« first day (671 days earlier)      last day (4351 days later) » 

5:00 AM
Tambien pispee un poco la construccion de Dedekind de $\mathbb R$, considerando a cada real como un conjunto. Me resulto interesantisimo...
 
5:15 AM
@Eugene Hey
 
hello
 
@Eugene I'm reading Porton's stuff.
XD
 
haha
 
It seems like a bunch of SciFi words.
Somewhat glyphy. I've seen some of his questions here, and his notation seems to be purposedly overlycomplicated.
(Plus he just asks something to link to his "papers").
@Eugene
Please
See
Lemma 24 here. And the proof.
The Obivous #n are also funny.
 
what's wrong with lemma 24?
 
5:22 AM
@Eugene The proof.
Not wrong.
 
yah i see it
 
Just the symbology.
 
it's first order logic
a lot of proofs are like that
 
Yes, but isn't it too much?
 
yes one can indeed argue that
 
5:24 AM
@Eugene Is that paper significant as Porton claims it is?
 
but there is certainly mathematical software out there that proves things in a similar way
@PeterTamaroff i don't think so. a lot of cranks invent their own language all the time
 
@Eugene You're saying most of what he writes has no real connection with modern mathematics?
 
not that i know of.
 
@Eugene Hm. Well. I'll go now, its a tad late. @MarianoSuárezAlvarez Remember the mail =)!
 
ok bye
 
5:27 AM
@Eugene ¡Que estés bien!
 
@PeterTamaroff yes it does.
 
hi
can anyone give me a derivation of this
i can figure out this relation :(
 
@experimentX Write out $\sin(x+iy)$ using $\displaystyle\sin z=\frac{e^{iz}-e^{-iz}}{2i}$ (with $z=x+iy$), then transform again using $e^{ix}=\cos x+i\sin x$.
Or: use the sum rule for $\sin$ and then rewrite using $\cosh(u)=\cos(iu)$ and $\displaystyle\sinh(u)=\frac{\sin(iu)}{i}$.
 
Ah ... thanks @anon .. but this latex is not working. Let me copy and see
 
@experimentX This is how we use LaTeX in chat: math.ucla.edu/~robjohn/math/mathjax.html
 
Jeez .. my browser is not rendering latex
 
6:18 AM
You dragged the link into your bookmarks bar and then clicked the button while on this tab in your browser right?
 
perhaps .. lol
Oh .. many thanks!!! i understand ... :)
 
well, goodie then :-)
 
@anon: our guest has gone home, and it is now time to see why our answers are equivalent...
I've checked the answers at a couple of points and plotted them, and they definitely look the same.
 
6:35 AM
perhaps $\psi(u+1)=\psi(u)+1/u$ and the reflection formula are relevant. also, the "neat generalization" here.
 
@anon I think the relevant ones there are similar to [7] and [8] here
 
@FernandoMartin Thanks for that, but I've managed to find the answer.
 
 
1 hour later…
7:49 AM
guys
I am feeling depressed
No one to talk to :(
 
@tb I can't tell whether the proof in the film is for modules or in an Abelian category but after reading this I assume in the proof for $R$-modules you don't use choice. Anyway, not so important.
Congratulations on your latest badger!
 
8:21 AM
@MattN It's for modules, as it involves element chasing.
Yes, as I said, you don't need choice, but the usual proof involves choice and you need a small trick to work around it. (I wouldn't do it the way it is suggested in that answer, though).
@MattN thanks! :)
bbl
 
9:05 AM
what's up guys
 
user19161
9:28 AM
@HowardRoark You can talk to yourself, or learn more mathematics.
 
9:53 AM
I don't like to talk. Sometimes, that is 8-).
 
10:06 AM
Is there a nice interpretation of the flow of a Lie bracket, I wonder...
 
10:21 AM
can't help you there friend
 
Heya =)
 
currently memorising your notes
hello there
 
Could anyone remind me which trigonometric function this reminds me of ? $\log(x+\sqrt{x^2+a^2})$, I think it is $\text{arcsinh}(x)$, but it is not quite the same.
 
10:33 AM
sorry man got an exam gotta run for it
 
11:13 AM
@PeterTamaroff Multisets are like sets, except that elements can occur more than once, and any finite number of times. The sets {x} and {x,x} are identical. But as multisets they are different objects because the first one has only one x and the second one has two.
 
11:58 AM
@robjohn The chat rules have unpinned....
 
@skullpatrol Thanks, I will repin :-)
 
np :D
 
Please read: Chat Rules
4
 
@robjohn Are you still considering title: "Chat Guidelines"?
 
@skullpatrol call them rules and administer them as guidelines. It's easier than the other way around.
 
12:05 PM
@robjohn My suggestion was more along the lines of call them guidelines and let the mods do all the work ;-)
 
@skullpatrol the mods have their own set of rules/guidelines.
They may take our guidelines under consideration, too.
 
@robjohn BTW I see Jordan has been suspended?
 
@skullpatrol that seems to happen frequently.
 
@robjohn Was that chat related?
 
I don't know the reason for the latest, I will try to find out.
 
12:09 PM
Please...
 
@skullpatrol The offending remarks may have been removed, but it seems that Jordan started feeling persecuted and making remarks that were possibly inappropriate here.
he took "in this life" as being a statement of believing in reincarnation and started attacking that.
 
12:33 PM
Thanks for the free entertainment :D
I'm off to find "candy mountain."
 
@robjohn i don't see how that's inappropriate though.
 
@Eugene calling someone an idiot for their religious beliefs?
@Eugene then asking them if they are 12 and also believe in Santa Claus?
 
i think i must have the wrong link because the message it sends me to is "I have taken a break since that problem I had trouble with"
 
@Eugene you need to read further.
 
All the way to Candy Mountain :D
 
12:41 PM
ah i see it now.
 
Keep going Charlie you are almost there :)
 
wow
"Clark you are such a good representation of the math community, arrogant, elitist and self praising"
this is quite absurd.
@robjohn so it is only chat he's banned from?
 
I see that here Ben Brocka removed some comments. This may contain the comments that actually got Jordan suspended.
 
it seems that clarkkent's remarks were not taken well by others as well.
 
12:53 PM
@Eugene which ones? I know he may not be as tactful as some...
 
I thought Brocka was making a joke about the Mitt Romney thing. I never saw any messages from Jordan in that time interval.
 
@robjohn seem like this one was not very popular
 
New kerfuffles seem to be showing up a bit more often than I'd like...
 
@JM interesting how you should say that when i am reading a tangle between don antonio and jonas meyer.
 
@Eugene I seem to recall the MO version of that question being a bit more popular (at least before it was closed)...
 
1:01 PM
@Eugene Not with Jordan, for sure. It doesn't sound as if much was popular with Jordan that day.
 
i personally believe that the question is a legitimate one seeing how many studies have been done. probably better to have been posted on physics SE though.
 
(Hi rob!)
 
@robjohn it seems they both were engaged in quite a kerfuffle.
 
@Eugene Yeah, I think it's more physics than math actually. (A solution would definitely make heavy use of math, though.)
 
@JM Hi there! How are things there?
 
1:04 PM
@robjohn Quite fine! Still in the thick of rendering minimal surfaces (and torturing my computer in the process).
 
@JM keeps the fans in good shape :-)
cooling down the processor
 
@JM i guess i retract my remark!
 
I haven't been checking main lately... anything neat that isn't a kerfuffle?
@Eugene Like I said, the MO version was actually popular, even with the subsequent closing...
 
@JM that certainly depends on your interest. ; )
 
The activity is almost at the level of SO, I'm not surprised that I've missed a lot of questions that could use my expertise...
 
1:09 PM
@JM sorry to say it, but that is one of the less pleasant gravatars you've used. It may simply be the color or texturing.
 
@robjohn That's okay, I appreciate criticism as much as nice comments. I was trying for a wooden finish, but maybe I'll do something else...
Now that you mention it, the bands do obscure some of the neat features...
 
@JM maybe if the frequency in the texturing were lower, it would look more wooden
 
Maybe I'll try that (as soon as Mathematica is done with my current set). :)
 
@Eugene you walk into as much rain walking or running. You have more rain falling on you if you walk. it is better to run.
 
We're assuming there isn't any wind, right? With wind, you get quite wet either walking or running...
 
1:15 PM
@JM Yes, but then, the less time you spend, the better. it is better to run
 
@robjohn apparently that conclusion is rather disputed. personally i run however.
 
You will always encounter the person-shaped cylinder of rain that follows your path. The rest is dependent on how long you are in the rain.
it is better to run
 
lol
fair enough
unfortunately i have to leave now to prepare my calculus tutorial
 
:-) I'm glad you've seen the light
@Eugene have fun :-)
 
or else i will give birth to the next generation of people who believe mathematicians to be elitist
@robjohn i'm sure this is an impossible task = (
bye all
 
1:19 PM
@Eugene I'm sorry if that's so.
 
@JM actually it reminds me rather of a coffee bean :) (and hi!)
hey, robjohn, how are you doing?
 
@tb hi tb! how can we darken your day :-)
 
@tb Hi also! But I have to agree with rob, Chen-Gackstatter deserves a better depiction...
(relatedly, I'm starting to get the feeling that differential geometers are saying a lot of what I already know repackaged in a language I don't understand...)
 
@JM here is a nice one.
 
@robjohn Oh yeah, I've seen that. My only problem with his parametrization is that it's only a patch, so some sewing is necessary afterwards.
 
1:23 PM
@robjohn Oh, please don't. I came here for enjoyment and relaxation. I don't want no Útgarðar experience today.
 
@JM could be. Perhaps you are talking about things I don't know. I don't know of DG language that I haven't understood.
@tb then don't go back too far in the transcript. :-)
 
I won't. :)
 
@robjohn I do believe this room has one of the most colorful transcripts in the entire SE network...
 
@JM I think you are right there!
 
@JM Seeing who's here regularly (and not so regularly, unfortunately).
 
1:25 PM
not that you are wrong anywhere else
 
Hi everyone.
 
I need to head to the park with Lilly. See you guys in a bit.
 
What's an "Útgarðar experience"?
 
Hey there.
 
See you rob! And, hi Matt!
 
1:27 PM
@robjohn Great, have fun! (I'll be saying that too, some time in the future.)
 
@MattN you're going to the park with Lilly!? she'd enjoy the extra walk :-)
 
@JM Hello... (your new avatar has rendered me speechless. I assume this is on purpose? : ))
@robjohn With my own Lilly though : )
Or Aleph Zero...
 
@MattN Útgarðar: the world of trolls and giants in Norse mythology.
 
I came here to ask a question and now I end up distracted.
 
then shoot
 
1:29 PM
@MattN Well, I had to agree with rob that the coloring is a tad off, and it doesn't show off the surface's neat features well...
 
@MattN our work here is done :-)
 
@tb Yes. Ok? Giants = BDs?
 
No meaning intended for giants.
 
Ok. So I take it to mean trolls.
 
Hmm, part circus, part asylum, part... colorful, yes. :D
 
1:34 PM
waiting for a question
 
So if I get asked what Ext is in the exam and I say it's the functor mapping an $R$-module $M$ to a homology group $Ext^n_R (M, N)$ as follows:
Take a projective resolution of $M$:
$$\dots P_1 \to P_0 \to M \to 0$$
chop off $M$ to get a chain complex
$$\dots P_1 \xrightarrow{d_1} P_0 \xrightarrow{d_0} 0$$ then apply $Hom(-,N)$ to it to get
$$ 0 \xrightarrow{\overline{d_0}} Hom(P_0, N) \xrightarrow{\overline{d_1}} Hom(P_1, N) \dots $$
and define $$ Ext^n_R(M,N) := ker(\overline{d_n}) / im(\overline{d_{n-1}})$$
 
Hello All!
 
Also: How do I ever manage to remember what the indices are in the RHS of $Ext^n$?
 
@MattN oral or written?
 
Oral :,(
Unfortunately.
 
1:37 PM
First thing to say: the right derived functor of Hom.
(in either variable)
 
He never used the word functor or derived anywhere in the notes.
And he only defined it for $Hom(-,N)$, not for $Hom(M,-)$.
He didn't give it a name either.
 
Its name is Ext
 
Or extension functor?
Or perhaps, Ext group?
Anyway, is what I wrote above more or less correct?
The definition in the notes I copied doesn't contain much information.
 
Yes, that's correct. I wouldn't worry about the indices and stuff. You take a projective resolution of $M$, apply Hom and take homology.
 
I'm terrified about messing up the indices.
But ok.
Ah but wait.
The reason why I'm so worried about the indices is that I wanted to "see" how $Ext^0 (M,N) = Hom(M,N)$.
And then I failed.
Let me post my failed attempt:
 
1:43 PM
The thing is that $H^0(\operatorname{Hom}(P_\bullet,N)) = \operatorname{Hom}(M,N)$ because $\operatorname{Hom}({-},N)$ is left exact. That is, it sends cokernels to kernels.
 
But...:
 
...what?
 
$$ Ext^0 (M,N) = ker(\overline{d_0}) / im (\overline{d_{-1}}) = ker(\overline{d_0}) = ?$$
I don't see what this kernel is.
 
You forgot to apply Hom
 
No, hence the overline.
 
1:45 PM
@leo: I said?
 
Oh, that's implicit in $\overline{d_0}$.
 
Yes.
Doh.
I messed up the sequence, forgot to chop off $M$:
 
You have a right exact sequence $P_1 \to P_0 \to M$.
 
$d_0 : P_0 \to 0$ is the zero map.
So the kernel of $\overline{d_0}$ is all of $Hom(M,N)$.
Thank you!
 
@MattN Wait.
 
1:47 PM
Hi, Matt.
 
Don't know why I had to ask a question in order to notice that I'd made a mistake.
 
Still snake lemma?
Or is it worm?
 
Hi Gigili. No, Ext functor today.
 
@MattN the $d_0$ being the zero map is not the point.
(unless I misread what you said)
 
No, you read right. It doesn't seem to make sense what I wrote since $M$ is not in the chain complex.
 
1:49 PM
exactly.
Look at the right exact sequence $P_1 \xrightarrow{f} P_0 \xrightarrow{g} M \to 0$.
 
Then chop off $M$?
 
No. Apply $\operatorname{Hom}({-},N)$ to it.
 
But that's not how Ext is defined.
 
Wait!
 
You get:
 
1:52 PM
Get an exact sequence $0 \to \operatorname{Hom}(M,N) \xrightarrow{f^\ast} \operatorname{Hom}(P_0,N) \xrightarrow{g^\ast} \operatorname{Hom}(P_1,N)$.
 
Yes.
 
hi all
 
So $\operatorname{Hom}(M,N)$ is the kernel of $g^\ast = \overline{d_1}$
 
But Ext of an exact sequence would all be zero.
 
@Eugene That was quick...
 
1:53 PM
@JM = )
 
@MattN We're not taking Ext of that. I just identified the kernel of $\overline{d_1}$.
 
@tb Ok.
 
Now you can remember that you chopped off $M$ and that you wanted to compute $\operatorname{Ker}\overline{d_1}$.
 
No. It was $Ker \overline{d_0}$ that I wanted. Maybe I missed up indices again.
 
Giving you the desired identification $\operatorname{Ext}^0(M,N) = \operatorname{Hom}(M,N)$.
@MattN you're interested in the entire homology of the complex $\operatorname{Hom}(P_\bullet,N)$. The $0$th homology is the kernel of what you called $\overline{d_1}$ and that's what we computed before.
 
1:58 PM
But $$ Ext^k_R (M,N) := Ker \overline{d_k} / Im \overline{d_{k-1}}$$
No?
 
Again: forget the indices of the maps. The interesting part of the complex starts at $\operatorname{Hom}(P_0,N) \to \operatorname{Hom}(P_1,N) \to \cdots$ and it's the kernel of that first map you're interested in because that gives the first nonzero homology.
I think in your notation that should be $\overline{d_1}$.
 
@tb Yes.
 
If that's right then you should shift the indices the other way: $$\operatorname{Ext}^k (M,N) = \operatorname{Ker}\overline{d_{k+1}}/\operatorname{Im}\overline{d_{k}}$$
 
Chi
excuse me, does anyone know how to let the browser display LaTex properly?
 
huh this is interesting. why aren't points deducted from you when you downvote a question?
 
2:05 PM
@Eugene Only downvoting non-CW answers costs a point.
 
@tb yeah that i know. i wonder why questions are exempt though
 
Thank you.
 
Chi
@eug
Ehh I am newbie here sorry but thanks it works
 
2:07 PM
@Eugene To encourage voting on questions. On SO there seemed to be a problem with votes on questions in general, answers got the lion's share of the votes.
Especially downvotes.
 
Chi = NaNNaN?
 
huh. interesting.
 
Chi
@MattN that evaluates to TRUE
 
@JM i'm going to be covering geo series, monotone convergence and sequences.
 
@Eugene It's their "optimize for pearls, not sand" philosophy...
 
2:10 PM
Going to write down this Ext definition and then prove that every module has a free resolution. See you later!
Thanks teddy.
 
@JM i don't really get it though.
 
...and t.b. beat me to it. :D
 
@tb thanks!
it makes me sad that this is my least voted question
 
@JM I assume I had a head start... :)
 
2:13 PM
i definitely think it was more useful than this
 
@Eugene Voting patterns can be nuts sometimes. Don't think too much about them...
 
yes dylan mentioned something to that effect.
a number theorist is someone who turns coffee into theorems! just like all mathematicians.
or as qiaochu says
 
@Eugene at least it's not negative :-)
 
@robjohn that would be quite funny
 
@Eugene ...and a coconut is just a nut.
 
2:18 PM
@JM indeed it is
 
@JM but a furry nut.
 
my other favorite one is a topologist can't tell the difference between his ass and a hole in the ground.
 
pulls mind off the gutter
 
@Eugene remove the first 'hole' and it sounds better :-)
 
fair enough
 
2:21 PM
@Eugene better :-)
 
i think there is a difference however since the hole from the ass is actually a puncture while the ground hole is a deformation. still the joke is really funny.
oh and also this one
man topologists get all the cool jokes!
 
@Eugene Makes sense. They don't mind being twisted...
 
@JM LOL!
 
All hail potachips
Hello =)
 
2:32 PM
Ironically that user has only asked a single question, over the span of 5 days.
 
@MattN he has many (one) questions i see
 
@robjohn this must have taken a lot of effort!
 
Tim
you have a nice horse, robjohn
 
apparently the given name for MSE on MO is mathunderflow
 
Tim
2:36 PM
and a valcano.
 
@Eugene the hardest part was sorting through google-images for 'ass' :-)
 
@robjohn i believe that
 
@Eugene and my picture above is why we're mathunderflow :-)
 
Tim
because you are telling jokes?
 
@robjohn then i like math underflow!
 
2:38 PM
@Tim call it a tutorial for topologists :-)
I wonder how many we've lost to google-images now
 
@robjohn asses or topologists?
 
@Eugene people from here :-)
 
Tim
Is the israeli guy mentioned here the other day, who was going for some math prize, real or not?
 
@JM :-)
 
2:44 PM
@Tim He's a real person, yes. Whether he is a real mathematician is a different question altogether...
 
porton?
@JM his work is seminal from what i gather
 
Tim
@JM Has what he is pursuing and has accomplished been recognized yet?
 
@Tim he's a religious leader as well apparently
 
Tim
I also saw that Gigilli was nominated as his wife candidate here.
 
@Tim That I haven't checked. I'm not really in his subject matter of interest...
 
Tim
2:47 PM
How is that going so far?
@JM His research is very original indeed.
 
@Tim o_O
@Tim The problematic part IIRC is that his notation is very original too, so it is a bit of effort to see what he's saying in conventional terms...
 
Tim
@Eugene You mean he published the book? Yes, that might have influenced a lot of readers, to qualify him as a leader.
 
@tb Sorry, still confused. I don't think $d_1$ stays the same map after you remove $M$. In one case, $$\dots P_1 \xrightarrow{d_1} P_0 \to M \to 0$$ we don't necessarily have $im(d_1) = P_0$ but in the other case, $$\dots P_1 \xrightarrow{d_1} P_0 \to 0$$ we do. So how can I compute Ext using the wrong (exact!) sequence?
 
@MattN Hm... You just remove that $M$ from your complex. Nothing else changes, expecially not the cokernel of $d_1$. Only the first sequence is exact, the second isn't (at $P_0$).
 
"While being a teenager I for a limited amount of time was transformed into a superman with computer brain."
 
@tb Noo. Third time I make the exact same mistake of forgetting that the other sequence isn't exact anymore. Thanks.
 
What I want is a list of early warnings signs that someone could use to see if they themselves might be turning into a crank.
 
Ah, since the maps don't change it's still exact in all other places.
Except $P_0$.
Ok. Getting there.
 
@MattN Yes. But not anymore after applying $\operatorname{Hom}({-},N)$ since that functor isn't exact (unless $N$ is injective).
 
@tb You mean unless $N$ is projective?
 
Tim
2:56 PM
@MarkDominus Is that his quote too? Or what does that mean?
 
@MattN No, injective.
 
Ah, that's the other functor we didn't learn about.
 
@MarkDominus it's like an earthquake. there are no signs
 
Also, we don't know what an injective module is. Not so far, anyway.
 
@MattN Injective module, not functor. See fourth bullet point in the definition.
 
2:57 PM
@tb Thanks for pointing this out.
@tb That's what I said.
 
@MarkDominus In lieu of that, may I suggest looking at Underwood Dudley's book for examples of what not to do? :)
 
@MattN I was referring to this.
 
@tb No you weren't : )
 
@MattN If $\operatorname{Hom}({-},N)$ were always exact, then the Ext functors would be pretty boring... :)
 
@tb Yes. : )
 

« first day (671 days earlier)      last day (4351 days later) »