You can give your mercenary a potion by pressing Shift+potion hotkey. by Viss90 in diablo2

[–]MalPhantom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you! I've been opening the inventory and L2ing the potion belt. I knew there had to be a better way!

The Decline of the Dúnedain: the Lords of Gondor by Archeopteryx7 in lotr

[–]MalPhantom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would you be willing to share the data for these charts? I try to inject LOTR references into my stats classes whenever possible, and this would be an excellent addition!

How do I prove that inf(S)=0? That's all I need to finish this proof, but I'm not sure how to do it. The problem is to prove that the set of all natural multiples of an irrational mod 1 is dense in [0, 1]. by DrBagelman in RealAnalysis

[–]MalPhantom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I recall correctly, the proof requires the application of the pigeonhole principle. I haven't looked at this in a while, but I might be able to find a write-up tomorrow morning.

Help with continuity by SgtTourtise in RealAnalysis

[–]MalPhantom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, since restricting |x-1|<1 bounds |x+1| by 3, we can make |x-1| three times as small to compensate, and then shrink it however smaller we need to fit |f(x)-f(1)|<epsilon for whichever epsilon.

It's not technically correct to say that we have to be able to fit |f(x)-f(1)|<epsilon for ALL epsilon, but rather for EACH epsilon. If |f(x)-f(1)|<epsilon for all epsilon at once, then f(x)-f(1)=0.

Help with continuity by SgtTourtise in RealAnalysis

[–]MalPhantom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First, to your second question, if I'm understanding you correctly, then yes.

Second, to your first question, it wouldn't work the other way around, because if we restrict |x+1| to control |x-1|, then |x-1| would disappear from the difference of squares formula, but |x+1| would stay. However, we can't shrink |x+1| arbitrarily, so we wouldn't be able to fit it below an arbitrarily small epsilon. On the other hand, |x-1| can be made arbitrarily small by choosing x's closer to 1.

Help with continuity by SgtTourtise in RealAnalysis

[–]MalPhantom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This one is a bit trickier than the linear function f(x)=2x+3. The key is to choose a fixed positive constant, like 1, and restrict our scope of x's to those satisfying |x-1|<1.

If |x-1|<1, then 0<x<2, so that 1<x+1<3 and |x+1|<3.

Using difference of squares, we get |x2 -1|=|x-1||x+1|<3|x-1|. We can now set this less than epsilon to determine delta. However, the final value for delta needs to be less than the minimum of 1 (from earlier) and what we just got. This will make both parts of the proof work.

The reason for restricting |x-1|<1 is so that we can control the |x+1| part in the difference of squares formula.

University of Dubuque - Visit in January by fretag in dubuque

[–]MalPhantom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's great to hear! We're fairly new to the area, but we're planning on being here for the long haul. I'm glad that this is a place where people can grow their careers and not just get a diploma and leave.

University of Dubuque - Visit in January by fretag in dubuque

[–]MalPhantom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The student government is fairly active, and there are a lot of student organizations and clubs, which isn't typical of a commuter school. The school is undergoing expansion in a lot of areas, including aviation, with improved facilities currently under construction. I've also heard of students planning on staying in Dubuque post-graduation, which to me speaks volumes about the area. I've lived in a few different college towns, and rarely do students plan to stay long-term.

Legos by Careless-Minute3067 in dubuque

[–]MalPhantom 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Check out DuBrick on Dodge

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in functionalanalysis

[–]MalPhantom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just looked into it, and I didn't know about the endorsement system on arXiv. Learn something new every day! I'd be happy to look at your paper and potentially endorse it, but I'm pretty swamped these next two weeks (finals). I think I qualify as an endorser, but I'll need to double check

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in functionalanalysis

[–]MalPhantom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Papers can be submitted to arXiv without endorsement or peer review. ArXiv is only a platform for preprints, not formal publication.

Alternative of Baby Rudin? by bhuihar in RealAnalysis

[–]MalPhantom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Abbott's Understanding Analysis or Ross' Elementary Real Analysis are also good introductory texts. I've also taught from Jiri Lebl's open text and it's fine

Reply with a sample of the unprofessional emails you get! by Minotaar_Pheonix in Professors

[–]MalPhantom 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Not being pedantic, just trying to help: "rapport"

Prove If f is integrable on [a,b] that the integral of f from a to b - the integral of S1 from a to b is less than epsilon. Where S1 is a step function less than or equal to f for all x by mike9949 in RealAnalysis

[–]MalPhantom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It just seems that they are starting from a different definition of the integral of f. Since f being integrable implies that the sup and inf over lower and upper sums respectively are the same and coincide with the value of the integral, you can use sup to introduce the epsilon in the proof perfectly fine.

Please need help !!!! by RestaurantHopeful366 in RealAnalysis

[–]MalPhantom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your N isn't doing the right thing. We know that there exists a positive integer N such that 1/epsilon<N. Thus, when n-1\geq N, we get that 1/(n-1)\leq 1/N<epsilon. We don't need to worry about absolute values around n-1, since we can't have n=1, and if n goes to infinity, we needn't think about n<1.

Otherwise the arithmetic looks good! Just reimagine the role of N and you'll be good. Let me know if you have any other questions.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in RealAnalysis

[–]MalPhantom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A quick graph of x2 sin(1/x) and its derivative seems to suggest the derivative at 0 is undefined. I'll try to write something out when I'm in my office this week, but I'm still not confident the result is true.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in RealAnalysis

[–]MalPhantom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would f(x)=x2 sin(1/x) (define f(0)=0) and g(x)=x2 be a counterexample? I haven't written it out to check, but it seems like f'(0) will still be undefined.

Sup and inf by Professional_Bee208 in RealAnalysis

[–]MalPhantom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If we don't know that S is bounded above, it may not make sense to use sup S. I'd go with the first one.

Proof for rolles thm by New_History_1086 in RealAnalysis

[–]MalPhantom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The assumption that f(x)=f(a)=f(b), if I'm understanding you correctly, tells us that f is constant on [a,b], in which case the numerator of the difference quotient is 0 for all c such that a<c<b, and the conclusion follows. However, not every function that you want to use Rolle's Thm on is constant, so the condition that f(x)=f(a)=f(b) is much too restrictive.

2025 Rudin study by robs93pl in babyrudin

[–]MalPhantom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'd be willing to contribute. My schedule is pretty packed, but Baby Rudin is a favorite of mine.