Activity for The Amplitwist
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comment | Post #292644 |
The link to "Problem No. 81" seems to be broken, perhaps you could look into it. (more) |
— | 7 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292644 |
Related on MathOverflow: [Probability that a stick randomly broken in five places can form a tetrahedron](https://mathoverflow.net/q/142983) (more) |
— | 7 months ago |
| Edit | Post #291432 |
Post edited: removed extraneous []() introduced in the previous edit |
— | 9 months ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #291432 |
Suggested edit: removed extraneous []() introduced in the previous edit (more) |
helpful | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #291652 |
Interesting references. Thank you for the answer! (more) |
— | 11 months ago |
| Edit | Post #291372 |
Post edited: |
— | 11 months ago |
| Edit | Post #291503 | Initial revision | — | 11 months ago |
| Answer | — |
A: How do I unambiguously define the facial circuits in a $2$-cell embedding of a graph into a surface? This is answered in the paper Embedding graphs in surfaces90014-5) (P. Hoffman and B. Richter, J. Comb. Theory, Ser. B 36, 65–84 (1984; Zbl 0514.05028)). Quoting from the introduction: > There are certain foundational results in the overlap between graph theory and the topology of surfaces whose p... (more) |
— | 11 months ago |
| Edit | Post #291372 |
Post edited: |
— | 12 months ago |
| Edit | Post #291372 | Initial revision | — | 12 months ago |
| Answer | — |
A: What is an example of a pathological imbedding of a(n allowed) graph into an oriented surface? The pathological embeddings arise because an "allowed graph" is a very general object. The goal of the assumption TM1 is to restrict attention to precisely the kind of allowed graphs that are described in the question as being > slightly more general than an undirected pseudograph in that it allow... (more) |
— | 12 months ago |
| Comment | Post #291159 |
The [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_variables) article on "separation of variables" might be a good starting point to figure out an answer. (more) |
— | 12 months ago |
| Comment | Post #291317 |
Thank you for the answer! I'm still digesting the arguments, it's all a bit too quick for me. I may ping you for clarification in a few days, once I get some time. (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #291307 |
Post edited: added thoughts |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #291307 | Initial revision | — | about 1 year ago |
| Question | — |
How do I unambiguously define the facial circuits in a $2$-cell embedding of a graph into a surface? Suppose that $\Gamma$ is a connected, locally finite graph that is embedded into a closed, connected surface $M$. The faces of this embedding are the connected components of $M - \Gamma$ (we choose to denote the image of the embedding also by $\Gamma$). Let us assume that the embedding is such that... (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #291301 |
@#36356 Yes, the $0$-simplex has nonempty interior. Here is a more precise definition of $\overset{\circ}{\Delta}{}^n$ from Hatcher (page 103).
> If we delete one of the $n+1$ vertices of an $n$-simplex $[v_0,\dotsm,v_n]$, then the remaining $n$ vertices span an $(n-1)$-simplex, called a **face** of... (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #291301 | Initial revision | — | about 1 year ago |
| Question | — |
Is there a $\Delta$-complex structure on the sphere with less than three $0$-simplices? In Hatcher's Algebraic Topology, a $\Delta$-complex structure on a topological space $X$ is defined as follows. Here, $\Delta^n$ denotes the standard $n$-simplex in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$, and $\overset{\circ}{\Delta}{}^n$ denotes its interior. > A $\mathbf\Delta$-complex structure on a space $X$ is ... (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #291159 | Initial revision | — | about 1 year ago |
| Question | — |
Why does the method of separating variables work? One of the methods to solve a partial differential equation is to use separation of variables. For example, consider the heat equation: $$ ut - a^2 u{xx} = 0, \qquad 0 < x < L,\ 0 < t, $$ with the boundary conditions $$ u(0,t) = u(L,t) = 0, \qquad 0 < t, $$ and initial condition $$ u(x,0) ... (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #291056 |
Perhaps the "pathological imbeddings" can only be obtained by imbedding into two-dimensional locally Euclidean spaces that are not Hausdorff, or paracompact, or second-countable (or any similar nice properties). Cf. [Topological manifold - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_manifold... (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #291056 |
Post edited: clarified definition of free edge |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #291056 | Initial revision | — | about 1 year ago |
| Question | — |
What is an example of a pathological imbedding of a(n allowed) graph into an oriented surface? I am reading the following paper: G. A. Jones, and D. Singerman, Theory of maps on orientable surfaces, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 37 (1978), no. 2, 273–307 (MR0505721, Zbl 0391.05024). The authors are interested in imbeddings of an allowed graph $(\mathcal{G},\mathcal{V})$ into a connected, oriente... (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #290771 |
This post seems to have been deleted by the moderators of r/math. (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #290771 |
Post edited: godel -> Gödel; i -> I |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #290771 |
Suggested edit: godel -> Gödel; i -> I (more) |
helpful | about 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #290746 |
Post edited: formatted answer as it appears on Proof Assistants SE |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #290746 |
Suggested edit: formatted answer as it appears on Proof Assistants SE (more) |
helpful | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #280864 |
@Technologicallyilliterate Added a few words to my answer. (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #280864 |
Post edited: |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280866 |
This is some meaty stuff, and I love it. Thank you for writing it up! (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280864 |
@Technologicallyilliterate Sure, I'll try to add something tomorrow. (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #280851 |
Post edited: added transcript of image, added pointer to the titular equation rather than just "the part in green", minor typographical adjustments |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #280851 |
Suggested edit: added transcript of image, added pointer to the titular equation rather than just "the part in green", minor typographical adjustments (more) |
helpful | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #280864 | Initial revision | — | about 4 years ago |
| Answer | — |
A: If $n = xm$ and $n \rightarrow \infty$, then $m \rightarrow \infty$? > […] I would have commenced with defining $\dfrac{x}{n}$ as $\dfrac{1}{m}$, which is more intuitive than "let $m = n/x$". I confess I don't see the difference between the two statements. In changing the variable in the limit from $n$ to $m$, you keep $x$ fixed; after all, you are trying to prove ... (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280851 |
Just transcribe the content of the image in addition to posting the image. It's good that you want to ensure that you're not mistyping the solution manual, but presenting text as images makes it difficult or impossible for people with accessibility issues to know what you're referring to. (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280842 |
Taking another look at the displayed equation in my post, I think I can take $G_1 = 0$ and $G_2 = \int F_3(x, y)\\, dx$ (or the other way around) provided the integral exists. This seems to provide some criterion at least in the $\mathbb{R}^2$ case. (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #280842 | Initial revision | — | about 4 years ago |
| Question | — |
Does every divergence-free vector field arise as the curl of some vector field? I was introduced to the concepts of gradient $\nabla f$, curl $\nabla \times F$ and divergence $\nabla \cdot F$ in an introductory course on calculus during my undergraduate studies. There I learnt that for any scalar function $f$ on $\mathbb{R}^2$ or $\mathbb{R}^3$, we have $\nabla \times (\nabla f)... (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #280630 |
Post edited: replaced dollars with backticks (code formatting) because the question is confusing when the MathJax is rendered :) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #280629 |
Post edited: fixed some MathJax markup |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #280630 |
Suggested edit: replaced dollars with backticks (code formatting) because the question is confusing when the MathJax is rendered :) (more) |
helpful | about 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280630 |
One has to escape the backslash character for it to render correctly, so typing `\\;` works correctly. See this: https://math.codidact.com/posts/278772#answer-278772 (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #280629 |
Suggested edit: fixed some MathJax markup (more) |
helpful | about 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280462 |
+1 This is exactly what I needed, thank you for the clear explanation and the reference! :) (more) |
— | over 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #280460 | Initial revision | — | over 4 years ago |
| Question | — |
What surface do I get by attaching $g$ handles as well as $k$ crosscaps to a sphere? I recently found out that there is a classification of compact connected surfaces that says that every such surface (or, $2$-manifold) is homeomorphic to either $Sg$, the sphere with $g \geq 0$ handles, or $Nk$, the sphere with $k \geq 1$ crosscaps. If my understanding is correct: - attaching a ... (more) |
— | over 4 years ago |