This seminar by porton took place on 10th October 2010 20:00 UTC, in #mathematics channel of

The timestamps displayed in the IRC text are UTC.
Any explanation or errors regarding this seminar should be recorded in the discussion page.

PDF slides with content similar to this seminar

Seminar Edit

Oct 10 14:42:23 * Now talking on #mathematics
Oct 10 14:42:24 * Topic for #mathematics is: Next seminar is on Sun 10 Oct, 12pm PDT: Funcoids and Reloids, by porton | Seminar logs for Oct 3:
Oct 10 14:42:24 * Topic for #mathematics set by thermoplyae! at Sun Oct  3 23:01:22 2010
Oct 10 14:49:09 * CESSMASTER (~CESSMASTE@unaffiliated/joelywoely) has joined #mathematics
Oct 10 14:50:19 * porton (~porton@ has joined #mathematics
Oct 10 14:51:30 * bavarious (~bavarious@pdpc/supporter/student/bavarious) has joined #mathematics
Oct 10 14:53:17 * Rogozi ( has joined #mathematics
Oct 10 14:53:25 * PhileX (~phx@unaffiliated/philex) has joined #mathematics
Oct 10 14:56:37 * afk|eoc ( has joined #mathematics
Oct 10 15:00:02 <porton> The topic of this seminar are funcoids and reloids.
Oct 10 15:00:08 <porton> Funcoids are a generalization of proximity spaces. Also funcoids are a generalization of binary relations, pretopological spaces, preclosure operators.
Oct 10 15:00:12 <porton> Reloids are a generalization of uniform spaces and binary relations.
Oct 10 15:00:16 <@thermoplyae> slow down, bro
Oct 10 15:00:22 * qr ( has joined #mathematics
Oct 10 15:00:30 <porton> Read details in "Funcoids and Reloids" article at
Oct 10 15:00:38 <porton> I will reprise the most interesting properties here in the chat.
Oct 10 15:00:57 <porton> As you can anyway read that article I will skip all proofs.
Oct 10 15:01:14 <porton> That funcoids are a common generalization of spaces and (multivalued) functions makes them smart for analyzing properties of functions in regard of spaces.
Oct 10 15:01:22 <porton> For example, the statement "f is a continuous function from a space a to a space b" can be written as "f o a <= b o f" in terms of funcoids.
Oct 10 15:01:26 <porton> To continue?
Oct 10 15:01:44 <@thermoplyae> you should at least define what a funcoid is
Oct 10 15:01:50 <porton> See below
Oct 10 15:01:58 <porton> Most naturally funcoids arrive as a generalization of proximities.
Oct 10 15:02:02 <porton> First, I will introduce some strange terminology:
Oct 10 15:02:09 <porton> I will consider "the set of filters" on some set UNIV "the set of all sets".
Oct 10 15:02:14 <porton> I will order the set of filters reversely to the set theoretic inclusion of filters and equate principal filters with corresponding sets.
Oct 10 15:02:19 <porton> I call such reverse ordered filters equated with sets, when appropriate, "filter objects".
Oct 10 15:02:25 <porton> Note that "the set of all sets" SET is a subset of the set of filter objects.
Oct 10 15:02:37 <porton> continue?
Oct 10 15:02:58 <@thermoplyae> yes, go ahead, someone will interrupt if they have questions
Oct 10 15:02:58 <porton> I will denote the filter object corresponding to the filter X as "up X".
Oct 10 15:03:01 <porton> I will denote the set of filter objects as FILT.
Oct 10 15:03:10 <porton> FILT is an atomistic complete co-brouwerian lattice. (Atoms of FILT correspond to maximal filters.)
Oct 10 15:03:26 <porton> Now we can introduce funcoids.
Oct 10 15:03:30 <porton> Let d is a proximity. We can extend it to filter objects by the formula:
Oct 10 15:03:34 <porton> x d y <=> forall X in x, Y in y: X d Y.
Oct 10 15:04:01 <porton> Sorry, corrected formula: x d y <=> forall X in up x, Y in up y: X d Y.
Oct 10 15:04:22 <porton> For every proximity there exists two functions alpha, beta: FILT->FILT such that
Oct 10 15:04:25 <porton> x d y <=> y /\ alpha(x) != 0 <=> x /\ beta(y) != 0.
Oct 10 15:04:29 <porton> I call "funcoids" pairs (alpha;beta) of functions FILT->FILT such that
Oct 10 15:04:34 <porton> y /\ alpha(x) != 0 <=> x /\ beta(y) != 0.
Oct 10 15:04:53 <porton> I will denote FCD the set of funcoids.
Oct 10 15:04:56 <porton> I've said above that for every proximity exists a corresponding funcoid.
Oct 10 15:05:04 <porton> In fact a corresponding (see the formula above) funcoid exists for every binary relation d on SETS such that
Oct 10 15:05:07 <porton> not(0 d X) and not(X d 0) and (X\/Y) d Z <=> X d Z \/ Y d Z and Z d (X\/Y) <=> Z d X \/ Z d Y.
Oct 10 15:05:25 <porton> I denote <f> the first component (alpha) of a funcoid f.
Oct 10 15:05:38 <porton> <f>(X\/Y) = <f>X \/ <f>Y for every filter objects X and Y.
Oct 10 15:05:47 <porton> The function <f> for a funcoid f can be constructed as a (unique) continuation of the function alpha: SET->FILT
Oct 10 15:05:55 <porton> such that alpha(0)=0 and alpha(X\/Y)=X\/Y.
Oct 10 15:06:03 <porton> Conversely, any <f> restricted to SET for a funcoid f conforms to the above formulas for alpha.
Oct 10 15:06:19 <porton> Any (multivalued) function (binary relation) can be considered as a funcoid where
Oct 10 15:06:26 <porton> <f>(X) = /\ {f[x] | x in up X}.
Oct 10 15:06:38 <porton> I will call funcoids corresponding to binary relations discrete.
Oct 10 15:06:53 <porton> Like binary relations funcoids can be reversed and composed:
Oct 10 15:06:59 <porton> (alpha;beta)^-1 = (beta;alpha);
Oct 10 15:07:03 <porton> (alpha2;beta2) o (alpha1;beta1) = (alpha2 o alpha1; beta1 o beta2).
Oct 10 15:07:14 <porton> Reverse of a funcoid corresponding to a proximity is equal to this funcoid (because proximities are symmetric).
Oct 10 15:07:28 <porton> We have <g o f> = <g> o <f>;
Oct 10 15:07:31 <porton> (h o g) o f = h o (g o f) and f^-1^-1=f and  (g o f)^-1 = f^-1 o g^-1.
Oct 10 15:07:47 <porton> I will denote x[f]y <=> y /\ <f>(x) != 0 <=> x /\ <f^-1>(y) != 0 for every funcoid f and a filter objects x and y.
Oct 10 15:07:53 <porton> x\/y [f] z <=> x[f]z \/ y[f]z and z [f] x\/y <=> z[f]z \/ z[f]y for every filter objects x,y,z
Oct 10 15:08:02 <porton> [f^-1] = [f]^-1.
Oct 10 15:08:07 <porton> For every value of <f> exists no more than one funcoid f.
Oct 10 15:08:09 <porton> For every value of [f] exists no more than one funcoid f.
Oct 10 15:08:15 <porton> Moreover a funcoid f is uniquely determined by values of <f> on sets.
Oct 10 15:08:31 <porton> Oh, that funcoids are a generalization of pretopological spaces is provided by the formula:
Oct 10 15:08:35 <porton> <f>X = \/ { alpha(x) | x in X } for a set X where alpha is a pretopology (a function UNIV->FILT).
Oct 10 15:08:54 <porton> Funcoids form a complete brouwerian atomistic lattice by the order f <= g <=> [f] <= [g].
Oct 10 15:09:02 <porton> I'll skip the formulas for calculating <f> and [g] for join of funcoids.
Oct 10 15:09:05 <porton> More properties of funcoids:
Oct 10 15:09:16 <porton> x[g o f]z iff there exist atomic filter object y such that x[f]y and y[g]z.
Oct 10 15:09:22 <porton> If f,g,h are funcoids, then f o (g\/h) = f o g \/ f o h and (g\/h) o f = g o f \/ h o f.
Oct 10 15:09:34 <porton> The identity funcoid I_a = (a/\; a/\) is defined for a filter object a.
Oct 10 15:09:41 <porton> Reverse of identity funcoid is identity funcoid.
Oct 10 15:09:46 <porton> x[I_a]y <=> x/\y/\a != 0 for every filter objects x and y.
Oct 10 15:09:57 <porton> I'll define restricting of a funcoid f to a filter object a by the formula: f|_a = f o I_a.
Oct 10 15:10:03 <porton> Image of a funcoid is defined by the formula: im f = <f>1. Domain by the formula: dom f = im f^-1.
Oct 10 15:10:06 <porton> Image and domain of a funcoid are filter object.
Oct 10 15:10:17 <porton> (I recall that that's a generalization of image and domain of a binary relation being sets.)
Oct 10 15:10:25 <porton> "dom f" is the join of all atoms a of FILT such that <f>a != 0.
Oct 10 15:10:39 <porton> Funcoids equipped with two filter objects, a superobject of the domain and a superobject of the image form a category, with identity funcoids being identity morphisms.
Oct 10 15:11:02 <porton> I will denote "atoms X" atoms under a lattice element X.
Oct 10 15:11:07 <porton> <f>x = \/ { <f>X | X in atoms x } for every filter object x.
Oct 10 15:11:11 <porton> x[f]y <=> exists X in atoms x, Y in atoms y: x[f]y.
Oct 10 15:11:32 * Rogozi ( has left #mathematics
Oct 10 15:11:42 <porton> Funcoids can be considered as a continuation of certain functions and relations defined on atomic filter objects.
Oct 10 15:11:45 <porton> I skip that here for simplicity. Refer to the above mentioned article.
Oct 10 15:11:53 <porton> A generalization of direct (Cartesian) product of two sets is direct product of two filter objects as defined in the theory of funcoids:
Oct 10 15:12:02 <porton> Direct product of filter objects a and b is such funcoid aXb that
Oct 10 15:12:06 <porton> x[aXb]y <=> x/\a != 0 /\ y/\b != 0 for every filter objects x and y.
Oct 10 15:12:11 <porton> We have <aXb>x = b if x/\b != 0 and <aXb> = 0 if x/\b = 0.
Oct 10 15:12:33 <porton> f /\ (aXb) = I_a o f o I_b.
Oct 10 15:12:36 <porton> f /\ (aXb) != 0 <=> a[f]b.
Oct 10 15:12:43 <porton> (a0Xb0)/\(a1Xb1) = (a0/\a1)X(b0/\b1).
Oct 10 15:12:52 <porton> not too fast?
Oct 10 15:13:18 <porton> If a is an atomic filter object then f|_a = a X <f>a.
Oct 10 15:13:21 <@thermoplyae> nope, this is fine
Oct 10 15:13:23 <porton> A funcoid is an atom of the lattice of funcoids iff it is a direct product of two atomic filter objects.
Oct 10 15:13:30 <porton> atoms(f\/g) = atoms f \/ atoms g for every funcoids f and g.
Oct 10 15:13:35 <porton> For every funcoids f,g,h and a set R of funcoids we have
Oct 10 15:13:40 <porton> f/\(g\/h) = (f/\g) \/ (f/\h);
Oct 10 15:13:46 <porton> f \/ /\R = /\ { f\/g | g in R }.
Oct 10 15:13:51 <porton> Thus the lattice of funcoids is co-brouwerian.
Oct 10 15:13:53 * kilimanjaro (~kilimanja@unaffiliated/kilimanjaro) has joined #mathematics
Oct 10 15:14:10 <porton> I will call co-complete such funcoid f that <f>|_SET : SET->SET.
Oct 10 15:14:10 * Pthing ( has joined #mathematics
Oct 10 15:14:13 <porton> I will call complete a funcoid reverse of a co-complete funcoid.
Oct 10 15:14:17 * Pthing ( has left #mathematics ("surge surge vigila, semper esto paratus")
Oct 10 15:14:20 <porton> A funcoid f is complete if <f>A = \/{ <f>(a) | a in A } for every set A.
Oct 10 15:14:20 * xerox (~xerox@unaffiliated/xerox) has joined #mathematics
Oct 10 15:14:31 <porton> A funcoid f is complete if <f>A = \/{ <f>(a) | a in A } for every set A.
Oct 10 15:14:34 <porton> There are several ways to characterize complete funcoids which I skip here.
Oct 10 15:14:41 <porton> To specify a complete funcoid f it is enough to specify <f> on one-element sets, values of <f> on one element sets can be specified arbitrarily.
Oct 10 15:14:54 <porton> A funcoid is discrete iff it is both complete and co-complete.
Oct 10 15:15:00 <porton> I will skip discussion of "completion" and "co-completion" of funcoids turning arbitrary funcoids into complete and co-complete funcoids.
Oct 10 15:15:19 <porton> I will call monovalued such a funcoid f that f o f^-1 <= I_{im f}.
Oct 10 15:15:21 <_llll_> there seems to be a lack of motivation for all this, what's the point?
Oct 10 15:15:37 <porton> _llll_: A generalization of general topology
Oct 10 15:15:55 <porton> to continue?
Oct 10 15:16:05 <_llll_> no, tell me more about what you are generalising, and why
Oct 10 15:16:51 <porton> I generalize proximity spaces, pretopology spaces, preclosures, and uniformities (as well as binary relations)
Oct 10 15:17:05 <_llll_> i dont care what you are generalisaing, *why* do those things need generalising?
Oct 10 15:17:19 <porton> The purpose of this is the ability to express topological properties with algebraic formulas
Oct 10 15:17:40 <_llll_> could you give a simple example of that?
Oct 10 15:17:56 <_llll_> does it solve some problem in topology?
Oct 10 15:18:17 <porton> For example "f o a <= b o f" is a formula which expresses the statement "f is a continuous function from a space a to a space b"
Oct 10 15:18:40 <_llll_> apart from having fewer letters, what's the advantage of that?
Oct 10 15:19:02 <porton> Below I will refer to a definition of limit of arbitrary (discontinuous) function. I think this all is wort that.
Oct 10 15:19:49 <porton> Also in my works there is defined one formula for all kinds of continuity: continuity, proximal continuity, uniform continuity. I think this unification is worth
Oct 10 15:19:49 <_llll_> can you give an example of a discontinuous function that has a limit according to the new definition?
Oct 10 15:19:51 * burned (~burned@ has joined #mathematics
Oct 10 15:20:46 <porton> _llll_: I hope we will be able to use my theory in the future to solve present problems. But I haven't dived into the topic of open problems in general topology. So I don't know
Oct 10 15:20:58 <porton> Can I continue the lesson?
Oct 10 15:21:08 <kilimanjaro> yes, please
Oct 10 15:21:16 <_llll_> porton: this seems like a big waste of time to me
Oct 10 15:21:24 <porton> Again: I will call monovalued such a funcoid f that f o f^-1 <= I_{im f}.
Oct 10 15:21:29 <_llll_> you can generalise anything in a million ways
Oct 10 15:21:29 <kilimanjaro> they said that to einstein
Oct 10 15:21:35 <porton> A funcoid is monovalued iff it maps atoms of FILT to atoms or empty set.
Oct 10 15:21:40 <porton> A funcoid f is monovalued iff <f^-1> is distributive over \/.
Oct 10 15:21:43 <_llll_> and einstein solved some interesting things
Oct 10 15:21:46 <porton> Thus a discrete funcoid is monovalued iff the corresponding binary relation is monovalued (a function).
Oct 10 15:21:46 <kilimanjaro> when he used the sheer power of intellect to create general relativity
Oct 10 15:21:52 <kilimanjaro> they tried to silence him
Oct 10 15:21:55 <porton> Funcoids can be T_0, T_1, and T_2 separable. T_0 and T_2 separability is defined through T_1 separability.
Oct 10 15:22:06 <porton> (I skip definitions of T_n here.)
Oct 10 15:22:11 <porton> "A function f is continuous from space a to space b" is formalized by the formula: f o a <= b o f.
Oct 10 15:22:16 <porton> In the case if f is monovalued and entirely defined this formula can be rewritten in two equivalent ways:
Oct 10 15:22:21 <porton> "a <= f^-1 o b o f" or "f o a o f^-1 <= b".
Oct 10 15:22:38 <porton> Now to reloids:
Oct 10 15:22:45 <porton> Reloids are simply filter objects on the lattice of of binary relations (on the set UNIV).
Oct 10 15:22:50 <porton> Thus reloids are a generalization of uniform spaces and of binary relations.
Oct 10 15:23:08 <porton> The reverse reloid is defined in in the natural way.
Oct 10 15:23:11 <porton> The composition of two reloids is defined by the formula:
Oct 10 15:23:13 <porton> g o f = /\ { G o F | F in f, G in g }.
Oct 10 15:23:28 <porton> Sorry, corrected: g o f = /\ { G o F | F in up f, G in up g }.
Oct 10 15:23:37 <porton> (h o g) o f = h o (g o f) for every reloids f,g,h.
Oct 10 15:23:40 <porton> Also f^-1^-1 = f and (g o f)^-1 = f^-1 o g^-1.
Oct 10 15:23:57 <porton> Conjecture: If f,g,h are reloids, then f o (g\/h) = f o g \/ f o h and (g\/h) o f = g o f \/ h o f.
Oct 10 15:24:01 <porton> Direct product of filter objects is also defined in the theory of reloids:
Oct 10 15:24:04 <porton> aXb = /\ { AXB | A in up a, B in up B }.
Oct 10 15:24:06 <porton> AXB is just the cartesian product for sets A and B.
Oct 10 15:24:18 <porton> aXb = \/ { AXB | A in atoms a, B in atoms b }.
Oct 10 15:24:24 <porton> (a0Xb0)/\(a1Xb1) = (a0/\a1)X(b0/\b1).
Oct 10 15:24:38 <porton> I will call a reloid "convex" if it is a union of direct products of filter objects.
Oct 10 15:24:44 <porton> Non-convex reloids exist.
Oct 10 15:24:53 <porton> I will call restricting of a reloid f to a filter object a the reloid f|_a = f/\(aX1).
Oct 10 15:24:56 <porton> Domain and range of a reloid are defined as follows:
Oct 10 15:24:59 <porton> dom f = /\{dom F | F in up f}; im f = /\{im F | F in up f}.
Oct 10 15:25:02 <porton> f <= aXb <=> dom f <= a /\ im f <= b.
Oct 10 15:25:13 <porton> I call identity reloid for the filter object a the reloid I_a = (=)|_a.
Oct 10 15:25:16 <porton> The reverse of identity reloid is identity reloid.
Oct 10 15:25:24 <porton> f|_a = f o I_a for every reloid f and filter object a.
Oct 10 15:25:27 <porton> (g o f)|_a = g o f|_a.
Oct 10 15:25:29 <porton> f /\ (aXb) = I_a o f o I_b.
Oct 10 15:25:45 <porton> Reloids equipped with two filter objects, a superobject of the domain and a superobject of the image form a category, with identity reloids being identity morphisms.
Oct 10 15:25:54 <porton> I will call monovalued such a reloid f that f o f^-1 <= I_{im f}.
Oct 10 15:25:57 <porton> There are some conjectures about monovalued reloids.
Oct 10 15:26:03 <_llll_> but no facts?
Oct 10 15:26:07 <_llll_> and no itnerest?
Oct 10 15:26:11 <_llll_> *interest?
Oct 10 15:26:16 <porton> _llll_: Which facts?
Oct 10 15:26:18 <_llll_> so why did you bother typing all this in?
Oct 10 15:26:37 <burned> porton, what are you working towards exactly?
Oct 10 15:26:49 <@thermoplyae> limits i thought he said
Oct 10 15:26:51 <porton> _llll_: I will continue. You may exit from the chat, if you want
Oct 10 15:27:36 <porton> burned: _A generalization of general topology_ is my main topic. By the way I define and research limits of discontinuous functions.
Oct 10 15:28:19 <burned> then by all means continue
Oct 10 15:28:41 <porton> ... When I was studying in a university, I have solved some infinite sum using the theory of discontinuous limits. (I don't remember the details, but this shows that my theory can be of practical use.)
Oct 10 15:28:58 <porton> I skip discussion of complete reloids and completion of reloids.
Oct 10 15:29:14 <porton> Now to relationships of funcoids and reloids:
Oct 10 15:29:19 <porton> Every reloid f induces a funcoid (FCD)f by the following formulas:
Oct 10 15:29:22 <porton> x[(FCD)f]y <=> forall F in up f: x[F]y.
Oct 10 15:29:24 <porton> <(FCD)f>x = /\{<F>x | F in up f}.
Oct 10 15:29:38 <porton> (FCD)f = f for a binary relation f.
Oct 10 15:29:42 <porton> x[(FCD)f]y <=> (xXy)/\f != 0;
Oct 10 15:30:00 <porton> (FCD)(g o f) = (FCD)g o (FCD)f.
Oct 10 15:30:04 <porton> (FCD)(aXb) = aXb.
Oct 10 15:30:21 <porton> Every funcoid f induces a reloid in two ways, intersection of _outward_ relations and union of _inward_ direct products of filter objects:
Oct 10 15:30:24 <porton> (RLD)_out f = /\ up f; (RLD)_in f = \/ {aXb | a,b in FILT, aXb <= f}.
Oct 10 15:30:33 <porton> (RLD)_in f = \/ {aXb | a,b are atomic filter objects, aXb <= f}.
Oct 10 15:31:16 <porton> (RLD)_out f = f for every binary relation f.
Oct 10 15:31:21 <porton> A funcoid is greater inward than outward: (RLD)_out f <= (RLD)_in f for every reloid f.
Oct 10 15:31:28 <porton> (FCD)(RLD)_in f = f for every funcoid f.
Oct 10 15:31:32 * arborist (~arborist@ has joined #mathematics
Oct 10 15:31:34 <porton> (RLD)_in (aXb) = aXb for filter objects a,b.
Oct 10 15:31:39 <porton> It is a question whether (RLD)_out (aXb) = aXb.
Oct 10 15:32:02 <porton> (RLD)_out I_a = I_a. Generally (RLD)_in I_a != I_a.
Oct 10 15:32:16 <porton> (FCD) is a lower adjoint of (RLD)_in.
Oct 10 15:32:20 <porton> Continuous reloids are defined analogously to continuous funcoids.
Oct 10 15:32:24 <_llll_> why is it a question worth considering? what a waste of time
Oct 10 15:32:28 <burned> can you show us how (RLD)_out I_a= I_a?
Oct 10 15:32:59 <porton> burned: I don't remember the proof. You may consult my article
Oct 10 15:33:09 <_llll_> rofl
Oct 10 15:33:29 <porton> Continuous reloids are defined analogously to continuous funcoids.
Oct 10 15:33:30 * burned blinks
Oct 10 15:33:33 <porton> (In fact I have a general theory of continuity in
Oct 10 15:33:44 <porton> Now I am busy with creating the theory of pointfree generalization of funcoids.
Oct 10 15:33:51 <porton> And afterward I am going to research n-ary (multidimensional) funcoids.
Oct 10 15:33:57 <porton> The theory of funcoids also allows to define limits including...
Oct 10 15:34:03 <porton> generalized limits of arbitrary (discontinuous) functions.
Oct 10 15:34:05 <_llll_> whya re you going to reserch n-ary (multidimensional) funcoids?
Oct 10 15:34:15 <_llll_> why not research something else?
Oct 10 15:34:36 <porton> _llll_: These are useful for such things as binary operations on limits of discontinuous functions
Oct 10 15:34:47 <_llll_> what does that mean?
Oct 10 15:35:02 <_llll_> useful in what way? or are you just making this up as you go along
Oct 10 15:35:08 <_llll_> because this seems worthless snake oil so far
Oct 10 15:35:13 <porton> _llll_: I don't want to research something other now because my research of funcoids is quite productive
Oct 10 15:35:21 <_llll_> productive? for what?
Oct 10 15:35:24 * toed (~toad@unaffiliated/toed) has joined #mathematics
Oct 10 15:35:31 <porton> _llll_: For new results
Oct 10 15:35:38 <_llll_> results about what?
Oct 10 15:35:49 <_llll_> why should *anyone* care?
Oct 10 15:36:24 <porton> _llll_: Because it is just a beautiful theory. And limits of discontinuous functions seems also practical
Oct 10 15:36:26 * antonfire (~me@ has joined #mathematics
Oct 10 15:36:34 <_llll_> practical for what?
Oct 10 15:36:53 <porton> _llll_: I think they will find uses in engineering, but I'm not sure
Oct 10 15:37:03 <burned> porton, no they won't
Oct 10 15:37:11 <burned> I'm sorry but they won't
Oct 10 15:37:17 <_llll_> can you tell me what the limit, in youre sense, of f:R-->R where f(x)=0 x<0 and f(x)=1, x>=0 is?
Oct 10 15:37:28 * mirror- ( has joined #mathematics
Oct 10 15:38:03 <_llll_> or how about f(x)=0 for x!=0 and f(x)=A for some A.  what is the "limit" of f? is it always 0? or does it depend on A?
Oct 10 15:38:13 <burned> everything you have done is either a relabeling of something old, just flat out crazy nonsense, and not in the "I don't understand this so its crazy" way, in the "please start taking anti-psychotics" way
Oct 10 15:38:24 <burned> +or just
Oct 10 15:38:36 <porton> _llll_: It is a little complex abstract object. So I can't just quickly present it. I want to introduce the definition of my generalized limit below. Using this definition you'd be able to calculate the generalized limits of your functions.
Oct 10 15:38:37 <_llll_> or feel free to pick any other discontinuous fuction with a "natural" limit
Oct 10 15:38:54 <_llll_> but *why* introduce a definition? how do we know it's a sensible definition
Oct 10 15:39:07 <_llll_> anyone can write down a list of symbols and say "i call this the limit"
Oct 10 15:39:12 <_llll_> doesnt mean it's useful
Oct 10 15:39:25 <_llll_> why is your theory useful?
Oct 10 15:39:31 <porton> _llll_: Sorry, I cannot explain this quickly
Oct 10 15:39:52 <porton> Maybe who doesn't want to hear will exit the chat and I'll continue?
Oct 10 15:40:03 <_llll_> given that only you ever heard of funcoids and reloids, and only you think theya re improtant, what is the point of the seminar
Oct 10 15:40:20 <_llll_> you typing meaingless symbols is just wasting eevryone's time
Oct 10 15:40:28 <CESSMASTER> I am interested, and I would appreciate if you would stop being disruptive so that the rest of us could learn
Oct 10 15:40:34 <porton> _llll_: Please exit from the chat and I'll continue
Oct 10 15:41:05 <porton> The theory of funcoids also allows to define limits including...
Oct 10 15:41:09 <porton> generalized limits of arbitrary (discontinuous) functions.
Oct 10 15:41:14 <porton> I have yet not researched how to do (for example) binary operations on limits of discontinuous functions.
Oct 10 15:41:18 <porton> But I expect that it will be always lim f + lim g = lim(f+g).
Oct 10 15:41:23 <porton> To the definition of limits of funcoids:
Oct 10 15:41:27 <porton> A filter object F converges to a filter object A regarding a funcoid f when F <= <f>A.
Oct 10 15:41:34 <porton> (This generalizes the standard definition of filter convergent to a point or to a set.)
Oct 10 15:41:46 <porton> A funcoid f converges to a filter object A regarding a funcoid g iff
Oct 10 15:41:49 <porton> im f <= <g>A that is if im f converges to A regarding g.
Oct 10 15:41:59 <porton> A funcoid converges to a filter object A on a filter object B regarding a funcoid g iff f|_B converges to A regarding g.
Oct 10 15:42:07 <porton> The standard theorem about convergence of composition holds.
Oct 10 15:42:11 <porton> The standard theorem about convergence of a continuous function extends to funcoids.
Oct 10 15:42:18 <porton> Limit of a funcoid is its point (that is a trivial atomic filter object) of convergence.
Oct 10 15:42:33 <porton> Generalized limit (for discontinuous functions):
Oct 10 15:42:36 <porton> Here we need some settings:
Oct 10 15:42:39 <porton> Let m and n are funcoids, G is a group of funcoids.
Oct 10 15:42:46 <porton> Let D is such a set that forall r in G: im r <= D /\ forall x,y in D exists r in G: r(x)=y.
Oct 10 15:42:47 * ChanServ has changed the topic to: meaningless gibberish will continue until further notice
Oct 10 15:42:50 <porton> We require that a and every r in G commutes that is m o r = r o m.
Oct 10 15:43:00 <porton> We require that for every y in UNIV we have n >= <n>{y} X <n>{y}. (1)
Oct 10 15:43:03 <porton> The formula (1) usually works when n is a proximity. It does not work if n is a pretopology or preclosure.
Oct 10 15:43:06 <porton> We are going to consider (generalized) limits of arbitrary functions acting from m to n.
Oct 10 15:43:10 <porton> (The functions in consideration are not required to be continuous.)
Oct 10 15:43:25 <porton> Most typically G is the group of translations of some topological vector space.
Oct 10 15:43:31 <porton> Generalized limit is defined by the following formula:
Oct 10 15:43:34 <porton> xlim f = { n o f o r | r in G }.
Oct 10 15:43:47 <porton> We will assume that the function f is defined on <m>{x}.
Oct 10 15:43:49 <porton> xlim_x f = xlim f|_{<m>{x}}.
Oct 10 15:43:54 <porton> For T_1-separable funcoid n the limits of continuous funcoids bijectively correspond to the points of the space UNIV.
Oct 10 15:44:00 <porton> I finished
Oct 10 15:44:03 <porton> Again read and more generally
Oct 10 15:44:05 <porton> Also subscribe to my blog:
Oct 10 15:44:23 <antonfire> so what's the limit of the function _llll_ mentioned?
Oct 10 15:45:29 <porton> antonfire: substitute the values to the formula. You have an exercise :-) (I also could consider it as an exercise for me as I can't solve this in one second.)
Oct 10 15:45:48 <porton> Well, D is the group of shifts of the real line
Oct 10 15:46:22 <antonfire> so you have a method for taking limits of noncontinuous functions, but you haven't used it to take a limit of the most obvious noncontinuous function to try?
Oct 10 15:46:36 <burned> what if we were working on the 1-sphere, with the group of translations, would everything still work?
Oct 10 15:47:05 <porton> It is all about hiding the complexity of underlined object inside simple theorems
Oct 10 15:47:22 <burned> how about sin(1/x), can you take the limit of this at x->0?
Oct 10 15:47:22 <porton> ... This is just like object oriented programming
Oct 10 15:47:58 <antonfire> Object oriented programming (and abstraction in general) boils down to something concrete.
Oct 10 15:48:01 <porton> burned: Sorry, what is 1-sphere? Isn't it just two points of real line?
Oct 10 15:48:03 <antonfire> Otherwise it's an abstraction of nothing at all.
Oct 10 15:48:04 <_llll_> no, this is about you not understanding basic mathematics
Oct 10 15:48:44 <antonfire> If your theory doesn't give you answers to specific questions that you claim it gives answers to, then your claim is wrong.
Oct 10 15:49:06 <antonfire> If you haven't even tried to use your theory to answer some such specific questions then why the hell are you giving a seminar on it?
Oct 10 15:49:06 <toed> please stop trolling antonfire
Oct 10 15:49:09 <porton> burned: I can write a description of any limit, but not in a few seconds
Oct 10 15:49:20 <CESSMASTER> you guys are being jerks
Oct 10 15:49:35 <antonfire> It's the only way I know to fulfill myself
Oct 10 15:49:40 <@thermoplyae> loveable jerks
Oct 10 15:49:49 <_llll_> porton: why did you call the mess of symbols a limit?
Oct 10 15:50:00 <_llll_> porton: why not call it the integral of a function?
Oct 10 15:50:21 <porton> _llll_: Because for continuous functions it bijectively corresponds to limits in traditional sense!
Oct 10 15:50:33 <_llll_> can you prove that?
Oct 10 15:50:40 <_llll_> or is this another "i forgot"
Oct 10 15:50:53 <porton> Yes, see not so complex proof in my above mentioned article
Oct 10 15:51:11 <_llll_> no-one is going to read your tedious website
Oct 10 15:51:55 <_llll_> you seem to be doing a great disservice to mathematics by continuing this "research"
Oct 10 15:51:58 <porton> _llll_: This proof requires some lemmas. Do you really want I'd put that proof in the chat?
Oct 10 15:52:32 <_llll_> do what you want.  so far you've failed to convince anyone that there is any point reading what you type
Oct 10 15:53:24 <porton> As such, maybe we'll stop the conversation about my theory and switch to someone who was going to take a lesson about 0^0?
Oct 10 15:54:24 <burned> I'd rather we continue
Oct 10 15:54:39 <burned> I find it intriguing to think in new and exciting ways
Oct 10 15:55:07 <_llll_> he's going to tell us about 0^0 now?
Oct 10 15:55:26 <antonfire> hopefully
Oct 10 15:55:27 <_llll_> dont tell me, 0^0 is a reloid?
Oct 10 15:55:37 <_llll_> and 1/0 is a funcoid
Oct 10 15:55:44 <@thermoplyae> he was referring to someone else in #n-m who had jokes about giving a talk on 0^0
Oct 10 15:55:53 <@thermoplyae> or at least i think it was a joke, idk
Oct 10 15:56:09 <porton> thermoplyae: No, 0^0 isn't a joke
Oct 10 15:56:41 <@thermoplyae> o
Oct 10 15:56:49 <porton> Is the next lector here?
Oct 10 15:57:09 <burned> No, he's unavailable right now
Oct 10 15:57:21 <burned> he had to reschedule.
Oct 10 15:57:36 <antonfire> can you fill in?
Oct 10 16:02:20 <porton> I was disconnected from Internet. The last I heard was "antonfire> can you fill in?" Was something said without me?
Oct 10 16:03:06 <toed> < _llll_> i'm sorry i was so hard on your, please go on
Oct 10 16:03:07 <_llll_> they offered you the abel prize, but unfortunately there was a deadline
Oct 10 16:03:48 <_llll_> (so hard on your what?)
Oct 10 16:03:58 <porton> I was disconnected again
Oct 10 16:04:01 <toed> i don't know you said it
Oct 10 16:08:00 <porton> ... and again
Oct 10 16:11:53 <antonfire> just because nobody is talking does not mean you were disconnected from the internet
Oct 10 16:13:49 <kilimanjaro> ❤
Oct 10 16:19:49 * bavarious (~bavarious@pdpc/supporter/student/bavarious) has left #mathematics ("bye")
Oct 10 16:23:57 * porton has quit (Quit: Leaving)
Oct 10 16:35:19 * Kasadkad (~Kasadkad@ has joined #mathematics
Oct 10 16:37:23 * thermoplyae has changed the topic to: Next seminar: TBD.  Join #math for mathematical discussion.
Oct 10 16:37:25 * thermoplyae sets mode +m #mathematics
Oct 10 16:37:28 * thermoplyae removes channel operator status from thermoplyae
Oct 10 16:39:22 * thermoplyae ( has left #mathematics