@JasperLoy Me or the noble gas?

@JonasTeuwen They (the TeX people are asking you about graphics)! :P :P

@JasperLoy Ok, so I draw my set

@JasperLoy ...Or both.

@JasperLoy 1,1/2,1/3 ..

@JasperLoy Nobility? Lights up when a current is passed through it?

:)

@JasperLoy Than i draw circle around 1

@user1097772 Look at the interval $I=\left(\frac12,\frac32\right)$; $I$ is an open interval around $1$, and $I\cap A=\{1\}$. This means that $1$ cannot be an accumulation point of $A$: $p$ is an accumulation point of $A$ if every open interval around $p$ contains at least one point of $A$ that is different from $p$. The only point of $A$ that $I$ contains is $1$ itself.

@JayeshBadwaik Yes.

@JasperLoy Oh? I know pretty good other notes. Do you know all of them? 8-).

@BrianM.Scott 1 seems clear

Seen? I have seen millions in the library.

@BrianM.Scott and if i do same with 0? I have interval (-0.5,0.5) if epsilon is 0.5

I was assistant to my advisors course on complex analysis. So he computed some integrals using residues, and then said... "Jonas does not need complex analysis to compute these integrals..." and then made me "perform my trick" 8-(.

8-).

@JonasTeuwen What were your tricks?

@user1097772 No, $0$ is different, because it is an accumulation point of $A$. No matter how small a number $r$ you choose, the interval $(-r,r)$ will contain points of $A$: just let $n$ be any integer bigger than $\frac1r$, and you’ll find that $\frac1n\in(-r,r)$.

I get it

its not 1,1/2,1/

its not 1, 1/2,1/3 ... but 1/n ... 1/4,1/3,1/2,1

I have 16GB.

so 0 fits to the definitio

*definition

What kind of plot are you planning to make that will fill up my memory?

thanks a lot guys you really helped me

@user1097772 Hi again. Sorry, I was away for some time.

@user1097772 Oh, good!

I turned the line axis in my head .. stupid mistake

@JasperLoy Not enough?

Yes, I cannot answer good questions there as others are much more experiences than I am.

So bye

@user1097772 later.

@JasperLoy no.

@JasperLoy I have checked your questions. Which do you like the best?

Oh. I think I have seen that post before.

But I already knew that!

@JonasTeuwen Of the couple of questions that I have asked, this is my favorite.

@JasperLoy thanks. :-)

@JayeshBadwaik LaTeX monkey patching :-).

@JonasTeuwen :-) hahahaha. Exactly.

I like that type of programming.

A programming language which does not allow monkey patching is filthy 8-(.

@JonasTeuwen Yup. Agreed!

Reusing parts of code that are good, is A+. Tools that do one thing but do it good is A++.

Removing features that suck is also A++.

What will be the subject of the first book?

Deleted code is debugged code a wise man used to say (I also say it).

Hmm, but Lang wrote those over the summer bro!

@JonasTeuwen Deleting code and increasing the number of features at the same time is an upgrade.

What kind of analysis?

@JasperLoy I like them. At least algebra ones. Others I do not know.

@JayeshBadwaik "Debugging? No, I just removed some undocumented feature."

The analysis ones are quite interesting.

In the non-standard approach.

Like interpolating between some very down to earth one and Bourbaki.

@JonasTeuwen ohh. I must grab a hold of one then.

Bourbaki... or Lang?

@JonasTeuwen Lang.

@JasperLoy You mean in the media or between real virologists?

@JasperLoy I wish to not read it, the URL alone is hurting my eyes.

Okay, find, tell me the name of one.

I have worked with some people that work on virology and things like that, never heard anybody say it was a myth.

@JasperLoy Yes, I know these.

But the CD4+ deficiency is not a "myth".

@JonasTeuwen You have worked on everything??!!!

And that it kills you is certainly not a myth.

@JayeshBadwaik No.

Just a bit of medicine, physics and mathematics (and electrical engineering). Only programming for fun.

@JasperLoy Usually they make crackpots look like real scientists. So give me the book.

@JasperLoy Haha, no please.

That is this Breggin guy right?

He has trouble grasping basic statistics.

And is certainly not a scientist, at least, not a real one.

Many antidepressants are really potent things, and the effect is very obviously measurable on SPECT scans.

@JasperLoy You would have been better of posting this link for HIV. (Not saying I believe it but still.)

And, you can make some people severely manic by using some SSRIs.

No, I should not.

I am not going to read the mathematical works of a children garden teacher if there is no other clue that it might be actually worth reading.

I don't really trust any site with facts in the URL ;/

It is certainly no myth that HIV binds to CD4 cells.

you sound like one of those "cantor was wrong" folk

And that CD4 cells are really important immune cells.

You are using arguments based on authority. Authority these people do not have. Lang? Oh please. If it were somebody else you would have totally disqualified yourself with me by now.

Hi all

@JasperLoy and what does that have to do with biology? (and even if he was a biologist, there are chances he can be wrong.)

hi

I know a couple of professors in medicine, and I never see the "ignorance" part. All of them are scientists that want to figure out the real cause behind what they are studying.

@OldJohn Hi.

Many of these "myths" are largely based on cherry picking data.

And misunderstanding basic statistics.

Tell that to the people that die from it. Asshole.

By the time the disease is discovered, people are already severely ill due to a weak immune system.

(opportunistic infections)

@JonasTeuwen this is actually true. I know a paper which has been published where the people found that 4 people out of 18 got affected by the medicine and hence the medicine is about 22.5% effective. I asked the students about trying to find out what is the expectancy that 4/18% would get affected according to random statistics. And they did not know what expectancy was. Good grief.

It kicks out the adaptive immune system (T-helper cells).

science is all about getting published in the most prestigious journal

@JayeshBadwaik Mmm. Usually they have a statistician in large trials.

@JonasTeuwen yup.

I happen to know a statistics professor as well which has these things as one of his specialities :-).

@JonasTeuwen good. :-)

But more often in forensic statistics.

Really? Many mathematicians have trouble understanding basic statistics as well. Remember the Marilyn vos Savant Monty Hall problem.

Of course it is true that HIV or AIDS will not kill you.

All it does is kick out your adaptive immune system.

there is a really nice book , "how to lie with statistics".

I’m not going to waste my time digging around the virusmyth site: I see no reason to think that it’s any better than the analogous sites denying climate change and touting the credentials of some their contributors.

Hence, leaving you without any good defense against the smallest infection.

@JonasTeuwen and generally people die of penumonia and like.

Good.

Yeah, these people like: argumentum ad verecundiam in a non sequitur version, straw man, everything!

This is the book I was talking about

Let us see your antidepressant site.

antidepressantsfacts.com/akathisia-mania.htm this is the article I found.

More recently, some Dutch professor and his group have found that these things basically only happen in people with latent bipolar disorder.

Yeah, by throwing shit in the channel.

ok

Furthermore, the information there is quite outdated on how it works, say by a year or 20.

Current research focusses more on endocrinological aspects.

Yes, but they work for some people. You want them to suffer instead?

You might mean the atypical antipsychotics like Seroquel.

They have hidden some information about diabetes.

At least, so it seems, they have silently added it to the paper that joins the medicine in 2007.

But there are many confounding factors. People with mental illnesses that require antipsychotics are also more likely to get cardiological problems and can be diabetic.

Perhaps, the medicine only corrects the behavior that would prevent people from making it worse (like eat certain things). The other thing is that most people with mental disorders have quite bad insight in their own illness and making it worse in the process. Improving one part might allow them to continue in this fashion.

So, meh.

But when you try to erase those (which is not completely possible), there still seems to be an effect, certainly with Zyprexa.

But Zyprexa is wonderful for some people with very severe dysphoric mania getting stabilization within a couple of hours.

In the past, these were usually left to just suffer.

(or die)

@JasperLoy Yes, you point out shit, so it needs some corrections for those that are unable to "read between the lines".

You can't just throw in random data and say "don't shoot the messenger".

Or link to outrageous racist things (for instance, you didn't do that) and then say that you have only posted the link. Or give people a gun with bullets and if they shoot somebody say "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".

(I don't expect you to do that either)

Well. Once I dropped my keys accidentally in the thrash can. I don't like getting through all of the thrash to find my keys.

Yes, that is what one often says, but that's kinda a straw man.

Those were in the days religion was really important to have a hold on what is happening.

Nowadays, for many things we can do way better.

And you see, in the end "he" won.

I know most of those arguments.

And all the ones I have seen are rather stupid.

Sometimes, there are things that are indeed true and are the case.

@JasperLoy if this is the case, then this thing would win eventually. However, it is important that the scrutiny should not be relaxed just because of the fact.

But those do not significantly change the result.

You cannot compare modern societies with those 600 years ago.

Okay, if you give a link, then give me the precise article you agree the most with.

Or the reason why you give it to me (us).

Then don't give such outrageous links. End of story.

@JayeshBadwaik It seems like epdf is trying to reach such a goal (modify, not completely regenerate the file) in LuaTeX.

(pdf.immediateobj)

@JonasTeuwen hmm.

@JasperLoy By the way: Sorry if I sound aggressive/intimidating. It is nothing personal, just sensitive subject for me.

@JayeshBadwaik But they do not see to have that particular goal in mind.

@JonasTeuwen yeah. but epdf library is a nice way to do stuff. it can probably done with it in future. (when I get old and don't actually have need for typing papers.)

Mmm, but no intermediate format.

LuaTeX does remove the Web!

@JonasTeuwen there are two places where things are really really sad, High Performance Computing and LaTeX.

HPC? :D.

Oh right.

With all the lovely libraries for GPU programming for instance?

GPUTeX v0.00001.

\unexpanded is expandable.

@JonasTeuwen yup, that would be written in Cweb.

Holy damn. I do not really fancy abstraction layers which are actually not used.

@JayeshBadwaik $\epsilon$-TeX has some \trace command.

@JonasTeuwen what does it do?

Give you all the shit it is doing during compile.

Like really useless if you have no program that tracks it 8-).

8-)

SyncTeX.

I think I will use LuaTeX now.

Sick of XeTeX.

Ohh. SyncTeX is nice, but again, I do not think it has the "caching" feature.

It does not, but it has some useful things which you will need.

XeTeX uses xdvipdfm as driver.

LuaTeX barks it out itself: LuaTeX-0.70.2

hmm.

@JayeshBadwaik And this.

@JonasTeuwen this is nice.

LaTeX needs a good debugger. LuaTeX would allow to run it together.

Keeping track of stuff.

Knot theory is underrepresented here on the site.

I need a knot theorist.

@JasperLoy If it was I wouldn't need a knot theorist! : D

All my question are very basic. In all subjects. Including knot theory.

Oh well, those things are way too sensitive.

@MattN. Why do you need a knot theorist?

I will not apologize for the content of what I said as I support that. For the tone, yes, that was a bit too harsh (understatement).

@JonasTeuwen What? (cause I want to talk about knot theory.)

To me too, from another point of view perhaps. Which is totally different.

@MattN. Oh. A particular type? I might know someone.

@JonasTeuwen I've had a very unproductive month.

First, travelling, spent half a month abroad.

@MattN. That's no problem is it? At least if it is only one month.

Now back, but have a puppy. And it occupies my mind : (

How is that unproductive?

Did you enjoy?

Unproductive would be to me staring lethargically to the wall for a month straight.

@JonasTeuwen No. If I can't progress and think about my own stuff (maths, mostly) I get extremely unhappy very soon.

@JasperLoy The holiday...

@MattN. Ok.

So: no.

What do you define as "progress"?

@JonasTeuwen Get some hours of my own to think without disturbance.

I'm not so sure if holidays are unproductive in this sense.

Your inhuman schedule before the holiday will have its toll too. Taking a break will allow you to perform better.

@MattN. Oh right. Now you can do that?

@JonasTeuwen I don't believe this.

@JasperLoy Which is your favorite one?

I was very happy (apart from the stress) about getting to do 8 hours a day.

@MattN. Good! But you might experience is in the future.

It's fulfilling.

*it

Yes, if it is really what you want to do that is fine.

@JonasTeuwen No! The puppy is all over the place and a constant worry.

But mind you, there will be tasks in between that are not fun.

: (

I need a drink.

Those wear you out and will require a break. 8 hours is fine.

Unhappiness => drink.

@MattN. Get a drink. Do you like the puppy?

Drink can also be lovely.

Also, I know the feeling.

But sometimes I am unable to "perform" :-).