/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13673161

661KiB, 1200x1200, 1200px-3-adic_integers_with_dual_colorings.svg.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

/mg/ - mathematics general

Anonymous Thu 23 Sep 07:33:39 2021 No.13673161 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13694537

"Wtf are p-adics" edition.

Talk about mathematics, last thread was >>13651792

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Sep 2021 19:05:31 No.13693804 Report

Quoted By:

I found an operator that is taunting me:
$L_m = x^m\cdot \frac{d^m}{dx^m}$
Do with it what you will

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Sep 2021 19:13:03 No.13693826 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Sep 2021 19:16:21 No.13693837 Report

Quoted By:

$f \in L^1(\mathbb{R})$ s.t $f(x) \not \to 0$ as $n\to \infty$

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Sep 2021 19:17:25 No.13693841 Report

Quoted By:

$f \in L^1(\mathbb{R})[\math] s.t <script type="math/tex">f(x) \not \to 0[\math] as <script type="math/tex">n\to \infty[\math]$

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Sep 2021 19:21:41 No.13693852 Report

Quoted By: >>13694071 >>13694078 >>13694354

Brainlet here (clearly), need help finding a function $$f \in L^1(\mathbb{R})$$ s.t $$f(x) \not \to 0$$ as $$n\to \infty$$

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Sep 2021 20:26:19 No.13694039 Report

Quoted By: >>13694185

>>13693036
super brainlet here. by a restriction do you mean like a rule? Im not quite following.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Sep 2021 20:35:32 No.13694071 Report

Quoted By: >>13694112

>>13693852
dumbass learn to latex properly. Take the piecewise defined function $f_n(x) = 0 for x < 0, nx for x= something$ and then connect it to some function that goes to 0 sufficiently quick (like 1/x) for some value $x > 0$ . Each one of these function is in $L^1(\mathbb{R})$ . As n goes to infinity, the nx should approach infinity so you should get something that looks like 1/x which is not integrable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Sep 2021 20:37:09 No.13694078 Report

Quoted By: >>13694136

>>13693852
Say f(x) = 1/x^2 everywhere but on the integers, and x on any integer (or constant, or whatever that does not decrease to 0). Its integral on R is the same as the integral of 1/x^2 (which is L1) because the integers have zero measure. However, You can however see that there is always a point where f(x) is larger than any epsilon < 1, so its limit is not 0. Does that work?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Sep 2021 20:49:52 No.13694112 Report

Quoted By:

>>13694071
>dumbass learn to latex properly
oh the irony

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Sep 2021 20:58:10 No.13694136 Report

Quoted By:

>>13694078
Though I add that if your definition of L1 already take into account the "equal almost everywhere" equivalence, then the example I gave is void as the f is then equivalent to 1/x^2. In this case, the classical example is a piecewise "triangle" or "hat" function, where the area under your selected shape behave as c/n^2.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Sep 2021 21:16:33 No.13694185 Report

Quoted By:

>>13694039
pretty much
so you might be talking about commutative groups, then loosening it to groups in general
or talking about multiples of 4, then allowing multiples of 2 and seeing what happens, if you come to a slightly different conclusion

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 5eb8a15cb5dda387f433e04cd064ef402.jpg, 223KiB, 1191x1684

Anonymous Tue 28 Sep 2021 22:03:06 No.13694354 Report

Quoted By:

>>13693852
Define $S = \{ x \in \mathbb{R} : n \leq x \leq n + 1/n^2 \ \text{for some} \ n \in \mathbb{N}\}$ and take its characteristic function.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Sep 2021 22:04:52 No.13694359 Report

Quoted By: >>13694385

Poe's Eureka contains Ruffini's Additional Axiom, 0-0=0.
I have proposed ago a correction in the direction of Teoria Generale delle Equazioni, as such: 0+0=0.
This correction de facto has subverted this: 0=0*0.
In other words, 0=0*0 -> 0+0=0.
Rumors are this uproots Galois' algebra.
0-0=0 I subvert then with (0+0)+0=0+0, which according to information external might uproot that of Lie.
This seems hardly efficient.
Blanket measure I assume is to put
0+ Disappears.
(0)=0.
Which substitutes 0+0=0 Unconditionally.
These two are more general synergetically than the two forementioned.
The first one allows ambiguous word. Ambiguity is the lack of symbolization at ready, de facto this ambiguity holds in regard to notation.
In other words, Statement One is not clear-cut, Statement Two is. Which is unethical to equate them that is.
Under which exact condition 0+ Disappears rests no more than particular of (0)=0 I am rather fond of.
0=0/1
This is a paraphrase of (0)=0, which creates the code table for than notational phrase transformation?
1=0/0
This is to be substituted immediately.
1+0=1.
Moreover still.
(1)=1.
The two have the common conceptual upstream.
(delta/)=delta/.
Nevermind.

N.B. For delta/ which is called Infinitedeclinator, as opposed to infinitesimal holds
delta/ ^ (1 - delta/) = delta/
delta/ ^ delta/ = 0
1 * delta/ = 0
Aforementioned holds independent.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Sep 2021 22:16:40 No.13694385 Report

Quoted By: >>13694613

>>13694359
P.S. delta/ ^ 1 = 0
Nevermind.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Sep 2021 23:23:23 No.13694537 Report

Quoted By: >>13694833

>>13673161
Why are prior distributions required in bayesian data analysis? The philosophical justifications I was given were fairly broad.

Also, what is your favorite distribution? For me, it's Poisson.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Sep 2021 23:26:56 No.13694548 Report

Quoted By: >>13696605

>>13673363
Completely objective and authoritative list of mathematical topics by how fun they are:
Numerical analysis and machine learning where you get to draw pretty graphs > Topology > Graph theory > Analysis broadly > Algebra broadly

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Sep 2021 23:50:41 No.13694613 Report

Quoted By:

>>13694385
P.P.S. delta/=0.
Note the spaces.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Sep 2021 01:24:01 No.13694833 Report

Quoted By: >>13695141

>>13694537
Because that's effectively the definition of Bayesian data analysis -- stemming from Bayes theorem, which is about prior probabilities. You can do data analysis without prior distributions, it just won't be Bayesian.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Sep 2021 03:44:18 No.13695141 Report

Quoted By:

>>13694833
What's the point of bayesian data analysis though? What tangible benefits does it give over regular analysis?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Sep 2021 03:58:35 No.13695168 Report

Quoted By: >>13695980

abstract algebra is gonna make me coom

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO image0-1178.png, 373KiB, 407x766

Anonymous Wed 29 Sep 2021 05:27:03 No.13695359 Report

Quoted By: >>13696228

>>13675632

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Sep 2021 07:32:12 No.13695571 Report

Quoted By: >>13696605

Math be all crystallic until ye zzzzzjjjsSHOW ME a puzzle of unknown dimention..

POST UR BEST PUZZLE ANONS OR ELSE u aint even mathematicool

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Sep 2021 09:05:34 No.13695705 Report

Quoted By:

reminder that the new edition of hubbard+hubbard is on libgen and is worth your time

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Sep 2021 10:41:44 No.13695923 Report

Quoted By: >>13696086

post math youtube channels.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Sep 2021 11:10:40 No.13695980 Report

Quoted By: >>13698092

>>13695168
What did you learn today anon?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Sep 2021 11:57:43 No.13696086 Report

Quoted By:

>>13695923
ihes channel

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Sep 2021 12:52:20 No.13696228 Report

Quoted By:

>>13695359
Unitary matrice diff eq.. rotate squares

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Sep 2021 14:48:27 No.13696605 Report

Quoted By: >>13697106 >>13697192 >>13698200

>>13694548
Jesus christ, do you hate yourself?

>>13695571
Consider a n-by-m grid of squares, each square having an arrow pointing left, right, up, or down, randomly assigned. You start from any square and keep following the arrows on the squares you are on.

Prove that you will eventually exit the grid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Sep 2021 17:01:47 No.13697106 Report

Quoted By: >>13697183

>>13696605
Assume n=<m
There are 4 options

I turn left.
I turn right.
I turn up.
I turn down.

Since all the squares are equidistant from me there's no order between turning left, right, up, and down. Assume I turn up.
Now, since there are n*m total squares, there must be some x such that x+n is a divisor of m.
Now since x+n is a divisor of m, I have m = (x+n)q, for some integer q.
Thus the number of squares to go through is: n*(x+n) = mq+n = m*n
Prove that this number is minimum. This is obvious. For any q, mq+n is a multiple of n.
Since there are n choices for the first x, and m choices for the last x there are n*m = n*(x+n) choices for the remaining n-x.
Therefore there are n*m total moves and all of them take me to some square. This implies the problem has a solution.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Sep 2021 17:06:18 No.13697126 Report

Quoted By: >>13697137

>>13690569
this is horrible advice. Don't learn the material *of* the lecture *before* the lecture. You should let the prof explain it to you, since P2P communication is always better than B2P. Besides, the good profs rarely follow the book so that you can just "look up" the next lecture in the book.

But what you *should* do is you should study *previous* lecture material so you have a really good grasp of it, because it's likely that the prof will build off of that in this lecture.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Sep 2021 17:10:00 No.13697137 Report

Quoted By: >>13697166 >>13697988

>>13697126
can *you* stop *typing* like *that*, *nigger*?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Sep 2021 17:14:20 No.13697166 Report

Quoted By:

>>13697137
</no>

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Sep 2021 17:18:03 No.13697183 Report

Quoted By: >>13697206

>>13697106
What the fuck are you even on about? You're not equidistant from all the squares. Divisors has nothing to do with it. You don't even have to assume n <= m.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Sep 2021 17:20:12 No.13697192 Report

Quoted By: >>13697252

Forgot to add >>13696605
Every time you leave a square, its direction is rotated 90 degrees to the left.

Otherwise the question is wrong, and you can have a loop, e.g. left, down, right, up.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Sep 2021 17:22:35 No.13697206 Report

Quoted By: >>13697252

>>13697183
You don't really get it do you?
Given n*m total squares there are 2*n + 1 choices for the first x. Then there are n choices for the second x. That adds up to 2*n + 1 + n = n*(2+1) = m.
Then there are 2n choices for the remaining n - x. That adds up to 2n + 1 + 2n - m = m*(2+1) = m.
Thus the solution.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Sep 2021 17:30:54 No.13697252 Report

Quoted By:

>>13697206
Read >>13697192

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Sep 2021 20:11:26 No.13697925 Report

Quoted By:

1 = 1
delta/ + 1 = 1
delta/ - 1 = -1
delta/ + delta/ = 0
delta/ - delta/ = 0

This set is called Mathematics.

Nevermind.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Sep 2021 20:33:45 No.13697988 Report

Quoted By:

>>13697137
you're clearly one of my section students, they always complain about my habit of putting emphasis on words that I would stress when speaking too.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1588905664786.png, 88KiB, 596x687

Anonymous Wed 29 Sep 2021 21:06:52 No.13698092 Report

Quoted By: >>13698121 >>13698169

>>13695980
We started quotient rings today. It's an asynchronous course but every week my face is pic related.

Where does abstract algebra lead?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Sep 2021 21:17:55 No.13698121 Report

Quoted By:

>>13698092
To the fun stuff.
Look into algebraic number theory. (Might need a bit of Galois theory, which isn't too interesting)

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO grothendieckdevil.jpg, 213KiB, 952x1168

Anonymous Wed 29 Sep 2021 21:35:02 No.13698169 Report

Quoted By: >>13698182 >>13699193

>>13698092
>Where does abstract algebra lead?
Either to enlightenment or to suffering and regret.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Sep 2021 21:44:39 No.13698182 Report

Quoted By:

>>13698169
I have that drawing as a sticker.
You can find it on Red Bubble.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Sep 2021 21:53:11 No.13698200 Report

Quoted By: >>13698217

>>13696605
What is wrong with the completely objective list of fun?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Sep 2021 21:59:58 No.13698217 Report

Quoted By:

>>13698200
Nothing, it's just in $C^{op}$ .

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 30 Sep 2021 03:06:46 No.13699193 Report

Quoted By: >>13700068

>>13698169
>here is something that makes calculating easy
>now lets abuse it so bad that we literally rip the intuition out of every other field of mathematics and denigrate every potential subfield to lines of letters with no true understanding behind it

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 30 Sep 2021 07:28:38 No.13699976 Report

Quoted By: >>13700085 >>13700123

P != NP solved
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2109.10670.pdf

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 30 Sep 2021 08:16:55 No.13700068 Report

Quoted By:

>>13699193

> I’m not here to win any popularity contests.
> Oh, you haven’t! You haven't!

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 30 Sep 2021 08:26:46 No.13700085 Report

Quoted By: >>13700118

>>13699976
>"the basic idea behind it all is rather simple"
Babe wake up, a new wrong proof dropped

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 30 Sep 2021 08:38:36 No.13700118 Report

Quoted By:

>>13700085
>t. coping floor machine

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 30 Sep 2021 08:40:27 No.13700123 Report

Quoted By:

>>13699976
>Although the specific formal
maneuvers of this proof are my own
original work, I owe a tremendous debt
of conceptual and inspirational
gratitude to Christopher Michael
Langan. I wish for this proof to be
seen as an instance of the metaformal
paradigm in action. And I urge readers
to study his Cognitive-Theoretic
Model of the Universe.
>I would also like to acknowledge
Alexandra Elbakyan’s Sci-Hub.
Without this tool of hers, this work
would have never made it to its
current form. Sci-Hub is an invaluable
tool for the “underdog,” and it must
not be silenced
b-based?

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches