#serious-discussion
1 messages · Page 490 of 1
but if you use imagination, one of the examples she gives can help you think of whats going on
I see
like
you know how earth is round
Yeah
and thats not completely obvious from when you are born
Correct
this is only the case because you are so small compared to earth
so you cant really see the obvious curve that exists when you zoom out
And this is analogous to the universe in general and our observations about it?
kinda
but we can do math
to see what curvature looks like locally
and estimate what that means about global curvature
creatures like ants (if they were intilligent) would have no chance of verifying these things.
because of how small they are in comparison to the earth
One way you can detect curvature is to parallel transport a vector around a large loop (or around a loop many times)
also because their vision is shit
If the resulting vector is rotated compared to the original vector, your space is curved
One day I hope to parallel transport myself around a room without changing my facing direction many times until my facing direction changes
So they(ants) say this hill is kinda steep and conclude a vague idea how the planet actually is?
Intuitively this shouldn't work but the math says it will...
ye
ill give you honest opinion
idk why anyone gives a shit
It's math for the sake of math I guess

And physicists with way too much free time
what
Are you lampooning theoretical physics
bruh math is worse
bro
the curvature of the earth is not calculated 'for fun'
Mr. Icy001
whats last cool NT thing you learned
we talking about universe
not earth
even so

Arthur packets correspond to perverse sheaves
is arthur packets a type of food
If you define food correctly, yes
langlands 😵💫
Did you google it? lol
yeah
Modern Gps systems rely on relativity theories for their accuracy (lagtime due to speeds), and the idea that mass curves space time is applicable in how light bends around stars so that their postion is altered, and we have observed altered positions of stars that would not be predicted by newton's laws of gravitations otherwise
It is viewable on a cosmic scale
honestly langlands program sounds like one of those things i would like if i had enough background
I'm under the impression no one in the world would say they have enough background on Langlands currently
the purpose sounds cool, but idk if it is as cool as it seems
how do people even get into that
i am still a silly undergrad and im naive about who knows what
how many advisors are doing langlands
linear algebra -> commutative algebra -> algebraic geometry + representation theory -> graduate school -> pick an advisor working on Langlands, probably
Or read a lot
but expository material on Langlands is extremely unfriendly
Are you lonely right now?
anyways
Trick question
is your advisor working on langlands
An off-shoot of it, I'd say
what in the sam harris
what's up with Sam Harris nowadays
idk
just sounds like a funny name
i want to learn more about number theory connections to other fields
I feel the sudden urge to calculate how many times I need to walk around my room to feel the curvature of the Earth
i dont have enough examples though
Basically the principle is this
If you start at the north pole, go all the way to the equator, then go a quarter circle around the equator, then go back to the north pole, all while "facing" the same direction, your rotation is 90 degrees off from where you started
This means that parallel transport around a loop with the area of 1/8 of the Earth's surface area causes a 90 degree vector rotation
On a surface with constant curvature, the amount a vector is rotated when parallel transported around a loop is directly proportional to the area enclosed by the loop
Ok so 1/8 of the surface area of the earth is 24.6 million square miles
divide that by the area of my room which is on the order of 500 square feet
1.4 x 10^12 😔
So a vector parallel transported around my room will be rotated by like 0.00000000009 degrees
will need to repeat that 11 billion times to rotate it by 1 degree
Did someone say Langlands
lan glands
So basically for all intents and purposes the section of Earth covered by my room is flat
what is smallest amount of percivable rotation of our head
🕵️
pregananant
perceivable
@mortal igloo I didn't realize you were near the langlands program
cant spell perceivable without a perc 30
What kinda stuff do you do (or your advisor does if you're not there yet)
hehe
My thesis was related to automorphic representations over function fields, and right now I'm trying to fill myself in on the theta correspondence and Shimura variety stuff
Wait are you a postdoc? I thought you were a grad student lol
Yep
langlands 
But yeah that's good stuff. Covers 2 of the 4 research projects in AWS this semester
You may have heard of my adventure this semester which is teaching Calc II students for the first time
thats what im saying
amazon web services
Lmao
Are you going to AWS?
I applied yeah
We might see each other then!
right?
That'd be pretty dope! I'm looking especially at the project about quaternionic modular forms
I was invited as one of the assistants but I'm not sure if they are following up
Or possibly the one about constructing vector-valued automorphic forms from scalar-valued ones
Tbh I haven't thought enough about anything beyond GL2 to really get the point of the second project
That sounds like theta correspondence
Yup that Mahael
Basically I'm thinking Pollack, followed by just doing rep theory psets at night, followed by Eischen's project
Gan's stuff was a bit scary and I've never really thought about function fields
Is rep theory psets part of this AWS?
Yeah basically the way it seems to work is, there are lectures and associated projects. You can either sign up to do the projects, you can sign up to be in study groups which review the lecture content in the evenings, or you can sign up for "problem sessions" which just do a bunch of psets in the evenings
thats about right, yeah
is it online this year
There were 2 problem sessions, one was on "Rep theoretic aspects of automorphic forms" and the other is "Geometric aspects of automorphic forms"
Oh so you were saying your top 3 choices for what to do basically?
you can sign up for the problem sessions and the study groups but you typically have to apply for the project groups
also in my experience nobody really monitored the attendance at the problem sessions and study groups and so you could basically move between them freely
So yeah I put Pollack's project as my top choice, second choice is rep theory problem session, third was Eischen's project
nice
Was considering geometric problem session since I don't really get what's happening in Eischen's project but when talking to my advisor, we weren't really sure if geometric means AG or hyperbolic geometry
And when he went over Eischen's thing he was like yeah this could be cool I'd go with this over the geometry problem session
Thanks fam
I can't find information on the geometric problem session
Yeah they don't seem to have it anywhere
you mean something like this
yeah
i know sand movement is caused by wind mostly
but why is this always so orderly
A dune is a landform composed of wind- or water-driven sand. It typically takes the form of a mound, ridge, or hill. An area with dunes is called a dune system or a dune complex. A large dune complex is called a dune field, while broad, flat regions covered with wind-swept sand or dunes with little or no vegetation are called ergs or sand seas....

i assume the large wind gusts pick up a large line of sand and throw it up slightly over
shit is cool ngl
Does anyone of you have any experience self teaching himself relatively "advance topics"(linear algebra I&II, optimization, group theory, etc) in mathematics as a high school student? What would recommend to your back then self after having gained experience later on your career? What are some interesting topics to study?
Thank you in advance!
i don't think i qualify here
I am not experienced but I learned group theory in high school, but I wanted to say
study groups with weekly discussions work
study groups 
group theory
its in the name
maybe one day I'll meet someone who knows what algebra is, that'd be a day
i’m in high school and self learning learning odes, i just learn when i feel like it
to be fair, when i feel like it is quite often lol
I did a lot of stuff in hs, my advice would probably be to not get bogged down in the detail as I do now
Same, almost
wait i don’t think i really answered your question now that i think about it
But also when i think about it, maybe getting bogged down in the details is important when ur new to math and the topics
Highschool isn't very far from ODEs considering many around the same age globally learn it as part of required syllabus
oof
In any case, I found starting with linear algebra to be really helpful, it was a nice transition from computational stuff like calculus to the more abstract side of maths (I did abstract linear algebra, not the one that mostly focuses on R^n and C^n and stuff)
Yeah, it was real nice
I used Axler's Linear Algebra Done Right, but there might be better books out there
Ask around
Like i was around 15 when i did LA but like, mostly computationally, definately wish i did it rigorously it would open up more math for me
15???? damnnnn

When did RIT start offering a PhD in Mathematical Modeling?!
First I've heard of a program specific to modeling.
Suspicious
RIT attempted to guilt trip me for not applying
I mean I looked at the website and it isn't like a scam I guess
I'm a bit concerned about the coursework requirements though
Do they not have any pure math? It looks like their department is entirely applied math
yeah, and it looks like their only math phd option is the mathematical modeling program
Is there a way to define the limit of a sequence of groups?
What ambient space are you working in
that's a loaded question
There’s category theoretical limits
depends on whether you ask an algebraist or analyst
Inductive and projective limits
You can consider all the groups as just sets and take the intersection of all of them
I'm trying to come up with a way to naturally show that the sequence of dihedral groups D_n approaches the circle group.
My thinking was that we would first need to define a metric on this set of groups.
Do they though
Intuitively yeah
D_n is generally not abelian whereas the circle group is
I'd believe it if you said that Z_n approached the circle group as n->infinity
Hmm, I think I used the wrong terminology sorry
The corresponding thing for dihedral groups should be O(2)
I mean the group of reflections and rotations of circle
Ok the orthogonal group
Yeah
So how would you define limits in this setting in order to capture this intuition?
Well you'll need to be careful because you want D_n to approach O(2) and not the infinite dihedral group
But I think I would argue that a n-gon approaches a circle as n goes to infinity
Wouldn't you need to define a metric on this set of groups?
there are more general notions of "limits" than just metric spaces
for example, you can talk about direct limits of directed sets of groups
though you need to be careful about how you would apply that in this case
If for each $n\mid N$ you embed $D_n$ into $D_N$ and take the inductive limit, I believe you will get the subgroup of $O(2)$ consisting of reflections and rational angle rotations
also as ange wrote, how do you anticipate being able to distinguish the group you're considering from the infinite dihedral group?
Icy001
This is probably the best you can do, and to get all of $O(2)$ you need to take some sort of completion
Icy001
which to me looks equally well like the "limit" of the dihedral groups
(i concur with icy, btw)
On something called the Log-Rank conjecture and its connection to incidence geometry
I wonder when I'll hear back about the thing I applied to mentor
isnt direct limit most general notion
because afaik you just need index set and a partial order
directed set*
in one word i think its a directed set
and a maximal element?
or maybe not
probably not
if you take the direct limit of a directed set with a maximal element you will just get the maximal element back
a project supervisor at my uni told me he'd get back to my application after he waits "a few days" for everyone to apply
but it's been 3 weeks
if you were him, would you appreciate a follow up email or would it just annoy you
good luck
Good luck!
Good luck
Ty
ig question is what are weakest conditions for the directed limit to exist?
or does it always exist?
Depends on the category
In a category of modules it will always exist because you can construct it explicitly
(Assuming no set theory nonsense gets in the way but i dont think that should really be an issue)
@bronze pelican remember if you have something equal to zero take a derivative, you'll be just fine
(Jokes aside good luck fam)
cool is cool
did you do good
How hard was it?
I can imagine
Brofib it's stopped raining so you can go outside now
figured id drop back into the server for christmas (eve), hows everyone doing?
i think i remember you, i’m doing pretty good, what about you?
doing well! are finals done for you?
i’m not actually in college so i’m not doing those lol
haha well i hope the holidays are going well, nice to hear from you again
same to you
fuck the holidays
nice to see this server hasnt changed
It has now we have another nerd here named justAlex smh
beaned
rip
wait what
Why is real analysis a prerequisite of differential equations
i thought it was like right after calc and linear algebra
It depends on the kind of differential equations class you're taking. Cookbook courses that emphasise methods to solve usually only have calculus (and possibly linear algebra) as a prerequisite; more theoretical courses that emphasise the qualitative analysis of equations, existence/uniqueness of solutions, etc. require a first course in real analysis.
yeah, a look at the syllabus will be a better descriptor of the expectations
What do you guys do when you absolutely have NO IDEA how to solve a problem?
Well, I'm asking but no one is answering
well it's rare that i have 0 idea
usually there's something you can try
do you have a specific problem in mind?
For example
All of those 3 are monsters on their own
But man, the last one
All I could do since yesterday was blankly stare at the wall trying to find something to try
ok well i don't really know real analysis, but like if i had to do it i'd ust try playing around with the problems first
just make random guesses and see what happens
like my first instinct for 6.7 is trying to interleave digits
like if one element of R^2 is (0.1111...,0.222...) then the corresponding element in R might be 0.121212...
Yeah I tried that
But there is still a problem with numbers who end in all 0s or all 9s
I sort've found a clue for 0.6.8 too but it has a similar caveat
if its any help (0,1) is isomorphic to R, so you can show the powerset of N has same cardinality as (0,1)
Yeah I tried that too
I then considered them in binary
So for every real number x in (0,1) and start with the empty set; if x has 1 in its 1st digit after decimal add the number 1
If it has 1 in its 2nd digit, add the number 2
And so on
hmm
But that would map 0.011111111... and 0.1000... to different sets
Although they're the same number
why dont you try if you have 0.1
map it to 1
0.01
map it to 10
and 0.11 = 11
so you have an injective function
But I need a bijective function to determine cardinality
I think the shröder-bernstein theorem can help me but I still haven't understood it will enough yet
I asked on #calculus but no one answered
you can use the bernstein theorem
show AlessthanorequalB and BlessthanorequalA
then AtildaB
If you show A injective to B and vise versa you get A ~ B. so the .99... issue doesn't matter
But there's an exercise which serves as a proof sketch
I think you only lose onto but not injectivity (I did a similar problem in real anal)
I did this question a bit back in set theory
Anyways
My original question was about the last one
How do you approach such a problem?
try and list Q st the diag is zeros? then the diag would be rational
not sure if Q grows "too fast" for you to do that though
There are rational which don't have any 0 on them
ah right
So you won't be listing all rationals like that
then try to get a repeating decimal like x/9 somehow? intuitively it should be possible
but maybe it isn't
maybe base 2 is easier then bsse 10
Both of these are things I thought about
idk then, mb look for a contradiction. I gtg
i think this works: ||We claim that the answer is no. Assume to the contrary, that the diagonal element is rational. Note that incrementing the digits of a rational (the increment of 9 is 0 in this case) still yields a rational. Now incrementing this diagonal element yields us a rational which is not on our list (by similar logic as in the standard diagonalization argument), which is a contradiction with the fact that our list contains every rational||
I don't want an answer, sry
if you want a hint ||consider using the diagonalization argument||
I feel like you can solve this
Good morning!
@wispy dune I think you can solve it. ||Take a bijection x_n of N with the rationals in [0,1]. Then consider the specific bijection of N with N^2 where you do the zigzag. Then the diagonal elements are a specific fixed subsequence n_i, so just swap x_n_k in order with the numbers 0.1,0.11,0.111,… this gives you a way to list all of the rationals such that the diagonal elements are 0.1,0.11,0.111,…||
Classic zigzag thingy
what is x_n
an enumeration of the rationals?
Right
Or maybe I misinterpreted what the problem meant tbh
Idk wtf “the diagonal” meant
Maybe you don’t even need to list them in this 2-dimensional way lol
Actually
I re-read the problem and think I understand what it actually is asking
And I no longer think it’s possible

Whoops
Yes
What if you do 1-it
Do you get a different rational from everything on the list
Idk
I think this is the idea or something
Lots of edge cases
Pappa’s solution was to add 1 to every digit
I mean
You don’t even need that
You make 9 roll over to a 0
Without carrying a 1

So if you can represent any number as an infinite sequence you can just add 1 to each thing
not really? it can probably mean terminating or non terminating repeating
and 9 goes to 0? that thing?
Or maybe there is an issue idk
I'm seeing this 4th time today
same
why wasn't it "as" from the beginning?
that’s what i said before
why aren't you "as" smart as me???
Merry Christmas!
https://youtu.be/3K9HSCtTXHE
Math Special ~ Merry Christmas 2021
This is the 5th time I've seen this today
Here is the next chapter in my Instagram adventure.
Enjoy.
P.S.: If you use Instagram please drop by the Mathologer testing ground at https://www.instagram.com/the_real_mathologer/. Also if you like the proof in this video, definitely check out this Mathologer video https://youtu.be/p-0SOWbzUYI were I showed this proof for the first time.
Thats actually really good!
Guys wish RYC a happy birthday!
Happhtithdy dryc
Happy Birthday @ryc
Happy Birthday Ryc ! 

happy bday rychalkboard
happy ryc day
is it really ur bday? 
My birthday's tomorrow 🥳


Bappy hday ryc
Ok then
Happy bday ryc!

happy n-th $\mid$ $n \equiv 0.99726027397$ (mod 1) birthday!
just sаm
explain what does this mean? 
i kinda get it but also dont, really dont understand mod notation 




HCF? Highest common factor?
That’s the first time I’ve seen HCF used lol
Hello. What do you think is the best approach to solve such a task:
You need to invent some integral equivalent of sum of some function.
In other words you need somehow map discrete space to continuous one. I know that gamma function doing something familiar, but not exactly what I need to do.
I just need a hint in which direction to move. This is not kinda math "help to solve" question so I asked it here instead of help
or do I need to ask it in advance chat...
So you need the integral and the sum to produce equal results when given equal inputs?
I see
And it must work for any function(in theory)
Now I'm lost again
I am managed to make it work for several polynomials but it is not following some pattern that I could detect
So you're trying to invent some new type of integral, rather than look for some function where this holds
kinda
Not new exactly. Just some modification that will do the trick
I get it
@honest veldt
I am managed to get the same results again with x^2 function. Still it is not working with all functions, but maybe this will help you.
What I found so far:
are you trying to get integral representations of sums?
I found this paradox very interesting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj3_KqkI9Zo
Sign up for our newsletter and never miss an animation: http://bit.ly/TEDEdNewsletter
View full lesson: http://ed.ted.com/lessons/the-infinite-hotel-paradox-jeff-dekofsky
Want more? Try to solve the buried treasure riddle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCeklW2e6_E
The Infinite Hotel, a thought experiment created by German mathematician Davi...
the lesson is
dont play with infinity
Ah yes, the TED-ed version of Hilbert’s Hotel, idk why they put paradox next to it
maybe to get more views bc paradoxes are whimsical
"paradox" as in the fact you can have both infinitely many rooms full yet still put more people in a room
since paradoxes are just "seemingly absurd statements that end up being true upon further inspection"
well, if i had all the even rooms full, i would have infinitely many rooms full but i could put someone in room 1
❓
Nah
The worst "math paradox" is anything anyone tries to justify with Godel's stuff
does anyone know how to makee the DI tabel in latex?
The what?
DI table when u integrat by parts
something lik this
This makes life easier lol
ok
🤨
Godel's stuff is perfectly fine
yep ill have a look
Veritasium's video was fine
Pop math stuff
Except his lies about Kronecker
That's completely different than "Godel's stuff"
About how "Math will never be right" or some other shit I see
Right but people try to justify those "paradox's" with that video
Derek presented the history of it
Veritasium's video is fine
The highly redacted history
People watching it draw the wrong conclusions
And that's the part that's annoying
I've had people tell me "why do u study math when this is a thing"
His video is fine I should have worded it better
Hello,
I dont know if this is the right place to post this, but it is math related.
This is a question over Fractal Brownian Motion
I'm askingg specifically about section 2 of this post
It asks about how to reverse the effects of large amounts of Octaves, that is, the flattening that comes from it.
If anybody knows anything about how to solve this issue, I would be very thankful.
imo veritasium kinda screwed up something
Isn't he a physics major. He just thinks like a physicist
You know who else has a gaping hole?
Yes. This is what I am trying to do.
Integral itself is a sum, but continues one, and it somehow follows how discrete sum works. If you try to apply integral and discrete sum to the same function you may see they kinda follow each other, and with some manipulations you can force integral to give same exact values as discrete sum do. So I trying to figure out some generalisation of this.
Here is an example of fine tuning that works for x^2
You may see what I found out so far
You are my saviour
that's a shame that I am still very bad at complex numbers
thanks
and this is really bad that desmos does not support complex numbers, nor 3d dimension drawing
I think I need to find a new tool for math visualisation
it's time to learn geogebra
Let a, b positive real numbers. Given a rectangle with sides a and b, is there a way to fill it only by using squares not necessarily of the same size?
my guess is yes if they're algebraic, no if they're not
and I suppose if they are both transcendental but can have it scaled out to be algebraic as a kind of corner case where the transcendental one technically has a solution
idk lol
Finitely many squares?
Yes
I suspect 1xsqrt(2) can't be covered by squares
More generally 1xa for a irrational cannot
you can kind of do a euclidean algorithm type reduction to look at equivalence classes of rectangles, for instance if you have a 5x13 rectangle you could make two 5x5 squares and cut them out to get a 5x3 rectangle. Generally speaking we could write the sides as a tuple (a,b) ~ (a,b-na) when b>na for positive integer n
additionally you have scaling (a,b) ~ (1, b/a)
but we don't have to cut a rectangle up into squares necessarily in this kind of way
but there might be a way to show that this is sufficient and other ways of cutting down rectangles doesn't matter
like suppose you have a rectangle cut into squares of varying sizes, then you can cut down the squares into a finer mesh of squares where they are all equal size, then on this grid recut it into the algorithm I describe, something like that

Filling a rectangle with sides a and b using the greedy algorithm is basically performing the Euclidean algorithms on the pair (a,b) to get the gcd
The greedy algorithm is choosing the largest square that will fit in the rectangle
And if there's an ambiguity, always choose the square with the largest area that is most bottom and most left
The Euclidean algorithm/ greedy algorithm terminates in finitwly many steps when the side lengths are commensurable, that is the side lengths have ratio a/b which is rational
As Merosity said, if you have any partition of a rectangle into finitely many squares then you can get a finer partition consisting of equally sized squares, which shows that any such rectangle has side lengths which are commensurable
Partitioning a rectangle into squares is very much related to approximating real number by rationals
And continued fraction expansion
I didn't actually say that
I only suggested it might be true
I don't have a proof for that
Now that I'm thinking about it, I don't know if it's true
yeah, when cutting up a rectangle with irrational side lengths, it's possible that the squares you put with irrational side lengths to fill it up might end up not having some finer mesh of all smaller squares, the same problem with the gcd not terminating
Hey there. I sort of made up a problem for myself... here it is.
The computer makes up a natural number (with no limitations on its value). You can ask it about some number - and the computer will tell you if it's greater than its number, less, or equal
How fast can you get to the number made up by the computer?
~log_2N steps I would guess
I was trying to formalize "fast", and my best attempt so far is
Algorithm A is faster than algorithm B if for the worst case the function describing the growth of the number of iterations for A is at some point always lower than that of B
Yeah, that's my best result so far too
Algorithm speed is using formalized with big O notation
And constants on the leading order terms if you're being fancy
There are faster ways to get the upper bound - e. g. by using towers or by squaring - but searching within lower/upper would still be log
That won't work in this case I'm afraid
Is big O not basically what you were already headed towards when you said this?
(Sans multiplicative constant or whatever)
That's exactly how we compare algorithms in computer science ! With big O as said above
But yeah you need some constants usually
You probably would have wound up at big O after a while lol.
The thing is, it's infinite thing
Big O is described for finite cases
Now the "average" of naturals is not a finite number
For any finite number the prob that a random number is greater than that is 1
So Big O would be simply infinity
Well, your computer has a finite amount of memory so you have to bound your random number
That's why I was trying to formalize
It doesn't
What do you mean by "finite/infinite things" here?
It doesn't matter that the numbers can be large
We're considering how the number of steps grows as the number grows
The computer can make up any natural number and it's key in this problem
interesting thing to consider is there's no uniform probability distribution you can put on the natural numbers
and so your algorithm will depend on this choice
Why would that matter?
Can't you compute big O of any function T from N to R?
the best strategy is to chop it so that you get the most information content
for the probability distribution there's a number that you can look at which is at the halfway point
Well, if your random number is N you can find an algorithm which find the number in O(log N) steps, so we could quantify a solution to the problem with this
In algorithm analysis we always think like this, quantify the number of steps depending of the size of the entry, and the entry can be as big as we want
Actually maybe you folks are right...
I'm just not sure if Big O can cover this thing fully
I don't think big O is appropriate for this because this hypothetical computer has infinite memory
Well I don't know. I'm just asking because I don't fully understand your problem and it sounds interesting lol.
but instead of doing binary search on numbers, you're doing binary search based on the sets which split the probabilities
Yes, but he choose a finite number
Like for example?
So we need to analyse how we find the number according to the size of the number
for instance, there's a 51% chance the number is less than 192932 and a 49% the number is greater than or equal to 192932
There's no middle point though
you get approximately one bit of information asking this
there is
because of what I said earlier
there's no uniform probability distribution on the naturals
so you must be picking from a non uniform distribution
The amount of steps for the given number n will at least always be bounded above by f(x)=x right?
this has a median
at a finite number
And actually distribution won't help you
We aren't talking about average case, but about worst one
Since you can simply ask whether the number is greater or less than 0 and iterate one at a time in whichever direction til you reach it?
For average case I agree you'd need to know how the computer makes up that number - but we don't know its rules, and our algorithm should be optimal for the worst case
Depends of conventions ^^ you can look at how fast your algorithm is according to the value of the number, how the size of the number when we see it as a string of bits (so yeah it's just taking the log)
Well, that's the baseline
I see 
Do it over NU{omega} and do a "normal" binary search that way 
Finding a and 2a such that a < x < 2a and then do bin search between a and 2a would be the second "baseline"
That's O(N)
We can do O(log N) by comparing with 2^k as k grows, and then find it in [2^k, 2^{k+1}] by dividing by 2 the size of the intervals at each step
You get 2.O(log N)=O(log N) !
Interesting 
That's exactly what I described in my previous message 😉
^
I wonder if there's a better algorithm
Are you sure that's the same to look at 2k vs 2^k ?
Or how we can prove that there's no
a = 2^k
2a = 2^(k + 1)
Maybe I wasn't 100% clear, my bad then
You might also want to ask in the CS server linked in network if you don't get a satisfactory answer here
Oh ok, I thought a was a fixed number 😛
Can you do roughly the same trick with a faster growing function than b^x? For ex can you also do the same trick using k!?
That's what I was thinking of
You can use faster growing functions to find the upper bound
However then the search between the lower and upper bound becomes harder?
Maybe you can have a lower bound by looking at the best algorithm for searching in a fixed interval (once you have an upper bound for your number)
Yeah it's harder but maybe it's not a problem if you have a really efficient algorithm for searching
I think that searching in a fixed interval can't be faster than log2
So if an algo uses lower - upper bound search, then we can probably easily prove that log2 is the answer.
But what if it does not?
or am I actually wrong about my assumption?
Yeah we could imagine an other algorithm which doesn't use bounding the number then searching, then I have no clue
Yeah, same XD
Alright... thanks for the convo, it's after midnight for me already... guess time to sleep
Like picking random numbers or something
Good night !
Still thinking about a rectangle whose ratio of side lengths is not rational but can be tiled by squares
Does such a rectangle exist?
I'd think no..?
Proof?
Cause you'd require one of the side lengths to be irrational
Why?
How else do you get a/b to be irrational?
Okay , but then why can't it be tiled by square s?
Example?
so if I take a rectangle 1 by sqrt(2), I make squares with side lengths of each decimal place of sqrt(2) then just fill in the rest with those squares I'd think?
finitely many squares
Oh
maybe we can work backwards, start by arbitrarily putting squares together and show that the resulting rectangle has width/length always rational
Yes I forgot to mention the finitely many tiles part
might be doable by an induction argument
Finite sum of rationals is rational
that's not a false statement
Why is this hard? I've been thinking about this for hours 
lol they joys of math
almost like Q is closed 

this statement makes me uncomfortable
not enough info to answer what 8-4 is
I gave u one
This
stop spewing nonsense
show that there is an algorithm that tells you whether a polyonomial in any finite number of variables with rational coefficients has a rational solution, or show that no such algorithm exists
this sounds like the rational root theorem
that's for 1 variable
this is hilberts 10th problem for Q

grad school or advanced undergrad usually
Rational root test works for all polynomials of 1 variable regardless of degree
Thats nice
anyway I was just trolling you with an open problem

I need to assign grades to my students today but a lot of them are actually going to fail
liquid is a teacher?
yeah I teach
lol
I taught 2 college classes, college algebra and basic probability and stats
I used to have trouble with remembering how the rational root test went until I learned newton polygons lol
ok i’ve seen that a few times, what in the world is college algebra
but then I came up with a stupider trick that I should have learned a long time ago after that
its algebra for college students
just look at ax+b=0 and see that x=-b/a so you just think "oh yeah leading coeff divisors in denom, etc etc)
they all joined at the same time. its a raid
i was a bit suspicious of that at first
but nothing seemed wrong so i ignored it
it was quite weird that 3 new people came in chat all at the same time
lol
college algebra is like algebra 2 / precalc

idk
If you take the multiplicative inverse of sqrt2 and double it, you get sqrt2 back again
Sqrt2 is a fixed point of x\mapsto 2/x
here's an approach I'm thinking about, but is sort of only looking at a special case when all the real numbers that appear are algebraic.
take all the squares that appear and index them by their side lengths, then wlog we can say the width of the rectangle is 1 and the height is some real number r
the sides are $s_i$ and now take two straight lines horizontal and vertical, then it cuts thorugh some squares of some side length some number of times, that gets us two equations
Merosity
the $f_i$ and $g_i$ are non negative integers $$1=\sum_{i=1}^n f_i s_i$$ $$r = \sum_{i=1}^n g_i s_i$$
Merosity
now we look at some automorphism of Q(r) that doesn't fix r and apply it
$$1=\sum_{i=1}^n f_i \sigma(s_i)$$ $$\sigma(r)=\sum_{i=1}^n g_i \sigma(s_i)$$
Merosity
that's as far as I've gotten, seems like it'd be possible to break something this way, maybe take more lines and build up multiple more equations and looka t more automorphisms simultaneously to help that
I'm imagining a horizontal line sweeping up across the rectangle
This gives you a sequence of partitions of the width of the rectangle
Where the parts are coming from the multiset of sidelengths of squares
yeah exactly, those are the equations I'm referring to
might help to think of it as a matrix equation like $$F \begin{bmatrix}s_1 \ s_2 \ \vdots \ s_n \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}r \r \ \vdots \r \ 1 \ 1 \\vdots \ 1 \end{bmatrix} $$
Merosity
s_i being all the distinct side lengths that can occur, then the F is the matrix of non negative integers of their frequencies that add up to either the real number r or 1
because wlog we can pick one side to be 1 by scaling
maybe some kind of matrix rank argument can be made idk
Or u can allow the s_i's to repeat and have F be a {0,1} matrix
you could, but I feel like that would be too isolating
I don't know, whatever works
in particular if we take F and augment with the vector of rs and 1s and do row operations, we still have rational number coefficients, which seems nice
One thing to notice is that if you count the s_i's with multiplicity then the n-tuple (s_i) is a point on the n-sphere of radius r
hmm interesting, I guess the weird thing is n is not a constant now
or I guess it can be a constant you just have lots of 0 components
wait wait no that doesn't quite work
cause even though the lengths match up, the areas won't match up
wait I think I misunderstood but I understand now
you want $s_1^2+...+s_n^2 = r*1$ so it's radius $\sqrt{r}$ though
Merosity
Oh right
if we glue the ends together to make it a torus, does the problem get easier?
suppose a rectangle is tilable iff a torus is with squares, does that open up some kind of elliptic curve memery lmao
modularity theorem => ??? => you can tile ur square 😎

okay I'm giving out 9 F's for my basic probability and stats class
can we get an F in the chat
lol did they deserve it though
I mean from the pov of not doing work yeah
good enough for me lol
I thought I was gonna fail complex analysis and then got a B
9 out of how many students?
@static loom if the greedy algorithm terminates in finitely many steps, is it true that the side lengths are commensurable ?
Yes I think this is true
yeah pretty sure because the steps are the euclidean algorithm, so you're computing the gcd
in particular if we start with one side as a rational number, then we're getting a bunch of equations that relate things together through more integers and rational numbers with a finite number of operations
kinda like I wrote earlier if we use (a,b) to be a symbol that is 1 if there is a solution and -1 if there is no solution, then we have a handful of properties like (a,b)=(b,a), (a,b)=(1,b/a), and especially: (a,b)=(a,b-na) for integer n such that b>=an which is part of our algorithm that should boil down in finitely many steps
finitely many steps means eventually we end up with (1,1) (up to scaling) for a square
so we can walk back up the finitely many subtractions we did to show a,b are also rational multiples of some real number, kind of like we do usually with the euclidean algorithm when getting solutions to bezout's eqn
👍
Question, is it true that as the collatz conjecture starting numbers get larger, generally speaking (not strictly, but generally), the sequence steps to hit 4, 2, 1 also increase?
I've done a bit of playing on a calculator and while there are many exceptions, it seems fairly true.
I think it must but not in a meaningful way
I mean, it's trivial to find a starting point of arbitrary length n to reach the 4,2,1 part in a Collatz conjecture sequence.
and also there is no general trend
Just do 2^n and you get n steps
I don't know if that quite answers your question, but at least to an extent, it's really just "when numbers are bigger you need to divide by 2 more to get to 4", or if you want something fancier-sounding, the logarithm is an increasing function.
If the number of steps required tended to require significantly more than k*log(n) steps to reach 4,2,1 for appropriate choice of constant k that would be notable, but I've never heard about anything like that.
That said I don't even know how you would define that rigorously, the collatz algorithm behaves very chaotically.
^
@static loom i googled the rectangle problem. Don't click if you don't want to read a solution:
||https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1010070/partition-rectangle-into-finite-number-of-squares||
That's a nice proof
fancy
Tbh this problem did make me think of the Dehn invariant talk I went to a while ago
merosity left the server??
He keeps doing that.
He's a mere curiosity
Mhm?
what's his monero address?
whyare you asking me
bc it was in his status and i forgot it and (i think you can still see his status)
not my issue
Featuring Dr James Grime.
More links & stuff in full description below ↓↓↓
Extra footage from this interview: https://youtu.be/I0peG_kRE-4
Blog post about the old photo: http://www.bradyharanblog.com/blog/the-squared-square
Check out http://www.squaring.net for loads of great info.
Objectivity: https://www.youtube.com/c/ObjectivityVideos
Jam...
Its really interesting to me that this simple condition of being tilable by squares forces rationality
I wonder if similar rationality results hold in higher dimensions
Like say you have a rectangular prism. And suppose you are able to partition the prism into finitely many cubes. Can you conclude a rationality result, such as tha ratio of the sidelengths of the prism are rational
LolDongs if you missed it, yesterday we were talking about rectangles being partitioned into finitely many squares
And how that forces the ratio of the sidelengths of the rectangle to be rational
Oh really?
That's weird I wouldnt just immediately think something like that is true
Or I guess it makes sense now that I think about it actually
Yeah because they are squares it actually makes sense
thank god my calc final was curved 
I barely knew how to apply uniform convergence LMFAO

what was the slope of that curve?
No idea o.O it was based on how well you did relative to the class
based on your standard deviation or w/e
is it true that a monotonically increasing function and a monotonically decreasing function intersect at most once 🤔
I have a question. Say you are given a partition of a rectangle into finitely many squares. We know that the side lengths of the rectangle must have ratio which is a rational number. Can we conclude that the sidelengths of each of the squares are commensurable with the side lengths of the rectangle?
Yes, if they are strictly monotone. To see it, note that if f is increasing and g is decreasing, then f-g is increasing, so it can't be zero at more than one point.
If you don't mean strictly monotone, then f=g=0 is a simple counterexample.
is it true that when combining ceil and floor function symbols you get the rounding symbol
?
TilingBySquares.pdf
The above pdf has a proof of this
Now we've learned that given any tiling of a rectangle by finitley many squares, we can always scale the whole configuration such that all the side length of every square is a natural number.

Fuck you guys
?
You too 🥰
xDDDD
rude
my feelings are hurt

hi doot
Hello quantum
I have found it!
@bright hill you remember how you somehow found that one anime yesterday right
Yeah?
Yeah, that's from One Piece
oh I was right??
No way
don’t know
mosh mean
It's nothing
huh
What?
I just used Google and searched by image
oh lol
And between the alternative images it gives you look for any keywords
weebs 
the irony
when you respond to someone almost instantly but they don’t respond to you at all 
hi
anybody know merosity's monero address?
new member. First some hours already saying "fuck you".
🤔I cant tell if its someone who was banned previously here, but why not only allowing phone verified users.
omg quantum has new avatar.

once again i instantly respond 
i was reading a book 
Do y’all see any reason why a MVC class would be a prerequisite for single variable real analysis
Because I’ve given up on self studying
Oh class?
I am so bad at it
i dont see any apparent reason


The standard MVC here is pretty dogshit to be honest
Like it’s just a typical sophomore plug chug calc class

The “advanced” one is a lot more interesting and abstract, a lot deeper connection to linear algebra
ah so like plugging given stuff into formulae and all that?
And I want to take it
Well like
You took a standard gened calc 1, 2 class right
It’s just like that but multivariable
Idk how else to describe it
Understood
Yeah exactly
So this one’s a lot more interesting
And I want to take it this summer
But the thing is it’s a prereq for the single variable real analysis 1 class

but I’m so excited for that and I don’t want to wait till next fucking fall to take it
weird
that doesnt seem to make much sense
do they use apostol?
It’s a weedout class I guess
The analysis class does not
It uses some random text I’ve never heard of

But idrc I have people here to explain and I am good at learning on my own
Just not good at discipline
coz like, apostol does do both single and multi variable analysis
a little less of the latter, but yeah
The follow up class Analysis 2 does multivariable analysis
😌
And with an intro to Fourier series and some other cool stuff
I see 
noice!
Also covers basic stuff on measures which also interests me but I don’t think we get to any Lebesgue integration
Anyways irrelevant
My question was
if I like just emailed one of the two profs for it
and asked why
would they mind
or ask why and say would u waive it for me or let me do it as a corequisite this summer
so I can take both at once
That probably depends on who the profs are/what they are like
I know one of them, I had him for my intro analysis class and he was chill
He’s like a 30-40 year old Indian teenager fuckboy
but in an adult’s body
He looks like a surfer

He’s cool
amazing description lmao
The other professor is his best friend and all I know about her is she’s Russian
They teach like half of the upper division undergrad math classes
💀
so yeah try asking him ig,
most probably wont mind
Damn
Yuhhh if I remember maybe I’ll shoot my shot
But uh we’re in winter break now so they probably won’t respond for a while yeah?
sadge
yeah
profs probably would like to chill
sure
lmaoo



Finally!
I found the answer to 0.6.9
And it only took 5 days

Me too.
obviously i do the exercises
i’m just saying i probably wouldn’t spend a week on a single problem
Now I know why I suck at Mathematics.
Ofc
I just have 2 or 3 that I juggle around until I solve them
if you only read how to do something but never use it, the chances of you remembering it are 0
It would be the biggest achievement in life if I spent that much time in a prolem.
I am scared.
