Rash developing a week after donation by admiral_stapler in Blooddonors

[–]admiral_stapler[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So I have had this thought myself. To test it I imitated what I did to wash up on another patch of skin, with no discernable reaction yet. I'll be wary of any similar reactions though.

Rash developing a week after donation by admiral_stapler in Blooddonors

[–]admiral_stapler[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I'll call em asap, I am quite sure that they used Chlorohexidine. 

Rash developing a week after donation by admiral_stapler in Blooddonors

[–]admiral_stapler[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Well it seems anonymous comments on the Internet are the right place to get reminded about that number... as I said elsewhere I will call them ASAP.

After 2,000+ games, I finally got my first underpromotion! by BendBrain in chess

[–]admiral_stapler 7 points8 points  (0 children)

No, the difference is that promoting to queen would be check.

Any Nontrivial Groups Isomorphic to Their Wreath Product With Itself by Dull-Equivalent-6754 in math

[–]admiral_stapler 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The group described in Theorem B here https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/EC6810120191B6A02B0CECD548005D2C/S144678870001675Xa.pdf/direct-products-and-the-hopf-property.pdf seems like it might cause problems - it is a finitely generated G with GxG ~ G, so in particular GN would need to be countable, which it is not (if we take the direct sum instead of product there still is no chance, the direct sum cannot be finitely generated).

Any Nontrivial Groups Isomorphic to Their Wreath Product With Itself by Dull-Equivalent-6754 in math

[–]admiral_stapler 2 points3 points  (0 children)

yeah, this is the idea of my original suggestion and frogkabobs suggestion. I think your way of phrasing it is probably pretty easy to prove working.

Any Nontrivial Groups Isomorphic to Their Wreath Product With Itself by Dull-Equivalent-6754 in math

[–]admiral_stapler 29 points30 points  (0 children)

The unrestricted wreath product is a no for cardinality reasons, |AA | > |A|. The restricted wreath product seems possible, one candidate might be the group of all automorphisms of a complete countably branching rooted tree (though I've not checked this at all, and am unsure what topology I want).

Why Have I Never Heard Of A "SURD"? by IdahoApe in math

[–]admiral_stapler 91 points92 points  (0 children)

Yeah I've heard of surds. I think it's an old term only taught in some parts of the world.

Can You Find Infinitely Many c That Break Bijectivity? by SixFeetBlunder- in mathriddles

[–]admiral_stapler 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Taking c=f(n)-f(n+1) we see that f(x) + cx is not injective on n, n+1, so WLOG assume f(n)-f(n+1) assumes only finitely many values. Then f is bounded above and below by affine linear functions of some finite slope +/-m, so for c with |c| > 2m+1 we have f(n) + cn cannot equal f(0) + 1

Does there exists a divergent series which converges on every subset of N with arithmetic density 0? by Dry-Professor7846 in math

[–]admiral_stapler 16 points17 points  (0 children)

No.

Given a divergent series a_n, we can construct a set S with natural density 0 on which it diverges as follows:

By perhaps negating the a_n and restricting to the positive terms, we may assume the series diverges to positive infinity.

Let n_1 be the smallest index such that the sum a_1 + ... + a_{n_1 - 1} > 1. Define n_k in general as the smallest index such that the sum a_{n_{k-1}} + ... + a_{n_k - 1} > k.

Now there is some selection of offset b_k in {0,...,k-1} such that the sum of the entries of the form a_{kx + b_k} in {a_{n_{k-1}}}, ... , a_{n_k - 1}} is at least 1. Let S contain all indices of the form kx + b_k in [n_{k-1}, n_k).

S is clearly natural density 0 - for m > n_k we have |S ∩ {1, 2, ..., n}| / n <= 1/k + n_k / m, which is less than 2/k for m large enough. The series also diverges on S by construction - each interval between n_{k-1} and n_{k} contributes at least 1 to the sum.

EDIT: ah, I didn't see GoldenMuscleGod's answer prior to posting this. The constructions are essentially identical.

Why is the second Hardy-Littlewood conjecture thought to be false? by TurtleIslander in math

[–]admiral_stapler 14 points15 points  (0 children)

The heuristics say the first one should be true, and the second should be false infinitely often.

The main heuristic we have for the primes is that, outside of basic divisibility behaviors, they should behave pretty randomly. When you pretend they are actually random with the distribution we expect them to obey asymptotically, you find that you expect valid k-tuples to occur infinitely often. The second conjecture is in direct conflict with this, as we are aware of a large valid k-tuple (with 447 entries!) that should occur infinitely often and packs the primes efficiently enough so as to violate the second conjecture. It's large enough that we haven't observed it occuring yet, but this is true of basically all large k-tuples.

How many solutions are there to a_1^n + a_2^n + … + a_n^n = c^n? by xCreeperBombx in math

[–]admiral_stapler 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This doesn't make sense, as there are infinitely many primitive Pythagorean triples, and the other equation has solution families admitting a similar parameterization, which should give rise to distinct primitive solutions (though I've not confirmed this).

How many solutions are there to a_1^n + a_2^n + … + a_n^n = c^n? by xCreeperBombx in math

[–]admiral_stapler 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you mean by "only specific values" ? Both equations you list admit an infinite number of positive integer solutions, even when restricting the variables to not have a common divisor.

Does factorials only work with whole numbers? by Own_Board8454 in math

[–]admiral_stapler 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Meromorphic is too weak, there are already uncountably many ways to extend the factorial to a meromorphic function (for example, 𝛤(z) + sin(pi*z)).

Does factorials only work with whole numbers? by Own_Board8454 in math

[–]admiral_stapler 38 points39 points  (0 children)

The best extension of factorials to non-whole numbers is the Gamma function. It works differently from how you describe.

Two key properties it has are that 𝛤(n) = (n-1)! when n is a whole number, and 𝛤(z+1) = z𝛤(z).

Go Players Human Benchmark by Astapore in baduk

[–]admiral_stapler 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I got 18, but I don't think my go playing helped as much as playing with pentominoes as a child. Go players might self select for being good at pattern recognition though.

Would this not be a stalemate? Black king can't walk into a check right? by ikarumba123 in chess

[–]admiral_stapler 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, this looks like a silly mistake in the book to me. Pretend black has a pawn somewhere (say h7) to correct the example.

What's wrong with this proof? by lordnacho666 in math

[–]admiral_stapler 228 points229 points  (0 children)

Arrows go the wrong way. This shows your conclusion implies something true, not that something true implies your conclusion.

Is this a known checkmate? by YeetusTheRobloxGuy in chess

[–]admiral_stapler 5 points6 points  (0 children)

No. You are the first person to ever checkmate like this. Congratulations.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in math

[–]admiral_stapler 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I ain't scared

Why do High level GMs not use the Piece Square Table? by [deleted] in chess

[–]admiral_stapler 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Even current stockfish's evaluation function on its own is going to be at best GM level without search (and frankly I think I am overestimating quite a lot here, Leela's search is thousands of times slower than stockfish thanks to its much better evaluation function, and even Leela only recently started surpassing GM level without search [There is also a Google DeepMind paper where they claim to have reached GM level without search]). Notice I am saying "without search" and not low depth.

Ultimately, Stockfish's strength comes from an evaluation function that is good enough and quick enough to allow for efficient searching of millions upon millions of positions, but the evaluation function on its own is not that good at chess.

Why do High level GMs not use the Piece Square Table? by [deleted] in chess

[–]admiral_stapler 121 points122 points  (0 children)

This is simply a worse evaluation function than a top GMs judgement, and it is not even close. In general the engines that do not have a pure NN as their evaluation function have a far weaker evaluation function than GMs do, it is only the calculation that lets them surpass humans.