« first day (2026 days earlier)      last day (2918 days later) » 
00:00 - 21:0021:00 - 00:00

9:00 PM
And the embedding for that in 3-space is easy so it should be simple to calculate its curvature explicitly
 
@0celo7 ha! I'm cool :D
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform Now how to calculate it's Euler characteristic...
It should be 0 because it's homeomorphic to the plane
 
@0celo7 Will a 3D paraboloid 'close' at infinity?
 
my job here is done
 
@Slereah So what if spacetime is a paraboloid
 
9:03 PM
mb
 
i better leave before I say something stupid
 
I think the Einstein-Hilbert action is infinite
 
Hm
 
But the Euler characteristic is finite, 0 in fact
@BernardMeurer no
 
But wait, that reasoning would also apply to Riemannian manifolds
Would that not break the whatever inequality
 
9:03 PM
Exactly
So how does that inequality work
 
@0celo7 That does happen in 2D ones doesn't it?
 
"that in every complete Riemannian 2-manifold S with finite total curvature"
Oh wait
 
@Slereah I'm treating the paraboloid as an immersed Riemannian manifold in R3
 
I guess that's what finite total curvature means
 
oh
that's stupid
and there goes your argument
@BernardMeurer huh?
 
9:05 PM
yeah I suppose
Hm
How do you define the Hilbert action so that it makes sense if it's divergent on the entire manifold
Can you just define it in an open subset
 
A compact subset
 
@0celo7 nevermind
 
@Slereah dim-reg, obviously
 
Or a subset with compact closure
(the difference has zero measure)
You basically require that the action principle holds on all sets with compact closure
 
Sounds reasonable enough
BUT
In this case
You have to use the Hawking York term
The horror
 
9:07 PM
yup
This is why most physics books just integrate over $\mathcal M$ and ignore the nasty parts
 
Does Wald even mention this
 
I think so
In appendix E
I know he derives the boundary term
So it's probably in there
I don't have any GR books with me
I feel naked
 
in which case
I guess the 2D GR thing is trivial?
Maybe?
 
how
 
Does the York term correspond to any Gauss Bonnet term
 
9:13 PM
the boundary terms depend on the metric
I'm not sure
Don't you have a whole book on 2D gravity
 
Yeah I think it's just the integral of the boundary in Gauss Bonnet
2+1, not 1+1
 
@Slereah post them here and let's see
 
Well Gauss Bonnet is $$\int_M K\;dA+\int_{\partial M}k_g\;ds=2\pi\chi(M)$$
Full GR action is $$\mathcal{S}_\mathrm{EH} + \mathcal{S}_\mathrm{GHY} = \frac{1}{16 \pi} \int_\mathcal{M} \mathrm{d}^4 x \, \sqrt{-g} R + \frac{1}{8 \pi} \int_{\partial \mathcal{M}} \mathrm{d}^3 y \, \epsilon \sqrt{h}K$$
 
What is $k_g$?
 
$k_g$ is the geodesic curvature of the boundary
 
9:17 PM
No shit
What exactly is it though
 
$$k_g = \|\frac{dU^\mu}{d\lambda}\|$$
 
sigh
what are these symbols
and why are you using $\mu$ in Riemannian geometry
 
It's the norm of the derivative of the tangent unit vector
because I'm great
 
damn physicists
 
@0celo7 I don't think a classification of those can be expected, no
 
9:20 PM
BUT
On the other hand
 
@Danu The issue resolved itself
I was being dumb
 
The Hilbert part is $1/16$ and the York part is $1/8$
Why is there a factor of 2 between the two
 
For Riemann surfaces, the classification is very simple though
 
@Danu I know
 
Not simple to prove, but a simple result.
 
9:21 PM
Hopefully because $k_g = 2 K$
 
My proof is simple: if I draw a random Riemann surface it looks like a bunch of tori :P
 
I'm talking about noncompact ones, too
There are only three simply connected ones!
 
@Danu I was going to say "ur mum" but she's got holes ;P
what are they?
 
Plane, sphere and...
Empty set???
 
@0celo7 Sphere, plane, disk
 
9:24 PM
Well then you forgot the empty set :p
 
(in order of decreasing curvature)
No, I just didn't forget to exclude dumb cases
 
The empty set is the best case!
It has the coarsest and the finest topology!
It's great
 
@Slereah what is K
what is $\epsilon$, $\sqrt h$?
explain these symbols dude
I don't have Wald with me
 
Epsilon is 1 for timelike and -1 for spacelike surfaces
 
eww
 
9:26 PM
$\sqrt h$ is the det of the induced metric
 
is the $\epsilon$ from Stokes theorem
 
$K$ is the second fundamental form
 
using my correct proof
which Wald has wrong
 
hm
I dunno
 
@Danu I like translating rap lyrics into German
 
9:27 PM
$K=\nabla_a n^a$
 
they sound so silly
 
Hm
 
@Slereah that doesn't look like $|| U'||$ to me
 
Close tho
Wait or does it
Agn
Wait
In 2D the induced metric is always flat
Since it's the metric of a 1D manifold
so $K = \partial_a n^a$
 
yes
 
9:30 PM
Hm
How to link $n^a$ to $U^a$
 
@Danu my algebraic topology sucks, what kind of surfaces cannot be triangulized (fuck that spelling)
 
Weird ones
I remember getting no satisfying answer
bc fuck weird manifolds
 
yesterday, by ACuriousMind
@Slereah Theorem 3 here says that every surface is obtained by removing points from the sphere, then removing discs from the remnant, and then pairwise gluing the boundaries of those discs together
@Danu ^deja-vu :P
 
It is a neat theorem
 
9:33 PM
@ACuriousMind nice
@0celo7 LOTS
 
Like
Simple to understand
 
Damn.
 
write a comma
between investor and yes
 
u smart
@ACuriousMind KSP is coming to 3DS
Why won't Nintendo let me download my old DS games to my 3DS SD card
WHY NINTENDO
@Slereah hey check out the GHY wiki page
 
@ACuriousMind Funny thing that I thought of yesterday: $U(1)$ has exactly one subgroup with order $n$ for each $n\in \Bbb N$, and no other subgroups.
...I think.
 
9:39 PM
what is the last paragraph in the intro about
 
9:59 PM
@0celo7 Roots of unity, yeah
 
@Danu What about $\{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}q}\mid q\in\mathbb{Q}\}$?
 
@ACuriousMind Right, there come the problems
 
@Danu is that a cyclic group
 
The main point I had in mind is that they're discrete
 
How is the group ACM defend discrete
 
10:02 PM
@0celo7 Yes, it's clearly isomorphic to $\Bbb Z_n$
 
*defined
 
@0celo7 $\Bbb Q$ is discrete, you know that right
(in $\Bbb R$)
 
Nope
 
hi hi
 
What is discrete
Countable?
 
10:03 PM
Discrete topology
 
What about where q is irrational
 
@Danu Well...is there a subset of $\mathbb{R}$ that's closed under addition and not discrete and not $\mathbb{R}$ itself?
 
anyone know metric system? that's like in base 10. what unit is only commonly found in there? is it grams?
 
@ACuriousMind Yeah, I didn't think about it that way. Right.
@0celo7 It will generate all of $U(1)$
(standard exercise in topology, in fact!)
 
well I'm sorry that I won't have taken topology until next semester
 
10:06 PM
nevermind I found it
 
@0celo7 That's the whole of $\mathrm{U}(1)$ because I can add $2\pi$ to any rational to make it irrational.
 
@ACuriousMind But in some sense this kind of doesn't ruin the picture; one for every finite $n$, and the limit!
 
I'm actually not sure what kind of topology $\mathbb{R}-\mathbb{Q}$ has.
 
@ACuriousMind hmm, how does that work in the other direction?
 
@0celo7 What other direction?
 
10:08 PM
how do you get rationals out of irrationals
 
Indiscrete topology if you quotient out the irrational action @ACuriousMind
@0celo7 Not so easily
 
@0celo7 You don't
 
so how do you get like $\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{i}$
 
You don't.
That's why it's a true subgroup
 
then how is it $\mathrm{U}(1)$?
 
10:09 PM
@0celo7 Wait, what is "it"?
$\{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}q}\mid q\in\mathbb{Q}\}$ is not $\mathrm{U}(1)$.
 
$I:=\{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}q}\mid q\in \mathbb{R}-\mathbb Q\}$
(for future reference I have given it a name)
you claim $\mathrm{U}(1)=I$?
 
That's $\mathrm{U}(1)$ because for any $\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\phi},\phi\in[0,2\pi)$ either $\phi$ is irrational or $\phi+2\pi$ is.
 
is that related to like
the fact that an irrational rotation repeated will go through every point (almost) of a circle
 
@ACuriousMind Is it not discrete as well?
I'm confused
are they discrete or not?
 
I suspect Danu meant "totally disconnected", not "discrete".
 
10:20 PM
oh, that's easy
@ACuriousMind I suspect $R-Q$ is also totally disconnected?
 
@Danu See above; We used "discrete" wrong. "Discrete" means every set is open, that's not true for the rationals.
@0celo7 That's why I said "I'm not sure what topology $\mathbb{R}-\mathbb{Q}$ has"
 
@ACuriousMind well you don't even know what topology $\mathbb Q$ has
totally disconnected is not a topology, is it?
what are the open sets of $\mathbb Q$?
 
@0celo7 What? Sure it is, it means there are no non-singleton connected components
@0celo7 Open intervals, where the endpoints of the intervals are still allowed to be reals (subspace topology of $\mathbb{R}$).
 
@ACuriousMind of course, but that's not what I was looking for
@ACuriousMind what
that doesn't tell you what the topology is...
 
I have a feeling we're talking apst each other :p
There can be more than one totally disconnected topology on a set, if that's what you're asking.
 
10:26 PM
@ACuriousMind Well, obviously!
$\mathbb Q$ with the discrete topology is $\mathbb Z$
 
@0celo7 What was your question, then?
 
@ACuriousMind Beats me
@ACuriousMind Have you ever seen "pseudogroup of transformations" used when defining manifolds
 
nope
 
10:45 PM
@BernardMeurer get enough sleep
 
hmm
I've been sleeping more lately and eating less
coincidence?
 
10:59 PM
Eating less is unamerican, pinko
 
@Slereah I'm not American
 
I knew it
 
and who is pinko
 
Go back to your country
Pinko is an old timey murcan word for communists
 
I'm German
 
11:02 PM
@DanielSank Still 20:00 here, relax :p
 
@BernardMeurer HEY
 
@0celo7 Hey
 
Did you see the h3h3 rain florence response vid
 
Yeah
Why?
 
that burn victim thing
I see it in my dreams
 
11:04 PM
Sounds creepy
 
00:00 - 21:0021:00 - 00:00

« first day (2026 days earlier)      last day (2918 days later) »