#serious-discussion
1 messages · Page 426 of 1
okey
what other exercises were there 
idk i just did the first three
i guess ill work on the next starred one for tonight
well ok this one isn't starred but it caught my attention

its about norm preserving transformation
and inner product preserving
transformation
ah yes
interesting
i will do that now
let me think about it
okay
i chose not to think
and to simply google
i am a Genius
see one way is really easy
going from inner product preserving
just do y=x
or
okay i guess i should look at this
is this the typo
are you thinking of problem 1-7 or 1-8
oh this is 8
the typo is 1-8, the one after the inner product stuff
yeah inner product preserving -> norm preserving is basically trivial
check out the results in the book 
ya

compute <T(x), T(x+y)>

the result should follow if i canceled things out right
elaborate
we are working in R^n so inner product is bilinear
T is linear
so then T(x+y) = T(x)+T(y)
you get <x, x> + <Tx, Ty> but what happens to this second guy?
well originally you can write the equality as <T(x), T(x+y)> = <x,x+y>
apply bilinearity
cancel <x,x>
this isn't a norm

okay this is fine
i can get to this position easily
square both sides of the norm
er
pain
maybe you wanna look at <T(x+y), T(x+y)>?
that's a norm so you can use your hypotheses
we will use symmetry of inner product later
same stuff will cancel when i get ther
but
yes
so then |T(x+y)| = sqrt(<T(x+y),T(x+y)>)
and so Rhs also equal sqrt(<x+y,x+y>)
square both sides
then apply bilinearity and symmetry
cancel terms
pane
pane
i see
cool
i was thinking of using the polarization identity
since it expresses <v, w> in terms of norms
here's a similar/harder exercise

pain
is it?
er
no it isn't
i combine my naive attempt with this improved one
yes
its correct
cus the naive attempt is part of how i can cancel some terms out after applying bilinearity
so i guess not so naive
you have to be a little careful on why you can cancel those
yeah
see you can start with |T(x)| = |x|
and then do the same squaring game
and thats why we can cancel
yes
good
ok here's something similar
let V be a real inner product space, and let f: V -> V be a function with f(0) = 0 and |f(x) - f(y)| = |x - y| for all x, y in V. show that f is a linear map such that <f(x), f(y)> = <x, y> for all x, y in V
note that f is not assumed linear
!
as a hardmode, is the same true of maps between complex inner product spaces? (i don't actually know off the top of my head)

right im thinking that might mess something up
anyways the thing i have in mind uses ||polarization||
note that real inner product spaces and complex inner product spaces have different ||polarization identities||
spoilers for problem
ok wont click yet
this one might get a little computational
ok
ill take a stab tonight and probably go sleep soon
then tomorrow is another day
this is nice
linear algebra is good for you
talking about math here is very good for me :3
lee says this comes up in the proof of the myers steenrod theorem so i guess you're doing some sophisticated geometry 
idek what that is but very cool :3
thats ok tterra doesnt either
first fundamental form turns a surface into a metric space. theorem: isometry in the metric-space sense is the same as a DG isometry
roughly
he is just possessed by the sleep paralysis geometry demons when he posts here
very rough theorem sttement
i dont want to use the word riemannian
also u need connected
sad
i finally found non connected spaces that matter

lmao
tensor product of field extensions over the field of meromorphic functions on a riemann surface get you a non connected cover usually
and the connected components correspond to compositum
these are words
i think this result is intuitive actually
remind me of the thing about meromorphic functions you tlod me the other day
or maybe it was pty
ok so you know how covering theory looks similar to galois theory
but with the directions reversed
i know 0 galois but i know this is supposed to be true
i was planning on going into galois theory with this pov but then we just
didnt

lmfao
basically u can reformulate galois theory as talking about the category of finite etale algebras being equivalent to actions of the absolute galois group
which sounds complicated
but its not really
if we have a field F then we can think about finite separable extensions right
Dami moment
hi
Whaddup
Shut up ng im trying to have my moment in the spotlight where i pretend to be smart by regurgitating information i read in a book 5 to 7 business days ago
dont take this from me 😡
I'm actually curious lol so go on
My annoying chime ins are signs that I'm listening
moth
I did some affine Weyl group computations by literally folding a right triangle out of paper and writing 0,1,2 on the edges and flipping it around in the air
literally any mathematical discussion is welcomed
Not diffgeo
cope
Well diffgeo under limited circumstances
ok so yeah basically I dont want to get into the details because they are kind of elaborate but u can formulate galois theory by talking about
if i fix a field k
and a separable closure k_s of k
we can take the absolute galois group Gal(k_s, k) = Gal(k)
so now basically if we have a finite separable extension L of k then we get an action of the Gal(k) automorphisms on Hom(L, k_s) right
literally by just composing
every g in Gal(k) is an automorphism k_s -> k_s
Fax
so it defines an action on hom sets by sending f to f circ g
Okay I'm starting to see where this is going I think
so without going into too much detail a finite etale algebra over k is a finite dimensional algebra A over k isomorphic to a finite direct product of separable extensions
and we have the same action of Gal(k) on Hom(A, k_s)
so its not hard to see that we get a functor from finite etale algebras over k into sets with Gal(k) actions on them
and specifically separable extensions will give you transitive Gal(k) actions
:0
and Galois extensions give you finite quotients

And this is very similar to the covering space situation
That's nifty
if i take the universal cover p: X' -> X over a (semilocally simply connected blah blah blah) space X
then covers Y -> X give rise to actions of pi_1(X, x)
connected covers correspond to transitive pi-1 actions
and galois covers correspond to coset spaces of normal subgroups of pi_1
so you have the analogy here
finite etale algebras over a field look like covers over a space
separable extensions look like connected covers
galois extensions look like galois covers
riemann surfaces and ramification are the (or at least a) setting where this equivalence is realized
specifically compact connected riemann surfaces
where covers Y -> X turn M(Y) into a finite etale algebra over M(X)
where M(X) and M(Y) are the ring/fields of meromorphic functions
M(Y) is a field and thus separable bc characteristic 0 since we are working over C precisely when Y is connected
and similarly M(Y) is galois over M(X) precisely when Y -> X as a ramified cover restricts to a galois cover of X
in fact in a way that preserves degree

Okay I'm back sorry
But yeah it seems this is secretly the fact that transitive G-sets are all G/H
which part
The whole thing kinda, like once you have a Galois correspondence
sounds like u guys are unraveling the secrets of the universe
Then it's also an equivalence of categories between a category of G-sets and whatever you're Galois corresponding to
im not sure which part u mean specifically but like yea the fact that transitive G-sets look like G/H is important for the topology stuff
I guess there's some technical detail regarding the fact that you're taking finite etale algebras rather than just separable field extensions but I imagine it's because of Hom business
or like its important for establishing the kinks of what the functor from fin etale algebras -> Gal(k) sets preserves
and similarly for covers -> pi_1(X, x) sets
integral
when X is normal (don't worry about precisely what this means) we can talk about the function field K of X and we have π^et_1(X)=Gal(K^ur/K) where K^ur is a maximal unramified extension of K
normal
yea I hate this terminology
anyways this applies in the case of compact Riemann surfaces for instance
GAGA will tell you these things are algebraic
for something even more specific
the case of something like compact Riemann surfaces has this extra step of relating the complex analytic picture to the algebraic picture
mathematicians just call everything they like "normal" in the hopes of coping so hard mathematics itself bends to their will
and all the examples just look like the nice case
so you have an algebraic function field and a meromorphic function field, and algebraic (finite) covers versus analytic (possibly infinite) covers
normalize singularities
holy shit
Nikita Shlyapustin.
Who?

Uh


DG slanders itself lmfao
spivak calls the ricci calculus chapter "a debauch of indices" in the chapter title 
a bout of excessive indulgence in sensual pleasures, especially eating and drinking.
ah yes
the sensual pleasure of ricci calculus

In mathematics, Ricci calculus constitutes the rules of index notation and manipulation for tensors and tensor fields on a differentiable manifold, with or without a metric tensor or connection. It is also the modern name for what used to be called the absolute differential calculus (the foundation of tensor calculus), developed by Gregorio Ric...
Ahh
So it is calculus in the sense of symbolic calculi
Is this related to that Ricci flow stuff 
maybe?
idk anything about ricci flow lol
oh it's a pde
i guess you'd run into some ricci calculus while studying ricci flow
like if you wanted to write this out in coordinates and play with it
a riemannian metric

(you may also have heard "first fundamental form" before)
it's a smoothly varying inner product on each tangent space
Just the word, yes, I don't know what it means.

I see
like
g is a riemannian metric if for every p, g(p) is an inner product on the tangent space to your surface at p, and if this is "smooth" in some sense
something like

tangent space could be thought of as the best linear approximation to a surface at a point
Okay, makes sense
inner product on the tangent space thus measures geometric stuff on your manifold near that point up to first order
roughly vaguely
From what I vaguely remember from an interaction between Dami and Metal, each of these tangent spaces is endowed with an inner product?
yup
I see
Why do we care about the inner product?
you can measure geometric information with it
angle, length, etc.
think of all the things you can do with the dot product
geometry
I see
actually that's an example of a riemannian metric
Does this have some physical interpretation 
if you have a surface in euclidean space, just restrict the dot product to each tangent space and you get a riemannian metric

(this one's more commonly called "first fundamental form")
idk

It feels like a manifold's structure is evolving with time, and this equation tells you how this affects the metric, maybe
I may or may not be making sense

i guess it's saying something like
hm
yeah nah you basically said what i was thinking
a riemannian metric is "extra structure" on a manifold, right
and you're looking at how a family of these change over time
if you wrote it out in coordinates the ricci flow equation would be
Okay yeah t need not have any meaningful assignment in terms of time here
Okay physicist
if you wrote it out in coordinates the ricci flow equation would be a rather complicated PDE 
what would you call it
PDEs are already 
system of n^2 + 1 partial differential equations in n + 1 variables?
that might be wrong

no n^2 and n + 1
TTerra geometric analysis arc
That’s easy then
since each g_t has n^2 components
but symmetry cuts this down quite a bit
n(n+1)/2 and n + 1??
n(n+1)/2
sniped xd
yes
one of these days
my uni is offering two geometric analysis courses in the upcoming semesters

i absolutely have the differential geometry background
but maybe not the analysis background
Do they need a course in PDEs?

What all do typical grad analysis classes cover?
Measure theory, functional analysis?
I see
Measure Theory: Lebesgue measure and integration, convergence theorems, Fubini's theorem, Lebesgue differentiation theorem, abstract measures, Caratheodory theorem, Radon-Nikodym theorem.
Functional Analysis: Hilbert spaces, orthonormal bases, Riesz representation theorem, compact operators, L^p-spaces, Holder and Minkowski inequalities.
Fourier Analysis: Fourier series and transforms, Fourier inversion and Plancherel formula, estimates and convergence results, topological vector spaces, Schwartz space, distributions.
Functional Analysis: The main topic here will be the spectral theorem for bounded self-adjoint operators, possibly together with its extensions to unbounded and differential operators.
1 and 2
pretty close lol
you got 2/3 of em
OwO niceeee
depending on the rest of my courses i might take this
This seems rather overkill for a semester though 
Ah, that is more reasonable
topology comes first, but the grad admissions here really like to see these two analysis courses

they're the qualifying exam courses
Ohh
grad school likes those
So if you take these classes, you can skip quals in grad school?
if you're a graduate student already and you do sufficiently well, yes
but if you're an undergrad
idk
Yeah, I meant an undergrad taking them before starting grad school
i did well enough in complex analysis to not have to write the qual if i were a graduate student, but i'll probably have to write the complex qual at some point anyways (if i am accepted here)
sadness!

pure agony
Hmm?
yo
I feel like you could probably just go to the admin and be like
Hey look at my grade
It took it while an undergrad but I still have satisfied the requirement of "Take this class or pass this qual"
So I feel like when I did it shouldn't matter
"don't make me write this qual or i'll toss you off the roof bitch"
Honestly yeah
Well
Kind word and a gun works better than a kind word
And probably than a mean word
So instead of doing that just accidentally drop your concealed carry license
speaking from experience?
While pleading to their ability to reason critically

Probably from someone's experience
the people in the math department here are nice
i would not want to have to hurt anyone
What is your about me section saying TTerra 
a long time ago shamrock told me a really stupid proof that $\binom{n}{k} = \binom{n}{n - k}$ using the cohomology of the $n$-torus
TTerra
Best proof, heavy technical stuff perhaps
yes
Hah
it uses some very non trivial algebraic topology 
show this to cs students in their combinatorics classes
Fwiw along these lines there are some actual combinatorial things which are non-trivial and can be done topologially
If you take complex Grassmannians
reminds me of "subgroups of free groups are free" proven using AT
You can reference stuff like the weak and hard Lefschetz theorems to know that the betti numbers are unimodal
hmm
And symmetric
But the betti numbers are combinatorial
b_{2i} = number of partitions of i into at most d parts with largest part at most size n-d

Meaning you're counting partitions of i whose young diagrams fit into a d x (n-d) sized box
if only i had not dropped combinatorics
Combinatorics is fun with the right prof
my class was something
the prof was very good
but he was rather insistent on in class exercises where you discuss with the person next to you
Oh but "next to you" is tricky with Zoom lmfao

how do i say this
no ok the actual reason i dropped was because i wasn't comfortable taking 3 math courses at once at the time
Ah that's fair
i was going to make a meme about it but i realized it was basically an isolated incident
What were the other two?
topology and "advanced calc" (spivak's calc on manifolds)
If either of them were less interesting ima judge your taste in math even harder than I already do
Point-set? Hmm it's not quite as interesting but it's kinda important so I can respect it
well
we did AT for like
half of it
lol
baby AT though
munkres speedrun any%
these classes may or may not have played major roles in my current mathematical interests 
both classes were very well run and had amazing professors
Hmm... normally those are fine to take but if they ended up with you doing diffgeo then perhaps you should've done combo instead
right
oh well
i can just take it in the fall if i want
or pick it up here and there
why take a course in something when you can get people on math discord to explain it to you?
Just stop doing diffgeo and do combinatorics instead tbh
Like as your research area
differential-geometric combinatorics

prove combinatorical identities using
stokes

i can see it tbh
Honestly I need to ask my advisor for more deets about the quantum chaos on graphs business
That could legit be my style
hi, i'm looking for some advice. math was my strong point in high school, I liked it, probably my favorite subject, but it was never passionate. Today I want to discern if I was only interested in mathematics or if it is something I can dedicate my life to. What do you think can help me find an answer to this? (anything can help)
do you have any exposure to proof-based mathematics? (not high school geometry "proofs", actual proofs in definition-theorem-proof-corollary style)
if not, try self-studying some.
its more reflective of what mathematics "actually" feels like at a high level
even applied math is frequently proofsy
certainly way more proofsy than high school mathematics, at least.
mathematical induction counts?
induction is one proof technique
but theres a bit of a philosophical difference between a course structured around proofs and rigour, and one that just happens to cover basic induction at one point
would you be able to prove, for example, that f(x) = x^3 is a bijection (one-to-one & onto function) from ℝ to ℝ?
whether directly from the definition or proving continuity and applying the monotone continuous function theorem
Induction is the proof version of "My intuition is clearly correct"
The guy is deciding if he can find passion in math and you start talking about boring theorems
If that’s what someone told me math was I wouldn’t want to devote my life to it
im just trying to scope out whether theyve taken a proof based course before.
im not math's PR department
though either way, id certainly consider this more interesting than rote induction drills.
quick start taking about your favorite k theory result

(aside: i think people should go into math will full knowledge that a lot of it will be boring rote work)
maybe I know where the solution can be (x ^ 3 retains the sign of x, and x ^ 1/3 is real, independent if x is positive or negative??), but can I prove it formally? I do not think so.
(as you get good, you can skip a lot of that rote work, but its still worth setting reasonable expectations)
sorry for the late reply, i barely speak english
hmmm you have the inklings of the right idea actually
proving that x^3 is odd and that x^1/3 = 0 has no solutions for x > 0 is enough
but it requires a bit more work
either way, it seems you havent taken a "proper" proofsy course - which is fine
makes that probably a good place to start though
to see how much it "clicks"
unfortunately im unfamiliar with foreign-language recommendations, though.
exactly that worries me
i did give you a very boring problem.
perhaps a more interesting one would be worthwhile, but I don't know how much you know
ah don't worry about that, I can read, but when I write I try to do it correctly
and that takes time
I see.
here's perhaps a more interesting question:
it's well-known that a positive integer is divisible by 3 precisely when the sum of its digits is. for example, 4 + 7 + 1 = 12 and 1 + 2 = 3, so 471 is divisible by 3. meanwhile, 1 + 0 + 0 + 7 = 8, so 1007 is not divisible by 3. a similar thing is true for division by 9.
(a) why is this true? can you prove it? (it helps if you know modular arithmetic, but that isn't necessary)
(b) if youre familiar with bases other than ten: for what divisors is this true in a given base? (hint: how are 9 and 10 related? how are 3 and 9 related?)
But the point is that math is not very exciting for me. I mean, when a new topic is presented to me, I like to try to understand the "logic behind it", try to connect it with previous topics. but i never looked for stuff myself (except a few numberphile videos xd).
dont worry about answering that to me btw
im just giving it as an example of a problem that one might be posed in a proofsy mathematics course
i will try it, but not now probably (it's very late here).
- would require some thought and breaking down
the honest truth is that a career in just mathematics (even applie) is fairly niche
and higher math is very different from high school/early university
so you cant really figure out if it "sticks" unless you just try it
its boring at times, frustrating at others, and not the most financially lucrative career
but its also really interesting IMO
problem solving is fun
actually any recommendation to learn / practice that? maybe in a "boring" way it could help me decide better
know any calculus? spivak's calculus is a good textbook with a more proof-oriented style than a typical calculus course.
though a warning: the first few chapters are very slow and boring
necessary but boring
takes a while to get into actual calc
apostol is a bit faster-paced but doesnt teach proofs as well IMO
i don't know exactly what calculus is so i don't know, but i will check it
what language do you speak?
spanish, but don't worry about the language barrier
límites, integrales y derivadas
it's not my first time reading a english book
sound familiar?
yes, but i know almost zero about the topic
anyway, probably anything I'll study will have math in it
hm, spivak would be theoretically doable, but may be difficult without a teacher giving you intuition for the calculus
maybe the hard way is the ideal way to decide better
well proofs are unnaturally disorienting to first-time learners
so im a bit wary
dedicated proof textbooks exist but i think they all kinda suck
and its better (+ way more interesting) to learn proofs "naturally" in the context of actual mathematics
rather than contrived "random easy topics from elementary number theory"
(though my earlier divisibility-by-3 problem is arguably an example of that...)
but its tough since youre learning 2 things at once that both kind of depend on each other
and because you lack instructor feedback while self-studying, it can be hard to tell how well you're actually doing.
I guess it makes you more skilled too?
(though some people post their proofs in #proofs-and-logic and ask for feedback which helps)
This problem solving thing is to find out if I like science oriented math, right?
because if we are talking about engineering oriented mathematics, should I look at other aspects (like real life applications)?
for engineering, look at engineering coursework
my advice is for "math majors"
like your uni degree says "mathematics" on it
maybe "pure mathematics" or "applied mathematics", but still math
other fields dont have nearly as much emphasis on proofs
(physics and computer science have some but not as much)
(same with statistics)
(other fields dont really have proofs at all)
I probably like more science-oriented math, but the point is, I'll have to find a job too. And where I live, science is not something that people are willing to finance.
yeah, employment is an issue, no doubt.
engineering or computer science are far "safer" paths relatively
even statistics if you still want a very mathy flair
(and in fact, i'd say the bulk of statistics "feels more like" high school math than mathematics does)
Maybe it's a stupid question, but where will I find more science-oriented math? an engineering in mathematics? or things like physics or computer science?
pure math is mostly just academia (professorial research + teaching), but applied math is widespread as financial analysts in industry positions
and statisticians & whatnot
- you can often get a job in some sort of software development with any sort of mathematical degree
so you can pursue a passion in school then settle into a relatively safe programming job
still, im not gonna pretend the job market has an amazing wealth of options
the vast majority of those who pursue pure math have a mentality of
i'll try for a job in academia, and if i cant get one (which is the most likely scenario), i'll find a job programming or teaching high school
if you value job security highly, mathematics sadly isnt the best field to pursue
though it's still better than a typical arts degree
Something that worries me is that maybe I like mathematics, but an engineering in mathematics maybe not, I have the impression that it takes away the "fun" part. But again, I know very little about engineering in general.
for whatever that's worth.
is computer science a much safer bet?
but maybe just a little safer?
computer science is so lucrative that universities face a shortage of cs professors
since a typical cs phd enters industry instantly
in mathematics, academia is "the dream job"
in cs, academia begs to employ you
sorry if I'm bothering you. but your opinion in this?
huge difference in employability
honestly i dont have a great answer
i have no clue how youd figure that out
sorry ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Engineering bad
if you don't mind, a brief why?
Abelian grape good

I have a friend doing an electrical engineering PhD and he regularly takes graduate level math courses
Now I regret not taking CS

Some group
i mean abelian grape
ik abelian group, lol
a group with commutativity
right?

ulti ho gai sari tadbeerein
Koi dawa naa kam kari
Mujhe is ke baad yaad naheen hai
Meri soch se bahir hui
Try Jamal gota 
ulTi ho gain sab tadbiren kuchh na dawa ne kaam kiya | Complete Ghazal with lyrics and translation, along with audio and video, at Rekhta
What’s purple...... and..... commutes......
A purple person in a car
Tele tubby
lmao
wow

Algebra has gotten onto ur head kid
u need to become analysis pilled
This was nice

so my nitro runs out
on the 4th of july
I’ll do algebraic topology cause that’s basically analysis
No
i mean pure analysis
nothing else
No AT for u kid
pick up Tao
and start it
also is AT basically analysis?

do p-adic analysis instead
its easier
it is?
in some sense, yes
and i suppose it requires some analysis knowledge?
well, maybe
the p-adic absolute value is an ultrametric, which makes it somewhat 'easier'

\sum a_n converges iff a_n is null sequence as it should be
i didnt get far enough to know what a null sequence is 
Convergence in p-adics means the sequence is eventually all 0s?

Tbf ive never heard that term either but I assume it means this ^
no, but
is that what a null sequence is?
you know how \sum 1/n diverges even though 1/n is null
Yes
Yur
stuff like that does not happen in the p-adics
That's neat
or in any ultrametric space

I did as well 🥺
ultrametric space just means you have a triangle equality but stronger
So the sum corresponding to every sequence which converges to 0 converges as well
That is very nice
i missed the entire point
yes
Friendship with real numbers over, p-adics are my best friend now (I like 101-adics the best but don’t tell the others)
|a + b| <= max(|a|, |b|)
and this gives you lots of strong results

so its "easier" in that sense
but harder in the sense that you have 0 geometric intuition
Yeah, I don't see any meaningful geometric intuition here
But then I barely understand ultrametrics
Or even metrics 

I do know the formal definition, I'm just familiar with very basic examples though
Same
Like I don't have any intuition outside of Euclidean metric on R^n
Taxicab is pretty easy as well
hmm
Jungle river as well
I like your funny words magic men
Which metric is this?
You uhhh draw a line until it hits another pre-set line perpendicular to the first one and the distance is the sum of those two iirc
general metrics are kinda fine, since i just think of blobs in space
but p-adics are really weird, since it deals with objects you know like integers but assigns them weird absolute values
Yeah it’s a lot easier to visualise everything as “Euclidean but a bit dodgy”

As opposed to something like non-metric topological spaces which I cannot visualse for the life of me
p-adics seem kinda interesting
Number theory 🚨
i think https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFDM1ip5HdU introduces the 2-adics
An exploration of infinite sums, from convergent to divergent, including a brief introduction to the 2-adic metric, all themed on that cycle between discovery and invention in math.
Home page: https://www.3blue1brown.com/
Music: Legions (Reverie) by Zoe Keating
3blue1brown is a channel about animating math, in all senses of ...
Yeah that’s a good intro, I need to rewatch it tbh
I would like to see the actual formal definition of the p-adics tho
There are several equivalent definitions
What is the motivation for p-adics?
Number theory
They are... cool...
i think hensel considered formal laurent series
Debatable, although I do like the sum convergence fact
i saw it some time ago
the formal definition is either as formal laurent series or you define the p-adic metric on Q and complete it "in the usual way"
or just as inverse limit of some category i guess
Ew
I momentarily forgot p-adic metric is described on Q 
Wait so
Does every Cauchy sequence in this metric converge?
What is the completion here? R?
Its Q_p

Yes
then you take the subring R of Cauchy sequences with respect to some metric
Ring 
Q_p is the completion of Q with respect to the p-adic metric.
R is the completion of Q with respect to the usual metric.
(confirm this actually is a subring as you do in analysis, sums and product of Cauchy are Cauchy etc)
then confirm that the subset of null sequences N is an ideal
(this is not easy)
it's in fact a maximal ideal
by algebra R/N is a field
Haven't learnt algebra moment 
and depending on what metric you started with you get the p-adics Q_p or the real numbers

(this is a theorem by ostrowski)
well, if you have a ring R and a maximal ideal m in R, then R/m is a field
i think its easier to just confirm manually that R/N in this case is a field
by computing explicit inverses

also it's not that important, but it "just works" the same way the construction of R works
I see 
Where do p-adics show up in number theory, what kind of questions do they help in answering?
"Local global priciples"

the actual way you think of those objects is via formal laurent series or as the inverse limit $\varprojlim_n\bZ/p^n\bZ$
Lochverstärker
I googled this and found Hasse principle, seems to answer my question. 
so you have the product of set $\bZ/p\bZ \times \bZ/p^2\bZ \times \dots$
Lochverstärker
Okay
and then a sequence $(x_1, x_2, x_3, \dots)$ is a $p$-adic number if $\lambda_n(x_{n+1})= x_{n}$, where $\lambda_n\colon \bZ/p^{n+1}\bZ\to \bZ/p^{n}\bZ$ is the canonical projection
Lochverstärker
So this defines Z_p as the inverse limit of Z/p^nZ

oh yeah
Q_p is the fraction field of Z_p
There are several equivalent definitions of p-adics
It’s just numbers that go brrr to the left
ye, you can probably do that rigorously
Oof p-adics are wack
There's a research project I'm interested in and I emailed the prof
also yes, be decent in algebra before
and she was like "yea start reading up on P-adic numbers"
and I'm like ok
and I did
💀
because you want to do galois theory over p-adics
I have not taken Algebra and will not take it until next fall cause of how the honors sequence works here at UIUC
soooooo
I'm a bit in over my head rn but we're working on it
or like, deal with p-adic completions of number fields to do number theory but the right way
those are words
I feel you
ye, i think you can do some stuff with p-adics 'easily' as an undergrad
but you can also easily get lost in stuff that is really hard
(introducing p-adics and doing some small thing with them is a popular bachelor thesis topic)
I see
this is the project I'm looking at and the prof (she was my honors abstract lin alg prof last semester) sent me two textbooks as well >_>
dope I'll look at it
I've always wondered about the difference between "universitext" and ugtm/gtm
I have no idea what homotopy theory is lol
I just saw undergrad research project led by a prof whose class I did well in
homotopy is a simple and natural notion that appears all over
homotopy theory usually refers to like
a much more specific thing
what is homotopy
its like
I have a copy of this and I'm planning on reading it soon
continuously deforming one function into another
interesting
Cool, you should give lectures on what you learn in VC

I presume not every function can be deformed into every other function?
that is a good assumption
Is it a correct one?
yes
ay nice
gouvea is nice
is there an easy to understand example?
just something I can look up and read in a bit when I'm more focused
Path homotopies are the simplest examples
well no that requires basepoint stuff
there are simple examples but you do need to learn the proper defns and stuff
max, will ur talk be on zoom? or discord only?

zoom
proprietary shill
lmao zoom is free
?
?
i assume i was being called a proprietary shill
My ? is directed at @hallow wasp
same
and looks like the talk thats coming is at 3 pm for me

i can attend it properly,
tho ofc i wont understand basically all of it
the talk for me will be at 21:00 so it's fine for me 
imagine not using Zfone
meh
it looks like some garbage open source thing
lmfao
Z
I bet you took the moderna vaccine
ah, we have a linux elitist here
lol
you specifically please don't come to my talk lmfao
idk why thats a joke 
but its funny
Hey guys cos(theta)*cos(theta) = cos^2theta right?
if its not gentoo see ya
i forgot
first of all, #❓how-to-get-help
secondly.. go to a help channel i will answer there
jhund mara
Macs are quite nice
dont buy another pc, it will be ported soon
its a bit late for civ 5 to get ported properly lol
fixed*
and the modding is impossible
and aspyr has openly said
they have no intention to fix it
maybe i will get lucky and civ7 won't suck
maybe you get a free windows machine gifted to you
Can you use boot camp or smth?
Max are you going to play Foundation?
lol i was joking
zoom is better than discord for streaming
do you have a link i cant find anything
that looks like a fun game
oh wow
Humankind
old world looks like archipelgo board game
There you go
oh!
I was like
into the humankind stuff
but then everyone i know who plays 4x didnt buy it
so i also didnt
idk if its good or not or anything
I'll play with you if you like it, it looks neat and civ is getting stale for me
Ph yeah
I made a college list
But i had some trouble with my safeties
What is the best community college in california
so I can get an easy transfer into a good UC school
@crystal stone
IDK about the best one
But I know a few good ones, depends on the area you want to live in
For Math, the strongest one is probably Orange Coast College
If you're into Engineering there's probably better ones
How well are we talking
They have a lot of Honors classes, you can look up transfer rates by your major
but if you do Honors math sequence
a very good chance of getting in
Ah the UC transfer admission rates, no they don't
But they give you an idea of how competitive each school is and for what major
OCC has a very strong math/physics/computer-science/chemistry department
For lower division teaching, OCC is better than most UCs
You can look this up, Prof. Arnold Guerra the Third teaches full time at OCC and part-time at UC Irvine
Was that ur teacher?
He was offered his own lab at UC Irvine, and turned it down because the pay was too little
OCC pays their instructors more than UCs do for basic level courses
I took Physics 280/285 from Guerra
When ur teacher is famou
s
do you ever get a chance to talk to him after class?
Like a normal teacher?
Like can you ask questions in class
Some love to talk to students
And talk to them in office hours
Some don't like that
That sucks
That's lame
🤷♂️
Berkeley has a lot of transfers from some Bay Area CCs like De Anza







