« first day (2601 days earlier)      last day (2624 days later) » 

20:04
First ep of the Sopranos is downloaded
Let's see
I'm so confused.
I'm still "vaguely around"... what?
"cheater hookup"?
@EmilioPisanty, I accidentally removed your answer from my question by accepting "move to chat" please re-add if you want. I'm going to delete the question though because it is unclear unless you think it should stay. I'm at work & so I can't stick around to see a response here. Thanks for your thoughtful answer.
@DMac No. I personally deleted my answer because the debate was not going anywhere and I was not interested in repeating myself.
You can never remove other people's content on Stack Exchange unless (i) you delete your question and there exists a single answer with no upvotes, which gets deleted with the question, (ii) you're a moderator, or (iii) you vote to delete other content as part of a quorum of at least three different users (full rules here).
@DanielSank cf.
37 mins ago, by Emilio Pisanty
Writing proposals and justifications is so much easier when you work on superconductivity. It's like activating a science cheat code.
20:22
we were pretty much eliminated from the playoffs last night :'(
some nice hats here
Anonymous
20:39
In this paper, I'm a bit confused about this stuff: $\chi(p)$ (so-called-Euler number) has been said to be $N_B(p)-N_W(p)$ (which they claim is a result from Topology), $p$ being the probability of a pixel/point being "black". $N_B(p)$ is the number of black clusters given a certain $p$. And similarly $N_W(p)$ is the number of white clusters given the same probability $p$.
Anonymous
Now, I've looked up Euler's characteristic $\chi$ from Wikipedia, but it doesn't mention any formula similar to $\chi (p)=N_B(p)-N_W(p)$.
Anonymous
So, my question is: What is the significance of the Euler's number $\chi(p)=N_B(p)-N_A(p)$ in Topology and what are it's applications? Some book or source discussing this would be helpful. The paper
Anonymous
which they reference is another similar paper which doesn't explain anything about from where this Euler's number originates. They just say it is a "topological measure". This is so weird...Is $\chi(p)=N_B(p)-N_A(p)$ a legit thing in Topology?
@EmilioPisanty bah
Anonymous
@BalarkaSen Halp needed
Anonymous
20:50
Oh, hey you're there :P Hi
Anonymous
Any idea about that euler number thingy?
I am busy right now. If you can give me the context maybe I can help
I don't understand your definition of $\chi$
@Slereah apparently the first episode was a comedy
and I don't really want to read pages of stuff right now
@0celo7 i can see why they went with drama
I didn't realize it was a comedy
20:53
@Slereah it worked out for them
which is a bad sign for a comedy
Anonymous
@BalarkaSen It's not my definition, actually. I found it on that paper. And can't relate it with the Euler's characteristic given in wikipedia (which is general one used in Topology)
I'm trying to finish that electronics thing but the only thing in mypart box for a switch is a weird DPDT switch
No idea how it works
Yes I know it's not your definition. I'm asking you to give a tl;dr of the paper's definition
I don't want to read the paper
Anonymous
Alright, lemme try to summarize it:
Anonymous
20:56
Anonymous
Say we have a 2D plane containing $N \times N$ pixels
Anonymous
Then, suppose we have a probability $p$, of a pixel being black.
Anonymous
Then, look at the figure (a) for example. If you use randomization algorithm, and set $p=0.17$
Anonymous
Randomly black pixels pop up in the white "sea"
Anonymous
20:59
And you get something that looks like 2(a)
Anonymous
Now, some of these black pixels may pop up adjacently
Anonymous
And form tiny black clusters
Anonymous
Of more than 1-pixel
so N_B(p) is # of black pixels and N_W(p) is # of white pixels?
Anonymous
21:00
BUT, at $p=0.17$, the white pixels form just 1 cluster (notice 2(a)) i.e. the white sea
oh clusters
not pixels
Anonymous
@BalarkaSen Just replace that with "clusters"
Anonymous
Yes
Anonymous
After that I've stated the definition of Euler's number they are using
Anonymous
(which they claim to be a result from Topology)
21:02
Ahhh I see what's happening
Clever
heheheh this is topology bro
Anonymous
Phew :P
Anonymous
Explain :P
I'm still processing it but the idea is pretty clearly that you're counting components. In 2(a) N_W(0.17) = 1 because the space of white pixels form a connected region on the plane
Anonymous
@BalarkaSen Right
Let me think about it for a while. This should be apparent
Anonymous
21:05
Alright, lemme know when you get it :)
Anonymous
They also talk about fractal dimensions and stuff in that paper which I'm confused about. But I'll ask that later.
So mister Italian just really like ducks
Can we all just agree that Kaku is an absolute genius
Anonymous
He's a good football player...
Football of the future
21:16
Phew
finally figured out how that switch works
Who sells an electronic kit with only 6 pin switches
Amma gonna get some two pin switches
Anonymous
Get a 0 pin one
Hm
I'd better put on some pants before soldering
2
Or things might turn out bad
Anonymous
lol
@Blue say you have a 3x3 thing
first picture: everything except the center square is black
second picture: everything except the center and the below-center square is black
These two seem to have the same $\chi$ fam
So how is this a good invariant?
(Or am I misunderstanding?)
Anonymous
21:30
@BalarkaSen What do you mean by invariant in this context?
things which determine if two things are distinct or not
Anonymous
$\chi$ is actually a variable according to the paper
determinant of a matrix is an invariant which detects invertibility
@Blue That's not what I meant. Whatever.
Anonymous
So do you agree $\chi$ are the same for both cases?
Anonymous
21:33
Wait. In your first picture $\chi=1-1=0$ and in your second case too $\chi=1-1=0$
Anonymous
Okay, yes
Okay. That's uninspiring.
The Euler characteristic is meant to be a topological invariant. Those two configurations obviously are not the same
topologically
Anonymous
They are not defining $\chi$ as the invariant factor. They're trying to find an invariant factor which is in the next part of the paper
Anonymous
There's some underlying invariance factor which they're trying to find
Anonymous
See this graph:
21:36
if chi is not invariant under topological considerations, there's no way it relates to Euler characteristic
Anonymous
Anonymous
@BalarkaSen Right, I get your point. I'll complain about that tomorrow, to them :P
Anonymous
Thanks though
Anonymous
But just have a look at the bottom left para of the picture
The Vogel-Hoffman-Roth paper is more interesting
It says $\int_{\delta X} 1/r ds = 2\pi\chi(X)$
horrid notation, but I think there's a way to decode that
Anonymous
21:40
Heh, yeah. They say it's a topological measure of some sort
If you integrate $1/z$ over the unit circle you get $2\pi$
so I don't see how $\chi$ of my first picture is $0$ not $1$
Anonymous
@BalarkaSen Isn't that $2\pi i$ or am I misremembering....
er yeah that
i'm normalizing
Anonymous
Okay I see
The point is the picture you get from the my first thing is of a circle
And Euler char of a circle is 1
Anonymous
21:43
@BalarkaSen It's 0
Anonymous
Check wiki
Anonymous
In mathematics, and more specifically in algebraic topology and polyhedral combinatorics, the Euler characteristic (or Euler number, or Euler–Poincaré characteristic) is a topological invariant, a number that describes a topological space's shape or structure regardless of the way it is bent. It is commonly denoted by χ {\displaystyle \chi } (Greek lower-case letter chi). The Euler characteristic was originally defined for polyhedra and used to prove various theorems about them, including the classification of the Platonic solids. Leonhard Euler, for whom...
Anonymous
Under the Examples section
lol whoops
I meant the second picture
Anonymous
@BalarkaSen Which picture?
Anonymous
21:46
16 mins ago, by Balarka Sen
second picture: everything except the center and the below-center square is black
Anonymous
Ah okay
switch is soldered, and I only have minor burns
Anonymous
@BalarkaSen I actually didn't understand what you meant by "below center" is black
@Blue No, wait up, I'm giving you the wrong examples.
Anonymous
Alrighty
21:48
I was thinking of the disk, in which case your thing is indeed $1$.
Anonymous
Right
Anonymous
For disc it is 1
But this has to be garbage, because just fill a square of a 2x2 box
$\chi_{garbage} = 1 - 1 = 0$ in that case, but the Euler characteristic of a point is 1
Anonymous
@BalarkaSen You are filling one of the blocks of that box with black?
This is measure something other that the topology of the black subset
@Blue Yes
Anonymous
21:51
And how does that relate to a "point"?
Because that black square is a point, bro :P
1 min ago, by Balarka Sen
This is measure something other that the topology of the black subset
Anonymous
You mean "This is measure of something other that the topology of the black subset" I think. But okay
Anonymous
I'm getting it a bit
@Blue You mean "But okay."
Anonymous
@BalarkaSen I didn't want to annoy you. I thought that is some mathematical term which I don't know.
21:55
Oh I wasn't annoyed I was joking
i don't really see how this relates to Euler characteristic
Anonymous
Mhm :/
like even if you counted just $N_W$ of $N_B$ that'd be sensible
subtracting one from another is not very sensible
Anonymous
I think they should just stop calling $\chi$ the Euler number, and just say they're trying to find an invariant
Anonymous
which is what they do in the next part of the paper anyway
If there're calling it an Euler number surely there's some relation
Anonymous
21:58
@BalarkaSen The references they give at the end of the paper lead to another physics paper which is equally vague :P
Anonymous
Physicists abusing math as usual I guess!!!
Soldering wire to pins is not a fun business
It's not clear what is the topological object of interest
Anonymous
@BalarkaSen So, I need a bit of advice: It is clear from our discussion that according to their definition of $\chi$, it is not a topological invariant, because in the examples we discussed, even for different arrangements, we find that $\chi$ can be same (say $0$). Also, you mentioned that case for that $2\times 2$ grid. So, should I raise that objection when I meet the authors tomorrow? I don't know much of this stuff other than what I've extrapolated from Wikipedia though...
What's going on in here?
Anonymous
22:11
They told me to work on that paper. So it seems I have to seriously learn the parts of Topology which are related to it
Anonymous
@DanielSank Balarka giving me some Topology advice :P
Anonymous
BTW I also need to ask them what their "topological object of interest" is (if they can clarify...well and good...I'll tell you tomorrow)
@Blue Well I definitely think there's some topological relevance to this
It's not very obvious to me what that is
Y'all heard of this?
6
Anonymous
I see. Alright. I'll try asking them tomorrow. The problem is that the first author won't be present. I'll have to ask the co-authors. Anyhow, thanks a ton for the help
Anonymous
22:16
I'll later ask you about topo book recommendations :P
Anonymous
See you
Bredon, Hatcher, Munkres
Anything more and you’ve lost yourself
22:32
@DanielSank there's barely anything on there though
every link i click leads to a blank article
Yes but it's a good idea.
@Slereah so how are the sops?
it's aight so far
22:58
It's official
I have a stand up desk now
I code while standing. . . . LIKE A BOSS
:D
no like a boss memes in 2017 pls
hehehe ok ok lol :P
23:13
@Cows excellent
@BalarkaSen no. I refuse
@DanielSank I've seen it a couple of times. I think I'm going to wait until it's a good bit more populated with content
I'm not sure of how well the fixed structure can cope with expansion
I do hope they iron that out, though, it looks nice
23:32
@DanielSank the idea in itself is worthless
the idea is all in the effort
and it's not special at all, there are lots of websites doing the same thing but even more ambitiously, there is one at my university for example
for the lolz. Live data visualizations coding, some data science , and sentiment anal

« first day (2601 days earlier)      last day (2624 days later) »