« first day (1623 days earlier)      last day (3603 days later) » 

21:00
btw.
In mathematical logic, Gödel's β function is a function used to permit quantification over finite sequences of natural numbers in formal theories of arithmetic. The β function is used, in particular, in showing that the class of arithmetically definable functions is closed under primitive recursion, and therefore includes all primitive recursive functions. == Definition == The β function takes three natural numbers as arguments. It is defined as β(x1, x2, x3) = rem(x1, 1 + (x3 + 1) · x2) ( = rem(x1, (x3 · x2 + x2 + 1) ) where rem(x, y) denotes the remainder after integer division of x by ...
Ah, the Chinese remainder theorem. We meet again!
@NikolajK that's the coolest thing
@ACuriousMind Old adversary?
@NeuroFuzzy: credit is for my homeboy Gödel
I actually life across the street with the cafe where he came up with the incompletness theorem
@0celo7 No, more like an old friend that I had lost contact with ;)
21:01
@ACuriousMind Anything I'd be interested in?
@0celo7 Pure algebra/number theory/module theory, so probably not
@ACuriousMind Hah, you know my sphere of ignorance already
@NikolajK neat.
@ACuriousMind: Finally, to clear up the mystery
let p(X)=a+bX+cX^2+... be the polynomial with natural number coeffients
p(p(1))=a+b p(1)+c p(1)^2+...
p(p(1)) mod p(1) = (drum roles please) a
(a<=p(1) by p(1) being the sum of all coeffients)
(p(p(1))-a)/p(1) mod p(1) = b+c p(1)+...mod p(1) = b, and so on
@ACuriousMind *Exercise 11.3*. Show that the determinant of an odd-dimensional skew-symmetric matrix vanishes.

Let $A$ be an odd-dimensional $k\times k$ skew-symmetric matrix. Then $$\operatorname{det}A=\operatorname{det}A^T=\operatorname{det}-A=(-1)^k\operatorname{det}A=-\operatorname{det}A=0$$
Correct?
21:06
Stupid italics.
@NikolajK I see
I leave you with a final wat before I go to sleep
@NikolajK Wow, that's surprisingly easy.
@NikolajK Wow, that's surprisingly hard.
@NikolaiK: Just to make sure: The connection to the beta function is that the k_i are the coefficients, and the b and c are the p(1) and p(p(1)), respectively?
21:12
effectively, but the coding of the polynomial is very specific
the point is that division / remainder lets you generate all numbers out of a few
interestingly, there are theories tweeked to be weak enough to just avoid Gödel
Self-verifying theories are consistent first-order systems of arithmetic much weaker than Peano arithmetic that are capable of proving their own consistency. Dan Willard was the first to investigate their properties, and he has described a family of such systems. According to Gödel's incompleteness theorem, these systems cannot contain the theory of Peano arithmetic, and in fact, not even the weak fragment of Robinson arithmetic; nonetheless, they can contain strong theorems. In outline, the key to Willard's construction of his system is to formalise enough of the Gödel machinery to talk about...
@ACuriousMind Do you know anything about Euler classes?
it's funny btw. what things are still named after Euler
@NikolajK I thought that too.
It probably has to do with the Gauss-Bonnet theorem
he knew nothing about general characteristic classes, or, let's say,
In mathematics, more precisely in Ito calculus, the Euler–Maruyama method, also called simply the Euler method, is a method for the approximate numerical solution of a stochastic differential equation (SDE). It is a simple generalization of the Euler method for ordinary differential equations to stochastic differential equations. It is named after Leonhard Euler and Gisiro Maruyama. Unfortunately the same generalization cannot be done for the other methods from deterministic theory, e.g. Runge–Kutta schemes. Consider the stochastic differential equation (see Itō calculus) with initial condition...
@NikolajK Are you a mathematician or a physicist?
You seem to know something about everything.
21:17
Physicist, of course.
And I know something about everything, yes :P
Of course?
na I just mean physics is the way to go ^^
I have a kind of project where I want to set up statistical physics from scratch, like, complete scratch. So I read quite a bit on logic
@0celo7 I know everything about nothing.
a goal of mine is to understand Urs Schreibers higher quantum gauge field theory in homotopy type theory
@NikolajK I said something eerily similar not long ago here :)
21:22
the pic with the spin and string obstructions are from his PhD thesis - one reason why I need to understand characteristic classes also
@ACuriousMind: What do you mean?
@NikolajK You a Ph.D.?
Nov 26 '14 at 22:36, by ACuriousMind
I do not understand the details of motives and topos theory. But one of my long-term goals is, for example, to understand what the heck Urs Schreiber is doing in this paper.
PhD student
@ACuriousMind: :)
"paper"
Yeah, book, whatever :D
It's on the arXiv, it's a paper, I don't discriminate
21st century
Lol
21:24
yeah, I agree, it's posted as paper, but it's not really
@ACuriousMind How much more math do I need before that?
Hypothetically speaking, of course
@0celo7 Not the kind of math you're doing now
@ACuriousMind Meaning?
Category theory and homotopy theory, for a start
Learn to reason with arrows and diagrams, and forget about all these pesky elements
Looking through this makes my stomach sink
21:26
Especially do not use indices ;)
I approach the content from several points since a year or so, I have some ideas
Here R is the geometric realization map, and u(−) is the forgetful map from the higher moduli stacks of higher principal connections to that of higher principal bundles of def. 4.4.85.
That sounds made-up.
everything is higher :)
@0celo7 Well, math is essentially made-up :P
he's coming from the infinity-topos community and this is now the "internal language" of certain type theories
infinity meaning every object^TM has an infinite tower of structure
like homotopies or homotopies of homotopies
21:29
@ACuriousMind Holy shit. This guy is really pissing me off. "From the splitting principle, we find that $L(E\oplus F)=L(E)\wedge L(F)$."
"The infinity-topos community" sounds as if they should be living on some kind of spaceship or strange-looking orbital station
Perhaps with a fractal surface
he spaceship is called the nLab :D
I'm not even going to save that "paper".
@NikolajK lol, true that
it's not the newest version btw.
Urs is really cool and works a lot
21:30
I want to get a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering so I can babble on about stuff you people don't understand.
and nobody works so publicly as he does
@NikolajK I was recently reading about gauge theories in a different context. "Ghosts of ghosts" are a thing. There is an afterlife for the afterlife
@0celo7 Go on and try!
what's up with your ava anyway
@ACuriousMind 8+ years to go
@NikolajK It's Morte.
21:34
ah, k
regarding what I said about working publicly
>Urs - 1 day ago
Morte, one of my favourite characters from one of my favourite games
@0celo7 lol
You sure Nakahara is good for you? :D
He's taunting me because I couldn't do that proof yesterday
I like Nakahara
I liked it when I read it year ago, at least
@NikolajK A lot of typos.
I've had to correct typos in exercises, which is never fun.
ah, yeah I fixed my version with the errata online
21:36
I found more :/
:/
In fact, I gave that book to my girlfriend as a present
(my ex, no joke intended)
It's on my list of "get in print" books
Currently Blumenhagen is on the top of the list.
Oh, you read it as pdf
that's no fun
Exactly
the book has such a cool format too
The format I like most
21:41
I like that he \mathrm{}s stuff.
@ACuriousMind Has turned me into a typography geek.
does he \mathrm{} d's in \int dx?
Yup.
Also \mathrm{e} and \mathrm{i}
user54412
Is he the reason you're trying to do $\mathop{\oplus}^n$?
@ChrisWhite No, actually, I wish he did that.
I couldn't teach her a thing, though.
21:43
He does $$\underbrace{\mathbb{Z}\oplus\cdots\oplus\mathbb{Z}}_{n}$$which is atrocious
she's sill a non-constructivist (pole dancer)
@NikolajK He fails at Ricci tensors and Hodge duals.
Scalar curvature as \mathcal{R} is not too bad.
I'm not that strict
it's a book you overcome anyway
Overcome?
it's a book for understanding/introduction - once you did, you'll probably go to others
21:45
I think this is the peak of my math for a long while.
user54412
@0celo7 That's a dangerous path. Eventually you reach the point where everyone's notation looks awful. And then you know you've gone too far when you start to realize all the ways tex sucks at typesetting.
@ChrisWhite I have fantasies about re-writing books just to make them look pretty.
I'm already there.
freaks
Weinberg's QFT books could use a good re-typesetting and be bound in one book. That would be glorious.
1600 pages of pure TeX glory.
\mathrm all the way.
@ACuriousMind: My glorious kind of contributions to the nLab:
(post 10)
21:48
(Although, you'd have to rewrite it so he distinguishes between group and algebra.)
user54412
One of my life goals (that will never actually happen) is to design a font -- one that works well for text and/or math.
I don't know, I don't feel TeX is so bad, is it?
I like TeX -- for the most part.
My distro has crappy $\Lambda$s and $\Psi$s.
on a related note, I have an ongoing project where I think about notation in math
proposals for redoing it
in the extreme sense, like Penrose graphs are extreme/very different
@NikolajK How many of these ongoing projects do you have?^^
user54412
21:51
It's the best there is I guess, but there are little things that bug me, like all the manual kerning one has to do, and the lack of scalable parentheses (5 discrete sizes isn't enough).
@ChrisWhite You're one of those guys who actually fiddles with the microtype settings, I bet
@ChrisWhite Stop infecting me pls
@ACuriousMind already did a number on me.
I get really agitated by my physics and calculus teachers' lecture notes. Word and PPT.
@ACuriousMind:
I also can't decide between $$\int f(x)\,\mathrm{d}x$$ and $$\int \mathrm{d}x\,f(x)$$
The latter looks "tacticool" in my mind.
user54412
I never did like the dx being first -- it's nice to have a right delimiter to the integrand after all -- but then again I'm not a QFT type
21:55
@ChrisWhite QFT type?
@ACuriousMind: The core project is the "logic to statistical physics" project, though
user54412
the type of person who does QFT all the time
a.k.a. flesh this out: graph.axiomsofchoice.org
@ChrisWhite Well yes, but what does QFT have to do with anything?
@0celo7 The first version, please.
21:56
@ACuriousMind Nooooo
I can't disobey you
user54412
@0celo7 they always seem to write the differential first, maybe divided by factors of $2\pi$
I really liked the second one :(((
I'm also pro \int f(x)\,\mathrm{d}x
@ChrisWhite Weinberg does this in (all?) his books.
user54412
If we're going to smash the dx next to the integral sign, why bother having two separate symbols anyway? May as well just do \int\limits^x or some such thing.
21:59
He did differential last in 1972, differential first in 1995-2000, differential first in 2008 and differential first in 2013.
So getting a Nobel prize changed the location of the differential!
@ChrisWhite Doesn't Wald just omit the differential when integrating over a hypersurface?
@0celo7 You never write "the differential" when integrating over a manifold
For precisely the reason that Chris said, I think - it's rather silly to have two symbols denoting one operation
@ACuriousMind You do when you refuse to use coordinate free notation
user54412
The d's make sense if there's ambiguity about the measure you're integrating against, but how often is that the case?
Never, really.
in a way I like that dx is there for dimensional analysis
22:02
@ACuriousMind On page 296, we have $$J=\frac{1}{16\pi}\int_S \epsilon_{abcd}\nabla^c\psi^d$$
user54412
(Actually, I just realized it's the case in the paper I'm writing, but that's because the quantities I'm working with aren't always integrated with the correct weighting of $\sqrt{-g}$. sigh)
There really should be a $\mathrm{d}x^a\wedge \mathrm{d}x^b$ there.
e.g. you know that $\int_{-\infty}^\infty e^{-x^2/a^2}dx$, if it converges, is propto a.
just by dimensional arguments
@0celo7 That's just ugly, even I know that indices floating around are bad ;)
user54412
@NikolajK That is useful, I'll admit.
22:04
@ACuriousMind Exactly. Straumann, the good German that he is, writes this without indices and with a Hodge dual.
Yet he fails to use $\star$, sadly.
indices are floating around in my bed
@NikolajK I'm not sure if that's better or worse than if they were only in your head
@0celo7 :(
imho geometric formulations without indices are ever so slightly overrated
22:06
@ACuriousMind When reading Wald, I'd go to Straumann to see how he did the calculation in index free. A lot handier sometimes.
(Hodge dual in indices is just horrendous.)
@ACuriousMind: I'm the guy who pulls 19 year old girls and explains them diagonal arguments and renormalization theory after sex
I have no idea why he thought this notation was a good idea.
@NikolajK I personally find a lot of stuff conceptually far clearer when it's formulated without indices. Of course you need a firm grasp of indices to actually calculate stuff ;)
my point is that in presentation the index-freeness is nice, but once you go to compute you transform to indices again
that's why I'm unsure about the general value too
@ACuriousMind: I guess you just said what I said
"What do you want to write on my foot??"
There are some very nice equations such as $\iota_X\star \alpha=\star(\alpha\wedge X^\flat)$ that are nasty in indices.
22:11
I did my Masters in a differential geometry framework, but I'd lie if I said that such equations speak to me
again, I agree that it looks good, but I miss the intuition
@NikolajK Heh, I'm not actually sure what I shall say to that.
in the sense that $\frac{1}{4\pi}$ carries intuitive information
Ron Maimon also made a good argument for indeces in this one thread on relativity for mathematicans
I think Straumann uses index free very well in the sense that he goes back and forth between indices and index free without any fuss.
@0celo7 Free indices make me slightly nauseous. Years of conditioning, I guess :D
@NikolajK I'm having deja-vu, we had this conversation already
@ACuriousMind Like I said, he just omits the surface element that completes the index structure.
22:14
@ACuriousMind: I'll break it with something new, then
In mathematical logic, the De Bruijn index is a notation invented by the Dutch mathematician Nicolaas Govert de Bruijn for representing terms in the λ calculus with the purpose of eliminating the names of the variable from the notation. Terms written using these indices are invariant with respect to α conversion, so the check for α-equivalence is the same as that for syntactic equality. Each De Bruijn index is a natural number that represents an occurrence of a variable in a λ-term, and denotes the number of binders that are in scope between that occurrence and its corresponding binder. The following...
user54412
@0celo7 On the other hand, the difference between $\nabla_\mu (\star F)^{\mu\nu}$ and $\nabla_\nu (\star F)^{\mu\nu}$ is a bit difficult to convey succinctly without indices.
@ChrisWhite Are you saying you need more indices?
I'm not sure how I would distinguish the two using no indices at all. (I think that's what you're saying.)
@NikolajK My knowledge of lambda calculus is smaller than any positive real number, so...no idea what that is about :P
@ACuriousMind lmao
why not work in R*?
In non-standard analysis, a monad (also called halo) is the set of points infinitesimally close to a given point. Given a hyperreal number x in R*, the monad of x is the set If x is finite (limited), the unique real number in the monad of x is called the standard part of x. == See also == Infinitesimal == Notes == == References == H. Jerome Keisler: Foundations of Infinitesimal Calculus, available for downloading...
smaller than any real doesn't mean 0, in my book :)
22:21
@ACuriousMind @NikolajK Crap, I think I missed some important information. Is the integral of a characteristic class always an integer?
@NikolajK It's still infinitesimally small, I think, isn't it?
integrals are a very particular notion, they don't generally exists in the framework where there are characteristic classes
but even if you restrict the question a bit, I don't know the answer
@ACuriousMind: yeah, I guess it depends on the formalization of "no idea"
Okay, then I have the tiniest bit of an idea what that is about
Hmm, is there a general statement about cohomology classes or volume forms maybe??
Hey guys sorry for interrupting.Could someone tell me where can i find a complete list of symbols that we use in physics along with their meaning?
22:26
@0celo7 Isn't the volume form a representant of the generator of the top (deRham) cohomology?
with their meaning?
Can anyone answer this question?
1
Q: How are resonating valence bond (RVB) states related to fractional quantum Hall (FQH) states?

Saavanth VeluryIn Kalmeyer and Laughlin's paper, there is an argument made for a frustrated two-dimensional Heisenberg antiferromagnet on a triangular lattice that if one uses a FQH wavefunction for bosons to represent the ground state, the variation energy estimate is nearly the same as if one uses RVB state t...

@GeorgeSmyridis "complete" will not be possible.
@0celo7: I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but maybe the answer to this old question of mine helps math.stackexchange.com/questions/98873/…
Also, "meaning" is difficult, since almost all symbols are math rather than physics
22:27
"Let $P_j(F) $ be an arbitrary $2j$-form characteristic class. [...] Suppose $M$ is even dimensional, $m=2l$. It follows from Stokes' theorem that $$\int_M P_l(F)=\int_{\partial M}Q_{m-1}(A,F)$$ The LHS takes its value in integers, and so does the RHS. Thus $Q_{m-1}$ is a characteristic class in its own right."
@ACuriousMind Yes, so?
@ACuriousMind: like \forall in "\forall x.P(x)" binds x and uses the predicate P to form a sentence, if E is an expression (which possibly contains the symbol "x"), a lambda binds arguments and the result is (instead of a sentence), a function
Yeah, i can understand but everything i have found online is pretty limited. I have seen some symbols in this site that i cannot find anywhere.
so if x is of type N, i.e. number, the expression (\lambda x. x+3) is the function f(x):=x+3
@0celo7 You asked for "is there a general statement about cohomology classes or volume forms". I can't really help you, I've always just used that the integrals of the characteristic classes are integers
@ACuriousMind: (\lambda x. x+3) 5 = 8
22:30
It might have something to do with these integrals being a homotopy invariant, though
@ACuriousMind So this is well known? How does it come about?
Crap, you don't know?
@0celo7 1. Yes, it is well known. 2. I have no idea what the general proof is.
@ACuriousMind: Can you evaluate $(\lambda f. (\lambda x. f(x^2+10))) (\lambda x. x+3)$?
to make it simpler, I should have written
$(\lambda f. (\lambda x. f(x^2+10))) (\lambda y. y+3)$
or ask for
$((\lambda f. (\lambda x. f(x^2+10))) (\lambda y. y+3)) 2$
@NikolajK It takes a function of one variable $f(x)$ and a number $y$ and spits out the function $f(x^2+10)$ and the number $y+3$?
I'm not even sure what "evaluating" that expression even means, but I think that's it
any so called lambda term is a function
(\lambda y. y+3) is the function myf(y):=y+3
22:40
@ACuriousMind From Wiki: "Characteristic classes are elements of cohomology groups;[1] one can obtain integers from characteristic classes, called characteristic numbers"
for any fixed function f, the lambda term (\lambda x. f(x^2+10)) is the function mapping x to the value f(x^2+10)
clear so far?
@NikolajK Yeah. Ah, you mean that expression to be $y \mapsto f((y+3)^2+10)$?
exactly
\lambda x. g(x) is the same as (x\mapsto g(x))
so $((\lambda f. (\lambda x. f(x^2+10))) (\lambda y. y+3)) 2$ is ?
no wait
22:43
Damn, I can't calculate^^
you mixed something up
it's not f((y+3)^2+10)
you didn't understand this part I'm afraid
if I evaluate
(\lambda f. (\lambda x. f(x^2+10))) (\lambda y. y+3)
one time
then f becomes the function (\lambda y. y+3)
(\lambda y. y+3) is a function and taken as an argument for
(\lambda f. (\lambda x. f(x^2+10)))
hence you get, as return value, the function (\lambda x. x^2+13)
Then it eats the 2 and it becomes 17, I see
right
that's Haskell for you
they literally mix up \lambda and \mapsto in one kind of notation :P
do you see what the following lambda term does?
22:49
I'm not a programming kind of guy, really. The quantum fields on the lattice I will simulate this semester will already strain my meager skills
k
you'll learn about it when you learn about topoi, though, probably
I'll give you one historical most significant factoid, though
do you see what the following lambda expression does?
(\lambda f. (\lambda x. x))
which I'll call Z. And in contrast
(\lambda f. (\lambda x. (f x)))
which I'll call O.
Z is the identity - no matter which function I input, I'll get the identity function out of it. O just takes a function and maps it to itself.
the identity is \lambda x.x
but yes, Z if the function which ignores the input f and just always returns the identity
Ah, well, Z is a function of function that sends every function to the identity
right
it's the constant function, mapping to the identity
O is just "evaluate"
similarly, (\lambda f. (\lambda x. (f (f x)))), is "evaluate twice"
22:55
@ACuriousMind Is it perhaps just an issue of normalization so that we get integers?
I don't see how integers have to do with anything.
I'm not sure why we write the silly lambda, but okay^^
you could also write \mapsto all the way
the point was in formalizing evaluation order
@0celo7 There are probably some $\pi$ and such floating around as prefactors
Characteristic classes are defined via invariant polynomials, right?
but what was the motivation in the first place?
the awesome thing is this: you can, for example, define
if you compute
plus Z
22:56
If $P$ is an invariant polynomial, then $\pi P$ should be one too, right?
you'll find you get O
I don't see how that one could have integer integrals.
I mean
(plus Z) O
is O
and (plus O) O is the next one, (\lambda f. (\lambda x. (f (f x))))
and you have
and so on. You can in fact implement all of math now. The lamdba calculus is the first programming language, indeed the first formalization of algorithms, the syntatci analog of Turing machines in the 30's
@0celo7 Looks like it to me, but remember, I don't really know this stuff
@NikolajK I see
@ACuriousMind: and
22:59
@ACuriousMind I just need someone to ramble to, really
implements infinite recursion :)
@ACuriousMind Researching and reading a bunch right now
@NikolajK :O

« first day (1623 days earlier)      last day (3603 days later) »