« first day (136 days earlier)      last day (1362 days later) » 
00:00 - 20:0020:00 - 00:00

Zophikel
Zophikel
00:01
@Simply the intial hint given was that $\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{e^{x}-1}{x}dx = \frac{1}{2i}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{e^{x-1}}{x}dx = \frac{\pi}{2}$
So I used that to start off
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
@Zophikel I believe it should be $e^{ix}$
Zophikel
Zophikel
@Simply oh ok it's just a latex typeo sorry
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
Ah, okay then
Zophikel
Zophikel
sorry man been drilling at this problem for hours :( i'm getting latex fever
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
@Zophikel x.x that's rough
Zophikel
Zophikel
00:03
@Simply I had to use symbolab to do some results for me since I was getting tired
typing this will take a couple of hours maybe days due to my last finial
@Simply I hate latex :(
Riker
Riker
^
latex is evil
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
T_T Ugh, you people lol
amWhy
amWhy
@SimplyBeautifulArt Why post it yet again? I'm glad you like your post.
Zophikel
Zophikel
@Riker latex is not evil it just has it's prices
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
@amWhy @Riker ASKED FOR IT!
>.>
Riker
Riker
00:06
I did :p
amWhy
amWhy
@SimplyBeautifulArt Then thou art cleansed and free of wrong-doing, and the wrath befalls upon Sir Riker!
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
:P All you man @Riker
Riker
Riker
lol
Zophikel
Zophikel
Oh @Simply there's a crazy integration by parts method for integrals of the form $\int_{a}^{b}Q(X)/P(X)$
It's a really nice method lets you avoid partial fractions at least
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
@Zophikel Do tell then
Zophikel
Zophikel
00:10
@Simply I used the method while doing the exercise it's actually really interesting and handy
@Simply see here:
17
Q: Is there a rule of integration that corresponds to the quotient rule?

The Chaz 2.0When teaching the integration method of u-substitution, I like to emphasize its connection with the chain rule of integration. Likewise, the intimate connection between the product rule of derivatives and the method of integration by parts comes up in discussion. Is there an analogous rule o...

calculus integration indefinite-integrals
^ There's actually a famed Russian who used to use a similar technique
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
Interesting
amWhy
amWhy
@SimplyBeautifulArt Dos't thou forgive me?
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
@amWhy Oh, of course.
Zophikel
Zophikel
@Simply really handy wow analysis can be a bag of tricks but you gain a tool to do something
lol @amWhy
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
@Zophikel Does not always work, but those methods are generally the first things you should check for
Zophikel
Zophikel
00:13
@Simply I know
Sometimes using these method you just get another integral
lol
so then on the new integral you've gotten from the old on you just use another technique I see it all the time MSE
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
mhm
Zophikel
Zophikel
@Simply let me guess there's a more elegant way to appoarch that situation
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
@Zophikel $Q(x)/P(x)$ or the problem you're trying to solve right now?
Zophikel
Zophikel
@Simply nahh already done it latexing what I have currently
the step i'm on applying the estimation lemma I have to simplify two integrals before going on got one of them now I have to go for the other
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
I'd actually just use Frullani's integral...
*cough*
Zophikel
Zophikel
00:18
@Simply true very true, but doing it the long hard way makes me understand it better
amWhy
amWhy
@SimplyBeautifulArt, and up for grabs for the daring! Any takers for a closing vote (the fifth, on the current 4 closevotes) on this question? The asker has asked eight questions since joining 4 days ago, gained 150+rep in that time, but has posted nothing but "problem statements"!
Zophikel
Zophikel
@Simply it seems you've picked up a little real analysis
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
@Zophikel Yeah, true
@amWhy Taken already
Zophikel
Zophikel
@Simply looking back at my work it seems the books are balanced
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
@Zophikel and what do you mean by that?
Zophikel
Zophikel
00:21
@Simply every step seems vaild
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
Ah, okay
Zophikel
Zophikel
@Simply the only thing I see wrong in my work are latex typo's
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
lol
amWhy
amWhy
@SimplyBeautifulArt Yay! TU
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
@amWhy It's usually TY for thank you
amWhy
amWhy
00:23
Well, I'm being unique, then TU: Tank You!
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
:P
amWhy
amWhy
@SimplyBeautifulArt Would you like to "take" this one down?
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
x.x
:D I HAVE AN ANSWERER!
1
A: you probably read this wrong!

DeusoviHidden in the text is a Taking the link, Take that number and

amWhy
amWhy
00:38
@SimplyBeautifulArt Wooo hoooo! Pretty much nailed it (except for the "Beauti" part, and the concatenation of "art" with "full"
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
xP
amWhy
amWhy
@SimplyBeautifulArt ty... and TU!
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
x.x
Zophikel
Zophikel
Having latex troubles anyone know how to fix:
$$\frac{(-1)^{er}-1}{{-r}}\bigg\vert_{\pi}^{0}+\int_{\pi}^{0}{(-1)^{er}}-1 \frac{(-1)^{\frac{er \theta}{(re^{i \theta}(re^{i \theta}}{(re^{i \theta})^2}$$
 ^ ?
one minute it worked next minute nothing
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
Well...
that's a lot of { and }
$$\frac{(-1)^{er}-1}{-r}\bigg\vert_{\pi}^{0}+\int_{\pi}^{0}\frac{(-1)^{er}-1}{} \frac{(-1)^{\frac{er \theta}{(re^{i \theta}(re^{i \theta}}{{(re^{i \theta})^2}}}}{}$$
Zophikel
Zophikel
00:51
Ahh ok
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
This removes the error, as you didn't have enough } in your thing
though its probably not what you want
Zophikel
Zophikel
@Simply yeah
@Simply almost got it
$$\frac{(-1)^{er}-1}{{-r}}\bigg\vert_{\pi}^{0}+\int_{\pi}^{0}{(-1)^{er}}-1 \frac{(-1)^{\frac{er \theta}{\pi{}}}}{(re^{i \theta})^2}$$
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
№, looks like you got it
∫_π^0? Those bounds seem a tad off, why is π on the bottom?
Zophikel
Zophikel
@Simply are you taking about: $\left|\int_{\partial D} \frac{e^{rei\theta}-1}{re^{\theta}}\right | \leq \max_{z \, \in \, \partial D}\left|\frac{e^{rei\theta}-1}{re^{\theta}} \right |\int_{a}^{b} \gamma'(\frac{e^{rei\theta}-1}{re^{\theta}})$
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
@Zophikel Was talking about the other integral you just put up
Was just curious as to why the bounds were like that
Zophikel
Zophikel
00:59
Ahh ok @Simply that from applying IBP for integrals of that form
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
Ah, okay
Zophikel
Zophikel
@Simply then I applied Ferynman's Integration trick after using that technique to get the final answer
Latexing this is going to take a while soo..... it might be a couple of days
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
Well, I'll have to continue this tomorrow. Time for bed now ‮@Zophikel
Zophikel
Zophikel
see ya @ylpmiS
lol
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
:P You don't ping me like that
Eric Stucky
Eric Stucky
01:03
I'll ping you however I want, s@ba
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
Welp, okay ‮@EricStucky
Zophikel
Zophikel
01:18
More latex troubles any help plz:$$\frac{(-1)^{er}){-r}+\int_{0}^{\pi}\frac{(-1)^{eir \theta-2 \theta}}{\pi}}{r}}}$$
Eric Stucky
Eric Stucky
the second ) should be a }
maybe? what are all those }}}s for at the end?
yeah you just have hella extra }s I think; three of the four last ones aren't doing anything.
Zophikel
Zophikel
loll hella extra }s
Zophikel
Zophikel
01:32
@EricStucky exercise that I've halfway worked through: mathb.in/143584 
                                                                                        ^ Note not finished yet
Eric Stucky
Eric Stucky
kay
Zophikel
Zophikel
01:44
@EricStucky how does the proof look so far
there are some Grammar errors
Eric Stucky
Eric Stucky
I don't really have time tonight to remember complex analysis well enough to check your proof, sorry
Zophikel
Zophikel
it's all right
TheGreatDuck
TheGreatDuck
user image
anyone got any ideas on how to do this?
Zophikel
Zophikel
@TheGreatDuck Directional Derative
TheGreatDuck
TheGreatDuck
yeah but applied in what way?
and I only know x,y,z
Zophikel
Zophikel
01:56
@TheGreatDuck not sure
TheGreatDuck
TheGreatDuck
mmk
Zophikel
Zophikel
@TheGreatDuck what appoarchs have you tried
TheGreatDuck
TheGreatDuck
@Zophikel I don't know surface geometry so I have no clue.
Eric Stucky
Eric Stucky
Duck: I know that, in very generic terms, what you are asking is how to solve an integrable system. In general this isn't possible but if $d$ is small enough (and assuming, say, that the surface is smooth) it should be feasible.
To solve an integrable system, you need local coordinates and, yeah, the derivative.
So I think that means you need to have some way, at least near $A$, of turning $x,y,z$ into $m,n$.
Zophikel
Zophikel
interesting @EricStucky
TheGreatDuck
TheGreatDuck
02:04
@EricStucky can you write a computer algorithm for solving a parametric equation in reverse?
if so, fantastic!
Eric Stucky
Eric Stucky
hm
TheGreatDuck
TheGreatDuck
(this is for a program)
I have a derivative thing that is mostly working. Good enough for my purposes.
Eric Stucky
Eric Stucky
I mean even if it's a polynomial system you don't have any hope of getting an analytical solution. But of course you only need numerics for the computer anyway.
TheGreatDuck
TheGreatDuck
hmm
Eric Stucky
Eric Stucky
But yeah, numerically you're just solving a system right? And you might as well linearize and assume the system is linear; and you can update that in time.
Zophikel
Zophikel
02:09
@EricStucky in this problem i'd use the computer just for the computations alone
Eric Stucky
Eric Stucky
(or you could probably do something fancy)
TheGreatDuck
TheGreatDuck
@EricStucky alright. What if we were to instead refer to just smooth surfaces. Any surfaces in particular that you know of that might be feasible? I'm basically trying to make a thingy walk upon a surface.
@EricStucky are you referring to my derivative? No. It actually takes the derivative by using the different rules for elementary functions. My functions are abstract objects of nested functions. The only issue is the exponentials due to... 0.
Eric Stucky
Eric Stucky
(no I'm not)
I mean, yeah, if you stick to polynomials with degree less than 4, you should be fine.
"fine" being a relative word, here :P
ehhhh I maybe rescind that.
TheGreatDuck
TheGreatDuck
what about a tube in space?
Eric Stucky
Eric Stucky
yeah, that'll work
TheGreatDuck
TheGreatDuck
02:11
oh wait duh
I already have confirmed that works
Eric Stucky
Eric Stucky
:P
TheGreatDuck
TheGreatDuck
tube plot algorithm. In order to make a 3d model of a tube you have to essentially due it's geometry. Weird stuff.
of course, if it were a multivariate function m and n would be known.
oh but the arclength comes from the integral!
Eric Stucky
Eric Stucky
if you know $m$ and $n$ at any given point... aren't you just done with this subproblem?
TheGreatDuck
TheGreatDuck
no
i want to map A to B using a local isometry
Eric Stucky
Eric Stucky
O.O
that's a very strong restriction >.<
TheGreatDuck
TheGreatDuck
02:13
I want to walk a certain distance on the surface from A in some direction V to B
@EricStucky isometry is probably a bad choice of words since only one point is being moved
think of it as the sort of math occurring in your favorite "guy walking on stuff in space" game.
if you know what I mean. :p
Eric Stucky
Eric Stucky
yeah, I do get the concept :P
okay, I need to finish this blogpost, and if I have more time tonight I'll ping you and start thinking again
TheGreatDuck
TheGreatDuck
@EricStucky perhaps the 'trick' to solving this isn't to find m and n but rather to parameterize the surface in a particular way. Just as tube plots break when the tube is not parameterized via it's arclength.
 
5 hours later…
shredalert
shredalert
07:00
Morning all
 
3 hours later…
SBM
SBM
09:31
Good afternoon
shredalert
shredalert
Hello @SBM.
SBM
SBM
09:44
Hello
Hope you had a good day
shredalert
shredalert
09:54
Just morning here, but thank you.
Hope you're having a good day.
Find any books you like?
SBM
SBM
10:08
Yesterday was a shock.
shredalert
shredalert
how so?
Mithrandir
Mithrandir
@SBM ?
SBM
SBM
No point thinking of it again though
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
10:50
@Zophikel lol
SBM
SBM
tomorrow's going to be a day of eating nothing but fruits
Mithrandir
Mithrandir
lovely
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
Hm, is ‮?ydal a @Mithrandir
Mithrandir
Mithrandir
of course not
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
@SBM healthy...
Mithrandir
Mithrandir
10:52
don't be silly
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
Lol, I'm too silly
Say, anyone have the link to the voting place?
It's not directly there on mobile
Nvm, I found it
SBM
SBM
oh voting?
Mithrandir
Mithrandir
puzzling.stackexchange.com/election/2 ?
SBM
SBM
Oh
 
1 hour later…
JoErNanO
JoErNanO
12:03
Candidate scores are low-ish, or am I being picky?
SBM
SBM
12:20
Idk
Eric Stucky
Eric Stucky
12:49
@TheGreatDuck: I now know enough to confidently say that, if I sit down with the notation for a few hours, I could figure out what is going on here. In fancy language: your object is traveling along a geodesic on a Riemann surface, which means that if you have a general method for transforming x,y,z into m,n (or at least, a method in general near A), then we can use the geodesic equation to solve for the path. Then we can compute the arclength at any given $t$ and solve for B.
Zophikel
Zophikel
@EricStucky can you gauge the perquisites for the this paper: liu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:872439/FULLTEXT02.pdf
Eric Stucky
Eric Stucky
To use that equation, we need to compute the Christoffel symbols for the surface, which seems like they will turn out nice (for nice $f$), but also seem mildly painful to work out from their general definition. You might be asking: in all these fancy words, where is the derivative? The answer is that the geodesic equation is a differential equation. But like, an actual honest differential equation; no manifold mumbo-jumbo translation needed.
SBM
SBM
What? Hello btw
Eric Stucky
Eric Stucky
Zoph: looks like most of the prereq work is functional analysis: you need to know what an $L^p$ space is, some comfort working with norms, and at least a vague familiarity with the Cauchy principal value. It looks like it's trying very hard to avoid needing to know any complex analysis, in particular. (He mentions distributions in the prose a couple times but without reading the proofs I can't tell if he really assumes you need them.)
hi SBM
Zophikel
Zophikel
@EricStucky interesting I thought it would be Real Analysis with tools of Lesbugese Integration
since he uses $L^{p}$ spaces
Do you think tools of tools from the basics of measure theory should suffice for reading this paper
SBM
SBM
13:06
$L^p $ space?
Lesbugese integration?
Zophikel
Zophikel
@SBM yeah
@EricStucky do you think tools from Lesbugese integration would suffice
Eric Stucky
Eric Stucky
13:21
...yes, but morally no. After my first course in measure theory I wouldn't have been prepared to read that paper.
but we didn't talk about norms or L^p spaces in any depth, which I guess we could have. So I think it's just what you want to call things.
Zophikel
Zophikel
@EricStucky what do you mean by morally
Eric Stucky
Eric Stucky
I meant what I said
if the word bothers you then skip it
Zophikel
Zophikel
when I first looked at that paper, I intially taught that that tools form measure Theory/ Integration Theory would be enough
Eric Stucky
Eric Stucky
please stop pinging me
Zophikel
Zophikel
sorry
Eric Stucky
Eric Stucky
13:25
as I said, it just depends on what you mean by that
I mean, sure, you can define an Lp space with a Lebesgue integral, and from that you can do Cauchy-Schwarz and Hölder and convolutions and so on
Zophikel
Zophikel
I initially meant what would be the best prerequisite knowledge or tools required I taught that Lesbugese integration would be enough
Eric Stucky
Eric Stucky
but usually those things are not covered in a measure theory course to the comfort level you need to be to read that paper
Zophikel
Zophikel
Dang :(
Do you of any lecture notes or books on measure theory for undergrads that cover things on a deep enough level
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
Hello ‮@Zophikel
Zophikel
Zophikel
Hi @Simply
Mithrandir
Mithrandir
13:32
ylpmiS@ does that ping you?
Eric Stucky
Eric Stucky
I learned measure theory from Papa Rudin (Real and Complex Analysis). Whether or not that's an undergraduate text is left as an exercise to the reader.
But I don't recommend it, actually, if that paper is the goal (it gets a little distracted). Maybe try the Princenton Lectures, Book III?
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
user image
Zophikel
Zophikel
Princeton's Lectures should seem good
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
It does not ping me ‮@Mithrandir
Zophikel
Zophikel
I found some lecture notes covering things on a deeper level:
ms.mcmaster.ca/~sawyer/Publications/Advanced_Real_Analysis.pdf
Mithrandir
Mithrandir
13:34
hmmm
Zophikel
Zophikel
But I think Princeton's Lectures on Analysis Book 3, should be a great help thanks for the advice mate sorry if I sound like a noob
Eric Stucky
Eric Stucky
Those look fine Zoph, except that the exercises are pretty skimpy.
npnp
I gotta run tho :P
SBM
SBM
Where do I learn about them?
And How do you get those reverse pings @SimplyBeautifulArt ?
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
@SBM What're you talking about? ‮@SBM
@SBM ‮@SBM
:-)
SBM
SBM
What are spaces?
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
13:43
​
You mean that?
​
SBM
SBM
no
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
​


​
SBM
SBM
not that
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
Then what?
SBM
SBM
I saw someone talking about $L^p$ spaces but I don't understand what that means
Zophikel
Zophikel
13:44
@SBM those are resluts and tools that from Measure Theory it's a prequiste for what i'm working on
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
^
SBM
SBM
oh
Measure Theory?
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
math.stackexchange.com/tags/measure-theory/info
Measure Theory
SBM
SBM
Oh
Zophikel
Zophikel
@Simply and @SBM i'm working on understanding HHT which requires measure theory and complex analysis at the minimal level
SBM
SBM
13:46
HHT
Guess I've got a lot to learn
should be fun though
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
Yup
Zophikel
Zophikel
@Simply i've got a long way to go but i'm making progess
SBM
SBM
Where do I get to learn about it?
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
@SBM about what? ‮@SBM
SBM
SBM
About measure theory, complex analysis and HHT?
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
13:52
@Zophikel Don't we all? ‮@Zophikel Don't we all?
@SBM Hm, you got any recommendations ‮?@Zophikel
Zophikel
Zophikel
@Simply don't have my laptop on me for right now, but for dealing with Measure Theory you should have grounding in real analysis
SBM
SBM
real analysis?
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
math.stackexchange.com/tags/real-analysis/info
real analysis
SBM
SBM
Oh
where do I start learning about it?
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
@SBM I suppose you could google "Real analysis PDF"
SBM
SBM
14:05
What is a metric space?
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
>.<
Metric space
In mathematics, a metric space is a set for which distances between all members of the set are defined. Those distances, taken together, are called a metric on the set. A metric on a space induces topological properties like open and closed sets, which lead to the study of more abstract topological spaces. The most familiar metric space is 3-dimensional Euclidean space. In fact, a "metric" is the generalization of the Euclidean metric arising from the four long-known properties of the Euclidean distance. The Euclidean metric defines the distance between two points as the length of the straight...
SBM
SBM
oh so much to learn don't know where to start from
Zophikel
Zophikel
@SBM have you do calc
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
^
He has
basic calc
SBM
SBM
yes
I know the basics of calculus
not much
Zophikel
Zophikel
14:19
@Simply how would you define a function mapping between two metric spaces
reading through something having trouble extracting the intution
SBM
SBM
oh
TheGreatDuck
TheGreatDuck
14:53
@EricStucky I worked around the issue altogether. I'm using the polygonal surface of the 3D model itself as the geometry to use. Locally, any two faces or triangles of the surface should be Euclidean, so it's mostly just a matter of find where something hits an edge and how it wraps to the other triangle. It would be the better way to do it.
SBM
SBM
triangles?
TheGreatDuck
TheGreatDuck
?
SBM
SBM
3D models seems cool
TheGreatDuck
TheGreatDuck
k
@SBM here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_modeling
now you can read to your heart's content.
Zophikel
Zophikel
Suppose that ${X, d_{x}}$ and $(Y, d_{y})$ are metric spaces. Let $E$ be a subset of $X% and suppose that $f: E \rightarrow Y$ is a function from $E$ to $Y$. Let $p \in X$ be a limit point of $E$ and suppose that $q \in Y$ Then: $$lim_{x \rightarrow p}f(x)=q$$
So from the defintion is $E$ one the metric spaces, what is function mapping to
SBM
SBM
15:09
Uh could you use $\text{when writing text}$
\text
a bit hard to read
TheGreatDuck
TheGreatDuck
@SBM he shouldn't use text for his ordinary text outside of latex.
Let $E$ be a subset of $X%
there's yer problem
@doppelgreener hi
Zophikel
Zophikel
@TheGreatDuck yeah I know i'm trying to get the intution behind the defintion
TheGreatDuck
TheGreatDuck
No...
look at what I put in bold
ler latex has a mistake in it
doppelgreener
doppelgreener
Hi! I received a flag request to clean up some TEX code. What can I do for you? It's not parsed in my browser -- do you want to just repost it, or do you need it edited?
Zophikel
Zophikel
oh
doppelgreener
doppelgreener
15:15
I suggest just reposting it with corrections, and optionally I could remove the original message.
Zophikel
Zophikel
@doppelgreener i'll just repost latex dosen't render in my browser
TheGreatDuck
TheGreatDuck
@doppelgreener that '%' is supposed to be a $
Zophikel
Zophikel
Suppose that ${X, d_{x}}$ and $(Y, d_{y})$ are metric spaces. Let $E$ be a subset of $X$ and suppose that $f: E \rightarrow Y$ is a function from $E$ to $Y$. Let $p \in X$ be a limit point of $E$ and suppose that $q \in Y$ Then: $$lim_{x \rightarrow p}f(x)=q$$
Mithrandir
Mithrandir
it doesn't render in chat
TheGreatDuck
TheGreatDuck
@Mithrandir yeah it does
doppelgreener
doppelgreener
15:16
If it's not causing any harm I'll leave the original message intact.
TheGreatDuck
TheGreatDuck
math.ucla.edu/~robjohn/math/mathjax.html
Mithrandir
Mithrandir
@TheGreatDuck hmm, never has for me after a long while in this room
TheGreatDuck
TheGreatDuck
did you readd the bookmark?
doppelgreener
doppelgreener
Ok, so y'all are using an external renderer.
TheGreatDuck
TheGreatDuck
there was a 'patch'
@doppelgreener actually, it's the official MSE one. It just isn't integrated into chat (yet).
doppelgreener
doppelgreener
15:18
Well, that's what I mean -- something not integrated into chat, but external to it instead.
TheGreatDuck
TheGreatDuck
ah ok
i thought you meant it was not part of MSE
:p
as in something a random guy made
Zophikel
Zophikel
anyone got an answer for my question
SBM
SBM
ok
wait
TheGreatDuck
TheGreatDuck
no
go post it on the main site
Zophikel
Zophikel
oh ok
SBM
SBM
15:23
I couldn't um understand.
TheGreatDuck
TheGreatDuck
15:45

 The Universe of Quack

Where you are free to do proofwriting and generally hang out.
SBM
SBM
15:57
uh oh
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
@Zophikel hm, not really sure
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
16:42
@doppelgreener Hello and welcome to my realm ‮@doppelgreener
doppelgreener
doppelgreener
16:55
@SimplyBeautifulArt greetings, ty your majesty
shredalert
shredalert
17:12
@SimplyBeautifulArt people referring to you as royalty now? Do I need to bow every time I log in? :P
SBM
SBM
Good night!
shredalert
shredalert
Night @SBM. Hope you're enjoying your newfound treasure trove.
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
17:43
@shredalert of course
@amWhy wait, what edit?
You mean to my answer?
amWhy
amWhy
@SimplyBeautifulArt I had seen the first line evaluated to $-1$ without the dx....you immediately edited appropriately. Never mind about that, I upvoted your answer, then my upvote was countered by a downvote...then last I saw you were positive again. Nice answer.
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
Lol, yeah...
Good day sir ‮‮@EricStucky
amWhy
amWhy
@SimplyBeautifulArt I was there responding to a commenter (below the question)...
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
@amWhy I saw
Good day sir ‮‮@Mithrandir
Mithrandir
Mithrandir
18:05
@SimplyBeautifulArt o/
One hour left
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
Indeed
@projectilemotion I am now interested in this
amWhy
amWhy
@SimplyBeautifulArt Need your magic, here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2287860/… (However you see fit to use it!)
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
@amWhy do you do integrals like the one we were just at?
amWhy
amWhy
The one at my link immediately above, which you helped close? Or the earlier one?
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
The earlier one
projectilemotion
projectilemotion
18:18
Hi @SimplyBeautifulArt, interested in what?
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
@projectilemotion the answer I just had
projectilemotion
projectilemotion
Yes, I saw
amWhy
amWhy
It's been awhile. I don't typically work with $d(\lfloor x\rfloor - x)$ :P
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
@projectilemotion en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta_function
projectilemotion
projectilemotion
Yep, @SimplyBeautifulArt, it comes up a lot in Laplace Transforms
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
18:29
Did you see my update?
projectilemotion
projectilemotion
On the integral with the floor function?
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
Yeah
projectilemotion
projectilemotion
Yes, I did
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
Wonder if my logic works
projectilemotion
projectilemotion
Well, considering the dirac delta function, intutively it should
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
18:33
:-)
projectilemotion
projectilemotion
$\int_a^b \delta(x)=1$ as long as $a<0$ and $b\geq 0$.
shredalert
shredalert
All assignments for the semester done. Just an exam left now. :D
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
:D
shredalert
shredalert
I reckon I'll finish my logic book in 2 weeks too. :D
amWhy
amWhy
Who's up for spending a vote to close one more post on this MSE day? (hint hint @SimplyBeautifulArt, though anyone so inclined may cast the winning vote!): math.stackexchange.com/questions/2287900/…
projectilemotion
projectilemotion
18:45
@amWhy :)
amWhy
amWhy
@projectilemotion $\ddot\smile$
shredalert
shredalert
I flagged it
amWhy
amWhy
@projectilemotion Indeed, your comment is good!
@shredalert $\ddot\smile$
projectilemotion
projectilemotion
@amWhy Thanks, I was wondering whether this meta post would be suitable in this case.
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
@amWhy oops, I'm too late it seems
amWhy
amWhy
19:02
@SimplyBeautifulArt Well, ya just missed the fun!! Actually, closing isn't really fun, but it helps release the angst when encountering miserable questions (not the fault of the question, but the asker!).
projectilemotion
projectilemotion
@amWhy I think this one should be closed, though I'll give the OP a chance
-1
Q: Double integral with a product of Delta functions

jssDoes this integral equal 1? $$ \int_0^1\int_0^1 \delta(f(x,y)-fx\times fy)d(fx,fy) $$

definite-integrals dirac-delta
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
:P
Welp, I'll be back later
amWhy
amWhy
@projectilemotion agreed.
@SimplyBeautifulArt Cya, Bya, Wya, Yaya, ... continues to illiterate...
shredalert
shredalert
@amWhy I'm going to go back to Zorich's analysis books after my summer of logic and set theory. I shall learn from those two volumes! face set in determination
amWhy
amWhy
19:18
@shredalert raises glass for a toast: Here's to the summer!!
5
shredalert
shredalert
@amWhy raises drinking horn!!!
I was defeated previously because of lack of background.
amWhy
amWhy
@shredalert Ye shall never more be defeated!
shredalert
shredalert
never again!
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
19:46
@amWhy indeed to the summer
Mithrandir
Mithrandir
Is something happening in the Math.SE chat room?
Simply Beautiful Art
Simply Beautiful Art
?
Mithrandir
Mithrandir
I heard something about flags in the Math.SE chat room, was checking
00:00 - 20:0020:00 - 00:00

« first day (136 days earlier)      last day (1362 days later) »