« first day (29 days earlier)      last day (1554 days later) » 

03:56
(*) So when $G$ is a topological group, then $[X,G]$ is a group (we can weaken $G$ to a $H$-group if we only consider pointed maps and $X$ is pointed)

Later we can compute singular cohomology for $X$ a CW-complex and $G$ abelian by $$H^n(X;G)\cong [X,K(G,n)]$$

One can go through and show that for $[\Bbb S^1,K(\Bbb Z,1)]\cong [\Bbb S^1,\Bbb S^1]\cong \Bbb Z\cong H^1(\Bbb S;\Bbb Z)$.

Is (*) helpful for computing cohomology in the way of the rest of my message, or otherwise how does one make use of (*)?
$K(G,n) = \Omega K(G, n+1)$, right? So you have a group structure on the latter guy.
In fact, $K(G, n) = \Omega^2 K(G, n+2)$, so it is a commutative group structure.
I see, so the loop space, suspension stuff that I haven't reached here is where that comes into play I guess
Well, you don't need anything fancy for what I'm saying here - just the observation that loop spaces have a product structure, and that $\pi_{n-1} \Omega X = \pi_n X$
Sure
I guess most people would think of the latter as a special case of the suspension - loop space adjunction, but I rather just draw a picture
03:59
But showing loopspaces and suspensions are H-groups and H-cogroups is needed to make use of * still
Eh, sure, but that's all quite simple, I assure you. :)
Sure thing
It all comes from the natural operations on $[0,1]$, after all...
"splice together"
Where're you learning your stuff from?
Just started reading Aguilar pretty much
On page 22 atm
don't know it
04:03
Algebraic topology from a homotopical viewpoint. It's meant to be cool for A^1-homotopy in AG
Aha
You'll have to teach me the latter (which I think is a synonym of motivic homotopy theory)
I'll learn the latter eventually myself :P
The trick is that I won't unless you teach me
04:19
I'm slowly picking up the geometry of Lorentzian space $\Bbb R^{1, n-1}$, which is the linear algebra input to understanding hyperbolic geometry
04:49
In what sense is it the linear algebra input?
Oh you get quasi-banach structure
05:13
@Alex I just mean I'm trying to study that vector space with that "inner product"
Hyperbolic $n$-space is the "unit sphere" in $\Bbb R^{1, n}$ with $x_1 > 0$
 
14 hours later…
19:26
(you know how to see that @Mathein)
I only see (removed)
move mouse pointer over the message, click on the blue arrow, click on history
you can see it as you're a room owner
wow, I didn't know that!
It is a very cool fact
@BalarkaSen okay, how are we going to do this? Do we set a schedule for reading stuff and then discussing it?
19:31
That'd be very nice. Maybe we'll go through lecture-by-lecture and discuss after we're both done digesting each lecture.
lecture-by-lecture sounds good
So eg we fix that we'll go through lecture [some number] by [span of days], and we'll write down our corresponding thoughts here and ping each other with it when we both read it over [span of days]
yes, that's a good plan
You probably know lecture 1 very well but I'll go through it nonetheless
it can't hurt to review it
19:39
You probably know lecture 1-6 very well lmao
Maybe @Alex would want to jump in as well
His Bruhat stuff is discussed at the end
my knowledge of the derived category is lacking
I know some basics but that's it
Better than 0
which is what I know about those!
20:30
@BalarkaSen do you want to discuss lecture 1 this weekend? I'm a bit busy Wed-Fr
Let's do 1+2
21:01
maybe i'll chime in from time to time too
21:48
@Balarka: I want to check something topological with you. I answered a question and the OP wants a definitive answer. To know that a map is null-homotopic, does it suffice to know that it induces the zero map on all $\pi_k$? [This isn't quite what Whitehead says ...]
Nope.
No, that's not right.
Let's see.
Sorry, same dimensional spaces.
$T^3 \to S^3 \to S^2$ where the first is quotienting complement of a ball and second is Hopf map works I think.
Oh, he didn't specify that.
Hmm same dimensional
21:50
So his question was if $\pi_1(X)\ne 0$ and $f_*:\pi_1(X)\to\pi_1(Y)$ is trivial, then is $f$ nullhomotopic. Of course I gave an easy counterexample.
So he wants to know what's sufficient to guarantee $f$ nullhomotopic.
Well, $T^2 \to S^2$ works for same dimensional. :)
No Hopf map business needed.
Right, that was my example.
But he's asking for necessary conditions for it to be true.
(It's zero on all $\pi_k$'s of course; higher homotopy groups of $T^2$ vanish)
21:52
Right, so saying all induced maps on $\pi_k$ are $0$ won't cut it.
The cool thing about $T^3 \to S^3 \to S^2$ is that it's both zero on all homotopy groups and all homology groups I think.
Is there actually a result?
So even that doesn't suffice.
@Ted I doubt.
So I guess if $\pi_k(X)=\pi_k(Y) = 0$ for all $k$ and $f\colon X\to Y$, then $f$ must be a homotopy equivalence, hence nullhomotopic. :P
That is true :P
Well, the right condition really is that the cone $Cf$ has the homotopy type of a point.
21:57
Pretty boring. Right. But is there a purely homotopy-theoretic/homological way of characterizing that?
Given that I gave an example of a non-nullhomotopic map which is zero on both homology and homotopy, I seriously doubt.
@MikeMiller Might know some relevant theorems in this direction.
Well, at least I hope the OP realizes just $\pi_1$ ain't gonna cut it unless your map is from the circle to start with. :)
Right.
He seems satisfied for now, until he learns more :P
Good for him (and us, who would have to find a good answer if he asked further questions) :)
22:03
LOL. I should know better than to battle topology questions, although I felt like I could handle his original question easily.
Have an upboat, by the way
@TedShifrin I'm learning lots of stratified theory
Well, you're probably already around where I was years ago when we worked with stratifications in some papers.
Hah, hardly think so. I'm trying to digest Mather's control data stuff.
I'm sure you'll be a little bit ahead of your first-year calculus cohorts :P
btw, @Fargle shouldn't joke about my namesake!
I rather prefer the attitude of, I'll use the time in undergrad to build up my fundamentals and muse about concrete stuff more (eg there's so many classical geometry and classical analysis - which I got a fair flavor of thanks to you - to learn)
22:08
Yes, I applaud your becoming way more concrete than you were when we started battling :P
All thanks to you and Mike, really.
And the chat on the whole
Yeah, well, having to explain things to other people makes you appreciate examples, too.
Did I tell you that the admission exam (which I got through) had a problem where they asked us to prove the Banach fixed point theorem on $\Bbb R$, basically? :P
contraction mapping?
22:10
That's a standard Spivak/Rudin exercise in $\Bbb R$.
They gave lots of step-by-step instructions and parsed everything standardly, goes without saying.
But of course I aced it!
:P
Well, duh. :)
So did you get into your school of choice?
At one point, I think you even understood the proof of the Inverse Function Theorem :P
There's a small technicality yet but I am 39th out of the 70 people that got selected after exams+interview
I know the proof of IFT by heart!
And 70 get in?
They're putting out three lists because a lot of students don't join, but yeah, from what I am hearing all of us will get in.
That's the technicality I spoke of
22:13
So did you not interview so well, or are there 38 kids who truly know more math than you do?
The interview was bizarre. They gave me an easy problem and I solved it and it all happened in within 10 minutes. So I am guessing I did well.
I think the issue was the first MCQ part of the admission exam
I did terribad there
74 out of 120. 71 was cut off :P
was that general non-math stuff?
Barely scraped
Nope, 30 math questions
2 hours
wow, I'm surprised.
I got uber stressed for some reason
It was easy.
I am just bad
22:14
@BalarkaSen hope you get in, it would be absurd if you didn't
Like not reading questions carefully and hurrying?
I was stuck in a couple at the first and I was tensed, so it went systematically badly. You have seen I am not great with deadlines and times
Underperforming on standardized exams is a phenomenon with which I'm quite familiar. Happened to lots and lots of my students, many of whom were good and knew a lot. I was fortunate enough to well on such things.
Indeed, mr procrastination.
I did some quite stupid mistakes in exams before
lmao @ mr procrastination
Thanks @Mathein
22:16
like forgetting the normalization in the Fourier transform, which of course gives you wrong values for integrals if you use that
All of you have been very supportive of me, in innumerably different ways (helping with math, discussing, emotionally, ...)
The admissions had been nearly driving me mad a couple months ago
I agree, this chat is pretty helpful in various ways
I'm good at insulting y'all :P
Insulting but also encouragingly so
22:18
Or getting impatient when you explain stuff way over people's heads ... but you don't do that much any more.
Which is strange!
LOL, a @Balarka.
@TedShifrin I still think everyone should learn the module approach to LA and I tend to say "endomorphism" instead of "square matrix" due to the way I was taught LA
Here we go again
okay everyone is a bit much
22:21
I think a @Balarka is on my side on this one.
everyone who wants to go to grad school in pure maths
So are almost all the students I've ever taught.
I learned that stuff in Artin's algebra course, admittedly. But that was not my first encounter with linear algebra.
we didn't do that in the first semester, either
And, again, in the US, epsilon of my students have gone to grad school in pure math.
it was the second semester
22:23
I think module theory should be motivated from concrete linear algebra, like normal people
Mathein Boulomenos unfortunately is not a normal person
He's a mutant
(BEWARE)
I learned concrete linear algebra in high school
india has a terrible course on concrete linear algebra in high school
and then "abstract linear algebra" but still without learning the words "ring" or "module" in the first semester
and then module theory in the second semester
it's mugged up matrix multiplications
our high school LA focused more on the geometry
22:27
I'm very happy with the linear algebra I taught in my lectures on You-Tube, integrated nicely with multivariable analysis. I'm very much a fan of doing modules in advanced algebra, but hardly anyone does that in the US before grad school. (Unless they're at MIT, Harvard, Chicago, etc. ...)
linear algebra is obviously best motived by higher topos theory
Alessandro is up for some smacks
yes, @Alessandro, obviously.
you're probably surprised that I'm saying this, but I think it's important to do some very concrete LA first: work in $\Bbb R^2$ and $\Bbb R^3$, inner products and norms, do some calculations with lines and planes, prove some geometric theorems with simple vector algebra etc.
That's what I do in my college course, both linear algebra and my integrated course. Thank you. The honors (integrated course) emphasized the linear map viewpoint way more than my "plain" book.
I think it's something that's accessible for high school students, but if they haven't seen that, then you should do it in college yeah
I think doing vector algebra and even some affine geometry (which the competition kids learn in terms of balancing/weights) is good for smart high school kids, for sure.
I picked up a lot of the eigenstuff that's part of concrete linear algebra to my head (so classifying conjugacy classes of $\text{GL}_n(K)$ to fuckheads like Mathein) by learning ODEs
They were suddenly very natural things to do
Yup, that's another subject it naturally combines with. There are several good US textbooks that do linear alg + diff eq (particularly systems).
22:33
you mean representation theory of the free monoid of rank 1
Anyhow, @Balarka, I'm glad to hear the good news and that we helped.
Thanks. Hopefully I'll be able to let you know the more definitive news in a day or two.
I think the abstract LA stuff is very helpful as a "toy model" for abstract algebra (and of course the results are important on their own)
But it has to be said that actually proving the structure theorem for f.g. modules over a PID is harder probably than e.g. a lot of elementary group theory you do in the beginning of a first abstract algebra course
although you can give an algorithmic proof: it follows from the algorithm that computes Smith normal forms (the existence and uniqueness of that can be quite useful on its own)
I like it just in terms of row/column operations over a E.D. I don't care about the fanciest case.
I've in fact taught algebra out of Artin (before I wrote my own book and made a different-style course).
yeah the algorithm over an Euclidean domain is a bit easier
22:40
So is the code of conduct about main or about chat or both?
And it's what most of us actually use, @Mathein.
but you just need to modify it slightly for general PIDs
But most general is not always best.
@TedShifrin It's about the main apparently
Pedagogically for sure.
But it applies SE wide I am sure
22:41
we did the algorithm for EDs first and then just sketched how you need to modify it for PIDs
I made a snippy comment on main a few weeks ago which was actually wrong, and I regretted it. I ultimately removed it, but I felt bad.
So I have to be nice to you, a @Balarka? Rats.
there's actually a way to deduce the structure theorem for PIDs from the structure theorem for EDs
@TedShifrin Now, that wasn't very nice
Good :D
I haven't thought about this in decades, @Mathein.
someone rename this room "Ted bullies a bunch of students"
22:42
not this room, @Fargle ... in this room, I get bullied.
the idea is that every localization of a PID at a prime ideal is a DVR, so in particular a ED (the discrete valuation is a Euclidean function)
lol, fair point @Ted. My reply alone is evidence enough.
LOL, so you need commutative algebra as well as modules, @Mathein. Great :P
you can even get the structure theorem for Dedekind domains with that approach
room topic changed to bullying: a geometric approach: covariance is unacceptable (no tags)
22:43
How're you doing, @Fargle?
smacks Balarka
LOL
room topic changed to garbological cohomology for derived nerds: covariance is unacceptable (no tags)
tips hat
I'm doing alright. I've taken a strange turn/nosedive into chess, so that'll likely be a thing for at least another week or so.
@TedShifrin I wasn't saying you should teach that in LA, just that the case for EDs is enough once you know more stuff
You did something like that over a year ago, @Fargle.
BTW, I was just mean to Abcd in the other room.
22:45
being direct is not necessarily mean
There's too much memorization of tricky crap without understanding what's going on.
I did. I don't remember when exactly. I've tried to get into it several times over my life.
yo Fargle u know what u should look into Milnor, "Topology from a differentiable point of view" since you're a bit procrastuck with G-P
Milnor is super quick and dirty and lucid, so you're gonna love it
I botched the title
but you get the idea
viewpoint, I think
22:50
Fargle also abandoned my geometry notes, which are indubitably exquisite :P
He was sending me Rudin exercises at one point.
"Stretching, squishing, gluing, and otherwise having fun with locally flat stuff: the book"
I'm bad at focusing on things.
Math isn't an ideal profession for that :P
That's true, lol
@TedShifrin of course the right way to prove the structure theorem for f.g. modules over a PID is by using primary decomposition for Noetherian modules :P prepares to be smacked
I don't think it's a permanent thing. And at the risk of bandying empty words, Rudin and your notes are both still on my list.
22:53
@Fargle: I'm not here to be a pain in the ass.
I understand.
Next @Mathein will prove the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus in high school by doing absolute continuity and Lebesgue integration.
Well, then again, there's two types of mathematicians - one group likes to move from problem-to-problem... the combinatorialist types.
@TedShifrin sounds a bit like what our analysis prof did ...
Is this going to be one of those "two types" and you can't count right.
22:55
Nah, the other group are theory-centrists
there's an article by Gowers on this
It could just be the Aristotelian dichotomy thing. "Combinatorialists, and not-combinatorialists."
I'm neither, Balarka.
A mix of both to my mind :)
for example, consider the following proof:
if $\sum_{n=1}^\infty b_n$ converges absolutely and $|a_n| \leq b_n$ for all $n$, then $\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n$ converges absolutely.
Proof: apply dominated convergence wrt the counting measure and the sequence of functions $\Bbb N \to \Bbb R$ obtained by "cutting off" $a_n$ at a certain point
that was an actual proof we did in analysis 2
@Mathein, @Balarka: OMG, look at the second answer here.
So you should understand dominated convergence without first knowing comparison of integrals and series?
Bah.
22:59
Lmao
@Fargle I was the bully long before Ted
@TedShifrin that's a pretty nice answer that will help the OP a lot
tru fax
@TedShifrin we did define absolutely convergent series as $L^1(\Bbb N)$
Indeed, @Mathein.
rolls $8+\pi$ eyes
Sadly, @Balarka, that discussion with Perturbative was very depressing to me.
@MikeM: I only came into chat because Pedro dragged me in to help with a multivariable analysis problem ... which I never got. Were you in chat already those days? Probably.
23:02
Perturbative seem unnecessarily eager on pinning down every detail of everything
I don't understand that
No, but he doesn't understand what a function is, it seems. :(
I have no objection to pinning down understanding of details.
But getting lost in rigor...
just regard sets as discrete categories, than a function is a functor
@Mathein is getting hyper-annoying.
23:05
Category theory horror movie idea: Unnatural Transformation.
btw, @Fargle, you realize that I'm the namesake of the unabomber.
Wait for real?
@Fargle that sounds almost as scary as "The Noncommutative Diagram"
@MatheinBoulomenos Today I saw one in the wild!
If you draw the diagram for a chain homotopy it doesn't commute
You're talking about the minus sign, @Alessandro?
23:21
Urgh apparently you can't draw diagrams with diagonal arrows on MSE
@BalarkaSen: I can kinda understand the desire to be 100% careful at the beginning. In my difftop class I really felt like I had an idea and could mumble with very limited confidence about stuff, not actually doing things. I feel like it can be helpful early on in that case to be exact about details if only to build the confidence needed to trust later pictures
Nope, you can't do that easily in LaTeX either.
@TedShifrin I can use tikz though
In here?
Anyway the diagram I have in mind is like the one here but with a single arrow $A_*\to B_*$ labelled $f_*-g_*$
@TedShifrin nope, here there's only AMScd which doesn't support diagonal arrows
23:24
right
so a lot of chain homotopy formulas I use in geometry have a minus sign instead of plus. But that's not what's bothering you?
So we have $3$ paths $A_*\to B_*$, with one equal to the sum of the other two, rather than being all equal, so the diagram isn't commutative
yeah that's right
No, something's not right. The $f_*$ and $g_*$ should be horizontal, and the chain homotopy goes diagonally.
@TedShifrin I was after you, for sure.
@MikeM: I couldn't berember.
No, what I said is garbage. The differentials are horizontal. (I draw the picture the other way, usually.)
I understand what you said now.
OK, I need to leave ... Night, all ...
Good night for you, good morning for me.
Both for me
See you!
goodnight
Bye @Ted good night
23:39
@AlessandroCodenotti there's a way to define chain homotopies that basically closely models the topological situation: you can define an "interval chain complex" given by $I=(0 \to 0 \to \dots \to 0 \to \Bbb Z \xrightarrow{(\mathrm{id},\mathrm{-id})} \Bbb Z \oplus \Bbb Z)$ and you have to different "inlusions" of "endpoints" given by taking the "point" chain complex $pt = (0 \to 0 \to \dots \to 0 \to \Bbb Z)$ and including it into the two components of $\Bbb Z \oplus \Bbb Z$
Then if you have a chain homotopy $h$ from $f$ to $g$, where $f,g: A_\bullet \to B_\bullet$, that's the same as a cha
Somehow I would prefer if you just wrote $C_1 I = ...$ instead of a long sequence of arrows lol
but this notation is for sure more compact
you can do the same with the "interval category" and get natural transformations as homotopies
I think one should at least mention that stuff when teaching homological algebra as it gives some motivation (and homological algebra can be pretty unmotivated)
for sure
@BalarkaSen Having $Cf$ contractible gives you that your map is a homology equivalence (cofiber sequences give homology LES, not homotopy). You would want to say that the homotopy fiber $Ff$ is contractible.
Yikes, thanks. Fiber, not cofiber.
Of course, these are closely related notions, and the same if $f$ is a map of simply connected spaces.
23:52
I guess the cool point is that if both $X$ and $Y$ are simply connected then $Cf$ contractible actually gives a homotopy equivalence
...
..............
Wowowow
I rek you so much lately
Yes you do

« first day (29 days earlier)      last day (1554 days later) »