« first day (927 days earlier)      last day (4391 days later) » 

05:00
@BenjaLim, hey what's up?
Hmmm I was just wondering if $m \equiv n \equiv 1 \mod{4}$ and $m,n$ are squarefree if it is always the case that $(m,n) = 1$
@AlexeiAverchenko On reddit, to prevent people from manipulating votes, the system automatically simultaenously both downvotes and upvotes the same post while keeping the difference between downvotes and upvotes same. This ensures that people cannot game the system. So, in fact even if nobody has downvotes your post, it can appear to have some downvotes. All you should care about is the net number of upvotes, or in case you have a lot of votes (the percentage of upvotes).
@BenjaLimm, what do you mean?
@Sanchez if it is always the case that their gcd is 1
05:03
sorry mod 4
take your favorite $m$
multiply $m$ by something congruent to 1 mod 4
their gcd mod 4 @Sanchez
doesn't change anything
oh
@Sanchez If $(m,n) \equiv 1 \mod{4}$
still no
just take something congruent to 3 mod 4
take two such numbers
that are relatively prime
Take $m$ to be the square of the first one, take $n$ to be the product of them
05:06
@Sanchez $m,n$ are square free.
ok
take three numbers congruent to 3 mod 4
each relatively prime to each other
take $m$ to be the product of first two
$n$ to be the product of last two
ah I get it.
Hmmmm
@Sanchez Hmmm
05:25
@Novice Yo
@skullpatrol Hey
@Novice Wazzup?
afk
@skullpatrol The answer is well-known, isn't it? ;-)
user19161
@GarbageCollector $a-b$ can be defined to be the number which when added to $b$ gives $a$, but we can also define it to be simply $a+(-b)$, so don't worry about the name, I don't think there is one.
@JacobBlack OK. I will call it as the definition of subtraction.
user19161
05:39
@GarbageCollector I would not use the equivalent symbol for something like a+b=b+a that is really an axiom of the real number system. In fact, for writing identities like (a+b)^2=a^+2ab+b^2 I would also just use equal sign and say that this holds true for all real numbers a,b.
user19161
I consider the use of equiv in such identities to be poor style.
@JacobBlack The essence, I want to distinguish an equation from an identity or a definition.
user19161
Similarly, the use of logical symbols such as for all and there exists in mathematical texts other than logic ones is also poor style.
user19161
One should use words instead.
user19161
@GarbageCollector The way to do that is to use words. For example write "For all real numbers a,b we have ..."
user19161
05:44
The use of logical symbols in a lecture should be seen as a convenient shorthand.
@JacobBlack My student did the following because he did not know which one is an equation and which one is an identity or a definition.
user19161
The use of equiv for identities should also be seen as such in an elementary school text.
\begin{align}
(a+b)^2 &= a^2+2ab+b^2\\
(a+b)^2-a^2-2ab-b^2 &=0
\end{align}
user19161
@GarbageCollector That is because the text is poorly written.
I thought it was okay to have different symbols for assignment/definition and equality. I personally use $:=$ for assignment and $=$ for equality.
user19161
05:46
Most of the high school textbooks I have seen are poorly written.
My student got confused and he did a funny calculation as mentioned above.
user19161
I am not sure what you are saying here.
user19161
If we just write a+b=b+a, that can be seen as an identity or an equation to be solved.
user19161
It is an identity because it holds for all a,b.
user19161
It is an equation to solve because the solutions are all a,b.
user19161
05:49
Therefore, one must always use words to explain what is going on rather than meaningless symbols.
@GarbageCollector you have a student under you??? I thought you were very young. :P
user19161
If I write 1=2, it can mean a wrong identity or an equation with no solution.
user19161
So formulas themselves without any explanation are meaningless.
@OrangeHarvester My student is older than I.
user19161
At the lower levels there is an obsession with this symbolism.
user19161
05:51
After that one uses words to describe what one is really doing.
user19161
The people who tell you to avoid words are the same people who think that math in university consists of doing bigger and bigger sums.
user19161
Why did @alan and @kan decide to come here today? =)
@Kan, your info looks very interesting - why do you like Bourbaki/Atiyah?
kan
kan
@JacobBlack Garbage Collector is discussing some Typography.
user19161
@kan Where?
user19161
05:55
I don't think there is much typography here.
user19161
It is merely presentation and convention.
For example, when I asked my student to expand $(a+b)^2$, he did
\begin{align}
(a+b)^2 &= a^2+2ab+b^2\\
(a+b)^2-a^2-2ab-b^2 &=0
\end{align}
user19161
Sometimes, it is just punctutation or grammar.
user19161
@GarbageCollector Expand just means writing that (a+b)^2=a^2+2ab+b^2.
user19161
End of story, what is there to discuss?
kan
kan
05:57
@Sanchez Because, I have come to see that Bourbaki (and Atiyah, in parenthesis for good measure) write Mathematics in a very structured fashion, just the right way to see all things Mathematical.
@kan, I see.
So, I think I have to use $\equiv$ so he stops moving the right terms to the left.
user19161
@kan I can understand why you revere Bourbaki, but I don't worship Atiyah.
kan
kan
@JacobBlack Well, well.
user19161
@GarbageCollector I would just use equals sign and say that that holds for all a,b. Really, it is not clear what equiv means.
user19161
06:00
But like I said, it can be a convenient shorthand in lecture notes or informal articles.
user19161
@gar How old is your student?
@kan Hi! Wassup?
user19161
Using this equiv sign may end up confusing students rather than helping them.
Bob has an expression $(a+b)^2$. He rewrite the express as $(a+b)^2 \equiv a^2+2ab+b^2$. Does he have an equation now?
user19161
I think we are no longer discussing mathematics now. =)
kan
kan
06:03
@OrangeHarvester Hi! Nothing much.
@kan You have been reading Bourbaki? How different are they from Lang?
(I guess not much.)
Lets compare with "Bob has an expression $(a+b)^2$. He rewrite the express as $(a+b)^2 = a^2+2ab+b^2$. Does he have an equation now?"
user19161
@GarbageCollector So what is your question?
kan
kan
@Sanchez Hopefully, I convinced you, but may be not. To put it plainly, Bourbaki do things at the generality that is initially staggering but well worth all the time you put in to grasp, because you don't reinvent wheel a million times.
user19161
And who is asking the question "Does he have an equation now?" @gar
06:05
Bob has only an expression rather than an equation. That is why I insist on using $\equiv$
You are talking close to nonsense now.
1. I do not yet understand what did your student do that was wrong.
2. What is it that you want him to do right?
@kan How is the experience with Instiki? Does it support MathJAX well?
kan
kan
@OrangeHarvester Well, no comments. But, I think Bourbaki is different from Lang for record.
@OrangeHarvester Oh, yes, it does. :)
user19161
@OrangeHarvester Bourbaki and Lang are very different.
user19161
Nobody writes like Bourbaki except Bourbaki.
user19161
06:06
In Bourbaki, everything is in the MOST general form.
@JacobBlack Lang was a bourbaki, so I thought, he might be somewhat close.
user19161
@OrangeHarvester They choose a slightly different style for their own books.
kan
kan
Well, friends, later then. Bye!
user19161
Dieudonne was also Bourbaki, but even his treatise in analysis is not as general as the Bourbaki ones.
@kan, I disagree indeed.
06:07
@kan Bye.
user19161
@gar We don't get your question at all. =)
kan
kan
@Sanchez Oops! What is it that disturbs you? :)
Not that I could change it, but, what with all this curiosity.
@kan, oops, sorry if I summoned you back. I was just replying to your comment to me before I saw the message that you are leaving.
kan
kan
@Sanchez No, it's fine. :)
Unnecessary generality puts me off in general. But that's just me. Bourbaki went too far to me I guess.
user19161
06:10
By the way, Louis ROwen has two great texts on graduate algebra.
user19161
One commutative and one noncommutative.
user19161
They are currently not too well known.
user19161
@Sanchez Just look at their "Functions of a single real variable"!
It's not necessary to have so many different texts on the same thing anyway.
Oh well, I don't remember the last time I opened a Bourbaki book lol
user19161
I just don't understand why Atiyah is so revered.
06:11
must have been long ago.
Why not?
user19161
My favourite Bourbaki book is their topology.
user19161
That is about the only readable one. =)
kan
kan
@Sanchez OK. But, sometimes, when you don't see things at the generality, things are plainly adhoc. For instance, Jordan Canonical forms are best seen via F[X]-modules, while any "real" linear algebra course seem to prove it. No modules, the proof is by induction.
@JacobBlack Read their algebra. You'll never look back.
user19161
@kan It is also nice to see alternative proofs.
user19161
FOr example Cauchy Schwarz.
user19161
06:14
Some use discriminant, but I prefer completing square.
@kan, I agree that generality is good and sometimes necessary. I'm just saying that Bourbaki went too far sometimes.
user19161
ONe of my profs said that completing square is not clear, but it is clearer to me.
Same here.
I never understand that discriminant proof.
user19161
So different people will prefer different proofs, it is a matter of taste.
user19161
06:15
OMG
user19161
I am trying to understand the problem here @gar
user19161
So what is your question @gar?
@JacobBlack It is difficult to express my question in words.
user19161
You can come back when you have founsd the right words.
user19161
By then there might be no more question.
kan
kan
06:18
@JacobBlack Ah, I prefer looking at that geometric way of putting it: inner product <= product of norms. And, to see this for x and y, since the space decomposes as Ry and Ry^perp, you'd simply decompose x accoording to this decomposition and use Pythagoras.
R-reals.
@JacobBlack: Is my student's statement correct? I think he is correct!
user19161
@GarbageCollector It is not clear what his statement is. One just needs to understand "equation" and "expression".
user19161
(a+b)^2 is an expression.
user19161
a^2+2ab+b^2 is an expression.
user19161
Writing A=B is an equation.
user19161
06:21
It is an equation because you equate two expressions.
user19161
Qriting A equiv B is still an equation.
user19161
It is an equation because you are saying the equality holds for all values.
@JacobBlack: If $A\equiv B$ is still an equation, how to make Bob still has only an expression rather than an equation?
user19161
@GarbageCollector OMG
user19161
There is actuallt NO question here at all.
kan
kan
06:24
Well, I think all this confusion comes from the pre-algebra stuff people learn.
user19161
@GarbageCollector Your question is not clear. First, Bob does not have an equation or expression. Bob only has himself.
kan
kan
ax^2 + bx + c, when it stands alone is called a quadratic expression.
(oh, when I said pre-algebra, I meant, pre-calculus.)
user19161
What is this thing that Bob has? What are you referring to?
kan
kan
By abuse, we say that f(x) = ax^2 + bx + c as a quadratic expression.
user19161
a+b is an expression.
user19161
06:26
b+a is an expression.
user19161
a+b=b+a is an equation.
kan
kan
Now, f(x) = d, will give you a quadratic equation.
user19161
ENd of story.
kan
kan
Well...
BYE.
@kan After it is transformed to another form $ax^2+bx+c=a(x+\frac{b}{2a})^2-\frac{b^2-4ac}{4a}$, it becomes an equation if we use $=$ rather than $\equiv$
user19161
06:28
@gar did you see what kan wrote above? It makes a lot of sense.
In my mental model, I have to use $\equiv$ to make the transformed expression still an expression rather than an equation. :-)
user19161
I think there are many subproblems in this problem you have @gar.
user19161
Let us use kan's example to illustrate.
user19161
4 mins ago, by kan
By abuse, we say that f(x) = ax^2 + bx + c as a quadratic expression.
user19161
Now we write f(x)=... is a quadratic expression because we are saying that the expression is ..., which is f(x).
user19161
06:31
4 mins ago, by kan
Now, f(x) = d, will give you a quadratic equation.
@JacobBlack For me, it should be written as $f(x)\equiv ax^2+bx+c$ to be an expression.
user19161
THen we set ... = d to solve so we call that an equation for us to solve.
user19161
@GarbageCollector No, no such thing.
user19161
@GarbageCollector One can use equals there, no problem.
@JacobBlack: In my mental model, equations use $=$ but expressions use $\equiv$
user19161
06:32
@GarbageCollector I think you should change your model.
user19161
In fact, I don't like using equiv at all myself.
All: OK. I will be back 2.5 hours later. I have to go to teach. :D
user19161
I only use equals in all these contexts.
Don't forget to upvote my picture link at the right.
user19161
So there are equal, equiv and := which means defined to be.
user19161
06:36
But really one can just use equals and then use words to explain what one means.
user19161
Solve the equation x=x+1. We have the identity a+b=b+a. We define f(x)=x.
Solve $x=x+1$, we have an identity $a+b\equiv b+a$. We define $f(x)\equiv x$.
user19161
@GarbageCollector ANyway, I understand your doubt, but I think all this is a big fuss over nothing...
07:05
hello everyone
How are you ?
I had my first Linear Algebra exam this morning ^.^
first or second semester ?
first
it's only a one semester class here?
user19161
How was Valentine's Day?
where i study it's a two semester class
lonely :D
07:15
How did it go?
I think I made a 100 on the test :D
(100 %)
good boy (or girl) :)
[boy]
i said or you ought to say yes :D
user19161
07:18
Haha, I don't have facebook so I can't see your face @dom lol
i don't have a picture in SE
i think that's better for us all :D
@gnintendo good some funny problems in your test ?
@DominicMichaelis Yeah, everybody wtf'd when I left early...our professor likes to play games.
He leaves some...let's call them 'magic tricks' in the problems
Where you can use some well-known properties of a starting matrix or the like to immediately come to the answer without the otherwise arduous calculation
some days ago i solved a 80 minutes test in 12 minutes with 100 %, as i left the guys thought i had forsaken ^^
Yeah, like we had a 12x12 matrix...find the determinant
and two not linear independent rows ? ^^
07:24
two rows were the same.
:P
(so yeah)
g i bet 30 % didn't know how it helps^^
lol
probably more than that, even
I mean, when he threw numbers like the reduced planck constant in you should have known there was some funny business there
i am tutoring analysis 1 and the "answers" sometimes drive me crazy
haha
we also had a really big "does it span R^n" problem
and there were less vectors than there were n :P
those guys are so creative... even with hours i wouldn't be able to write such a mess :D
07:27
:P
user19161
@Gnintendo Trick question?
You could say that.
Apparently some people were trying to put it into RREF to find out
I lol'd
Gram Schmidt :D
hi @awl
is your german good enough for this one ? mathb.in/1719
07:30
Ich will es versuchen.
user19161
I only know Ich liebe dich lol
it's a proof that nearly all logarithm of primes are irrational only using linear algebra 1 stuff
Hm: Sounds good!
@JacobBlack How about J'taime beaucoup!
nearly all= all but maximum one
But what does maximal one mean?
07:32
oh maybe i said the wrong i mean that there can be only one prime which log isn't irrational
OK
Hm: It shows the independence over $Q$.
jupp
and this implies that there can't be two primes with rational logs
Indeed.
and this one gives you a constructive solution of $a,b\in \mathbb{R} \setminus\mathbb{Q}$ with $a^b \in \mathbb{Q}$
I see: Quite interesting!
07:38
i did hope something like that would exist for math.stackexchange.com/questions/305316/…
Some words are not familiar to me, but I guess that it starts from the independence over $Z$, and then reduce the case to this one. Right?
@awl yeah i first say that it's enough to show the independence over $Z$
OK. Very well.
I've been working on the way I pen some greek characters lately
I haven't decided if I want to switch to a more elongated $\delta$ yet or not, though
I write everything in LaTeX so i don't have this problems
07:42
me too, but I'm talking about for tests and the like
I'm actually writing a paper in LaTeX right now
i did write a script for a prof, so in fact i got money for learning something :)
I know more LaTeX than my professors
mostly just because I use it for everything
and I'm really technical about 'good practices' when writing things
you are familiar to norm aren't you ?
in numeric analysis we wrote matrix norms with ||| A |||
oh that norm
yeah
I was like "what?"
lol
it took me longer to find a good solution in latex for this one, than i used time for solving the problems :D
in the end i made this \DeclareFontEncoding{FMS}{}{}
\DeclareFontSubstitution{FMS}{futm}{m}{n}
\DeclareFontEncoding{FMX}{}{}
\DeclareFontSubstitution{FMX}{futm}{m}{n}
\DeclareSymbolFont{fouriersymbols}{FMS}{futm}{m}{n}
\DeclareSymbolFont{fourierlargesymbols}{FMX}{futm}{m}{n}
\DeclareMathDelimiter{\VERT}{\mathord}{fouriersymbols}{152}{fourierlargesymbols}{147}
07:48
O.o
this 3 lines thing is implemented in the font fourier
that's an...interesting solution...
and with those lines i implement this in my own font, and so i am even possible two use a \left and a \right on it
I would just do \left| and \right|
eg $\left|\left|\mathbf{v}\right|\right|$
thats not such a clean solution, because you have to fix the spacing with \! for example
and when you use it in a fraction the spaces which are well for the normal math style may be to wide
in the end i noticed, i never used it in a frac or something like that :D
07:52
idk, let's see: $$\left|\left|\left|\frac{\mathbf{u}}{\mathbf{v}}\right|\right|\right|$$
its the one with 3 lines
the two lines is \|
\|
$\|$
oh, right
i mean for examle if you make $\frac{\frac{\frac{ }{}}{}} {}$ or such a crazy shit :D
$\norm$
/me grumbles at chatjax
this chat should have a LaTeX compiler :D
with my solution \VERT makes the 3 lines
07:56
@DominicMichaelis What do you think of klassenkörpertheorie?
by the way
isn't there already \lvert and \rvert?
$\left\lVert\mathbf{u}\right\rVert$
that seems like an elegantly spaced solution
sounds interessting @awl is the carley dickson expansion something like that ?
hmm, doesn't expand to triple very well
I guess you are talking about some decompositions in algebra?
I mean
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/class-field-theory
@awl mh i don't unterstand that till now :( didn't listen any grouptheory till now
08:02
That is fine!
Only prerequisite is group theory!
At least I personally think so.
in the holidays i wanted to start learing some category theory
Like this question: the answer exhibits a good application of the theory in solving some Diophantine equations.
Oh!
A good language in mathematics, right?
you know martin brandenburg ?
yes exactly
08:04
Hm, I know not very much about him.
everytime i ask him something he says thats a trivial consequence of the yoneda lemma
Haha
Quite interesting! :-)
let's see if i can reach the 800 reputation in math.SE today :D
:D
I spent two years in obtaining 1000...
I guess you will have 1K in four days...
well maybe this is to much for today
i only have 608 now
08:09
Anyway, it is rapid enough!
one of my most favored limits in the first term mathb.in/1911
A good recomendation.
http://books.google.com.tw/books/about/Class_Field_Theory.html?id=Wap8MQEACAAJ&redir_esc=y
the limit is 1/e
Yes: Sometimes the calculus is quite an interesting area!
i am a bit afraid of knowing to much in topology and algebra for the introductions lectures :(
08:21
Why?
it could be boring
No Problem: You can learn more and discuss with the lecturer then. :)
i just hope there are not so many guys with the intention "that stuff we won't need any time"
it's like saying why should we have sex when we are using birth control ?
2
08:26
Hm. For fun?
yeah and thats why you make topology and algebra :D
Ahh, the philistines. Why are you living life? No one needs anyone to live. See mars, perfect without any life.
Incidentally find the pdf of the book listed before!
http://tomlr.free.fr/Math%E9matiques/Neukirch%20-%20Class%20Field%20Theory.pdf
@DominicMichaelis I find that you are familiar with ultrametric analysis!
It is fair to say that number-theory starts from ultrametrics!
thanks for the pdf
i know the definition of ultrametric but didn't do a lot with them
08:36
OK
I think it is a good start atleast!:-)
Temporarily off!
mh i think i will do a bit for physics
see yo ulater
09:09
@Charlie What would you rate this at?
10:00
In mathematics, the von Mangoldt function is an arithmetic function named after German mathematician Hans von Mangoldt. Definition The von Mangoldt function, conventionally written as Λ(n), is defined as :\Lambda(n) = \begin{cases} \log p & \mbox{if }n=p^k \mbox{ for some prime } p \mbox{ and integer } k \ge 1, \\ 0 & \mbox{otherwise.} \end{cases} which is a sequence starting: :\log 1 , \log 2 , \log 3 , \log 2 , \log 5 , \log 1 , \log 7 , \log 2 , \log 3,... [http://oeis.org/A014963 oeis sequence A014963] It is an example of an important arithmetic function that is neither multiplicat...
Is V4 the free product of the cyclic groups C2 and C2?
I wonder if the level of traffic is related to the type of people who sit in front of computers at work. A lot of physicists don't. – Andrew
in the linked comment.
@awl nearly 700 reputation :)
Orz
Now 700!!
10:35
yeah :)
BTW, I would like to know of you know already the beautful theorem: quadratic reciprocity?
if you know...
mh i don't think with that name
In number theory, the law of quadratic reciprocity is a theorem about modular arithmetic which gives conditions for the solvability of quadratic equations modulo prime numbers. There are a number of equivalent statements of the theorem, which consists of two "supplements" and the reciprocity law: Let p, q > 2 be two distinct prime numbers. Then (Supplement 1) :x2 ≡ −1 (mod p) is solvable if and only if p ≡ 1 (mod 4). (Supplement 2) :x2 ≡ 2 (mod p) is solvable if and only if p ≡ ±1 (mod 8). (Quadratic reciprocity) Let q* = ±q   where the sign is plus ...
no i don't know it
OK
I hope you can enjoy in learning this great theorem! :)
10:42
mh at the moment i am exercising calculations for theoretical physics
All right
Off for a moment again. L8ter
11:15
@DominicMichaelis lol I am just writing an answer, when you post one. Haha
11:45
hi
I need some ressource about forced oscillation on RLC serie circuit
Use complex variables, and you will be done.
help plz in electricity
@pourjour what do you already know about RLC?
@OrangeHarvester dumped oscilation
@pourjour no, not that. I mean techniques in general.
Do you know complex representations of impedance, reactance etc?
11:54
@OrangeHarvester I didn't get the point
Hmm. I will expound a bit on forced oscillation and tell me if you understand.
Suppose we have a forcing voltage $V= V_0 e^{i\omega t}$
And we have a net circuit of impedance $Z$
maybe that's what I'm looking for
Now, since $R,L,C$ are in series, $Z = R + j\left(\omega L - \frac{1}{ \omega C} \right)$.
I'm trying to learn oscillation in RLC from 0
An RLC circuit which is driven by sinusoidal power sources can be easily analyzed when we transform the equations into $s$-domain by using Laplace transform.
11:59
@GarbageCollector That is only for steady state though.
@OrangeHarvester I think u need a square root there
@OrangeHarvester Yes. Of course.
@pourjour No. Its not magnitude, its complex variables. If I had taken magnitude of the expression, there will be squareroot of squares.

« first day (927 days earlier)      last day (4391 days later) »