« first day (2969 days earlier)      last day (2045 days later) » 

6:39 PM
Hello, if anyone has a moment, I need some help with the cantor set. I've been given a problem where the cantor set is defined as $[0,1]\setminus\bigcup_{n=1}^{\infty } C_{n} $, and I'm tasked with building a bijection between it and [0,1].
 
@Rithaniel Are you familiar with how the Cantor set relates to the ternary representation of its elements?
 
Yeah, it only contains elements which can be written with 0s and 2s, but this is the complement in regards to [0,1], and I don't know that any kind of corollary holds.
 
@Rithaniel Well, you can get an "almost-bijection" by taking that ternary expansion, replacing all the 2's by 1's, and thinking of it as a binary number.
 
Yes, I'm familiar with that, the thing which is throwing me for a loop is the fact that this is the complement of Cantor, isn't it?
 
Huh. What are the sets $C_n$?
 
6:46 PM
Howdy @Fargle
 
The complement of Cantor shouldn't be Cantor, because it has measure and contains nontrivial intervals.
Heya @Ted
 
@Rithaniel: You switch to base 2 instead of base 3.
 
$C_{n}=\bigcup_{i=0}^{3^{3n-1}-1} (\frac{3i+1}{3^{n}},\frac{3i+2}{3^{n}})$
There is a chance that I am misinterpreting what I'm reading, of course.
 
Is it possible the "top" index is wrong? The way it's written, $C_1$ would include the interval $\left(\frac{25}{3}, \frac{26}{3}\right)$, which is not in $[0,1]$
 
Also, crunching some numbers, it seems that the complement to Cantor in [0,1] contains ternary expansions that contain 1s, 2s, and 0s.
Oh, right
$C_{n}=\bigcup_{i=0}^{3^{n-1}-1} (\frac{3i+1}{3^{n}},\frac{3i+2}{3^{n}})$
Typo on my part, apologies.
 
6:49 PM
No problem--just wanted to make sure.
This is the usual Cantor set then, not its complement. You're removing $(1/3, 2/3)$, and then $(1/9, 2/9)$ and $(7/9, 8/9)$, and so on.
 
Ah, okay. In that case it was simply me misreading the content of the problem.
 
hi @TedShifrin
 
hi Leaky
 
Thank you for the clarification.
 
No worries!
 
6:51 PM
@TedShifrin hast du schonmal in Deutschland gewesen?
 
I'm not actually sure how you would change the "almost-bijection" I mentioned to a true bijection, however.
 
Though, how about that for a puzzle? A bijection from the actual complement of cantor to [0,1]
 
ja, einmal als ich ein Kind war, und zweimal lätzes Sommer
 
For example, 1/9 = 0.0022222... and 2/9 = 0.02, but they both get mapped to 1/4 = 0.01 = 0.0011111111...
 
@TedShifrin wo zu?
 
6:53 PM
@Rithaniel That would be a doozy, for sure.
 
Lätzes Sommer in München ...
howdy @MikeM
 
@TedShifrin ich gehe nach Freiburg bald
fur 3 Tage
 
Hmmm, 1/9 would = .01 as a non-repeating expansion, so that's not good. I see the issue.
 
@Fargle @Rithaniel you would have more luck bijecting the cantor set to $2^\Bbb N$
or $P(\Bbb N)$
 
6:57 PM
That's where they started, Leaky.
 
I see
well there are countably many overlaps with your "almost" bijection
or maybe can we use Schroeder-Berstein?
 
I had typed that earlier, but I didn't see the injection the nonobvious way.
 
So, wait, 5/9 in ternary is 0.12, correct?
 
you mean from [0,1] to Cantor?
 
Yup.
 
6:59 PM
express in base 2 with no final 111.... (this guarantees uniqueness)
change 1 to 2
convert from base 3
 
But 5/9 is in cantor?
 
We already discussed that, too.
 
then you have injections both way
 
@Rithaniel There's a 1 in it that can't be "removed" by turning it into an infinite tail of 2's, so it is not in Cantor.
 
and Schroeder-Berstein says you're done
 
7:00 PM
Hey everyone!
 
hi @Daminark
 
Heya @Daminark
How's things?
 
But, by the definition set up above, the interval (4/9,5/9) is removed from cantor, which means that 5/9 is left in cantor, correct?
 
no, 5/9 is not in Cantor
(1/3,2/3) is already removed in the first iteration
 
Everything's alright, how about you?
 
7:03 PM
Riiiiiight, got it, I missed that bit.
 
proceeds to make a pun on "bit"
 
proceeds to ignore Leaky's humor and rolls a mere 3.8 eyes
 
@Daminark Pretty alright. I had to miss class today because of a bad headcold, but other than that things are golden.
 
Hopefully it's a class you'll be able to catch up relatively soon?
 
I'm too sleepy
 
7:07 PM
gotta love allergies and sinus infections :(
 
let's hope they don't differentiate to become cosinus infections
 
You're awful
 
I have not heard from Mr Eyeglasses for over a year. I gave up trying to contact him.
 
I feel bad for never responding to your email - I did get if
 
Well, it's alright. I know you are busy. Unlike me. I have no life.
 
7:09 PM
I did that thing j do a lot where I think of saying something meaningful but put it off because of the time investment
I don't like you picking on yourself :+(
 
@JasperLoy what do you do for a living?
 
In fact, most of the people I know in real life have abandoned me. My only friends are people I talk to online now.
 
Is someone talking about Cantor sets and cardinalities?
 
@LeakyNun I don't. I have not worked for a long time. I live with my mum who is taking care of me.
 
I see
 
7:10 PM
@Jasper: There's someone else with the same "name," but indeed a very different person. He did in fact disappear.
Howdy @Alessandro
 
@TedShifrin Yes, I think I did see another Eyeglasses in this chat.
 
The other Eyeglasses is definitely pretty advanced in geometry, among other things.
 
I was wondering whether it was him with a second account, but they seem to be very different people.
 
@TedShifrin how do you define the first harmonic on a Riemannian manifold?
 
7:12 PM
Ah, I love being the topic of a meta imbroglio.
What's the context of your question, @Ultra?
 
Guess what, I just got an email from ... Book Depository.
 
@Alessandro lmao, I love how we all have topics which summon us
 
Demonark, I prefer to hide :)
BTW, did you ever answer Poline's question on here, Demonark?
 
@TedShifrin Since you use the Mac, I heard there might be a new cheap Macbook Air gonna be announced next month, but nobody knows for sure. What is your current model?
 
I never ended up contacting Poline about it, maybe I'll ping her
 
7:14 PM
@Daminark :P
Cantor space is the best space
 
Thanks, Demonark. I appreciate your taking over :P
Jasper, I have a relatively new desktop iMac and iPad mini. I have no need for a laptop; I only had the university's when I needed it for classes.
heya DogAteMy!
 
Meanwhile, someone who emailed me seven years ago recently emailed me again. I am glad to hear from him again.
 
DogAteMy, you've joined the Israeli navy?
(Guess that's one way to answer my bad humor.)
 
@TedShifrin The most expensive desktop and laptop from Apple is unbelievably expensive. The cheapest one is already expensive enough.
 
7:17 PM
Yeah, but generally Apple stuff is well made and lasts forever, Jasper. Unlike many other brands.
But I'm not here to argue for it.
 
there's a new-found beauty in Galois theory now that I digest the proofs
 
@TedShifrin Yes, you are right. But I think if you spend the same money on a Windows computer, you can get more for your money.
 
Leaky: Here's a project for you. Figure out why "almost every" integer polynomial is irreducible in $\Bbb Q[x]$ but reducible mod every $p$.
Obviously I disagree, Jasper. Not if you have to buy 3 computers when I buy one.
But I don't really care.
 
@Poline Il n'y a pas une suite de Cauchy non convergente en $\mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$
 
I know of a song that goes like 'I don't care, I don't care'.
 
7:19 PM
Wait do you speak French? @Dami does just everybody but me in this chat speak French?
 
A little bit
But it's been a while
 
Whoa: Demonark is doing French!
 
So my French is probably crap
 
Guten Tag, Bonjour, Buongiorno, Buenos dias
 
@Alessandro: You hold Italian over our heads.
 
7:20 PM
@AlessandroCodenotti I only speak English. :(
 
To get some of these words I had to go through the transcript a little, for example "suite"
 
@Daminark ce n'est pas un espace normé
 
Je ne se pa como hablar Françe
 
@Daminark Mon français est crêpe
 
@TedShifrin that's interesting...
 
7:21 PM
Oui, c'est le probleme
 
@AlessandroCodenotti crêpe, delicioso
 
(Not sure how to get accents/I forgot how the accents work :/)
 
I think it's a wonderful thing, Leaky. For starters, show that $x^4-10x^2+1$ is one such polynomial :)
 
A random polynomial will be reducible mod every $p$?
 
LOL, @Alessandro: You're serving pancakes?
 
7:21 PM
Wow, this chat is incredibly busy now.
 
Not really but now I want some
 
@TedShifrin I've heard about that polynomial too many times lol
 
In the sense that the ones that aren't are relatively sparse, yes, DogAteMy.
 
OK, Leaky, if you protest, you can do $x^4+1$ instead :P
That's not random, DogAteMy.
 
7:22 PM
@TedShifrin est ce que l'union d'une suite croissante d'ensembles connexe est connexe
 
croissant
 
I meant the coefficient in your thing
 
Oh, we have croissants too now
 
No, croissante
 
Is 3 a square mod everything?
 
7:22 PM
LOL
 
Nah, that doesn't make sense
 
@AkivaWeinberger of course not
 
Oh, I think that's the right polynomial.
Yeah, I checked.
 
Oh by the way, for those interested, the digital second editions of Anthony Knapp's Basic Algebra, Advanced Algebra, Basic Real Analysis, and Advanced Real Analysis can be legally downloaded from his website. They cover all undergraduate and graduate algebra and real analysis, more or less.
 
@AkivaWeinberger I mean, it's a square mod 3 :P
Oops
 
7:24 PM
@Poline: Encore plus. Si $A_\alpha$ est connexe pour tout $\alpha$, et $x\in \bigcap A_\alpha$, alors $\bigcup A_\alpha$ est connexe.
 
$x^4-10x^2+1$ mod 5 is $(x^2+2)(x^2+3)$, isn't it
Yeah
 
I said reducible mod every $p$.
 
$5$ is a $p$
 
That's really a point-set topology fact, no need for norms of vector spaces @Poline
 
mod every 5
 
7:26 PM
goede morgen @ÍgjøgnumMeg
 
But you were acting like that (were it correct) would be a problem, DogAteMy. Maybe I misinterpreted.
 
$\exists \neq \forall$
 
If it's reducible mod 5 it's also reducible mod 3 for very big values of 3
4
 
@ÍgjøgnumMeg Your username is very very hard to spell. =)
 
7:26 PM
No, I was just checking the $p$s one by one
 
@AkivaWeinberger Might take a while
 
OK, DogAteMy. I'll come back next week and see how many you've got :)
 
this chat is getting more riduclous every second
ridiculous
 
@Poline: Il ne faut pas ne s'adresser qu'à moi. Parlez avec tout le monde ici. Et je m'en vais à ce moment.
 
7:27 PM
wait, I haven't spoken yet
 
Riddikulus!
 
@AlessandroCodenotti I was just on the phone when I saw you type that and started laughing too hard to continue my conversation
@Jasper my apologies!
Servus @Leaky
 
LOL, @ÍgjøgnumMeg. Your friend probably appreciated that.
 
@ÍgjøgnumMeg Mwhahahaha
 
ridikjules
 
7:28 PM
@ÍgjøgnumMeg du hast noch "hoi" gesagt
 
Bye for now, all.
 
@Ted lol definitely, cya!
 
You can type it without the difficult characters. Igjo does it
See you Ted!
 
@Leaky genau, hab vergessen dich zu markieren lol
@Igjo
 
7:28 PM
Just by typing "@" it will suggest ÍgjøgnumMeg
 
@AlessandroCodenotti Indeed, lol.
 
He's right fellas
That's gold
 
I think that's diamond.
 
The chat knows he is too hard to tag otherwise
 
7:29 PM
:0
 
In this way I avoid difficult conversation
I had my graduation on monday this week and received my certificate and my prize for best dissertation
so now I have a degree... and a 50 pound amazon voucher!
more importantly
 
is the degree separable?
 
err
seems like you just smashed some terms together there
 
@ÍgjøgnumMeg That's 1 or 2 math books!
 
separable degree...
4
Q: Definition of Separability Degree

Holdsworth88For an assignment, I am trying to determine the separability degree of some algebraic field extension $L/K$. The definition of the separability degree of polynomial is not difficult to find at all, namely it is the degree of the unique irreducible, separable polynomial we can associate with any p...

 
7:34 PM
@Alessandro alas, 'twas just enough to buy some winter cycling gear!
@Leaky nise
every day's a school day
 
That's a wise investment too
 
Definitely, the weather here is horrible atm
 
@ÍgjøgnumMeg You know what your name makes me think of?
 
@ÍgjøgnumMeg I thought you were kidding
 
@Akiva it's hilarious that the image is mirrored
 
7:37 PM
Oh, is it actually
I haven't seen this in ages
 
@Leaky bad times :P
 
Guys i have a mathematical question about something i found in my control engineering book
i made a post about it but no one is answering. title is "Span of integral of a vector"
 
Apparently "internationalization" is sometimes abbreviated as "i18n"
 
7:53 PM
o..o
 
@vzn The headlines suggest that a non-mathematician wrote the article, lol.
 
vzn
@JasperLoy you mean the headline? not sure what youre saying
 
@vzn Sorry, I meant the title of the article. =)
 
vzn
you dont believe in "math titans"? :P
 
titan, epic, clash, LOL
I did watch the movie Clash of the Titans. In fact, I watched both movies with that title.
I prefer the original 1981 version.
 
vzn
8:24 PM
yes its dramatic but the episode is dramatic. also sometimes headline writers are different than the article writers.
 
Some titles are clickbait.
 
"And lo, Scholze did smite Mochizuki, who reared his head and opened his many mouths, gasping in pain."
 
LOL
 
vzn
(lol) havent seen the 1981 version. liked the 2010 version. whats not to like? too dramatic? :P imdb.com/title/tt0800320
there really is a lot of drama around this stuff, just got a bunch of downvotes on /r/mathematics "merely" for comparing mochizuki to perelman (wrt long proof review period) & everyone rejecting the idea o_O
 
wasn't perelman's paper much more readable ?
 
8:33 PM
Yes
There were of course missing details (as evidenced by the three long books filling it in) but pretty much immediately the differential geometry community figured out it was more or less completely what was needed
 
vzn
re perelman it still took years to remove all the perceived "gaps". think the idea of near immediate acceptance is nearly an urban legend... newyorker.com/magazine/2006/08/28/manifold-destiny
 
k, stranger who doesn't work in differential geometry
 
vzn
@MikeMiller those who worked inside the field did not publicly endorse it early on. there was an early review process but it didnt come up conclusive.
 
So is the abc drama over? It'd be about time
 
Nah seems like Mochizuki is going at it
 
8:49 PM
My initial reaction to a questioning comment on a four-year old accepted answer: You may have a point, but I don't really want to think about this again...
 
9:00 PM
credit K.Conrad
 
9:14 PM
@Daminark Who wrote that?
 
vzn
lol "breath-takingly (melo?)-dramatic self-declaration"
 
Mochizuki
He posted a reply
 
vzn
lol reddit math geeks clash over perelman reddit.com/r/math/comments/98i9j7/…
 
9:43 PM
can anyone help explain to me what the deduction theorem is saying, in logic?
 
If you can prove $B$ assuming $A$ then you can prove $A\rightarrow B$, without assuming $A$
 
I get that much, I just don't see the "purpose"?
Or the advantage it gives us
 
That's how you prove statements of the form $A\rightarrow B$ commonly
 
they both sound like they're saying the same thing to me
 
You assume $A$ and derive $B$
The deduction theorem tells you that this is enough
 
9:47 PM
$A \vdash B$ versus $ \vdash A \to B$ (forgot the vdash)
 
It's $A\vdash B$ versus $\vdash A\to B$ in the deduction theorem
 
yes
 
Normally if you have to prove $A\to B$ you prove instead $A\vdash B$. Why is this enough? Precisely because of the deduction theorem
 
but what does this let us do that we couldn't do before?
i just don't see the difference
or utility
 
Before you couldn't say "I proved $A\vdash B$, hence I can deduce $A\to B$" because you can't be sure they're equivalent (and there are actually logics out there for which the deduction theorem fails)
 
9:51 PM
but I mean why do we care about deducing $A \to B$?
What's wrong with sticking with $A \vdash B$?
If they're both saying more-or-less the same thing?
is there an easy example that shows how our lives are made easier by using the $A \to B$ form instead of $A \vdash B$ form?
 
The point is not using one over the other, is knowing they're equivalent
Hmmm, let me try to give another example of a similar but more interesting situation, are you familiar with the (first-order) peano arithmetics axioms?
 
not so much
just peano axioms for natural numbers
 
Yeah it's the same
Just two different names
 
like for all n in N, S(n) cannot equal 0, etc
 
Precisely
And there is the first order induction schema: $(\varphi(0)\land(\varphi(n)\to\varphi(n+1))\to(\forall x\varphi(x))$
 
9:55 PM
yes
 
Suppose we didn't have the axiom schema of induction and let $\varphi$ be any statement true for every natural number
now we can't prove $\forall x\varphi(x)$, but for every fixed $n$ we can prove $\varphi(n)$
 
I always thought induction was just a first-order axiom schema we assumed as proved without proof
 
It is, it's not a perfect analogy but I'll get to it
 
so we can prove $\varphi(n)$ individually for any $n$ we pick but we can't prove $\forall x \varphi(x)$
 
Right, but isn't that more or less the same thing? Why do we want to know $\forall x\varphi(x)$?
 
9:59 PM
yeah I'd say that's basically the same thing
by definition perhaps
 
That's because you're thinking outside the formal system
Inside the formal system those two are very different
 
Demonark: I just read a whole article a math prof friend posted on FB. Sounds like Mochizuki is being ultra-condescending to a Field medalist, doesn't it? @Daminark
rehi @Alessandro
 
When we say "for every $n$ we can prove $\varphi(n)$" is a metaconsideration about the formal system, when we say $\forall x\varphi(x)$ it's a sentence inside the formal system
Rehi @Ted
 
Seems like I stumbled in in the middle of logic class :)
 
yeah, metalogic being the sort of informal reasoning we use
i'd say we define the axioms within a system by using meta-reasoning outside of it
 
10:03 PM
Similarly $A\vdash B\implies A\to B$ is something we would really like to be true, because at the intuitive level it ought to be, the deduction theorem is a theorem inside the formal system that guarantees this
 
so it's transforming a metalogical claim into something within-the-system, is that the main advantage?
 
All it's really saying is that something we expect to be true intuitively is actually provably true
 
but isn't that basically encoded in the axioms and modus ponens
modus ponens (imo) seems to encapsulate a lot of what we'd consider the main intuition
from A and A->B we can prove B
without even knowing what the symbols mean or what they do
 
@Ted yeah, I dunno, my level of knowledge about the stuff is near nonexistent to tell whether he's actually right or not, but it strikes me as disrespectful to talk smack on people who know their stuff
 
Sure, it's not a hard theorem to prove, for first order logic! But what if you work with a different logic? You'd still like it to be true but maybe it'll be harder to prove, or maybe it'll even be false!
 
10:06 PM
Who knows with language barriers, etc., but the defensiveness doesn't inspire one with confidence. He apparently has a history of making things incomprehensible.
 
Really we have spent more than enough time on it at this point vOv
 
Oh, I'm sorry, I said something very wrong above
The deduction theorem is about the formal system, it's proved outside of it
 
I assume anything involving $\vdash$ or $\vDash$ is a metalogical statement
 
blarg
 
if we can prove $A \vdash B$ outside the system then we can prove $A \to B$ within it
 
10:09 PM
A better analogy is with the soundness theorem, we'd like our logic to only prove true things because that's how a proof intuitively works, the soundness theorem tells us that is in fact the case for first order logic
 
Ew, logic.
 
how does one prove soundness normally
i mean could we not set up truth tables that don't technically jive with the syntax?
for example we can prove $\vdash p \to p$ from axioms and modus ponens alone but this is totally independent of semantics
we can assign truth tables to all the connectives and show that all the axioms are true that way I suppose
 
Right, we could in principle have an inference rule $p\vdash \neg p$, but that's not a great idea because under the usual semantics it'd allow us to deduce false results from true premises
 
and then show that if $p$ is true and $p \to q$ is true then $q$ must be true since we only have $T \to q = T$ so $q$ can only be $T$
is that all we'd need to do? create truth tables that make all the axioms true, and make modus ponens true?
 
@Faust, you burped?
 
10:19 PM
it means yes...
according to some rather poor logic
 
Yeah, soundness is also one of those things that "it must be true unless we really messed up with the logic we're using"
 
the idea behind soundness is that our axioms are true and our inference rule says if we have p true and p->q true then q is true
so our basic unprovable things are true and then from there we can prove more true stuff as long as we start off with true stuff
if p is false then false->q implies q can be true or false
ex falso
(but that's because of how we assign the truth table for $\to$ I suppose)
seems conceivable that we give it some other value for the false p cases but maybe it's less useful then
 
10:35 PM
@Fargle: Have topology to discuss?
 
I may later today. I've been under the weather.
 
Oh yeah, you said that. I'm sorry :(
 
It's all good! Nature of fragile human existence, etc.
I'll try to bother you before your bedtime. :)
 
Well, I'll be gone ... going to the theater tonight. So I won't be around after 10 your time.
 
Gotcha. Well, I may bother you anyway.
 
10:41 PM
No problem.
 

« first day (2969 days earlier)      last day (2045 days later) »