« first day (2520 days earlier)      last day (1159 days later) » 

2:06 PM
@Semiclassical Ah, shit, I forgot to go to the AdS/CFT talk
I wanted to know what circles have to do with anything :P
I still wonder about that too, given that the preprint associated to that only used the phrase "circle groups" in the abstract
@BalarkaSen you know that abstraction discussion almost triggered me
@0ßelö7 Oh, hey!
that's the talk you missed
(it was linked on the arxiv page for the preprint)
@Semiclassical huh
not my university
also different person
2:13 PM
@BalarkaSen In the 1960s when Atiyah-Singer was going around, topologists got interested in PDE
So a lot of PDE papers from the 1960s are incredibly abstract
just to check, wasn't the abstract listed for the talk the same as the preprint here? arxiv.org/abs/1706.08823
instead of doing nice PDE they do everything on bundles
even the boundary/initial data gets its own bundle
@Semiclassical the second author was at my school
well, should be similar material
2:15 PM
is $\mathrm{Diff}(S^1)$ not completely understood?
He seems to be talking about it
i dont think so
that crowd is much larger than anything the math department here can draw :/
well, it does look to have been a workshop talk
plus, it seems to have been done at the Stanford Institute of Theoretical Physics
hard to compete with that
@BalarkaSen that seems...strange, no?
@Semiclassical Ah, I was just comparing the analysis seminar to that crowd. The actual math department colloquium gets more people
2:20 PM
i feel ambivalent about it. understanding diff(S^1) has a lot to do with understanding foliations on surface bundles over circles
lots of dynamical things going on
Unless Carl is working with that guy, I don't see a reason for him to show up at UT though...
ah, you mean this little bit of internet magic?
I saw that
complete gold
@EmilioPisanty did someone break it to him?
2:23 PM
By the way, your "mathematical terms in English words" were not automatically turned to the appropriate MathJax symbols. That was actually community members formatting the post to be easier to read and search through. I'd suggest reading the links from Qmechanic to see how to do it yourself. — JMac 2 hours ago
what noob
it could have been the perfect troll
I mean, I can sort of see it from their perspective
ravioli ravioli please latex my formuoli
2:40 PM
Making some SVG spacetime diagrams
I wonder if SVG diagrams would pass on a SE post
@BalarkaSen light 5
is that what fantano gives it
he's a big fan of GY!BE so that's disappointing
What is a gybe
2:43 PM
an obscure band
Q: Faraday's Law and superconductor

itsmeIf I move a magnet towards a superconductor ring, would a constant current be induced in the ring. If yes,how can we calculate the current induced? Would the electron energy be finally radiated away?

@BalarkaSen second account?
um, uh, you got me
it's me, indeed
i dont trust the melon man blindly on reviews like this though so i might still put it on my will-check-it-out list
sometimes his strong 6 or light 7 albums have turned out to be my favorite :P
@0ßelö7 I was probably about 11 or 12 when Star Trek was first shown in the UK, and I remember it seemed pretty amazing. But that was a long time ago in a village far, far away. To be honest the original series looks pretty crap these days.
melon has been off lately
2:48 PM
TOS is pretty bloody cheap
And Chekov was the worst character
chekov was basically TOS's Wesley
Do u remember when they tried to pass a dog with a plastic horn as an alien
terms of service?
The Original Series
People pretend it's great but it is fairly mediocre for the most part
TOS movies are great, though
Star Trek 2 through 6 are the best movies of the series
so like Rudin
or GTA San Andreas
Or Super Mario games
Or Sonic
2:51 PM
@Slereah you take that back
::unsheathes katana::
I tried playing them again a few years back
it's not that good
play catmario
actual footage of me in combat
the ancient American martial art
2:57 PM
actually i just downloaded catmario
i dunno why
@0ßelö7 suprised you're still alive
i regret downloading the game already
@PrathyushPoduval ...why?
@0ßelö7 Your technique is very poor technique
This is how you fight
with awesome music playing in the background
@Slereah i'm surprised you're counting number 5 in there.
3:11 PM
@Semiclassical next fluids homework is about the Schroedinger equation 🤔
It's due in like 3 weeks
I don't know what's up with that
something to do with superfluids, possibly
@Semiclassical no, apparently there's an analogy between solns of the SE and the Euler equation
3:28 PM
yo @ACuriousMind
I have changed the definition of the Lorenz gauge condition on Wikipedia, and it has not been changed back for 48 hours. So I am becoming optimistic that it is now official that this is: — Stephen Wynn 1 min ago
do you want to take care of that, both wp-side and here?
or should I?
@EmilioPisanty Persistent, huh? I can take care of that, yes, let me just finish cleaning up another mess :P
@ACuriousMind sure.
ping me when you edit wikipedia, and I'll reply here.
and this is probably a good time to try and give a heads-up to folks on WP who can provide a tighter watch.
@EmilioPisanty How would one do that?
and provide them with a full transcript of extant & deleted content on all the relevant threads, I should think
@ACuriousMind dunno
I mean, I'd know what to tell them, but I have no idea who to contact
Ah, found something. I'll have to read their help pages on vandalism first, though
3:34 PM
@ACuriousMind yeah, I'm there, it looks like a job
Hm, it appears they only want reports on vandals that have been warned, and warnings are to be issued by the people detecting and reverting the vandalism
Q: Buggy behaviour of spoiler tags when they contain both text and images

Emilio PisantyI know that we don't use the spoiler syntax in Markdown very often, but it seems it's a bit buggy, at least on this site. Consider the following test of the spoiler tag, containing both some text and an image: >! This is a test of the spoiler tag. >! ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vECQ8.jpg) ...

@Semiclassical I'll take Star Trek 5 over 1 or any newer ones
It felt like a proper Star Trek movie despite its flaws
Is the 5 the whales?
Ah, no, it's a different one
> Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism.
but it doesn't reaaaally cover this case
> edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism
this isn't about "how to present", though
3:44 PM
@EmilioPisanty It doesn't? I believe the user genuinely believes they are correct, so they are making a "good-faith effort" to correct what they see as errors.
@ACuriousMind yeah, 5 is "god is at the center of the galaxy and the enterprise is the only ship that can make the journey"
@ACuriousMind no, as in, there's no specific guidance for the situation here
Maybe the policy that applies here is "no original research"?
Since there's not a single source you can cite for the wrong condition.
@ACuriousMind that's a stickier point, though, innit?
@JohnRennie no I don't
I was doing my very best to prevent this from going HNQ
(well, OK, not my very best, that would've included not answering)
3:47 PM
I suppose spoiler tags are useful when you have a long involved derivation and don't want to give away the ending :-)
see the revision history
and tell me that isn't an enormous box of HNQ kindling sat below a crate of TNT, with some lit matches hanging about ready to fall on the kindling
didn't want to mention that example so as not to funnel even more traffic thataway
Some things are just an inevitable part of life, like death, taxes and daft questions getting on the HNQ
@JohnRennie yeah, well, but the combo of Neil deGrasse Tyson + GoT on the title can mean the difference between a day and a week on HNQ
1st correlation with VIRGO
3:53 PM
@ACuriousMind it's more of an edit war than original research, no?
but maybe add an explicit citation when you roll it back
Hm, I rolled it back right now. Good idea, though for an explicit citation I'd need an EM book...of which I possess none :)
@EmilioPisanty Well, it is an edit war where one side is the orthodoxy and the other original research. If this back and forth triggers some Wikipedian to look into the edit war, that's also not a bad outcome
@ACuriousMind I don't think it's enough traffic to trigger any automated warnings
and yes, I agree
but then the WP pages have things like
> If an edit war develops, participants should try to discuss the issue on the talk page and work things out.
Well that's pretty conclusive
that need to be considered much more carefully given the existing interactions.
@EmilioPisanty Yeah, but there's nothing to talk about with this user, which is also evident from the talk page and their user talk page already (another user also commented they don't understand relativistic notation, they just replied with "the Lorenz gauge page is wrong")
3:57 PM
@ACuriousMind cf. my last comment ;-)
it's just a matter of getting that information to the correct hands WP-side
and therefore of first finding what those correct hands are
@EmilioPisanty Well, we have determined it's not the vandalism report desk, but I'm not finding anything else right now
@ACuriousMind I'm having a look at the edit-wars help pages
Well, at least we are not at the three revert rule yet :P
@EmilioPisanty i saw the phrase "edit-wars" and suddenly imagined a serious documentary-style TV series describing edit wars on Wikipedia
4:00 PM
@ACuriousMind the 3RR is over 24 hours
and it made me giggle
we're unlikely to get to that threshold
@EmilioPisanty Yeah. I'm not seeing anything about "slow motion" edit wars, though
Ugh, all these resolution methods seem to assume I'm someone interested in participating in Wikipedia beyond just reverting this crap and be done with it :P
@ACuriousMind yeah
Or maybe we should be looking here
for the editors that actually wrote that page
and who might be persuaded to put it on their watchlist or something
@EmilioPisanty All major edits seem a bit long ago for that
4:07 PM
@ACuriousMind yeah, and the last user to put in substantial content is now gone
@ACuriousMind the "poincare group" of a fold
is likely just the fundamental one right
It's...possible, I guess?
i think so
that sounds like old terminology
@ACuriousMind I just saw your message on his talk page
sounds reasonable
I'll make a mental note to check back on Wiki in a few days
4:18 PM
@ACuriousMind yeah
but then, his last edit is from 1 July
so, three months ago
The worst outcome would be that everyone forgets about it and he sneaks it back in in half a year :P
@Semiclassical we started viscous flow and he was doing stress tensors and stuff. As an official index calculation master I was pretty bored. Never thought that would end
4:33 PM
Not spam for some weight loss / exercise program: I lost ten pounds, lost a couple of inches around my waist, and gained a couple of inches around by chest thanks to the Body By Harvey exercise program. Not highly recommended.
In other words, my house was one of many in the Houston / Galveston area that took on water. That's why you haven't seen much of me recently.
@0ßelö7 yeah
i find hydrodynamics pretty boring for that reason
respectable, certainly
but boring all the same
@CooperCape Apparently a reaction to kind users trying to make their post better, see the exact dupe I closed it as.
@Semiclassical tbh, I find most of physics to be very computational like that
intro physics consists of small tedious calculations, more advanced consists of long tedious calculations
can't really argue with you there. there's a lot of stuff which is just not inherently interesting
4:42 PM
once we actually have the Navier-Stokes equations it will be more interesting, but the road to getting there is proving to be a pain
@DavidHammen I hope you and your friends and family are okay!
for instance, the concept of multipole moments is actually pretty neat. monopole distributions can be described by a scalar quantity; dipoles, by a vector quantity; and so forth
Although I will admit something that I probably shouldn't
but doing computations with them is just boring
When I was presenting my poster on math.GR I was talking to a math student
he had no clue about any of it, and was wondering why I was doing physics
he said he had no reason to know any physics
I felt personally offended
4:44 PM
Ah, there's a physicist in you after all :)
@ACuriousMind Ahh I see... Wild...
reminds me of the one bit of CP Snow's 'The Two Cultures' which gets quoted
"A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare’s?
@CooperCape By far not the wildest occurence I've had to moderate :P
@ACuriousMind I'm fine, family is fine, pets are fine. My house is very un-fine. One thing survived intact: The 1970s era wallpaper in the kitchen that starts a yard / a meter above the ground. When we bought the house we agreed that that had to be the first thing to go. It's still there.
@ACuriousMind The math I find interesting is essentially based on or motivated by physics.
I don't think I would understand math without a physics background.
4:45 PM
The instance of this which I find frustrating is special functions.
Or as you call it
@ACuriousMind yeah, exactly
PhD level math
@Slereah No, PhD level math is the math not based on physics.
I think we do ought to at least try and do what we can now to prevent that from happening
4:46 PM
that is what I meant
@DavidHammen Heh, of course it is
I can understand why special functions are a bit dry, but they just get dismissed as 'engineering math'
Congratulations, you have resized your text box out of existence :P
4:48 PM
Was this always possible!??
that's a god meme
Just click on the lower right corner and drag to the right
@0ßelö7 Yes
well damn
@Semiclassical by whom?
@0ßelö7 hence why I find math like logic or set theory, at least in the abstract sense, hard to get excited about
4:49 PM
@Semiclassical Agreed.
@Semiclassical It's called "specialization" :P Not saying that makes it all fine, but..it's a phenomenon that's hard to reverse once it's started
@0ßelö7 i guess i just have a general sense of math people not having much respect for special functions
@ACuriousMind Not knowing the 2nd law of thermo is like a mathematician not knowing what a continuous function is
@ACuriousMind I imagine part of it is also that people view special functions as just 'classical math'
and therefore not worthy of interest
4:51 PM
@0ßelö7 Yes, precisely. (Maybe I should point out I replied to the quote, not the specific thing about special functions)
@ACuriousMind I am on my computer, clearly.
I can see replies here...
@Semiclassical I will make a broad statement and say that it's algebraists or topologists who would think that.
@BalarkaSen I've had my task bar at the top of my screen for so long that I was genuinely puzzled by what that thing at the bottom of your screen is :P
"2 cultures"? strange how many "physicists" profess to dislike fluid dynamics etc o_O
In my experience, analysts (not operator algebraists) are very close to physics and there's a lot of overlap.
@ACuriousMind I am not an upside-down man
4:53 PM
Fluid mechanics is an odd duck
Fluid mechanics is at the strange intersection of engineering and incredibly sophisticated PDE theory.
@Semiclassical ?!? think that maybe scientists live in abject fear of its inherent nonlinearity
It's also (largely) in the realm of classical physics
@Semiclassical would like to hear more about your pov/ expertise on "(semi)classical" physics, you named yourself after it... so-called classical physics contains many complexities/ surprises...
Yes, I have indeed nightmares where I'm hunted by non-linear PDEs.
4:55 PM
I dunno about nonlinearity being the issue
"abject fear" is a bit strong though, they usually succumb to a sponge wiping them off the blackboard.
i just find it hard to get interested in it
different people are interested in different things
true enough.
but my point was that even though analysts get a bad rap for $\epsilon$s and $\delta$s, I think they'd be the last of the "pure math" people to call special functions "engineering math"
4:57 PM
as far as annoyance goes, I can't say I really get annoyed by people not being interested in what I am
In fact, many math departments in Europe classify math.AP as "applied math"
Yes we do!
@Semiclassical I do get disappointed though
what I do get annoyed with is people assuming that one shouldn't be interested in what I am, and should instead be interested in what they are
@ACuriousMind is that directed at me?
4:58 PM
@BalarkaSen 3-manifolds are boring
4-manifolds are worse
I mainly have in mind some people who seem to think logic is the end-all-be-all of math
@0ßelö7 Yeah. Just goes to show that pure/applied is sometimes less an objective terminology and more about acedemic politics, I guess
(or integrals, or etc)
@Semiclassical Wouldn't it logically be the first-all of math? :P
4:59 PM
@Semiclassical fluid dynamics nearly ubiquitous across many physics fields... think it impinges on many areas of physics... many diverse angles... bose-einstein condensate is a fluid etc... (nobel prize winning stuff, along with many other nobel prizes for it)

« first day (2520 days earlier)      last day (1159 days later) »