« first day (3729 days earlier)      last day (1286 days later) » 

4:00 PM
@anakhro Well.... That's too complicated... I guess, randomly throwing stuff and capturing them one by one and photoshopping sounds more better
@anakhro hair looks stationary?
 
Also, what does this have to do with math?
 
4:18 PM
I don't understand Cantor's Theorem, is there a good place to ask to have it explained?
 
What don't you understand about it ?
 
@Piomicron first, what is the statement of Cantor's theorem that you are used to?
 
4:34 PM
@EdwardEvans I have somehow ended up agreeing to give a series of talks on the Riemann zeta
2
I don't know why I agreed
 
Not exactly a Balarka-flavoured topic.
 
i'll just say something lmao
i dont give a shit
 
Say you solved the Riemann hypothesis
But that the talk isn't long enough to go into that
 
i'm only going to prove that there are no zeroes on Re = 1
 
that works for the first 5 seconds, but then what do you talk about for the rest?
 
4:38 PM
how that implies PNT
i already did no zero on Re = 1
 
What's PNT ?
 
Prime number theorem
 
pRimE Nungfbsygicbii
that
 
@anakhro Mathematics is everywhere... Isn't it? :P
 
You can force mathematics anywhere. Doesn't mean it will be insightful to do. ;)
 
4:42 PM
haha :)
 
Let P be a photo
 
@Astyx lit! hahaha :)
$$\huge{\mathcal{MATHEMATICS}}$$
lit!
 
r/indianpeoplefacebook
 
Why does this sub exist ?
 
for good reason
 
4:51 PM
How can i solve for x in this operation: y=((x*big1)-(((x*big1)//big0)*big0))
The // operation is like in python where the remainder is ignored
 
what are big1 and big0 ?
 
Numbers that i know
I basically know the y, big0 and big1
 
$y = ax -\lfloor ax/b\rfloor b$
any $x$ of the form $ax=k b+y$ works
With $0\le y<b$
 
@Azmuth Maff
 
Does every multifunctor $F\colon\mathbf{Vec}_{\mathbb{R}}^k\rightarrow\mathbf{Vec}$ induce a multifunctor $\tilde{F}\colon\mathbf{VecBun}^k\rightarrow\mathbf{VecBun}$ on the fiberwise level?
 
5:07 PM
lol
the heck's a multifunctor dude
 
it's just a functor from the product
 
LOL
terrible terminology
 
as terrible as saying "function of two variables" for a function with domain R^2
 
even nlab doesnt agree with your terminology
multifunctor is some messed up thing
 
since when do you care about what nlab says
 
5:11 PM
bifunctor is a functor between bicategories, which are 2-categories
this is a garbage terminology
 
what's a bicategory
a bifunctor is a functor from a product man
 
The best of terminology. Let me tell you. They love it-- everyone loves my terminology.
 
@Asty What's $kb$
 
i dont know man
do i look like a category theorist
 
@HananN. $a$ and $b$ are big1 and big0. $k$ is any integer
 
5:13 PM
whatever, my question has hardly anything to do with cat theory, it's just language
 
a bicategory is a bit like a 2-category, except stricter or maybe more lax
 
can I beef up the local trivializations, is the question
 
@Thorgott finally the language of gods
i think you just have to check the cocycle conditions
 
nooooo, not the cocyles again
 
cocycles are gr8
 
5:15 PM
ok, tell me the order of composition without looking it up then
 
$\phi_{\beta \gamma} \circ \phi_{\alpha \beta} = \phi_{\alpha \gamma}$
easy
take that atheists
 
Why would you put you indices like that ?
And not $\phi_{\alpha\beta}\circ \phi_{\beta\gamma} = \phi_{\alpha\gamma}$ ?
 
cause function composition is from right to left
 
I fucked up HAHAHA
its not this
 
I was about to say this makes too much sense
 
5:17 PM
HAHA
yeah
 
atheism prevails
in this moment, I am euphoric
 
wait lets see
$\phi_{UV} \phi_{VW} \phi_{WU} = 1$
$V = \alpha, W = \beta, U = \gamma$
 
no wait, that still makes sense
 
Yeah
that's what it is
YOU CONFUSED ME
i got it from WIKIPEDIA
so it must be true
 
Man
 
5:20 PM
no, I believe you now swap all the indices to make it as nonsensical as possible
 
hahah yeah i have definitely seen this fucked up shit somewhere
 
let's trust the logs
 
why is that standard
 
May 15 at 13:30, by Mike Miller
@Thorgott The correct cocycle identity should be I think $I = \varphi_{\gamma \alpha} \varphi_{\beta \gamma} \varphi_{\alpha \beta}$. It is famously irritating to get it correct.
 
@BalarkaSen niseeeee
 
5:21 PM
@Thorgott massive
 
That's some elitist notation if you ask me
"Plebs will never understand us" evil laugh
 
No, no, it's actually super easy to remember it. Treat it as a triangle $(1, 2, 3)$ with edges oriented so that $i \to j$ iff $j > i$.
 
lel I always get the maps wrong in a projective limit
 
$\varphi_{12} \varphi_{13}^{-1} \varphi_{23} = I$
So you recover Mike's formula $\varphi_{12} \varphi_{31} \varphi_{23} = I$
or a cyclic permutation of it
 
Actually it's just the sensible way but each pair of indice is swapped
 
5:24 PM
Screw this
 
projective/inductive limit is confusing terminology, just use limit/colimit
 
inverse limit, direct limit
 
left arrow limit right arrow limit
 
still confusing
 
no
only for mutants
 
5:26 PM
limit/colimit makes it clear where the maps go
 
garbage
 
cogarbage
 
limit objects come with maps into the diagram, colimit objects come with maps out of the diagram
 
projective limit helps me remember by analogy with $\Bbb Z_p$
 
inverse limit patches shit up
 
5:27 PM
then inductive is just not projective
 
direct limit zooms into shit
to patch shit up you need to use product
 
how does it zoom
 
so the universal property is clear
 
it's like union
 
thats because you think backwards
direct limit of $C^\infty(U)$ for $U$ open nbhd of $p$ is the stalk at $p$
germs of smooth functions
zooms into infinitisimal info
 
5:29 PM
it's just a downwards union
 
How is germs union of functions mf
you literally zoom
 
(insert meme with guys throwing chairs)
 
its a colimit
 
ur mum is a colimit
 
5:31 PM
its not really a union
but a union is also not a zoom
 
an increasing union is a zoom
 
zoom was a gr8 show
 
oh
zooms dont always have to be in
its a zoom out ig
hmm, let me quickly come up with another reason for why youre wrong regardless
 
vzn
@BalarkaSen congratulations! ps wigderson has some interesting ideas, like em. plus theres all the connections to QM. but alas you already said you dont care lol :(
 
yeah you kinda forget which $A_k$ the elements in $\bigcup_{n \geq 1} A_n$ come from
thats a kind of zoom
direct limit forgets, inverse limit remembers
 
5:34 PM
@Rithaniel Quick Maffs!
 
hmm, I think a zoom only really works for sequential colimits
 
Pepperidge farm is an inverse limit
 
or filtered ones, probably
 
where you have a cofinal subsequence yeah
general limit diagrams i dont understand anyway
 
it still makes sense to think of, like, a module being the colimit of its f.g. submodules as a zoom
but is a coequalizer a zoom?
it's more selective
but it does "forget"
so colimits forgetting is a sensible notion
but I'm not sure in which sense limits "remember"
also, I believe t he answer to my original question is actually yes, though I have to check the technical details
 
5:48 PM
I am unsure if "zoom" in this context is a serious mathematical term or if you guys are throwing some new meme around.
 
it's intuition
 
ah yes this reminds me of that time as secretary of state, I landed in Bosnia and with only a moments notice we were under heavy sniper fire
the gut instincts served me well there, yes, intuition God bless
 
is promoting one's own question in chat disallowed/frowned upon here?
 
@TedShifrin got any more fun ways of relating group actions to topology that (at least geometrically) are explainable to high school students? I am going to be doing orbifold stuff, and I want something more to discuss group actions.
 
6:00 PM
cool cool , well I just wanted to maybe direct people to my question here:
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3872478/any-example-of-this-kind-of-algebraic-structure

because it's interesting imo and not so obvious, especially when attempting to attack it with great generality
basically want to find an algebraic structure, in particular some infinite (co)product that has a neutral element only when you look at finite "sub products"
 
What do you mean by "finite reduction"?
 
if we think of the larger structure as an \omega indexed product of (possibly finite) structures, only take n many of those structures as your new product
so if all binary sequences are the larger structure, a "finite reduction" would be all binary sequences of a fixed length
 
Someone has posted an answer.
 
coproduct in which category
 
in the algebraic category of the relevant algebraic structure
ideally, we could talk about magmas that are unital when this "finite reduction" situation happens, and not unital whenever it does not happen
so the answer posted thankfully is a sanity check that there is nothing special about Z_5, but I guess I still would like something general, ideally as general as unital/nonunital magmas
 
6:13 PM
Could you force this to occur? Inductively add two elements: the new identity and an element for which the "old" identity fails? Then kind of expand as needed?
 
hmm, is the coproduct in Rng the direct sum?
 
@Thorgott Certainly not, a map from Z x Z has f(1,0) and f(0,1) multiplying to zero
Which imposes a condition on the map from the "coproduct" it shouldn't have
 
@anakhro this is precisely the kind of thing I would love to achieve
 
right
 
Coproduct in rings is some kind of weird free product
 
6:17 PM
just twice the identity Z->Z doesn't factor through that
 
starting somehow from some infinite set of generators (computable so you can just think of them as tags x_0, x_1, ...)
 
ok, so what actually is the coproduct in Rngs
 
I imagine it is a free product that mods out ring identities, but I am not well versed
 
it's probably very ugly
 
have you tried building it that way, @ASillyGuy to see what you get after a few steps?
 
6:22 PM
It's just a free product, but with rings. It's somewhat painful to write down, but you know what it should be
 
@Alessandro Rngs, not Rings
 
Note that coproduct of nonzero rings can be zero tho, if they have different characteristic
@Thorgott bye I'm out
 
understandable
 
I feel like this is an exercise in Hungerford
 
@anakhro I have not, no. I mostly want this for a (turing) reduction to COF (just literally the requirements in my question being satisfied), but I basically just needed this special structure to kind of "aim" towards. I guess a semigroup with local identities works, and, more generally, a magma (since you can split up the associativity by simply having all (possibly not equal) parenthetisations respect the (local) identity)
I will look up Hungerford, thank you
It is really just an idea I had to solve a question I posed myself, more related to computability
oh, or maybe you mean the coproduct of r(i)ngs
 
6:34 PM
@Thorgott I see "rng" and I think of random number generators...
 
that's better
 
6:49 PM
Is $x^Tx=0$ the correct expression for $xy=1$ in matrix form
 
@geocalc33 Can you explain more of what $x$ and $y$ are in the equations?
 
$\mathbf{x}^T\mathbf{x}=0.$
I meant to write the $x$ in bold
$\mathbf{x}=\begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \end{pmatrix}$
 
bolding a letter has no intrinsic meaning
 
Okay so $x^Tx = 0$ says that "the dot product of x with itself is 0", that is, $\|x\|^2 = 0$.
So what did you mean by $xy=1$?
 
$xy=1$ I meant as a rectangular hyperbola plotted in the x-y plane
 
6:56 PM
truth is invariant under change of notation
 
You mean the curve $x\mapsto (x,1/x)$? @geocalc33
 
@geocalc have you ever seen a rectangle
 
yeah I'm trying to write
 
did it look like a hyperbola
 
if you have a bunch of propositional formulas $\phi_1,...,\phi_n$ that are mutually non-logically equivalent, is there an easy way to construct a $\phi_{n+1}$ such that $\phi_1,...,\phi_{n+1}$ are all mutually non-logically equivalent?
 
6:58 PM
@anakhro yes $x \mapsto (x,1/x)$ I need to write it in matrix form
 
@MikeMiller I read through parts of dieudonnés exposition of poincarés ideas but to be honest, I was mostly confused already at the start
 
lets say you aren't working in a language with infinitely many atomic variables, otherwise of course we can just select an atom not in the $\phi_1,...,\phi_n$
 
@geocalc33 I am at a loss for what this has to do with $\|x\|^2 = 0$.
 
I was thinking it would be like this $z^2-x^2-y^2 = 1 \implies x^TQx = 1$
but never mind that's wrong
 
@user2103480 Maybe this is one place where it's helpful to have seen the math ahead of time. I can talk to you about it sometime but not now
 
7:01 PM
Oh no worries! I'll describe the problematic parts anyways and just copy/paste it when I come back to it in the future
 
@anakrho oh wait I think I know how to write it
 
for example the paragraph on homologies on page 18: there he says that for q-1 dimensional manifolds v_1 to v_k, the sum v_1 + ... + v_k should be homologous to 0 if the boundary of some q-dimensional manifold is (homeomorphic to) the coproduct of v_1 to v_k. And then he goes on to describe what happens when we add homologies, and I just don't know what the "small deformations" are supposed to mean
 
I think it involves a matrix
 
And how we are supposed to incorporate orientations. My guess would be that the higher-dimensional manifold whose boundary is n_1*v_1,...,n_k*v_k needs to be oriented, and induces an orientation on the boundary manifolds, which determines the homology coefficients (at least intuitively)
 
@user2103480 Oh! From probability to topology?
 
7:10 PM
@BalarkaSen he ventured through the darkness and came back, let's celebrate the right path he has taken now
 
@BalarkaSen yeah topology is the most aesthetic subject imo. So I'll do my best to study some of it in the coming semester
 
does topology have matrices?
 
Is there a general algorithm for finding out the GCD of two polynomials? Not the polynomial gcd, the gcd of the polynomials evaluated at every integer. For example I just proved that $\gcd(2n^2-4n+3,2n^2-3)=\gcd(n,3)$
 
@geocalc33 the better question is: does matrix have topology?
the answer is yes
@AlessandroCodenotti don't worry, 3 of 4 lectures are probability with an eye on the natural sciences, so every day I stray further from the righteous way
At least I'm not applying the stuff to financial mathematics, y'know
 
@user2103480 Moving a manifolds through space smoothly kind of traces out some path of manifolds, so that you start at $M$ and end at $N$, you somehow end up at a manifold of one dimension more, $W$, with boundary being $M \sqcup N$.
That's what the connection with deformations is.
 
7:14 PM
@Sophie euclidean algorithm?
@Sophie can't you still use $gcd(a,b) = gcd(b,a-bq)$ for any polynomial $q$, and successively lower the degrees that way
 
@porridgemathematics I mean more like... I want to know what all the solutions look like. Is it always a product of the gcd of x and a constant? In particular, while I know how to do this case my approach is not general
 
@BalarkaSen So it's like a "generalization" of homotopies? I mean, I know that homotopy equivalent spaces have identitical homology groups and that there is a natural transformation from homotopy groups to homology groups, but is the intuition also given by "we try something like homotopy, but more relaxed"?
 
In the case of homotopies, $W = M \times I$, essentially. The topology of the manifold doesn't change as you trace it out
 
@Sophie I think the euclidean algorithm answers this question though, it literally tells you that second item in the tuple, as you iterate the algorithm, is decreasing in degree
 
Ah ok nice
@BalarkaSen and that is just a preliminary example, right? So we can also have several disconnected manifolds as being "homologous together"?
 
7:20 PM
@porridgemathematics okay so then what's the next step if you have $\gcd(5n-3,2n^2-3)$?
 
Which constitute the boundary of the higher dimensional manifold
 
Are you talking about cobordism without saying cobordism or?
 
@Sophie divide $2n^2 - 3$ by $5n-3$ and get the remainder , which will be something of degree $0$ necessarily
 
@user2103480 Yeah, for example, $S^1$ and $S^1 \sqcup S^1$ are "homologous" by a pair of pants manifold $W$.
 
And regarding the orientation, does the manifold W have to be orientable or is that just a (useful) analogy
@BalarkaSen Ahh nice reduction to the case for 2
 
7:22 PM
You can shuffle around which boundary terms you want to group togather, because $A = B + C$ implies $A + (-B) = C$, etc. It's an additive theory
Right
@user2103480 Indeed, $W$ has to be orientable for the oriented theory.
 
@porridgemathematics and it will also not be an integer
 
hmm, sorry I guess you need to make sure everything is an integer
yeah
 
And boundary of an oriented manifold has a canonical orientation, of course.
 
Ok cool thank you that helped
@BalarkaSen looked it up before I asked haha
 
@AlessandroCodenotti Yup
 
7:24 PM
Euclidean division works perfectly fine. I don not understand what the issue is.
 
but if you only do euclidean division in $\mathbb{Q}[n]$ then it isn't guaranteed this will give you the $gcd$ viewing the two arguments as integers, right?
 
what do you call the operation on a diagonal matrix where you reflect the diagonal elements about the middle?
 
whereas we want the gcd of the two integers for any $n$ in some nice closed form
 
for example if 1,-1 are the elements, then to reflect them you'd get -1,1
 
haha so yeah I looked it up and so these are bordant. And then it's possible (in some sufficiently nice context) to "translate" this to the identity S_1 + S_1 + S_1 = 0?

Sufficiently nice context should mean something like "all this happens inside some manifold with the right properties", e.g. the pair of pants being part of a genus 2 surface
 
7:35 PM
there are $2^{2^n}$ equivalence classes of logically equivalent propositions , assuming our language has $n$ atomic variables, right?
 
Note that I'm really trying to relate all this to the text by dieudonné
 
@user2103480 Exactly, you want to do this inside some manifold
 
and in effect, to the text by poincaré
@BalarkaSen ok cool
@BalarkaSen btw, I asked a prof whether adding some topology knowledge might be useful for probability, and he basically said "there probably are some interesting questions, but we're not there yet". Sad.
 
:)
I hope we are
 
An intersection between random dynamical systems and topology would be nice
 
7:41 PM
I don't know anything about topology of random simplicial complexes
Those seem to be the first place to start with
 
@BalarkaSen Some day soon, brother, some day soon
The closest thing I've found was this link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01845701
But there's also this book arxiv.org/abs/0810.2253 for example
 
looks cool!
I would really like to understand the proof of Gauss-Bonnet using Brownian motions someday
 
Sounds freaky. humboldt university had a lecture about brownian motions on manifolds last semester, but that sounded too scary
 
yeah i definitely dont have background
 
I'm sure it won't take long for you to acquire it
Probability theory on manifolds doesn't seem as focused on awful measurability conditions as the usual stuff, it seems
Or they just swept those under the rug and I didn't read carefully enough
 
7:53 PM
yeah I'll have to try seriously sometime
 
8:24 PM
@user2103480 The only thing I can tell you is that $S_1$ is the symmetric group on one letter
$S^1$ is the circle
 
LOL
oh
lol
 
@MikeMiller homeomorphic notations
potato potato
tomato tomato
 
Homeomorphic, but not naturally homeomorphic
 
you can move the 1 from sub- to superscript via ambient isotopy
 
Because it's fucking unnatural to put the 1 as a subscript
 
8:26 PM
you know how complex analysts write $\Bbb T$ for 1-torus
and algebros write $\Bbb G_m$ lmao
 
@MikeMiller hahahaha fair enough
 
@BalarkaSen Even worse that's $\Bbb C^\times$
 
I've seen T, but what the fuck is G_m
 
And they still call that the torus
The multiplicative group
 
lol yeah
@Thorgott Group_multiplicative
 
8:27 PM
???
 
it's $k^\times$
the algebraic circle
 
now I see why you guys hate algebraists
 
fucking G_m
madlad notation
 
that's the discrete torus or the lie group
 
why would you put a subscript for something that's not an index and not even ambiguous
 
8:30 PM
There's also $\Bbb G_a$, which is just $\Bbb A^1$
 
bruh
 
@MikeMiller proud boys apparently sell T-shirts with "Pinochet did nothing wrong" written on it
 
I'm having a brainfart. That method where you have a curve and a rational point on it and then you trace a line through that point to find other rational points. What's it called?
 
Cringe
 
the point and line method? It was something like that but I can't remember it to save my life
 
8:31 PM
im thinking of buying some
 
@Thorgott algebra I was the only wasted lecture I attended
 
@Sophie Idk probably something like Euler's parameterization of Pythagorean triples
 
@BalarkaSen nuclear take
 
@user2103480 i love it
 
0
Q: Complex Analysis and Bernoulli Numbers from $\frac{z}{2} \cot (\frac{z}{2})$

user193319 Define the Bernoulli numbers $B_n$ by $\frac{z}{2} \cot (z/2) = 1 - B_1 \frac{z^2}{2!} - B_2 \frac{z^4}{4!} - B_{3} \frac{z^6}{6!} - ...$ Explain why there are no odd terms in this series. What is the radius of convergence of the series? Find the first five Bernoulli numbers. I understand why t...

 
8:32 PM
:(
 
@MikeMiller it's a general method not just for that equation
 
I know but that's still how I'd refer to it probably lo
l
Check Silverman's book "rational points..."
 
I'll seriously never care about splitting fields
Or... FINITE GROUPS
inser balarka meme here
 
smh
 
@BalarkaSen blistering take
margaret thatcher take
 
8:39 PM
don't say that name
 
@EdwardEvans "dont summon the witch"
She called pinochet a dear friend when he was arrested in london in 2002, and wrote a letter to Blair (probably another name I shall not mention again) that he should be released. But let's stay away from the depressing topics
 
Singmaster's conjecture is a conjecture in combinatorial number theory in mathematics, named after the British mathematician David Singmaster who proposed it in 1971. It says that there is a finite upper bound on the multiplicities of entries in Pascal's triangle (other than the number 1, which appears infinitely many times). It is clear that the only number that appears infinitely many times in Pascal's triangle is 1, because any other number x can appear only within the first x + 1 rows of the triangle. == Statement == Let N(a) be the number of times the number a > 1 appears in Pascal's triangle...
 
@Thorgott So we'll also stay away from splitting fields
 
Kind of cute.
 
splitting fields are a very entertaining topic
 
8:43 PM
splitting fields are great
finite groups, not so much
 
@anakhro that's a nice name
 
@Sophie he was a nice guy, I hear.
 
@BalarkaSen y tho
 
did you know that $S_4$ is the only group of order $p^3q$ that has no normal Sylow subgroup
 
a lot of galois theory has visual parallels. but instead of repeating myself let me direct you to Alekseev's ""Abel's theorem in problems and solutions"
 
8:48 PM
Also, algebra I destroyed my perfect grade record. I didn't get the A+ in the exam because I didn't name the right Gauss' Lemma in the exam
 
Gauss' Lemma (#5)
 
I literally named one Gauss' Lemma from algebra but that wasn't cool enough I guess
@MikeMiller this
 
lmao
i'd have just said exp is a radial isometry
 
Gauß' Lemma? You mean the fact that R UFD => R[X]UFD?
 
using greek alphabet ohhhhh
smart
 
8:51 PM
spot the difference: βß
 
@user2103480 Blair is somehow the eternal prime minister in my eyes, because he was prime minister when I was born and it felt like he was prime minister forever, given the weirdly dilated time of a child
 
@Thorgott I erased all memory so no clue
 
ßpot the differenß
 
GauB-ßonnet
 
Lmao I'm the only german and everyone except me adheres to the ß instead of ss
which, now to think, is probably wise for a german
to do as well
 
8:53 PM
so
you're saying
you adhere to the ss
 
loolol]
 
lmao
 
weyyy
 
ahem so what was i saying
um i mean splitting fields
 
hahaha
 
8:57 PM
@EdwardEvans fucc
 
wah neyyy
 
Sanity check: If I have a set $X$, a countable cover $\{U_n\}$ of $X$, bijections $\varphi_n\colon U_n\rightarrow\varphi_n(U_n)\subseteq\mathbb{R}^n$ such that $\varphi_n(U_{nm})$ are open for all $n,m$ and the transition functions are continuous and such that two distinct points of $X$ belong both to a single $U_n$ or each to a distinct $U_n$, then equipping $X$ with the topology generated by $\varphi_n^{-1}(U)$ for $U$ open makes $X$ into a top. manifold and $(U_n,\varphi_n)$ into a chart.
 

« first day (3729 days earlier)      last day (1286 days later) »