« first day (23 days earlier)      last day (1560 days later) » 

05:56
@Alex Math room is getting weirder every second
It really is
(click on the message and check history; you can read deleted message as room mod)
@Alex I did it.
That'd be awesome
I mean uh the opposite of awesome
06:17
They'd always go through cycles of simultaneous activity, and then simultaneous silence
You could be a great conspiracy theorist
I have great potential
Truly
At first I didn't realize you were Narcissus on that note
I thought long and hard about who could it be and then realized you were gone for quite a while
I did say at first "If you looked at my questions you'd find out straight away" or something like that
Since I made the account in my actual name, and then changed it
Some other peoples comments had my actual name still though
oh yeah I should have done that
spotting skull is ez
06:31
That was one of the ways you could track 'woodface, et al'
07:08
Oh you are Narcissus cool
I liked that guy
Thanks man :')
07:25
Jesus these new people I just caught up
08:08
@Alex Agalloch!
@BalarkaSen Probably my favourite album
I listened to Marrow of The Spirit and was mesmerized
Should I listen to Mantle?
The Mantle is my personal favourite, followed by Marrow of the Spirit and then Ashes Against the Grain
In the shadow of our pale companion is my favourite song of them all, I can play about 80% of it on the guitar (playing whatever is the primary part at any given point, there are like 6 guitars)
Amazing
I am onto it right now
You might like the album by October Falls called The Plague of a Coming Age
08:16
OK, I'll give that a go first
Cool, it's in their bandcamp
That's what I like about these slightly off-mainstream metal. The commercialization hasn't happened.
Not until they are 5 albums deep :P
Hahah
Fair point
Btw, does Soham still exist?
I tried to contact him once in a while but he did not respond
So I do not know
I see him on Facebook messenger
I can get in touch if you like
08:21
Oh wow, I completely forgot I even have him on facebook
I was just curious if he did go down the math path, since I hadn't seen him on here in so long
Sayan too I guess
Sayan is Albas who comes in the math chat and hbar often (I saw him a week back)
He's learning lots
He's doing the exercises himself now? :P
He's changed, like I have. Yes, he actually knows stuff now.
Honestly, I don't remember ever finding you condescending, if that's the sort of change you mean.
Oh right, I do remember you hating on other areas of math though, maybe that's it :P.
I still do that :P
That wasn't the issue. It was general immaturity
Math chat has been a good place to grow up. It's pretty much been a warm community.
3
08:27
Growing up on the streets of MSE chat
Ridiculous but true
@Alex You came here too late for Balarka to be a prick
He's a minor troll now but not a prick
I missed the origin story
I have hated him on and off
I am a grumpy man
I once put him on ignore for a month but opened the transcript to read what he said and get mad
08:37
hahahaha
Tsundere
Oh God I am
 
1 hour later…
10:03
what is happening in math
i cannot understand this anime
I am not sure if he is trolling
I don't know either
but if it's a troll, it's some high level shit
That's what the chat would look like if call of duty players would start doing math
10:19
Lmao
lool
LOL
Stratified spaces are a royal mess
What are you stratifying?
loool 5 mods and counting in the math chat
10:28
I'm trying to prove that two definitions of stratified spaces are equivalent, but apparently that's a huge pain in the neck because one has to pass through an Ehresmann fibration theorem for stratified spaces
@Alessandro Good. About time they do something worthwhile
@AlessandroCodenotti He got a 2 and then upgraded to a 3 day ban
(i.e., controlling spam/troll)
@BalarkaSen I thought stratification was an idea that wasn't rigorously defined
Oh it can be defined but the definition varies author to author lmao
I only know stratification in terms of schubert cells though
Yeah I guess I mean, I don't know if it is currently categorical
@BalarkaSen What are the definitions?
10:31
Here's one of the many definitions. It's a filtration $X_0 \subset X_1 \subset \cdots \subset X_{n-1} \subset X_n = X$ of a topological space $X$ by closed sets such that $L_i = X_i \setminus X_{i+1}$ is an open manifold in the induced topology, called "strata" of $X$, and if $L \subset X$ is a strata of dimension $s$, for any $p \in L$, there is a neighborhood $U$ of $p$ in $X$ such that $U \cong \text{Cone}(A) \times \Bbb R^s$ where $A$ is some stratified space itself.
@Alex You should tell me that story because I do not know those
I think I should have said stratum not strata
The first is singular, second is plural
Flip
@Alex Yeah that's the major problem. Every definition I know embeds it in some $\Bbb R^n$ or is an inductive definition, or ...
I'd love an intrinsic definition. I have attempted to write down something like that but it'd take some more polishes
i feel that "stratification" is really just a generic notion of decomposing your space into
disjoint union of locally closed pieces such that the closure of one piece is the union of others

then depending on context you will impose more conditions (such as the one you gave)
Yeah I should have parsed things in terms of the frontier condition
I am writing something up, I'll link it here after I am done with it (it'll take some time)
The point is the topology at the frontier should be clear if you want to do differential topology with these stratified objects (which I want to do)
Well one has (among others) three ways of seeing the 'flag variety'. The collection of all length $n$ flags: $$\mathcal{F}=((0)\subsetneq V_1\subsetneq V_2\subsetneq \cdots V_n=K^n),$$
where these $V_i$ are $i$-dimensional $K$-vector spaces.

We can see these as affine spaces, and hence realise this inside of the projective variety:
$$Gr(0,n)\times Gr(1,n)\times\cdots Gr(n,n).$$

Alternatively, one can consider the algebraic group $GL(n,K)$ acting on the standard flag $$(\{0\}\subset \langle e_1\rangle \subset \langle e_1,e_2\rangle \subset \cdots \langle e_1,\dots,e_n\rangle)$$
10:48
Ahhh right (realized that the flag variety has a natural stratification)
OK following
@Alex Lost in Desolation is probably my favorite song
Which band are you talking about?
Agalloch
11:03
So that the flag $GL_n/B_n\cong \text{Fl}_n$. We have yet another realisation though... Let $\mathfrak{B}$ be the collection of all Borel subgroups of $G$. One ca prove that all Borel subgroups are conjugate, and hence for any $B'\in\mathfrak{B}$, we can get to whatever standard Borel we fix by $x^{-1}B'x=B$ i.e. $xB$ is a fixed point of the $B'$ action on $G/B$ (by left multiplication). If one proves the normalizer theorem where any Borel is self-normalizing, $G=N_G(B)$, one can show that for any 'other' fixed point $yB$ of $G/B$ we have $$xBx^{-1}=B'=yBy^{-1},\implies y^{-1}x\in N_G(B)=B,
I realised that this gets into some Lie theory you may not have dealt with before haha
I can improvise on the way.
$N_G(T)/C_G(T)$ is the Weyl group, and here is just the familiar $n$ by $n$ permutation matrices, isomorphic to the symmetric group. The Bruhat decomposition gives us $G=\coprod_{\sigma\in W} B\sigma B$, which for $GL_n$ you are essentially just using Gaussian elimination, so its not hard to verify thats legit.
any $A\in \text{GL}_n$ can be written as some $bwb'$ for $b,b'$ upper triangular matrices, and $w$ a permutation matrix
(One can prove it with some work for any reductive algebraic group)
In particular if one knows about the length of a reduced word in the weyl group, they will know there is a unique longest word $w_0$, which you can always write (in one of many forms - equivalent up to braid group actions by Masumotos lemma/theorem) like $s_1s_2s_1s_3s_2s_1s_4s_3s_2s_1$ etc [where these are the generators of $S_{n+1}$ so that ends with $s_ns_{n-1}\cdots s_1$ ]
The long guy gives us this part of the bruhat decomposition: $Bw_0B=B'$ is called the opposite Borel subgroup, and here is the lower triangular matrices
2
11:22
@Alex Thanks! I shall read this very carefully later today and get back to you.
Let me pin it so I don't forget
These $BwB$ are the cells of our decomposition, and the length of the word $w$ is the dimension of the cell. These guys correspond to the schubert cell decomposition of $G/B$ by taking $C_w=BwB/B$ (whose closure is the schubert variety)
@BalarkaSen No problem, I could probably clean up the exposition a heap :P
I haven't thought about this for 9 months or so now
It's alright, we can go back and forth over a few days
Except at one point where I was thinking about geometric satake
@BalarkaSen I'm glad you like em :)
It's really good!
A terminology question: how do you denote the blowdown map?
(the projection from the blowup)
$\beta$?
using words :p
@alex
do you do geom rep theory stuff?
11:36
@loch I shall soon :). I just finished 4th year, starting masters in a month
i see - that's very cool! I remember wanting to do geometric rep theory before (i.e. i think I claimed that I was interested in this area when applying to grad school) - but then I realised my rep theory is too poor and I never really got into reading much about it :p
@loch What do you specialise in now?
probably enumerative geometry
Do you know of Arun Ram?
nope
who is he/she?
11:41
He's a professor at the university of melbourne aus, does geometric rep theory stuff and some enumerative geometry
I haven't met him in person yet, moving there in 15ish days
I might ask if he'll take me on as his student though, not sure
ah i see - maybe i'll hear about him sometime in the future when i learn more about the field
What's the coolest result you know in enumerative geometry?
hmmm off the top of my head one pretty cool result is on counting the number of rational curves of degree $d$ passing through $3d-1$ general points in $\mathbb{P}^2$ via Gromov Witten theory.

You get a bunch of numbers which isn't that interesting - but what i think is pretty remarkable is that you'll find that the answer is given by a recurrence relation - and what you really need to know to do this computation is to know that given 2 points, a unique line passes through them.
Then you can get the rest from the recurrence relation
11:59
Yes
in general i think the idea that you can count things by doing intersection theory on a suitable moduli space pretty neat anyway. you may already know about schubert calculus - where you can use the cohomology ring/chow ring of the grassmannian to deduce enumerative results, e.g. given four general lines in $\mathbb{P}^3$ there are two lines passing through all 4 of them,

or e.g. that there are 27 lines lying on a general cubic surface in $\mathbb{P}^3$ (computing some chern class of some vector bundle over the grassmannian) - of course this is true for all smooth cubics, and there is a di
12:56
This room is great
5
 
2 hours later…
15:14
@AlessandroCodenotti if you didn't get comfortable with Hatcher, then you might want to look at tom Dieck's book, he treats similar topics, but his style is much more formal
maybe it would be a good idea to use both: Hatcher for some visual intuition and then tom Dieck for formal arguments
I'm not really qualified to recommend stuff like that, but a friend of mine who had similar qualms with appeal to intuition in our AT lectures really likes tom Dieck's book
15:44
Thanks, I'll check it out!
15:59
I've heard Peter May's notes on AT are also good, did you read them by any chance @Daminark ?
16:26
Peter is very aggressive with categories, so it's difficult for me to read. He tries to do category theory in something like, 7 pages? And then after that he kinda expects you know them in and out
Nah, 7 pages are for both categories and Seifert-Van Kampen!
I think May's book is just very concise in general, unsurprisingly
This is true. But yeah I first tried to read it before I had algebra, category theory, or topology, which to be fair wouldn't have gone well no matter which book I used
I may try that, Tom Dieck, or Rotman for when I get more serious about learning standard AT material
Dieck's assumes you know the basics of category theory apparently
Though recently I've started to get a bit of a better grip on homotopy theory so I'm happy about that
16:35
yes, but really the basics
reading Rot May be a Tomfoolery
the exit Hatch is right where it should be
come ye all who wants to live
Lol, I want to time how long it'll take Balarka to shill Hatcher after someone starts talking about AT
@AlessandroCodenotti you're fine if you know the terms category, functor and natural transformation and these are useful words to know anyway for AT
I know the first two. I think I also need to discover what limit and colimits are sooner or later
Naw brawo
16:43
that stuff was invented to make sense of some things (or rather make them precise) in AT, so it's not unreasonable to learn it as you learn AT. I don't say overdo it, but you can say stuff like "fundamental group is a functor from the homotopy category, as is H^1 and abelianization is a functor from groups to abelian groups and that the Hurewicz homomorphism is a natural wrt to this stuff" without doing infinity-categories
Naw brawo
(I agree)
Oh I just understood what that meant lmao
It is fine to learn category theory in context of algebraic topology. More than fine, actually.
Useful.
Balarka imma tell Ted
@AlessandroCodenotti don't do the general case right away, look at initial objects, terminal objects, products, coproducts, equalizers, coequalizers, pullbacks and pushouts in famililar categories first
16:45
@Daminark no u
you should know the general definitions of these examples in a category and how those look like, for say sets, topological spaces and abelian groups/vector spaces
I will say this year's REU Peter got way better at explaining categories. I feel like I only started to see the point beyond memes once I first learned universal properties
Which actually first came up when I started auditing commutative algebra, but this year he's actually explaining some of that
@MatheinBoulomenos We did some of those things in the category of groups in the abstract algebra course
if you grasped all those special cases of limits and colimits, the general definition will feel "natural" (no pun intended)
@AlessandroCodenotti good! for sets it's usually even easier and for topological spaces you always take the construction for sets and give it the right topology
There is a natural transformation to the category of bananas
(or so said Goldstein, a geometric group theorist)
16:48
is this related to BanAnaMan, the category of Banach analytic manifolds?
Is there a relationship between initial/final objects and the initial/final topologies or is it just a naming coincidence?
nah. He was explaining that whenever you seem to have an important categorical equivalence in mathematics, most often it's from a category of some beautiful geometric objects you know well and good, to the category of bananas
@BalarkaSen feels more like a Gromov thing to say tbh
Don't ask me to explain what that means
initial and final topology is the right topology to give a colimit or limit of sets when everything has a topology and is continuous
16:50
That or all geometric group theorists are weird
@Daminark Gromov discovered geometric group theory. These guys are all his mathematical descendants. What do you expect?
Which I won't eliminate from consideration
Did you ever watch "What is Manifolds?" by Gromov
@AlessandroCodenotti I have to go now, but we can talk later about this stuff. I really think you would like tom Dieck, even if he assumes a bit of categories
Anyway I like Dieck's style, I think I'll keep reading Hatcher for homology, but I want to read the homotopy part of Dieck's book since he covers a lot of stuff
Well, I'm going to have to learn a bit of categories eventually so now might a good moment to do so! Bye @Mathei
16:52
Bye @AlessandroCodenotti @BalarkaSen @Daminark
Bye @Mathein
@AlessandroCodenotti sounds like a good plan. Homotopy theory feels more categorical anyway, even at a basic level
Homotopy theory is hard. I might read tom Dieck with you if you get there.
See you Mathein! And no I haven't @Balarka
If I find time then, I'd like to join, too
I technically learned this stuff in a lecture once
but it's hard, indeed
16:53
I don't particularly like Hatcher's exposition of homotopy theory
But I also haven't put effort in it
@Daminark It's on youtube. If you ever have a loooot of free time check it out for lulz
He goes full stream of consciousness
@Alessandro You might enjoy my discussion with Fargle about singular homology
Where is it?
Let me link
Unrelated but has someone seen Miles Reid's algebraic geometry lectures on youtube?
Oh I haven't, there is such a thing?
I know he has a book and stuff
youtube.com/… here's the playlist
I liked his commutative algebra book a lot and the (very little) I've seen of his undergraduate algebraic geometry was also very good
16:59
@Alessandro Oh is he lecturing from Shafarevich?
Hmm I don't know
Lol might check it out, right now I kinda need to learn some geometry because of elliptic curves
17:23
Regarding that paragraph you were discussing with Fargle @Balarka I got how to think about chains as maps from $\Delta$-complexes. Now if my chain is a cycle the $\Delta$ complex has all the $n-1$-dimensional faces identified in pairs
Yup!
I have said more about that later below in the transcript
So in the interior of the $n$ dimensional simplices everything is well, for a point on the $n-1$-dimensional faces I'm joining nbhds homeomorphic to half of $\Bbb R^{n-1}$ in a nice way to get a nbhd homeomorphic to $\Bbb R^n$
Ahh you're getting to the good point. Yes.
Which is the manifold structure Hatcher talks about away from the $(n-2)$-skeleton
What about $n-2$ dimensional faces?
@AlessandroCodenotti Correct.
17:26
I'm not sure what can go wrong with the $n-2$ dimensional faces though. Is it just that there's no reason to expect to have a manifold there?
Well, turns out it is a manifold at the $n-2$ dimensional (or codimension $2$) faces
It's a good exercise to see why
I just read that in Hatcher, but apparently it can go wrong in the codimension $3$ faces
I have no idea why, let me think about it
Mhm. I had no idea why when I read it either
The conclusion here is that singular $n$-cycles in a topological space can be represented as maps from an $n$-dimensional pseudomanifold with singularities appearing in at least codimension $3$.
That makes sense, but I don't know why it holds
It's dinner time now though, I'll be back later!

« first day (23 days earlier)      last day (1560 days later) »