Maths Uni Chat

Even after today's lecture?

Out of curiosity, does anyone know why the Archimedeans' IA lecture notes were taken down?

I wasn't there. I mean the content of the course really as opposed to anything else. Why was this lecture so rubbish?

Out of curiosity, does anyone know why the Archimedeans' IA lecture notes were taken down?

http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~mayt/MATH11007/2010/problems/sheet15.pdf

Anyone know how to do question 5? I've missed too many lectures and I've got no idea what's going on.

I'm reading the notes and it's confusing me: they say the gradient vector is normal to the line, even though it'd surely be tangent to it (as it's the gradient?!)

My working for part (a):

Put f(x,y) = 1-(x^2)(y^2)
Gradient of f(x,y) = (-2(y^2)(x), -2(x^2)(y)) with x=2, y=-1/2 which evaluates to (-1,4).

Shouldn't (-1,4) be the tangent vector of the curve? My notes say it's normal.

http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~mayt/MATH11007/2010/problems/sheet15.pdf

Anyone know how to do question 5? I've missed too many lectures and I've got no idea what's going on.

I'm reading the notes and it's confusing me: they say the gradient vector is normal to the line, even though it'd surely be tangent to it (as it's the gradient?!)

My working for part (a):

Put f(x,y) = 1-(x^2)(y^2)
Gradient of f(x,y) = (-2(y^2)(x), -2(x^2)(y)) with x=2, y=-1/2 which evaluates to (-1,4).

Shouldn't (-1,4) be the tangent vector of the curve? My notes say it's normal.

I still need to hit up klute before my friend graduates. Is it as bad as all that?

(Sorry for dredging up a fairly old post)
I didn't think it was that bad... I mean the music is pure cheese but the quaddies are pretty good for getting you wrecked.

Its been a very very long time since I made a post and so I just thought I'd pop my head in and say Hi.

Hope your degrees are all going well

Official "Funniest Use of Subscripts in Lectures" Award, Part IA of the Mathematical Tripos 2010/11:

3rd place: $\mu_2$ (Grimmett)

2nd place: $y_i$ (Siklos)

1st place: $b_j$ (Saxl)

Official "Funniest Use of Subscripts in Lectures" Award, Part IA of the Mathematical Tripos 2010/11:

3rd place: $\mu_2$ (Grimmett)

2nd place: $y_i$ (Siklos)

1st place: $b_j$ (Saxl)

At one point last term we had $x_{n_{k_r}}$ and $y_{n_{k_r}}$ . If you say the last one very quickly... with some distortion...

Was discussing bad notation in a tutorial with the lecturer today.

Hmm, that just seems like god awful notation. What Mathematical object is that?

Literally, that is the worst notation I have ever seen.

I haven't come up with a way of proving that the compact linear operators are a closed subset of the bounded linear operators without invoking some horrible notation like that.