## Let's go.........RANDOM!

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.
xander
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:
Let $(X,d)$ and $(\tilde X, \tilde d)$ be metric spaces. We say that a function $f\colon X\to\tilde X$ is \emph{continuous at $a\in X$} if for every $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists a $\delta > 0$ such that if $x\in X$ and $d(x,a) < \delta$, then $\tilde d(f(x),f(a) < \varepsilon$. If $A\subset X$, then we say that $f$ is \emph{continuous on $A$} if $f$ is continuous at $a$ for all $a\in A$. Prove or disprove: this definition of continuity is equivalent to the topological definition, where the topologies on $X$ and $\tilde X$ are assumed to be those induced by the metric.

xander
Captain Jean-Luc Picard
level1
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:15 pm
Prove or disprove: this definition of continuity is equivalent to the topological definition, where the topologies on $X$ and $\tilde X$ are assumed to be those induced by the metric.

You know what to do.

Captain Jean-Luc Picard
bert_the_turtle
level5
Posts: 4795
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:11 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:
You forgot to tell us what the topological definition of a continuous function is, and what the topology induced by a metric is.

And you made me hate math with the pure legwork proof you made me go through in my head. Congratulations, that is quite an accomplishment! I'll need to read some Lie Algebra stuff now.
Xocrates
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm
Today in class we proved Morgan's laws... by using Morgan's laws. I did a double take at that.

Granted, the point was to practice a method that relied on Morgan's laws, so what we were proving was irrelevant. Still weird though.
NeatNit
level5
Posts: 2929
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:41 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:
Xocrates wrote:Today in class we proved Morgan's laws... by using Morgan's laws. I did a double take at that.

Granted, the point was to practice a method that relied on Morgan's laws, so what we were proving was irrelevant. Still weird though.
What? To prove De Morgan's Laws you just need a quick n' dirty truth table. How could you POSSIBLY mess that up?!
Xocrates
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm
NeatNit
level5
Posts: 2929
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:41 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:
I have read said print and deliberately chosen to ignore it.
Mas Tnega
level5
Posts: 7898
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 11:54 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:
I had to check to see if there were some other laws to be sure I was at the appropriate level of confusion. I was at the appropriate level of confusion.

How do you even do that without just saying "If A, Q. A. Q. Q.E.D."?
NeatNit
level5
Posts: 2929
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:41 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:
I am guessing they were using Karnaugh maps or something like that. No wait, that wouldn't... Um.
Xocrates
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm
It was actually an exercise in propositional logic. The Resolution method, specifically.

And like I said, the method (or more precisely, the conversion of the equation into canonical normal form) assumes the laws are true. So the goal of the exercise wasn't to prove the laws to be true, but to learn to apply the method.

But since you're curious:

Hipothesis:
~( A || B) -> ~A && ~B

proof by contradiction, so we'll deny it:

~(~( A || B) -> ~A && ~B)

Convert into CNF (skipping several steps here - which includes applying de morgan's laws)

~A && ~B && (A || B)

or, alternative representation:

{{~A},{~B},{A,B}} -- this essentially means that in order for the hipothesis to be true, all internal groups must be true

Proof:

1. {~A} Premise
2. {~B} Premise
3. {A,B} Premise
4. {B} Resolution, (1,3) -- this essentially means that for ~A to be true, the remaining symbols in {A,B} - in this case B - must be true
5. {} Resolution, (2,4) -- contradiction, since it means both ~B and B must be true.

So the hipothesis must be true.
NeatNit
level5
Posts: 2929
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:41 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:
Just thought I'd throw this up here, there is a scary accurate comparison in that half-sentence mention: http://garry.tv/2013/03/12/office-progress/

Edit: Uh, does my avatar work? I think I may have messed something up, it doesn't appear on my screen
xander
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:
bert_the_turtle wrote:You forgot to tell us what the topological definition of a continuous function is, and what the topology induced by a metric is.

And you made me hate math with the pure legwork proof you made me go through in my head. Congratulations, that is quite an accomplishment! I'll need to read some Lie Algebra stuff now.

It was assumed that you knew what those were. :P And yes, it is a pure legwork proof, and a clever undergrad should be able to figure it out. It was a nice break from covering r-balls with rho-balls.

xander
paktsardines
level5
Posts: 1752
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am
Location: Australia
It was a nice break from covering r-balls with rho-balls.

I think they can treat that these days.
MeatNit
level1
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:56 pm
Location: Freezer
We apparently have a new Cyan.

Any ideas?
Feud
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA
Reproductive rights portion in constitutional law. People often worry about conservative judges being appointed that will over turn abortion. They really should worry more about the fact that the cases that made abortion a federally protected right are poorly written legal messes. If I turned in a paper written like that I'd probably fail the assignment. The spend half the opinion saying what they can't and won't do, and the other half ignoring what they just said and doing exactly that. Woof.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest