/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4604775
that looks fine for b, although it's a bit dirty and doesn't really state what you're doing. i don't know why you're introducing <span class="math">|\partial s_{x}| > |\bar{\partial} s_{x}[/spoiler] without explaining such first. it's pretty elegant to use the mapping <span class="math">\nabla s_{x} : T_{x} M \to L_{x}[/spoiler], though. ...is <span class="math">x \in Z[/spoiler]?


your proof doesn't at all handle a. for that you need to deal with <span class="math">\nabla s(u)[/spoiler]. you could do this by proving the graph has transversality to its lagrangian subspace which would give you the smoothness you need (think of vectors in <span class="math">T_{x} M[/spoiler]. you can then find the tangent space with simple set intersections to this graph.

>>4604389
what? do you even know what a harmonic form is? this would do absolutely nothing, there's no application to morse/hodge theory in here...

this is a shit thread.

all of you are shit for responding to it.

what is the point of this garbage?

reported for attention whore.

>>4307923
what's your problem?

>>4284813
You are incorrect, yet again.

>Just because we are physically restricted to know the system's fully state that doesnt mean the system is not determined.
You just violated practically every action of quantum mechanics. Enjoy proving this to the scientific community and obtaining your Nobel Prize.

>Since we observe QM with electromagnetism that puts some limits to us. But not to physics itself.
This is a highly pseudo-philosophical statement that defies every aspect of experimentation and backbones of modern physics we have. I just stated to you that regardless of the method of measurement, even if it was somehow conceivable to obtain 100% precision in measurements, uncertainty would still exist. Once again, please read up on EPR paradox.

You did not answer my question, either, but you clearly have yet to take an introductory quantum mechanics course based on what I can see - so you are essentially spewing out nonsensical Newtonian garbage that has little relevance to the aspects of reality. In addition, you are cutting the thin fabric between mathematical descriptions of observables and what actually happens.

I'm done.

fuck off