Will it compile? —

# Monthly Archives: December 2012

# Exploring mathjax latex etc. (I hope for etc too, the sooner the better)

Wait, is this the way to insert links here? What about my own wlod.net? let me try:

Well?–Nothing! WordPress is pathetic, ridiculous!

Let me try again, by hand:

- Enjoying MathJax
- Now wlod.net (hopeless?): My page on ipage

Hm, well?–this time I got working links!!! And the first one is correct, while the second one resulted not in the wlod.net home page but in my *blastog*. Still not too bad :-).

Fine, back to mathjax $\LaTeX$ (this in-line TeX-code perhaps doesn’t work here?)–let me check the slash-bracket tags:

\[\forall_{a\ b\ >\ 0}\ \ a^{\log(b)}\ =\ b^{\log(a)}\]

How is it?–Works like a charm!

Hm, on that page they propose a different way to install mathjax on wordpress.org blog. I’ll stay with what I have already. They show how to install it under different conditions, also on an html page, when one has an access to the header. Thus on ipages I can use both the method which I have already tried in wiggles, and their. Theirs has actually two script-tagged commands, not one, i.e. the pairs of script tags occur twice.

# Great moment! :-) MathJax $$\LaTeX$$ etc.

Finally somehow I’ve found how to install it for html files on ipage, and also for the whole wordpress.org blog like this one! (but no such luck for wordpress.com blogs, too bad). Let me try mathjax latex:

$$3^2 – 2^3 = 1$$

OK, let me have a look at it. ………. YES!!!!! It works!!!!!

Let’s compare:

- wordpress latex:
- mathjax $$\LaTeX:\qquad\frac 53-\frac 85 = \frac 1{15}$$

I need to learn more of MathJax. Double$ tags display the text inside on a separate line, or rather not *in-line*. It’s strange that wordpress latex doesn’t understand the command which displays sign *LaTeX*. Let me try differently: … — well? No, it doesn’t.

# Euclidean ball and sphere

Let

I’d like to compute explicitly the linearly determined function such that whenever . I want to show its well known continuity.

Let , and . Let

I’d like to find such that , i.e. . This last equation is equivalent to the following ones:

Define . Both summands are non-negative (since ). Thus is a non-negative real number. The two solutions of the above quadratic equation are given by

Thus (of course), and ⇔ — **indeed**, when then

and it’s clear that . The inverse implication is simple.

# Acceleration of convergence of slow series

It’s fun (to me too) to accelarate classical slow series like

or

The latter is called Gregory-Leibniz series. What about the former? Is it Gregory-Leibniz too? Anyway, I played with them in the past and have reproduced, after Euler, versions which converge almost as fast as linear combinations of Taylor series. Possibly my web pages are still somewhere buried deep quietly.

Let be an arithmetic progression of positive real numbers. Let be the difference of this progression. Finally, let be a positive integer. Then

This allows to accelerate similar series by approximating them by the ones based on arithmetic series as above. A given series gets split into one of the above and the difference, which is a new series. But the new series converges faster. Euler was able to iterate this simple acceleration operation infinitely many times in a way which resulted in fast converging series.

This time I’d like to look at this method a bit more systematically than in the past. Instead of selecting the above easily summable auxiliary series artistically I’d like to do it perhaps optimally (or to make a compromise but a conscientious compromise).

Let me give an idea of what I am talking about on the initial examples. Thus first let’s transform the above G-L series::

Now

hence

# Pinning–the very start, cnt. 3 (Certain 2-colorings)

Given integers , we can easily and always **uniquely **recover integers such that

It is enough to define:

where is defined below, and the existence is subjected to the conditions:

- is an integer

# Pinning–the very start, cnt 2 (Certain 2-colorings)

It’s Sunday, h21:19. Starbucks. I’ll have to leave in less than 40m. The time is passing by awfully fast.

I am looking for the 2-colorings of triangles, which avoid unicolor tetrahedra. I’ll try the colorings which are split into a composition of

and

where

and

Then for every tetrahedron , and , we obtain the following -values of its walls

namely:

Assume . Then

- (is divisible by 3)

# Pinning–the very start, cnt 1

Let

Let’s define a coloring as follows:

Then it’s easy to show that there is no unicolor tetrahedron.

(This is a very weak result but still a nice exercise :-)).

# Pinning–the very start (very modest)

The following trivial observation (OK, it’s a version of Axiom of Choice :-)) is still useful:

every family admits a pinning of cardinality not higher than that of the family itself.

It follows easily from my earlier intro how small pinnings lead to cliques. But here let me write down my first steps. Consider 2-coloring:

What can we say about the pinnings **when there is no unicolor tetrahedron**?

- When then it is necessary and sufficient that there is at least one triangle of each color; and it’s easily possible, hence there may be no unicolor tetrahedron (there is one altogether anyway :-)).
- Now let . Any two triangles have at least one vertex in common (because )).  Thus if no more than 2 triangles are painted in one of the colors then they admit a 1-element pinning, hence the tetrahedron of the remainng 4 vertices is unicolored (has all its triangular faces colored by the other color). Thus the assumption about the absence of the unicolored tetrahedrons implies that there are at least 3 different triangles painted in each of the colors. And indeed, such coloring, say in , free of unicolored tetrahedrons, is possible:
blue

red

And the remaining 4 triangles (for a total of 10) can be painted arbitrarily.

This is already a result of interest. When has any finite number of elements then any 5-element subset houses at least 3 triangles of each color which is a significant restriction.

Now let , say . Then , contains different triangles colored blue. If then there is a vertex, say vertex , which pins at least 2 blue triangles, thus leaving at the most one blue triangle (inside ). Thus there are at least 2 more blue triangles within , for a total of at least 5 different blue triangles in the whole .

Next, let , contain different triangles colored blue. Then there are 4*3 = 12 incident pairs blue_triangle-vertex, and , which means that there is a vertex, say vertex , which pins at least 3 blue triangles, thus leaving at the most one blue triangle (inside ). Thus there are at least 2 more blue triangles within , for a total of at least 6 different blue triangles in the whole .

In the remaining case of there are at least 5 different blue triangles in right away.

Thus there are at least 5 different blue triangles always (under the assumption of no unicolored tetrahedron).

Everything that was said about *blue* holds also for *red*. Thus if , and there is no unicolor tetrahedron, then there are at least 5 different triangles of each color.

# Bigos (mish-mash)

Yesterday (Friday) a friend of mine had an operation. I was too timid to ask a few days earlier about its exact time and location. But I was worried, there was a possibility that he might need someone. Thus early Friday morning (and I am not a morning person) I called the default hospital. I was told that they don’t have any notices in advance in the case of out-patient operations. I wondered if it was true, or was it just the receptionist. After two calls I just got on the bus and went to the hospital. There definitely they had no record of his operation scheduled at any time, be it in- or out-patient. Now I was more worried because he didn’t answer my phone made just after h.17 (5pm). Thus I got on the bus, and then walked fast some distance to his house. There were cars parked on the street, and they looked all the same to me more or less. One of them could have been his. All doors were locked, and the house looked dead but there was a chance of him being unconscious inside. He doesn’t know it yet but I actually called police (after many calls–someone in the hospital also advised me to call 911). The conversation with the police department took a few minutes. Some questions were supposed to check if I make sense, I guess (*What is your FIRST name? Spell it please. Was it your LAST name?*). A police car came some 25 minutes after the conversation. They were very good (the ones in Sunnyvale on a completely different occasions were not at all). They checked everything possible and decided that most likely my friend is not inside, that breaking in is not justified (I got this feeling too, because his car was not there after all). And they were right. But I made a few more calls to my friend. Finally he answered, somewhat annoyed, quite justifiably. Oooph. And his surgery, according to him, went fine but for a certain complication.

He had his surgery at a different hospital, on an out-patient basis–no wonder I (or rather police, after I told them about the possibility of that other hospital) didn’t get any information from them.

All that my worrying and good will amounted to was unnecessarily bothering a poor fellow, weak after his surgery. I am not making too much sense.

I should and want to think intensively about applying pinnings to Ramsey Theory. And I should continue to write about it despite having only and barely some initial observations and computations. Perhaps I should still focus on the triangles-tetraedra case (the 2-color case).

I’ve written to MK about my willingness to write for Delta (in Polish) on unicolor triangles and on the minusops-cyclands-Inteland theme. We are old friends from student years, in the same group, and student military service (almost an oxymoron :-)). He passed my case to his young Delta coworkers.

Here at Starbucks I talked to many people about their activities. One of them happened to be molecular biologist (neurons, etc.) B.Y. from UM. After the initial improvised meeting we made an appointment for today, and had here a working session. B.Y. has presented some of his research topics and open questions. It gave me also an occasion–during the second part of the meeting–to get acquainted with his small daughter. She was quite bored by our conversation though :-). I hope for an interesting development involving applications of mathematics and parallel processing (or computers in general) to biology. A lot of it was done already over many years but it is still as interesting and exciting as always.

There were today, and there always are, many more silly things to mention but I already have written way too much.