[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
/sci/ - Science & Math

Name a better trio.

I'll wait.
>>
File: Screenshot_6.png (8 KB, 611x90)
8 KB PNG
I am you but stronger
>>
>he thinks these are three different operations
>>
>>9412252

>trivial babytier physishit applications

Here come's a real trio actually worth something, try not to shit your pants.

>Banach–Steinhaus theorem
>Banach–Schauder theorem
>Hahn–Banach theorem
>>
>>9412252
d, d and d.
>>
>>9412298
You forgot the most important part
$\star$
>>
>>9412302
No. Fuck off with your Hodge star operator.
>>
>>9412305
Don't you want to construct an inverse to your exterior derivative, anon?
>>
>>9412292
>look at me im so smart!
>>
>>9412323

Yeah, brainlets can't into baby tier functional analysis. Knowing undergrad math will certainly make me look smarter than people posting HS math!
>>
Z
F
C
>>
>>9412252
The Analytic, Arithmetic, and Topological applications of Elliptic Curves.
>>
>>9412292
>try not to shit your pants
>elementary functional analysis
cringe
>>
>>9412352
that's a duo tho
>>
>>9412318
>inverse
You mean dual?
>>
>>9412274
BORN TO SR
THE WORLD IS A R4
LORENTZ TRANSFORM THEM ALL 1905
I am 4-vector man
410,757,864,530 FRAMES OF REFERENCE
>>
>>9412379
well, "inverse" in big quotes.
The codifferential.
>>
sine, cosine, tangent
send my prize money in the mail
>>
Why are there no good vector calc books?
>>
>>9412423
"Div, Grad, Curl and All That" by H.m. Schey. Short, concise, understandable, highly useful, and in general very well written.
>>
>>9412428
I want it rigorous god dammit.
>>
>>9412423
>>9412430
Spivak Calculus On Manifolds
>>
>>9412372
AC is independent from ZF
>>
>>9412457
ZF, AC -> two things, i.e. a duo
>>
I am OP, and i dont understand that shit at all. but they look and sound cool.

gimmie like a month and i will understand it tho
>>
>>9412252
If you're wondering as to why
>>9412277
>>9412298
are calling these operators the same is that they basically all converge when looking at differential forms, namely one has
[eqn]\matrix{ \Omega^0 & \stackrel{d}{\longrightarrow} & \Omega^1 & \stackrel{d}{\longrightarrow} & \Omega^2 & \stackrel{d}{\longrightarrow} & \Omega^3 \cr
\uparrow & & \uparrow & & \uparrow & & \uparrow \cr
\Omega^0 & \stackrel{\mathrm{grad}}{\longrightarrow} & \mathcal{X} & \stackrel{\mathrm{curl}}{\longrightarrow} & \mathcal{X} & \stackrel{\mathrm{div}}{\longrightarrow} & \Omega^0 \cr}[/eqn]
This math stacks answer goes into more details
https://mathoverflow.net/questions/10574/how-do-i-make-the-conceptual-transition-from-multivariable-calculus-to-different?noredirect=1&lq=1
>>
File: 1514177756593.png (123 KB, 785x757)
123 KB PNG
>>9412292
>Hahn–Banach theorem
Made me literally shit my pants desu
The Hahn Banach theorem is why I gave up math
>>
>>9412380
You don't know Graham then. He's ma boi!
>>
>>9412423

"Calculus, vol II" by Tom Apostol gives the best introductory approach.

Beyond that you want something on manifolds
>>
>>9412454

>"Calculus on Manifolds"
>Only defines "manifold" in the last chapter
>>
File: Kurt_gödel.jpg (22 KB, 212x270)
22 KB JPG
>>9412252
>Completeness
>Consistency
>Effective Axiomatization

You can't argue this.
>>
>>9413124
The protocol defines the rules syntax, semantics and synchronization of communication and possible error recovery methods.

#Acceptable values
# 1 = 1 = This usually means "I am already here/there/X" = This is the same as binary 1
# 2 = Even = This means "I am aware I am not one, but I believe it is achievable to get there from here" = This is the same as binary 0
# 3 = Prime = This means that you defer your preference for this field = This is the same as boolean "True"
# ? = Unknown = This means the value is undefined/abstained/withheld = This is the same as boolean "False"

#Eval Special Case Modification Code
##When EP/PP match, then PP counts as +1 towards grand total P
###Also calculates the grand total, was more performant to include it in this loop.

#Positional-Priority is the position that will be respected, to the exclusion of all others
#Evaluation-Priority is where computation of the problem space is locatable
#Position Priority > Evaluational Priority < Mass/Largest Priority

#Priority != None if Ident = None
#Ident != None if Priority = None
#Eval can always equal None

#If Only(Priority, Identity/Resolution):
# Translate_Problem_Space(The_Problem)
>>
What the difference between a derivative and a differential
>>
>>9413203
kek
>>
>>9413213
derivative is a rate, and a differential ain't
>>
>>9413213
You can't wash your hands in a derivative
>>
>>9413213
A differential is something which sets one apart.

A derivative is merely an uninspired replication.
>>
>>9413094
OP here again. Can someone explain what this theorem means in layman terms
>>
>>9413109
It doesn't even define a full manifold, it defines submanifolds of R^n.
>>
>>9413695
so it defines all manifolds...
>>
>>9413700
Manifolds are object independent of an ambient space.
>>
>>9413708
all manifolds are submanifolds of R^n (up to isomorphism obviously)
>>
>>9413715
>all n dimensional vector spaces are R^n !
Yes, but it's important ti show you can define these objects independent if that to discoverr intrinsix properties and shit.
>>
>>9413738
all ("intrinsic") properties are independent of isomorphism
>>
$(X,\mathcal{F},\mu)$
>>
>>9413906
good looks
>>
>>9413906
Measure space? Why us F for sigma algebra¿
>>
>>9412252
Can someone explain me what operators are? I'm a brainlett
>>
>>9413972
"operator" is a brainlet name for a function in a space that isn't super simple
>>
>>9413974
nigga what
>>
>>9413715
By means of a nontrivial theorem.
>>
>>9414024
how fucking enlightening, thank you very much for this very useful post that no one thought about
>>
>>9414029
Manifolds and submanifolds of R^n are not a priori the same thing. To teach them as such is wrong.
>>
>>9414033
elaborate
>>
>>9414041
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_embedding_theorem
>>
>>9414045
see >>9414029 and fuck off if you don't have anything to say
>>
>>9414041
Nigger manifolds can be defined with topological spaces and homeomorphisms to R^n but the object itself is just some topological space with the appropriate separation axioms.
>>
>>9414049
see >>9414047

the only nontrivial claim is
>To teach them as such is wrong
>>
>>9414050
If you really think defining all manifolds as submanifolds of R^n, you have clearly never done any serious geometry or topology.

Or even in physics its a bad idea, because spacetime is modeled on a 4-manifold. So assuming it is embedded in a higher euclidean space implies things that are physically unrealistic.
>>
>>9414079
>youre dum if you don't agree
>physically unrealistic
wow, and here I was thinking that you had actual reasons
>>
>>9413952
yes, used F since forever and it just stuck
>>
>>9412252
Laura B
Valensiya
Hanna F

Delete Post: [File Only] Style: