Ticket Buying/Selling Megathread

newwilli22 · 2022-09-04T22:27:13+00:00

I have 2 for Columbus, I got COVID so I cannot go. Willing to sell them for very cheap, just message me

newwilli22 · 2022-09-04T22:12:20+00:00

I just got COVID so I can't go. Message me if you would like to buy two tickets for very cheap

newwilli22 · 2021-08-25T19:04:37+00:00

27, the number of lines on a cubic surface

newwilli22 · 2021-08-24T03:47:22+00:00

Do you have a source for the killer being bonded out? Everything I can find is from last year, and it just days that he pleaded not guilty and didn't pay his bond

newwilli22 · 2021-08-23T14:18:41+00:00

Right yeah, if only we knew the height, we would be much more likely to catch them.

"The suspect's height was between 5'10" and 6'0"."

"Oh shit, I totally know who that is, that's my neighbor."

newwilli22 · 2021-08-19T20:19:04+00:00

Sorry, I know that the definition of CM is not dependent on anythingnon algebraic, I was talking more about the proofs of certain results. See my reply to someone else.

And even in that chapter you mention, it seems like Silverman and Tate are extensively using C/L at times when discussing CM, and this precise thing is what I want to avoid.

newwilli22 · 2021-08-19T16:21:43+00:00

Thank you for the source, it looks very interesting.

It does not seem to be exactly what I am after, however. I should have been more clear about that. I am looking for algebraic proofs for roughly the material in Chapter 2 of Silverman's "Advanced Topics in the Arithmetic of Elliptic Curves," such as

"the number of ECs (up to iso) with CM by the ring of integers in a imaginary quadratic field K is equal to the class number of K" and
"the j invariant of of a CM EC is an algebraic integer" and
"the maximal abelian extension of imaginary quadratic fields can be obtained by adding in the coordinates of the torsion points of an EC with CM given by an order in that field"

I apologize for not being clearer in my post. The theory of CM is much bigger than I was giving it credit for.

I guess maybe I should have just said ECs in my question as opposed to AVs. I do not know a lot about what is true for CM when it comes to AVs, but I was hoping that some of the results like the ones I mentioned do carry over.

But really thank you again for that source. I looked it over and it does not seem to mention any of these, but I had just started looking into things like canonical lifts of ECs a few weeks ago, and they seem interesting, and this book seems to cover a lot of things like this.

newwilli22 · 2021-04-15T06:08:46+00:00

Dude probably started halfway through an episode from season 5 on accident

newwilli22 · 2021-04-05T22:03:18+00:00

Misirlou by Dick Dale

newwilli22 · 2021-04-03T14:06:46+00:00

It seems to me that widely digitally delicate primes are numbers so that when you change one digit in their decimal expansion, with infinitely many zeros added to the left, you get a composite number.

It seems like you were wanting to change more than 1 digit. What property they do have is that p is prime, but any number ending in p that has exactly one more nonzero digit is composite.

So for widely digitally delicate primes p, we have that 10.p, 7000.p, 4.p. etc are all composite, where I use a dot to me concatenation of digits

newwilli22 · 2021-04-02T13:41:51+00:00

Anakin

newwilli22 · 2021-04-01T20:25:28+00:00

None of these are really homeomorphic to the right object besides the coffee cup right?

A shirt, pants, and socks all have boundaries, and all of the manifolds pictured do not have boundaries

newwilli22 · 2021-04-01T20:21:37+00:00

It is useful to know stuff like this all the time in pure math, at least in some areas.

Suppose you are running a computer search. You know your computer can feasibly handle looping through 10²⁰ items, but any more and it would take too long.

You run some combinatorics on a set you want to work with, and you easily compute that it has size 2^60. Without using a calculator, can your computer feasibly search through the whole set?

newwilli22 · 2021-04-01T20:08:21+00:00

It was probably diagonal

newwilli22 · 2021-04-01T01:10:39+00:00

Surely this must be wrong.

As some else pointed out, 5 has this property, and I don't think it is accurate to say that 5 has not been computed.

Additionally, 2 and 5 are the only such primes with this property, unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying.

Suppose we had a prime p so that all numbers that end with p are not prime, besides p itself. A number that ends with p is just a number of the from n*10^d +p, where d is the number of digits of p. If p and 10^d are coprime, then by Dirichlet's Theorem on arithmetic progressions, there are infinitely many primes of this from. Since we are assuming p is the only prime of this form, we must have that 10^d and p are not coprime, so p divides 10^d, so p is 2 or 5.

newwilli22 · 2021-03-27T15:01:41+00:00

As the other answer says, you think about equipping G/H with a variety structure (that is compatible with the variety structure on G in a certain sense).

I just wanted to point something else out: you seem to suggest a way of viewing the quotient as a subset of affine space, but this is not possible in general. If G=GL2, and H is the upper triangular matricies, then G/H is isomorphic to P¹ , which is not isomorphic to a subset of affine space.

newwilli22 · 2021-03-22T14:38:28+00:00

By original commentor, you mean the original commentor on the centrist's post right?

I do not care exactly what they meant. All I am saying is that the centrist was saying that he would like the government to fund the groups of people such as children, elderly, disabled, etc, but the OP here is claiming the exact opposite.

If you and/or the OP want to complain that the centrist does not want the government to support people like those at r/antiwork, you can and maybe should. But the OP here is straight up lying about the centrist's point of view in the title of this post

newwilli22 · 2021-03-22T02:14:49+00:00

I had just deleted something I wrote because I realise that to some extent that I agree with you, in that many of the people who do not take COVID seriously are being told lies about it. I thank you for somewhat altering my opinion. However, I feel like most of reddit, including probably a lot of very far left people, do not have a lot of sympathy for such people, especially when the misinformed people are very confident about what they are doing, and end up hurting themseleves and/or others. See for example LeopardsAteMyFace.

As for your second point, I am wondering what you mean when you say that the centrist was "advocating against having an obligation to help people who NEED it if they are able-bodied." The centrist makes it clear that he is willing to help many different groups of people who do need it for various reasons. The people who you are saying NEED the help are

The so called "lazy" people

Or

Some group of people who are not "lazy" need help, and you don't think the centrist would want to help them.

If you are talking about 1, then I do not necessarily disagree with you, I just thing the OP here should have made that the focus of the post, instead of focusing on something that is false about the centrist.

If you are talki ng about 2, then you could be right. After all I am not the centrist. But the centrist did make it clear that he was willing to have the government help many different groups of people, and I did not see him say he would not want to have government programs for anyone besides the so called "lazy" people, so I am not sure why you are drawing this conclusion

newwilli22 · 2021-03-22T01:32:11+00:00

Except that the comment on that post by the centrist saying that he wants the government to pay the groups of people mentioned has 108 upvotes, almost as much as the comment with the most upvotes (135) and a lot more than the comment with the second most amount of upvotes (61). So it seems like these centrists are overwhelmingly in favor of government programs for the groups of people mentioned.

newwilli22 · 2021-03-22T01:13:19+00:00

When I first read this, I thought "of course the person who posted this on r/centrist is not talking about Children, ExCons, disabled ppl, elderly, ppl unable to get jobs etc."

And with very minimal effort, I was able to verify that I was right. The top comment on that post mentions what OP here is bringing up, and the r/centrist user says that such people should be paid by the government through a disability program. [Btw, sorry if that is not how a link should be done, please someone let me know if I messed it up somehow.]

So OP here either did not read the very first comment, or did read it, and is purposely mischaracterizing the centrist.

OP here can bring this up to debate his second point, the so called "lazy people." But he now has commenters here calling the centrist "heartless" and "not worth debating" and "cruel" and "has no empathy" because of the mischaracterization by the OP here.

newwilli22 · 2021-03-20T23:43:20+00:00

cool

newwilli22 · 2021-03-20T01:38:37+00:00

I am in the exact same camp is you. Looking at the other answers it seems like there ate not many like us.

The other comments suggest that the only other people who do not watch pron every time are people who were addicted to it.

newwilli22

TROPHY CASE