« first day (2973 days earlier)      last day (2038 days later) » 

5:00 AM
but isn't commutativity dependant upon how the operator the group is equipped with is axiomized? thus only having a partial requisite of a minimum number of elements?
actually a guy did give me a heap of good examples for this subject to work with on my fb timeline last month
stupid internet
it should all just be one domain so I can organise my shit
 
We know, you can read the transcript here
The discussion has repeated far too many times unfortunately
 
I'm trying to get work done while I wait, but I just keep pausing, thinking, then coming back here to see if anyone else is still waiting.
Has anyone read through the leaked proof yet?
 
Looking at it now, but I don't think I have the requisite learning to really understand what's being said.
 
No but I have noticed alot of online interest seems to be attempted to be generated throughout the public domain
 
5:13 AM
Yes. I am not going to talk about it.
 
@Rithaniel Same, I can't wait any longer.
 
I'm sure somebody has talked about this on a blog or Reddit or something by now.
 
@Mike Miller Why do I feel like I missed something?
 
ok my link might be fake
but who has the time to fake that
and knows Todd thingy
 
I'm sure 99 percent will follow suite with the popular consensus without putting it under the microscope or even having been in that field for long enough to stand a chance to hold substance in their view, am I supposed to keep believing something like that wouldn't be very quickly stamped classified?
 
5:17 AM
Lol I think it's best we just wait for the talk to happen and then see what the experts say afterwards
 
@Adam So...it's a fake?
 
no of course not the world has been an open book since a group of philanthropists announced big prizes in the year 2000 for the most difficult prizes in mathematicsd
 
@Daminark Over 2 more hours to go. I feel like it's Christmas eve, but I know the gift boxes are filled with coal and I'm just waiting to confirm it.
 
goosebumps oh lordy I have to pee
 
@Adam I sense sarcasm, sir.
 
5:20 AM
do we have any spies inside the forum?
 
@Leaky Nun Is that a thing? Do they do that?
@Adam Will the real Adam please stand up?
 
I mean do we have people on this chat who is going to attend the forum
 
I really should have asked Ted to ban this discussion for a week
I guess the soft alternative is to leave for a week and hope I never hear it again when I return
 
@Leaky Nun Nice.
 
But as an addict who knows how that'll go
 
5:23 AM
@MikeMiller Ha! Never from it again...ha! ROFL! OMG.
@MikeMiller I need to go to my happy place.
 
I mean, I've never seen you before, and I probably won't see you again soon enough.
So it seems pretty plausible.
 
@MikeMiller Hmm...you're right. I seem to have developed a grandiose sense of self-importance over the course of this discussion. Thank you for the reality check. (This is in no way sarcastic. I feel super weird)
 
spy? Look at me, not only am I a secret agent, I am the world's greatest secret agent. And if that sob accepts the prize money, not following suite with the altruisms of greg, it's time to let slip the hogs of war
 
@Adam War!
@Adam Why are there two of you? Which is the spy and which is the agent?
 
Double Adam
 
@Secret What are you trying to say?
 
I can only get into the page of one of the Adams
 
Double Adam...Double Agent. Hogs of war. What is going on?
@Secret Ah, ok. I didn't click the link.
 
Double Adam. It is clear after 10 years, reality is finally starting to dissolve (Iluminati mode)
ThePlan have been going well
 
@LeakyNun you got flagged for saying 'lean coding Livestream' for some reason
 
5:32 AM
@MikeMiller interesting
I guess people hate Lean now
 
Or just someone abusing flags to be a dick is my second guess
 
ah Michael that is offensive terminology and against chat room policies, please use penis in the future
 
@Secret Reality is dissolving? Quick, everyone, how many fingers am I holding up?
 
Someone clearly have been watching too much infinity war lol
 
oh and the double account thing wasn't me it was you guys, you banned me from posting questions that were vague book and or referencing the use of a communist/Canadian computer algebra system
 
5:36 AM
@Secret How did you know? ;)
 
> Mr. Stark, I am not feeling well
 
@Secret Stop, I've cried enough for one night.
 
so I made a new one, and then when I tried to log on using a tor browser, and was made to do one of those idiot click on all the squares with cars thingys for literally 15 consecutive minutes, only to be denied login, the two magically merged
 
meanwhile watching this while waiting for chemistry's turn to break tomorrow, after mathematics and physics
 
oh, and was given an "association bonus" of 100 reputation points, more than anything ive actually spent a long time working on or has the most credibility
 
5:39 AM
@Secret Oooh. I'm going to watch while I wait.
@Adam I got that too. Even on the sites I never posted on before. I feel it just makes me look reputable when I leave stupid comments.
 
yeah I know they are making a new shiny circular boom doogle that will finally confirm the big bang, tell us how many dimensions there are in total, release us from the clutches of fossil fuel, the only possible means of producing energy currently known to man, and circulate between those paraphrasing slightly each time and its all they need to believe in the dream
 
It is expected 1.5 years before the year where the next US election will make or break all of us, more of these reality breaking events will occur
 
I find these comments therapeutic. It's my new therapy
 
@Adam Oh my gosh...I've gone too far. 42.
 
no not even ambiguously dropping natural numbers into the discussion triggers me these days. I'm numb. I'm an unfeeling ghost now
 
5:44 AM
@Adam You didn't hear it, but I just sighed internally because it's 1:44 am where I am. I feel for you bro. I don't even know what we're talking about anymore.
Two more hours. I just checked and the HLF site is down. Hopefully, it's back up by showtime or this would have all been for naught.
 
 
1 hour later…
6:54 AM
Hopcroft in 5 minutes
 
7:06 AM
Hopcroft is speaking!
 
@LeakyNun (I have no idea about RH but still am curious because of everyone discussing it) Is Atiyah's proof correct?
 
Atiyah is the next speaker
so we don't know yet
 
7:34 AM
the page is down, I can't see :(
 
7:50 AM
It's asking for a login. How do I get onto the stream?
 
Thanks!
Um...
 
damn
I'm at work
wish there were subtitles on this live video..
nobody spoil
 
@ÍgjøgnumMeg Ikr, I can only make out every other word.
 
@CaptainAmerica16 guess I'll watch it later on
during my lunch hour
 
7:58 AM
@ÍgjøgnumMeg I'm going to rewatch once they post it on YouTube as well. I'll probably sit through this too, just because.
 
there's still nothing
he's talking about the quaternions now
 
@Leaky Nun This has basically been a history lesson so far. His time slot ends soon.
 
well he still has half an hour
maybe he'll waste 44 minutes and then throw out a counter-example in the last minute
generalization of euler's formula to quaternion...
 
@LeakyNun -_-
 
von Neumann and Hirzebruch generalized Euler's formula to quaternions
(yes, he mentioned those two names in his abstract)
 
8:05 AM
Audio gone
 
well I have a clear audio that's like 5 minutes behind
because I started streaming 45 minutes earlier
 
@LeakyNun Completely frozen on my end.
Nevermind, fixed.
 
It seems it resembles the preprint
 
indeed
 
8:20 AM
doesn't seem like there is the same air of anticipation as when Wiles was giving his lectures on FLT
 
I've got a word problem that is bugging me and I need a sanity check. If I am fly fishing in a group and I get 4 times as many catches as each of the others and my tally accounts for half of the total. How many are in the group? I reckon 5 in total? But am I losing my mind???
 
Héctor, I think this one is for the blogs, if anyone wants to take it up. Atiyah has done some of the greatest mathematics in the past 50+ years, but it looks very likely that here he's "not even wrong", and it is for this very reason that he should be accorded some dignity in view of his epoch-making past work -- not a public raking at MO. That's just my opinion. — Todd Trimble ♦ 11 hours ago
 
He's proving it by contradiction.
 
summary:
> This is exactly what we did. Using the composite function F(s) of 3.1 with a zero at b, off the critical line, we found another zero b0 which halves the distance |s-1/2| to the critical line. Continuing this process gives an infinite sequence of distinct zeros, converging to a point (on the critical line).But an analytic function which vanishes on such an infinite sequence must be identically zero. Applying this to F(s) (using 2.8 now instead of 2.6) shows that F(s) is identically zero and this then leads to a contradiction as argued in the last few lines after 3.3
 
:(
 
8:25 AM
it's all based on the mysterious Todd function
 
That's what I was trying to ask. He said the Todd function is based in the fine structure constant?
 
So like
that was his proof and now he's just moved on
and everyone's like "...?"
 
He seems to have made some mathematical errors outside of the ambiguity of the Todd function.
I can confirm, I'm currently like: ...?
 
this concludes the livestream
 
Yeah that was a bit surreal
 
8:29 AM
What did you think?
 
I don't really know what to think tbh
but I'm entirely unconvinced that anything actually just happened
 
@ÍgjøgnumMeg Yeah...I don't really think he did it. He should have spent the history lesson explaining what the heck the Todd function actually is.
 
well Clay still has to decide whether to give him the money
 
@LeakyNun They should just give it to him just because. This has been one of the weirdest nights of my life.
 
Atiyah said he submitted to arXiv and arXiv didn't accept it, and Atiyah claims that it is because of ageism
 
8:35 AM
I guess we just wait until they post it online so we can ponder some more.
Ageism...hmm.
 
Pig
why would clay give him money? @LeakyNun
 
@Pig I said, Clay has to decide
 
Pig
no I mean, did he receive an award or so?
 
I don't think so
and this concludes my delayed clearer audio livestream
 
More like they have to make a show of deciding due to his stature.
 
Pig
8:38 AM
so why may Clay give him money in the first place..?
 
It's a millennial problem if he actually proved it, he gets a million dollars.
 
Pig
oh
oh well...
 
Pig
didn't make that connection initlally for obvious reasons
:/
 
I understand.
It's not on YouTube yet. I
*I'm already having withdraws. I feel the need to see it again.
 
8:45 AM
Oh man, the day started so well... Javier Dominguez winning Worlds, but this talk kind of made me very sad :(
 
@JoBe I feel the same way. I had such high hopes for today.
 
When is it ?
 
@Astyx When is what?
 
Atiyah's conference
 
@Astyx Oh, sorry. You just missed the live stream, but the HLF says they will post it on YouTube shortly.
 
8:48 AM
his talk has already concluded -- will be up on youtube afterwards
I also think you might be able to see it on the website under the media section -- the opening ceremony is already up on there last i checked
So let me see if I can summarize: Basically his program is to find a numerological explanation for the fine structure constant from physics, which he does by defining some special function called a Todd function, which is defined as an infinite iteration of exponentials.
This Todd function is weakly analytical in compact domains and even polynomial in convex compact domains. He then uses such a Todd function in a very simple proof by contradiction of the Riemann Hypothesis. Did I miss something?
 
@Marko That's about all I got out of it as well.
 
@Marko thhat's basically it
 
Thank you
What are the thoughts ?
 
Well, I am neutral. Don't know nearly enough about this fine structure constant, but I'll start checking it out in my spare time. I'm sure other people are going to verify/invalidate these arguments well before I do
 
Too many logical leaps. He should have spent more time on how the structure constant lead to the Todd Function. He spent well over half of the presentation going over the history of other mathematicians/physicists etc.
We'll have to wait and see what the experts confirm most likely.
 
8:55 AM
@Marko right, I'm skeptical af but I don't have the background to say if it's reasonable or not. Leave it to the pros I guess, but have some healthy skepticism
 
Such a talk would take a lecture series, not a short talk. I think the talk was structured fine for its purpose
 
I suppose you're right. Don't mind me, I've been up all night for this.
 
@Marko this is it, Wiles' talk on FLT took 3 lectures I believe (sorry not sorry for comparing to this, seems to be on the same scale)
 
The work is out there, and any mistakes will come out soon enough if they exist. I always imagined personally that RH would be proven "for free" after proving something else, since direct attacks haven't worked for so long
kinda like Thurston -> Poincare
 
9:15 AM
$i$th order derivative of function $f:\Bbb{R}^n \rightarrow \Bbb{R}^n$ is an $i+1$th order tensor
??
 
yeah
 
Any reference? I admit i donot know a tensor :'(
 
In mathematics, the modern component-free approach to the theory of a tensor views a tensor as an abstract object, expressing some definite type of multi-linear concept. Their well-known properties can be derived from their definitions, as linear maps or more generally; and the rules for manipulations of tensors arise as an extension of linear algebra to multilinear algebra. In differential geometry an intrinsic geometric statement may be described by a tensor field on a manifold, and then doesn't need to make reference to coordinates at all. The same is true in general relativity, of tensor fields...
it's not exactly a tensor but it's a function that outputs a tensor for each point of $\Bbb R^n$
a type $(1,i)$ tensor
 
So Tensors are the elemetns of the tensor product space
 
9:40 AM
@LeakyNun ....So is the proof correct?
 
no idea
 
I still find that $f=g=F$ substitution, followed by the Todd function disappearing to give F=2F very shaky
 
in The Nineteenth Byte, 32 secs ago, by Leaky Nun
is it just another of his linear approximations?
in The Nineteenth Byte, 16 secs ago, by Leaky Nun
so his proof is basically "314159 is approximately 310000 which is approximately 300000 which is approximately 0"?
 
If you do follow that substitution in the paper, you should get something like T({F}{F-2})=T(F-1) and since F is a fucntion of T, you still have an outer T need to worry about. Unless, the Todd function has some extra properties that allows it to be undone in some way to remove the outer T and give F=2F
 
in The Nineteenth Byte, 1 min ago, by Leaky Nun
he mentioned something about linear approximation, so 2.7 is just a linear approximation (sqrt(1+s) = 1+s/2)?
 
9:47 AM
thats... a lot of approximations. Unacceptable in mathematician standards
2
in The Nineteenth Byte, 3 mins ago, by Leaky Nun
how does taking f=g=F in 2.6 allow us to deduce 3.3: F(s) = 2F(s)?
and I wholeheartly agree. Doing the substitution does not get us to F(s)=2F(s), so something else is missing
there isn't anything else given here that will simplify this substitution further
Also why $f=g=F$, there seemed to be no motivations at all
hmm...
 
So basically wrong proof :/ ...
 
We don't know yet, since almost nothing is known about the Todd function
People have trouble accessing his fine structure constant paper
 
ok so $T([1+F]^2) = T(1+2F)$
what next
 
and physicists in h bar already said this is like one of those numerology using the fine structure constant again
@LeakyNun I am suspecting taking square root will get some somewhere...?
 
where
 
10:00 AM
Try square root both sides and use 2.6, 2.7 to move the square root inside the T
Thus we should have $\sqrt{T([1+F]^2)} = \sqrt{T(1+2F)} \implies T(\sqrt{[1+F]^2}) = T(1+2\sqrt{2}F) \implies T([1+F]) = T(1+2\sqrt{2}F) $
and then I have no idea yet
 
why are we still talking about this
 
because the talk just ended a few minutes ago and a lot of somebody elses is talking about it, but I am pretty sure it will die here
 
10:23 AM
When will it be decided that he should be given 1 million or not?
@Secret
 
You could check how that process went with Perelmann and the poincare conjecture
Although that was a very rigorous proof, I wouldn't expect too much from this
 
Hello everyone, and quick question from my friend
what's the last digit of 123^123^...^123 repeats 123 times
 
Think about what the last digit of 3 is when raised to multiple powers
Then try to figure out how to make that tower of powers much easier using that knowledge
 
this is from my friend and he said the answer is 7 but I got 9
 
I'd say compare approaches and see where you differ
 
10:29 AM
But he didn't provide me the method he used
 
@Abcd I am not a mathematician, I have no idea
 
If anyone could help me check what's the correct answer
appreciate
I will find the method myself
 
How did you get 9? I haven't run the calculations but I think 7 is correct
Also, do you mean (123^123)^123 etc. or 123^(123^123). The former, right
 
I didn't notice the difference, lol.
 
Anyways, 3^123 ends in 7, 7^123 ends in 3, so after 123 iterations, you'd end in 7?
 
10:33 AM
this is the image I got
 
10:46 AM
@Krijn I responded.
I'm glad to see tetration chat in here, as opposed to an alternative. Let's keep tetrating.
 
In the foundations of mathematics, Aczel's anti-foundation axiom is an axiom set forth by Peter Aczel (1988), as an alternative to the axiom of foundation in Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory. It states that every accessible pointed directed graph corresponds to a unique set. In particular, according to this axiom, the graph consisting of a single vertex with a loop corresponds to a set that contains only itself as element, i.e. a Quine atom. A set theory obeying this axiom is necessarily a non-well-founded set theory. == Accessible pointed graphs == An accessible pointed graph is a directed graph with...
every directed graph corresponds to a unique set
in particular the graph with one point and one edge corresponds to a solution of Q = {Q}
 
associated means that's the corresponding subset tree?
oh i see it said that
mb
 
I am sad to see this with Atiyah
 
yes we all are etc
 
age is scary
I hope for him the best
 
10:59 AM
@MikeMiller element tree
 
oh right because sets are comprised of sets
for whatever reason i was confused by why there was a tree of elements
 
right
 
11:20 AM
maybe i should just remove myself from the internet for a week
my blood shouldn't be boilin at 7am
 
@MikeMiller I want to email the organizers of this HLF event to chastise them, but perhaps I should get off the internet for a while myself instead
 
Can anyone help me with a probability problem?
 
@LeakyNun thanks, i'll check it out
you're doing me a service by giving me math to do lol
 
Here is the problem- What is the probability of getting more than 20 heads while tossing 30 coins?
$(2^7-1)(10!)/({2^{40}}*3)$ but the answer given is approximately 0.05. How to approximate?
 
11:25 AM
@LeakyNun oh, that's nice. i wish he had better explained the idea before the end but i like it
the point being that you can make a periodic approximation to the identity out of cosine is cool
i didn't think to do that at all, that's a good insight
 
Hello I just need some notation help, does something like this make any sense? $\sum_2^{j} \sum_{a=j}^b m_a$
 
@Aldon Do you mean $\sum_{j=2}^k\sum_{a=j}^bm_a$ where $k\leq b$?
 
@AlexClark Ah yes sorry
 
12:34 PM
Any updates about Atiyah and his "proof"?
 
Okay, I will write an answer for the service of this chatroom in the hopes that it kills discussion. It won't, but whatever.
The preprint by Atiyah does not make any sense. There are many false claims as well as many nonsensical ones. This follows along the lines of his recent preprint on another major open problem. One simple point is that the notion of 'weakly analytic function' as stated is just the same thing as an analytic function, and his claim that these are polynomials on convex sets is false.
15
Another point, as stated by Yemon Choi (an operator algebraist) here is that there is a unique trace on the hyperfinite factor. However, the function T is defined as a sort of comparison between two claimed different traces.
Of course, this is what every layman was told would happen by mathematicians familiar with the situation. But I guess that didn't matter to anyone.
6
 
The context I’ll add from the Physics side: Fine structure numerology is a third rail of modern theoretical physics.
 
12:49 PM
These are all topics which are new to me. Is it okay to ask about them in here to gather information? Or would it be better to simply look up Wikipedia articles on them? (A question might be about what a convex set is, for example)
 
You can easily Google the definition of a convex set. The stuff about operator algebras will be harder. I doubt it is worth the time.
 
you could just look that up on wikipedia @Rithaniel
 
@MikeMiller I think a lot of people are confused as to why it was even given the go ahead
but I don't wanna labour the point, thanks for your explanation
 
Ah, quite a simple concept.
 
@ÍgjøgnumMeg The talk was given the go-ahead by organizers who gain from increased publicity. I don't think there's a sense in which the paper was 'given the go-ahead'.
It does not seem to be possible to contact the organizers.
 
1:01 PM
It’s hard to convey how incredible/dubious a claim to have “solved the mystery of the fine structure constant” is from the Physics POV
 
@MikeMiller right, I was referring to the talk. That's scandalous then and there needs to be some review into the selection process for such talks (or into the organisers). Essentially this was "click-bait" for publicity..
@MikeMiller thanks for your clarification btw!
 
to my eyes it’s an order of magnitude more dubious than him claiming to have a proof of RH
 
what's a fizzy cyst
 
what is splitting field of X^3+X+1 in F5? I know it is irreducible. Then how to proceed?
 
@Ninjahatori well it is F125
F5[X]/(X^3+X+1)
 
1:11 PM
(In retrospect, I don't understand why the 'fine structure numerology' wasn't a part of the story; people were referencing were S6 and Feit, but I only saw the fine-structure business once I actually watched some of his ICM talk.)
 
@Ninjahatori from the Classification, every finite extension of finite field is normal
I think the value of T(1+i) is now an even more mysterious open problem
 
I am guessing it is that is what mathematicians are familiar with and they are not so familiar with "fine structure numerology". Plus I don't know if it was out untill his talk/talk notes came out @Semiclassical
 
it was in the ICM talk, and that was in January
 
@Semiclassical I actually read the first paragraph about fine structure numerology and assumed the paper was a hoax and closed it
 
@GPhys sad
 
1:16 PM
scratch that, I'm remembering wrong
the ICM talk was published on youtube on 9/12/2018
so a bit less than two weeks ago
 
@Semiclassical so what is fine structure, and what is numerology, and what tf does pi have to do with it?
 
the reference to 'fine structure' is historical. the key phrase is really the "fine structure constant"
 
isn't numerology like.. "It is now february 3rd, that's the number 23, and 23 is prime and so is 2 + 3 and therefore we are all going to die on the 23rd of may"
 
Can we show it explicitly that splitting field is F125?
 
1:20 PM
The fine structure constant is the coupling strength of the electromagnetic field, meaning it controls how strong electromagnetism is. In Quantum electrodynamics, it is derived from a series expansion, and there are a lot of pis in that sum
 
@NinjaHatori show that it splits into linear factors over $\Bbb F_{125}$
 
@Secret the first line is right
but there's no "derivation" of the fine structure constant in QED
 
ah I must have mixed up with something because I vaguely remember something in powers of $\alpha$
 
you can derive corrections to the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron in QED, and those have been well-tested
 
@Ninjahatori follows from linear algebra results
you should read a proof of Classification
and ask me things you don’t understand
@Semiclassical @Secret I remember Feynman diagrams have powers of alpha
 
1:22 PM
@Secret sure. the point is that corrections to quantities like the anomalous magnetic moment are expressed in a power series in alpha
 
right so that's what I misremembered
 
but alpha itself is not a prediction of the theory, and must be measured emperically
 
@Semiclassical but the point is that nobody can “solve” the constant, right
 
right. more to the point, the suggestion that $\alpha$ is some purely mathematical quantity is not one which is regarded credibly by physicists
 
I see
 
1:24 PM
@Semi what's the origin of the name "fine structure constant"? Wikipedia says it has numerous physical interpretations, is that reason?
 
last time I read about fine structure numerology, is some guy who claimed $\alpha$ that it has something to do with $\zeta(1)$, which is nonsense
 
is that the reason*
 
plus, to the extent that we know it empirically, it's as 1/alpha = 137.035999173(35).
in terms of physical precision, that's rather impressive. in terms of mathematical precision, though, it's not
in particular, there's no shortage of ways to assemble mathematical expressions in such a way as to approximate 1/alpha up to its known precision
 
(In other news), the fact that I am rereading the wikipedia article on irrational numbers the third time suggests it is time for me to go to sleep as I am not sure if I am aware I am awake anymore
 
The name is basically historical
 
1:28 PM
@Semiclassical Nice, thanks :)
 
@LeakyNun How to show that it is smallest normal field extension? I know if finite extension K of F is a normal extension iff K is the splitting field of a polynomial over F so there can be many normal extension sitting between these F and K.
 
I've always found it ridiculous that an OP can vote to reopen their own posts
 
@LeakyNun one way to appreciate the point is that, in natural units, the electron's electric charge would be $-\sqrt{\alpha}$
so a claim to have a mathematical derivation of $\alpha$ amounts to the claim that the electron's electric charge has a purely mathematical origin
 
1:44 PM
Why do we consider the first order inhomogenous differential equations linear?
They don’t satisfy linearity do they?
 
They're of the form Tf = g for a linear differential operator T
 
oh so it’s the operator is linear but the thing on the other side of the equals sign isn’t taken into account for a classification?
 
Finding if there is a solution of that is the same as finding out whether g is in the image, and finding how many is the same as studying ker T.
 
@Ninjahatori it must contain a root to that irreducible cubic
 
That's a 'linear algebra' problem.
 
1:46 PM
so its degree has to be divisible by 3
for some interpretation of linear algebra
 
In particular, the main difference to the case g = 0 is the question of existence of solutions.
 
@MikeMiller slightly too high level for me
 
lol
@JakeRose linear means T(f1+f2) = Tf1 + Tf2
in this case T is d/dx
 
@LeakyNun got it
 
etc
T can also be d^2/dx^2
 
1:49 PM
but doesn’t the inhomogenous mess that up?
 
or d^2/dx^2 + d/dx
slightly
but the linear algebra result applies
 
@LeakyNun You can also multiply by functions.
 
the solutions to Tf=g is a particular solution plus any solution of Tf=0
 
Just don't put f as input of sine or some shit.
 
So we only consider what’s on the left side of the equals sign essentially when deciding if it’s linear once in a nice form
 
1:50 PM
@MikeMiller have you rested?
 
e.g. y’ + g(x)y = f(x)
 
right
 
So we just don’t consider the f(x) when deciding if the equation is linear
Just have to remember the solution spoace for this won’t be linear
 
because (y1+y2)’ + g(x)(y1+y2) = [y1’+g(x)y1] + [y2’+g(x)y2]
the solution space is affine
 
Yes agreed
 
1:51 PM
i.e. a subspace translated by a constant
 
Thanks for the help guys
 
subspace means what you just (wrongly) called linear
 
I got like 6h in
 
What did I wrongly call linear?
 
the solution space
 

« first day (2973 days earlier)      last day (2038 days later) »