771 reputation
315
bio website
location
age
visits member for 4 years
seen Aug 9 at 12:06

Apr
6
comment Given $\int_0^x f(t) \, dt = 2\cos x + 3x + 2,$ find $f$
You are absolutely right. Thank you for pointing this out.
Apr
6
comment Given $\int_0^x f(t) \, dt = 2\cos x + 3x + 2,$ find $f$
It didn't occur to me to check the first equation. I knew something was fishy. I am convinced that it is a typo. Thanks.
Apr
6
asked Given $\int_0^x f(t) \, dt = 2\cos x + 3x + 2,$ find $f$
Feb
3
accepted Characters and permutation matrices
Feb
2
comment Characters and permutation matrices
Are saying that because the permutation representation is reducible, $\chi$ is not a bonafide "character"?
Feb
2
comment Characters and permutation matrices
So you are saying that it should be $\chi(gg^{-1})=\chi(g)+\chi(g^{-1})$? And what do you mean by "characters of degree 1"? Aren't all characters one-dimensional representations?
Feb
2
asked Characters and permutation matrices
Dec
14
accepted dy/dx when x and y are functions
Dec
14
asked Generalization of manifold
Dec
14
accepted Edge coloring of a $k$-regular bipartite graph
Dec
14
comment Edge coloring of a $k$-regular bipartite graph
I do not mind using Hall's marriage theorem. This is really neat. Thanks a lot.
Dec
14
accepted Rigorous Proof of the Principle of Counting
Dec
14
answered Samples and random variables
Nov
22
awarded  Nice Question
Nov
20
comment Edge coloring of a $k$-regular bipartite graph
Well, I would like to prove this without relying on any big theorem. I have a funny feeling though that proving this will pretty much yield a reproduction of the proof of König's theorem.
Nov
20
asked Edge coloring of a $k$-regular bipartite graph
Nov
20
comment Components of a k-regular bipartite graph
That's a good counterexample. Thanks.
Nov
20
asked Components of a k-regular bipartite graph
Nov
20
comment Rigorous Proof of the Principle of Counting
Yes, I would like to know how the size of $S$ is computed from first principles, i.e. the axioms of ZF.
Nov
20
comment Rigorous Proof of the Principle of Counting
I agree that you need a formal mathematical concept in order to argue formally. I believe the formal concept for the principle of counting is the cartesian product. It makes me wonder though: why have the principle of counting when the cartesian product captures the intuitive notion of "ways of doing a task". It seems silly to me.