such that $||y-\hat y||_1<\epsilon.$ We know that $||y-\hat y||_0 \leq ||y-\hat y||_1 < \epsilon. $ Hence, $\hat y$ is a strong extremum as well. Weak extremum implies strong extremum.
But in most of the textbook it is other way. I am not able to point out spoofness in my proof. :(
Please help me.
@Ted Shrifrin, If I pointed out wrong.
Let's say f(x) is T-periodic and it is not continuous (for example, a periodic signal) Is it always true that the integral between 0 and T of f(x) is equal to the integral between a and T+a of f(x) with generic a?
On an old exam I found on my lecturer's website there is the problem of studying the continuity and the differentiability of the funciton $f:\mathbb{R}^2 \to \mathbb{R}$ defined by $f(x,y)=x^{\alpha} \log \left(\frac{x^4+2y^4}{x^4+y^4}\right)$ for $(x,y) \ne (0,0)$ and $0$ for $(x,y)=(0,0)$ as the parameter $\alpha>0$ vary. But shouldn't $f$ be defined on $[0,\infty) \times \mathbb{R}$ since $x^{\alpha}$ is a power with real exponent, and hence defined only for $x \ge 0$?
16:49
@AlessandroCodenotti got it. Thanks for confirming
@AlessandroCodenotti I see. Thanks. Let U be an open subset of R, $U=\cup_n U\cap[-n,n]$, and if $\scr A$ is an open cover of U, then $U\cap[-n,n]$ is covered by finitely many of them.
This is true for every n. So $U$ is Lindelof. :)
@Gwyn I think so. Or they probably meant $|x|^\alpha$ instead of $x^\alpha$.
17:05
math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/35411/…. You know what this reminds me of? This reminds me of how, in Japan, "badly behaved" students (generally called delinquents or Gyaru), were put in separate classes, that is, boys and girls separated, completely. Wonder how something like that would work on Math.SE
17:18
or.... why don't we just not tolerate people that can't handle the presence of fellow academics because of their gender
17:56
$$\vec x^T A = (x_{r+1}E_{r+1} + \cdots +x_nE_n)A = 0$$ $A$ is a matrix between two vector spaces, $E_i$ rows of the elementary matrix that reduce it to echelon form $x_i$ are scalars. I need invertibility of $A$ to cancel it out here, right? but it feels like i could do something about the = 0 fact to remove the $A$
eh nevermind, i don't actually need to cancel $A$ for the needs of my proof
18:27
@TedShifrin In several respects: two years old, two cells big, two personalities, ...
18:40
@shintuku nvm, I figured it out thanks :-)
np mango i gotchu
@Unknownx you've got your logic/quantifiers all messed up.
@robjohn That's quite enlightening :)
@TedShifrin we agree
@Gwyn Yeah, you're right. Perhaps better to write $|x|^\alpha$. I see Koro already suggested that.
@lorenzo You're being too nit-picky for me. Say "parametrized path" if you prefer ;)
@TedShifrin: I have two dr appts today and three on Friday. busy week in prep for Monday.
18:53
I have two today and one tomorrow, as well, but nothing grandiose like yours. I'm thinking positive and strong thoughts for you!
I remember lots of treks to the hospital before my major surgeries (and that was a 70-mile trek for me one way back going into Atlanta from Athens, GA).
That sounds unpleasant. 70 miles to a place you probably don't want to be. Mine is just to the other side of the Valley.
In truth, the three surgeons were fantastic, and all the nurses and interns were as well; at those hospitals, even the food was not bad. (Not so with the hospital in Athens at which I stayed a week.)
I will probably stay overnight, but with the robot assisted laparoscopic surgery, I should be walking by that evening and home the next day.
I may not get much of a chance to sample their haute cuisine
Yeah, I had robotic heart surgery two times and was out of the hospital within a few days both times. After the robotic bypass on Friday morning, I was back teaching on Tuesday. Amazing.
the daughter of my neighbor across the street had an emergency appendectomy on Christmas Eve and was out running errands the next day.
19:03
Wow.
Surgery techniques sure have improved.
indeed
My wife and I will have had two surgeries over the holiday season. hers on 12/19 and mine on 1/9
Happy Holidays!
Happy holidays, but I expect you're both going to be much healthier for it, so great!
Yes, I am sure we will. My doctor says that with mine, the surgery has a 70% chance of being all that is needed; no chemo or radiation.
My wife will have a bit of radiation
19:19
As I said, @robjohn, my best thoughts for you both~!
@TedShifrin Thanks!
 
1 hour later…
20:48
7
A: Question about $G_\delta$ set

Henno BrandsmaYour idea for a) is essentially OK: we take a countable local base $B_n$, $n \in N$ at $x$, and prove that $\cap_n B_n = \{x\}$. Indeed, clearly $x$ is in this intersection, as all $B_n$ must contain $x$. And if $y \neq x$, by $T_1$-ness, there is an open subset $O$ that contains $x$ but not $y$,...

can anyone please explain the second part in this answer?
why is the space not first countable?
(is there any way to downvote comments on main se?)
but I still have the same confusion despite the answers there :(.
impossible to master this subject πŸ˜†
21:20
The basic box neighbourhoods form a basis, so any local basis may be assumed to consist of box neighbourhoods. Now, assuming a countable local basis, do a Cantor diagonalization kind of argument where you create a new basic neighbourhood whose nth interval is half the size of the nth interval in the nth neighbourhood of the local basis.
21:34
I have understood it now. It may be observed that: $U= (x_0-1,x_0+1)\times(x_1-1/2,x_1+1/2)\times\cdots (x_k-\frac 1{k+1}, x_k+\frac 1{k+1})\times \cdots$ does the job.
:)
@redwhisker one of the links I shared that also suggested that but I didn't understand how to do that.
I looked at some more posts and got this idea of constructing such a U.
Munkres uses a similar set in showing that the map $x\mapsto (x,x,...)$ in boxtopology on $R^\omega$ is not continuous. :)

« first day (4535 days earlier)      last day (782 days later) »