« first day (2517 days earlier)      last day (2414 days later) » 

6:00 PM
isomorphically, multiplication of complex numbers of unit modulus.
 
tru
 
In mathematics, the circle group, denoted by T, is the multiplicative group of all complex numbers with absolute value 1, i.e., the unit circle in the complex plane or simply the unit complex numbers T = { z ∈ C : | z | = 1 } . {\displaystyle \mathbb {T} =\{z\in \mathbb {C} :|z|=1\}.} The circle group forms a subgroup of C×, the multiplicative group of all nonzero complex...
 
I'll admit, I still don't know why the circle group is denoted as T
oh, right. torus.
 
1-torus
the dumbest torus
 
lol
the untorus
ugh, why do none of the scheduled math talks on campus include abstracts
 
6:04 PM
what's the definition of torus?
$\Bbb R^n/\Bbb Z^n$?
 
(S^1)^n
equivalently, yeah
 
sniped :D
 
nah you just gave a different definition
 
$(S^1)^n = S^n$ by laws of indices /s
 
iso-sniped
 
6:04 PM
Hi, everybody.
 
@DanielSank hi, onebody
 
^ clever
 
admittedly, writing $S^1=T$ does make that more sensible
e.g. $T^n=(T)^n$
 
@Semiclassical hmm
why don't we use subscripts?
 
because it's literally taking product
 
6:06 PM
@BalarkaSen $S^n$?
I guess it just means dimension
 
because if you wanted to do indices you should've become a physicist :P
I guess I do wonder why it's $S^n$ and not $S_n$.
 
because S_n is taken and this discussion is stupid
 
lol
symmetric group?
too many concepts, too few symbols
 
mhm
same goes for terminology
 
well we could have done $\Bbb S_n$
 
6:08 PM
@dmckee how do I work through it? Also, I don't know what's principle of relativity. Will have to search about it.
 
I think I have seen analysts writing $\Bbb T_n$ as the $n$-torus but meh
 
@Semiclassical I am having a hard time visualising "slipping" while rolling. All I can associate with slipping is when the floor is very slippery and we try to run and we slip.
What does slipping while rolling actually mean?
 
It means the ball slides a bit instead of rotating while moving.
Have you ever tried rolling a coin on a table? :P
 
@Abcd when you roll a thing the point of contact naturally moves
however if it moves more than it, then it is slipping
 
Have you ever heard the phrase "you're just spinning your wheels?"
 
6:10 PM
@LeakyNun Example?
 
or less than it
 
@Semiclassical No.
 
@Abcd what Semi just said
 
@Abcd you're just spinning your wheels you aren't moving anywhere
 
6:11 PM
spin your wheels = waste your time doing nothing.
 
notice how, despite the wheels spinning in one direction, the vehicle just moves slightly forward/backwards
 
Okay, seeing.
@BalarkaSen yes I have!
 
another way to put it is that, while there's friction in that picture, it's kinetic friction
 
Anonymous
@Abcd Find a football and kick it hard (such that it stays on ground). You'll see it moves very fast and rotates very less. That is $v_{bottom}>R\omega$
 
@Abcd It "skids" if the table is super-smooth.
That's the thing
 
6:13 PM
whereas if the tire was rolling without slipped, it'd be static friction
it comes down to whether the surfaces in contact are moving independently of one another or not.
 
@BalarkaSen lol, avoid - slip, skid, slide. These are the three confusing terms.
@Semiclassical Like a cur stuck in mud.
 
I understood that part well.
 
Anonymous
slip=skid=slide in this context
 
@BalarkaSen the abstract mentions "circle groups"
Plural
 
6:14 PM
link?
 
Have you seriously never heard of cars skidding on rain-covered, slippery roads?
 
@Semiclassical The video you linked demonstrates the same thing right?
 
right.
 
@BalarkaSen Never.
 
well, one difference: the ice isn't moving, whereas the mud would typically be pushed out the back
so it's not quite the same. but from the perspective of the tire I'm not sure that matters
 
6:16 PM
@Semiclassical But I understood this part easily. So skid means: angular velocity more than translational?
of com(centre of mass)
 
not quite---the two don't have the same units
 
@Semiclassical In the case of mud vs wheel the kinetic friction is very high, whereas for ice vs wheel the kinetic friction is very low, maybe is the difference?
 
Anonymous
@Abcd $v_{com}>R\omega$
 
the comparison should be between the COM velocity and the linear velocity at the edge of the tire
 
Anonymous
$|v_{bottom}|=|v_{com}-R\omega|$ basically
 
6:18 PM
So skid in physics means: $v_{com}> R\omega$ where $R\omega$ is the linear velocity of the point of contact with the surface.
Please verify^
 
Anonymous
Net linear velocity of the point of contact is $v_{bottom}$
 
Anonymous
Which is $v_{com}-Rw$. Remember the diagram I showed you.
 
Anonymous
If $v_{bottom}>0$ it slides.
 
@Blue Can you resend the diagram? I can't find it above.
 
@Blue My brain isn't working. How would the case of $v_{com}=0$ fit in there? (e.g. the truck on ice whose wheels can only spin)
 
6:22 PM
@Semiclassical Show[StreamPlot[{Re[w],-Im[w]}/.w->(-6+z^2+z Sqrt[-Sqrt[3]+z] Sqrt[Sqrt[3]+z])/(-3+z^2+z Sqrt[-Sqrt[3]+z] Sqrt[Sqrt[3]+z])+1.5/(6.3I)*Log[(z+Sqrt[z-Sqrt[3]]*Sqrt[z+Sqrt[3]])/2]/.z->(x+I y),{x,-100,100},{y,-100,100}],Graphics[{Disk[{0,0},{2,1}]}]]
there's something wrong with the far field flow
 
Anonymous
@Semiclassical That implies sliding
 
@Semiclassical I added on the vortex term and got that
 
@Semiclassical see the Wednesday talk math.utk.edu/colloquium
 
That's after differentiation?
@0ßelö7 oook
 
6:25 PM
2 hours ago, by Blue
user image
Found it.
 
To be clear, what's the form of the vorticity term in the complex potential?
 
@Semiclassical Nah, that's the potential
I guess I should differentiate to find the velocity field
 
Then why are you plotting streamlines?
Yeah.
 
Anonymous
@Semiclassical For that you'd get $|v_{bottom}|=|-Rw|$. So, the magnitude of $v_{bottom}$ is greater than $0$ and that implies the point of contact is not stationary (i.e. sliding).
 
Anonymous
For pure rolling you need $|v_{bottom}|=0$
 
6:27 PM
You'd want to do a contour plot of imaginary w(z) to see the stream lines
 
Anonymous
For pure rolling the point of contact must be stationary.
 
back later
 
Can someone give me an example of pure translation of a sphere?
 
Anonymous
@Abcd Kick a ball on an ice floor. It will almost only translate.
 
Anonymous
You won't see it rotate
 
6:29 PM
@Abcd You write the energy as a sum of the kinetic energies of the point particles. Write the position of each particle as a sum of position of the CoM plus position relative the CoM. Note that velocity is time-derivative of position and write them as $\vec{v}_{i,\text{com}} + \vec{v}_{i,\text{rel}}$. Expand the binomial squares. Collect terms. Cancel stuff. Shuffle things around. Get where you are going and write a triumphant "QED" at the bottom of the page.
 
@Blue why doesn't it?
 
Anonymous
@Abcd Hint: Friction is negligible.
 
This stuff hasn't changed in more than two hundred years. It's in the books.
 
@dmckee Is KE for every system $0.5 v_{com}^2$?
@Blue Doesn't hinder rotation but...
 
No. It's the center of mass energy plus the relative energy.
 
6:32 PM
What is relative energy?
 
For rigid bodies the relative energy is the rotational energy. For systems that can deform it is more complicated.
 
ok
 
@Abcd It's the term you have left after you have factored out the CoM energy: the energy due to motions relative the CoM.
 
Anonymous
@Abcd Neither can it cause much rotation
 
@dmckee I derived it for pure rolling using parallel axis theorem.
 
6:34 PM
This really is a point where you re best served by sitting down and working through a treatment of the math: the result has a very clear interpretation, but you have to do the math to understand it.
 
@Blue What causes rotation?
 
@Abcd Yeah. That's a special case.
 
Anonymous
@Abcd Torque
 
@Blue OH. I get it! friction is tangential so it provides torque but friction is negligible in this situation so it provides minimal torque and object doesnt rotate much!!
Am I right?
 
So my book came with a DVD of a GR conference
 
Anonymous
6:36 PM
Right
 
It has vacation photos of famous GR people
 
Anonymous
@Slereah Beach photos? :D
 
Not quite
 
@dmckee where to begin? Also, you may write an answer to physics.stackexchange.com/questions/359251/… ..
 
Anonymous
It would be fun to have photos of Einstein in swimsuit
 
6:38 PM
They're from 2004, so no Einstein
Possibly famous GR physicists in swimsuits
or their family
 
stackimgur is showing unusually large images @Blue for all pictures....
 
Anonymous
@Abcd The universe is expanding...so that's the reason. ;)
 
Here is Bizon Piotr
 
Anonymous
@Slereah Looks very sirius
 
6:41 PM
And here is Yvonne Choquet-Bruhat
Of the GR Cauchy problem fame
 
And here is the amphetamine addict
Famous for being addicted to amphetamines
 
Anonymous
He is winking at you from the past.
 
@dmckee I meant where do I begin my workings? I can't start solving without getting a problem..
 
No he's just high
 
6:44 PM
Important GR going on
 
u23
test
 
@Blue In the combination of rotational+ translational why $v=0$ at the contact point?
 
Anonymous
@Abcd Only for pure rolling
 
Anonymous
That's the definition of pure rolling
 
@Abcd You write the kinetic energy of a system of point masses. There are N particles with masses $m_i$, positions $\vec{r}_i$, and velocities $\vec{v}_i = \frac{\mathrm{d}\vec{r}_i}{\mathrm{d}t}$.
 
6:47 PM
rollin rollin rollin
 
Than you manipulate that expression to get it in terms of $M = \sum_{i=1}^N m_i$, $\vec{R} = \frac{1}{M}\sum_{i=1}^N m_i \vec{r}_i$ and $\vec{V} = \frac{\mathrm{d}\vec{R}}{\mathrm{d}t}$ as well as the velocities of the particles relative the center of mass.
 
@Blue Example?
 
Anonymous
@Abcd Roll a ball normally on your floor :P
 
And you don't make any assumption beyond what is given (i.e. this is a highly general development). Later you can make a rigid body assumption and get the special cases (like rolling), but that is a minor matter compared to the big principle.
 
Anonymous
 
6:51 PM
@Blue What's that circular fair ride called? I can't recall it's name.
 
Nice gams
 
Anonymous
merry go round
 
@Blue No, not this one.
The one that rotates in a vertical circle.
 
Anonymous
ferris wheel
 
Yes!
Is that pure rolling @Blue?
 
Anonymous
6:54 PM
That's just rotation
 
@Blue Please give a concrete example of pure rolling :(
 
Anonymous
@Abcd Roll a ball on your floor. After few seconds it will be pure rolling
 
when you hear a good joke
 
u23
Hey guys, I want some help on which topics from Hoffman and Kunze's Linear Algebra book I should cover (and which ones I can skip) as a prerequisite for quantum physics.
Creating a question based on this would probably be off-topic/too general
 
@Blue any other eg?
@LeakyNun what was it?
 
6:58 PM
@Abcd no, it was an example of pure rolling
 
Who the heck reads Hoffman Kunze for QM
You need less linear algebra and more functional analysis
 
Who the heck reads Hoffman Kunze for QM
 
you need linear algebra before functional analysis
 
@LeakyNun do u know a better example?
 
@Semiclassical my prof sent me a cryptic email
 
6:59 PM
@Abcd wasn't it good enough? :c
 
Trying to find your email to fwd
 
Anonymous
@Abcd I can't think of any other at the moment. I could just say rolling of a cylinder down a rough incline or something like that
 
@Semiclassical jeez does your department really have 100 grad students?
 
u23
@0ßelö7 Yeah but I need to properly understand finite-dimensional linear algebra to start off with.
 
What does properly mean
 
u23
7:01 PM
@0ßelö7 And Hoffman Kunze has been suggested quite a lot as a linear algebra textbook as far as google searches tell me
 
You will get enough from Shankar
@LeakyNun any mathematician worth a damn
 
Anonymous
@0ßelö7 You're worth a damn?
 
@Blue Is that supposed to be clever?
 
u23
@0ßelö7 I'd be grateful if you (or anyone) could suggest which topics among these to cover : physicsforums.com/threads/…
 
Anonymous
@0ßelö7 Both (yes and no). Till you observe it. ;)
 
7:05 PM
@Blue So you're on a bad Schroedinger pun kick? I'm sorry I brought it up.
 
@0ßelö7 Meh, a fricking I dunno a combinatorist doesn't need to learn QM
 
Anonymous
I'm being punny today. Duh.
 
@BalarkaSen Combinatorics isn't even math.
 
Anonymous
Should get some work done now.
 
@0ßelö7 Only in the eyes of a normie
 
7:06 PM
@u23 This is probably an unpopular opinion but you don't need to know any of the details behind e.g. determinants
just learn how to apply the methods
 
u23
@0ßelö7 So I don't have to go into too much details of the proofs? I'll keep that in mind..
 
whenever I need details (very rarely) I look at Axler
My phone is on the fritz
@BalarkaSen I self-identify as a math physics person. Does that make me a normie
 
no, you're inherently normie
 
I can't understand how the point of contact remain with zero velocity? Then the object should be at rest.
 
but seriously i dunno what modern combinatorics is at this point
 
7:11 PM
@Abcd one point being at zero velocity does not mean the whole object is at rest
 
@BalarkaSen wtf does that mean
 
Anonymous
@Abcd The point of contact changes continuously. Each such point is instantaneously at rest at the bottom.
 
i think a large chunk of modern combinatorics originates from algebraic geometry
 
@BalarkaSen yeah no idea. I know my fields but beyond that...who knows
 
counting points on curves, intersection theory, blah
there are combinatorial topology but i dunno if that's hip. gromov has two huge ass papers on them :P
 
7:13 PM
@BalarkaSen The algebra guys don't publicly divulge when their seminars are
Otherwise I would go
 
Is tyre in mud an example of pure rolling @LeakyNun and @Blue?
 
@Abcd depends on the tyre, and depends on the mud
 
@LeakyNun -_-
@LeakyNun Umm, the one stuck in wet mud.
 
are the wheels turning?
 
@LeakyNun rapidly
 
7:15 PM
is the car moving?
 
@LeakyNun no
 
Anonymous
A good example would be tyres of a car moving a constant velocity on a rough road (the ones you see around you).
 
@Abcd haven't we been there before
 
@BalarkaSen I want to learn algebraic geometry but I can't get excited about it
 
@Blue is my example wrong?
 
Anonymous
7:16 PM
@Abcd In your example it is rotating...no translation...
 
1 hour ago, by Semiclassical
Have you ever heard the phrase "you're just spinning your wheels?"
 
@0ßelö7 learn riemann surfaces w me
 
Oh.....so complex !!!!!! I feel dead
@Blue But you just said that velocity is zero of point in contact.
How can two particles of the same body have different velocities?
 
Anonymous
@Abcd For pure rolling only
 
@BalarkaSen I barely made it through my covering theory class alive, I don't think I would survive chapter 1 of Forster. How do you feel about reading something like Jost on harmonic maps of Riemann surfaces?
 
Anonymous
7:18 PM
@Abcd Of course they can have...
 
@0ßelö7 I'd be down for that actually
 
@Blue No, they will separate if that was the case.'
 
depending on how much background i have
 
Anonymous
@Abcd No. In pure rolling the topmost point still has velocity even though the point of contact is stationary.
 
@BalarkaSen I think the book is called "compact Riemann surfaces"
 
7:21 PM
@Abcd If the object is either rotating or deforming than it is not merely possible it is required. How could it be otherwise?
 
Anonymous
 
@0ßelö7 this looks like the paper which that talk is based on: arxiv.org/pdf/1706.08823.pdf
(especially since it has the same abstract lol)
Oddly, though, the phrase "circle group" only shows up once in there...in the abstract :[
soooo yea
 
Anonymous
@Abcd gOt iT ?
 
@0ßelö7 I think it's mostly supposed to be Rick :P
@0ßelö7 Perhaps
 
Anonymous
7:55 PM
@JohnRennie Will it be worth calling up or emailing the El Cheapo people? We can give it a try.
 
Anonymous
Is this the website: elcheapo.ca ?
 
Anonymous
Nah...that seems to be Toronto based
 
@Blue I need one of those.
 
Anonymous
@dmckee One of what? SSD?
 
In a similar vein Pasadena California used to be home to the Rent-a-clunker car place.
@Blue No, serious discount movers.
 
Anonymous
8:07 PM
Oh :P We have plenty of discount movers here.
 
Anonymous
(Well, that's mostly because of the huge population density. They get lot of customers.)
 
@Blue If you're in Toronto then you;re not kidding. But I'm in fly-over country.
 
Anonymous
I'm in Kolkata. 4.5 million people in this city. :P
 
Anonymous
@dmckee Where do you stay in the US?
 
Sid
@Blue I might come to Kolkata in November. :-)
Or might not, depending upon many variables
 
Anonymous
8:11 PM
@Sid Nice. For what?
 
Sid
Debate
 
Anonymous
Where?
 
@Blue Southwestern Missouri. The 'big' city near here is Springfield with a population around 1/6 of a million people. Joplin isn't even that big.
 
Sid
@Blue NUSRL
Oh wait. Sorry, that is Ranchi
 
Anonymous
Looks like a peaceful countryside place. I like such places. The population here drives me crazy sometimes.
 
Anonymous
8:16 PM
Traffic jams and horns everywhere
 
Anonymous
@Sid yeah :P
 
8:29 PM
@BalarkaSen So yea or nay to Jost?
 
Sounds ok to me
I'll have a look at ze book
 
Got a hold of an online copy
This looks good actually
Jost+Forster should be good for my soul
 
@BalarkaSen I only suggest good books
 
@Blue It certainly has some advantages. We like to taunt our city-dwelling friends with phrases like "Oh no! It's rush hour so it will take me fifteen or twenty minutes to get across town!"
 
8:32 PM
@BalarkaSen I'll pick them up from the library sometime soon.
 
But having to drive two hours to visit a good medical specialist or a descent museum is a bummer.
 
Anonymous
Ah, that's true. In cases of emergency that can be a problem. The city people are lucky to have lot of hospitals, restaurants and tourist spots nearby.
 
And we have less choice in dining that we would in a bigger city, our cinema only shows blockbusters so we have to wait for art-house flicks to show up on netflix or amazon and so on.
 
I hear choice
 
Anonymous
On the same note, my university is just a 5 mins walk from my house. That's a pro. :)
 
8:37 PM
only over my DEAD body will all vector spaces have bases
 
@LeakyNun Sure. Joplin isn't a total backwater, it's a small city. We lived in a place with a population of about 3000 once. They roll up the sidewalks at 6:30pm in those places.
 
@dmckee lol I was talking about the axiom of choice
 
@dmckee he was making a math reference
 
in Mathematics, Sep 11 at 19:08, by Daminark
If you have an opportunity to invoke choice, do it
in Mathematics, Sep 18 at 7:39, by Daminark
The existence of this group follows from the axiom of choice. I choose to assert its existence.
 
Anonymous
Mathematicians give names to everything.
 
8:38 PM
Well, the axiom of dinging choice says you can only eat at restaurants found within driving distance.
 
in Mathematics, Sep 19 at 18:20, by Leaky Nun
> The axiom gets its name not because mathematicians prefer it to other axioms.

— A. K. Dewdney
 
I can choose to not give a flying frick about axiom of choice, by axiom of choice.
 
@BalarkaSen @_@
 
I can't think of things that I use daily that require the full AoC
there was something I learned recently that used a weak AC and it was very surprising
 
@0ßelö7 what was it about?
pointwise continuity => epsilon-delta continuity requires AC
 
8:43 PM
bullshit
 
:c
 
do you mean sequential continuity
 
!
sequential continuity => epsilon-delta continuity requires AC
 
What I'm thinking about has to do with geometric measure theory...maybe
I don't recall what it was, just that it seemed insignificant and required AC
In the form of Zorn, naturally.
 
under AC you can't have
1. all sets measurable
2. countable additivity
3. translatability
at the same time
 
8:44 PM
@LeakyNun Proof?
@LeakyNun No, not that either. I said geometric measure theory, not measure theory.
 
34
Q: Continuity and the Axiom of Choice

John GowersIn my introductory Analysis course, we learned two definitions of continuity. $(1)$ A function $f:E \to \mathbb{C}$ is continuous at $a$ if every sequence $(z_n) \in E$ such that $z_n \to a$ satisfies $f(z_n) \to f(a)$. $(2)$ A function $f:E \to \mathbb{C}$ is continuous at $a$ if $\forall ...

3
Q: "Sequential continuity is equivalent to $\epsilon$-$\delta $ continuity " implies Axiom of countable choice for collection of subsets of $\mathbb R$?

user228168"A function $f: \mathbb R \to \mathbb R$ is continuous at $x \in \mathbb R$ , if and only if it is sequentially continuous " , does this statement imply "the Axiom of Choice for countable collections of non-empty subsets of $\mathbb R$ "

4
Q: Does there exist a model of $ZF¬C$ in which there is a function on $\mathbb R$ which is sequentially continuous at a point where it is not continuous?

user228168Does there exist a model of $ZF¬C$ in which there is a function $f:\mathbb R \to \mathbb R$ such that $f$ is sequentially continuous at some $a \in \mathbb R$ but not $\epsilon-\delta$ continuous , i.e., for any sequence $\{x_n\}$ converging to $a$ , $\lim f(x_n)=f(a)$ but still $f$ is not conti...

 
Yeah, countable choice
That's not AC
C'mon son
 
well...
 
countable choice doesn't imply Banach-Tarski
 
alright
 
8:46 PM
But yes, I agree that countable choice is lurking everywhere
 
even "countable union of finite sets is countable" requires countable choice
 
Yup
 
@0ßelö7 getting roasted here
 
@LeakyNun Well now I want to know what I needed AC for
@BalarkaSen me?
I was correct, one does not need AC
 
i meant leaky lol
 
8:49 PM
oh
 
but obviously in a joking way
 
yes
I needed something weaker than AC actually
something Boolean something
 
@BalarkaSen :c
everyone I meet here is well-versed in math and set theory and measurability
everyone I meet in real life cannot calculate 1+1
 
ok time to look for "Zorn" in every book I've read in the past 6 months
 
every field has an algebraic completion
 
8:51 PM
@LeakyNun lmao I know zero set theory
 
@0ßelö7 AC
 
i dunno any set theory or measure theory
 
I know $\epsilon\ll 1$ set theory
what was that for
I'm not a physicist
 
Anonymous
Did I hear someone speak against physicists? :D
 
the $\ll$ lol
 
8:53 PM
@LeakyNun imo, a large part of analysis is being able to do calculations with stuff like that
the analysis I like is very physical in a way
 
I should read this section from Forster on analytic continuation for meromorphic functions but I am contemplating skipping that to read complex differential forms
And come back to it later
what should i do
 

« first day (2517 days earlier)      last day (2414 days later) »