• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 01:40
CEST 07:40
KST 14:40
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy2Code S RO8 Preview: herO, Zoun, Bunny, Classic7Code S RO8 Preview: Rogue, GuMiho, Solar, Maru3BGE Stara Zagora 2025: Info & Preview27Code S RO12 Preview: GuMiho, Bunny, SHIN, ByuN3
Community News
Code S RO8 Results + RO4 Bracket (2025 Season 2)4BGE Stara Zagora 2025 - Replay Pack2Weekly Cups (June 2-8): herO doubles down1[BSL20] ProLeague: Bracket Stage & Dates9GSL Ro4 and Finals moved to Sunday June 15th13
StarCraft 2
General
The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation Code S RO8 Results + RO4 Bracket (2025 Season 2) How herO can make history in the Code S S2 finals TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing
Tourneys
[GSL 2025] Code S: Season 2 - Ro8 - Group A [GSL 2025] Code S: Season 2 - Ro8 - Group B RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series SOOPer7s Showmatches 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament
Strategy
[G] Darkgrid Layout Simple Questions Simple Answers [G] PvT Cheese: 13 Gate Proxy Robo
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady Mutation # 476 Charnel House Mutation # 475 Hard Target Mutation # 474 Futile Resistance
Brood War
General
BGH auto balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW General Discussion FlaSh Witnesses SCV Pull Off the Impossible vs Shu StarCraft & BroodWar Campaign Speedrun Quest Will foreigners ever be able to challenge Koreans?
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] ProLeague Bracket Stage - Day 4 [BSL20] ProLeague Bracket Stage - Day 3 [ASL19] Grand Finals
Strategy
I am doing this better than progamers do. [G] How to get started on ladder as a new Z player
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile Nintendo Switch Thread Beyond All Reason What do you want from future RTS games?
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Who’s Getting the Effortless-Chic Look Just Right?
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine UK Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Vape Nation Thread
Fan Clubs
Maru Fan Club Serral Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Korean Music Discussion [Manga] One Piece
Sports
NHL Playoffs 2024 TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
A Better Routine For Progame…
TrAiDoS
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
I was completely wrong ab…
jameswatts
Need Your Help/Advice
Glider
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 27309 users

Math Puzzle #3 - Page 2

Blogs > mieda
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2 3 Next All
AlienAlias
Profile Joined June 2009
United States324 Posts
September 10 2010 21:35 GMT
#21
I don't really understand the question ._.

all that comes to my mind is let f(x) = x, let g(x) = x (thus, all f(Q) = g(Q)), then f(x) = g(ax + b) for a = 1, b = 0.
mieda
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
United States85 Posts
September 10 2010 21:37 GMT
#22
On September 11 2010 06:35 AlienAlias wrote:
I don't really understand the question ._.

all that comes to my mind is let f(x) = x, let g(x) = x (thus, all f(Q) = g(Q)), then f(x) = g(ax + b) for a = 1, b = 0.


The question is that for *any* two polynomials f,g with rational coefficients satisfying f(Q) = g(Q), there exists some rational constants a,b such that f(x) = g(ax + b).

You've only considered one particular case of f(x) = x and g(x) = x. That's one out of infinitely many f,g satisfying the conditions of the problem.
mieda
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
United States85 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-09-10 21:52:35
September 10 2010 21:47 GMT
#23
On September 11 2010 06:29 naptiem wrote:
Here's an attempt for any field, F:

+ Show Spoiler +

Since f(F)=g(F), g(F) includes f(x) and there must be an element s of F where g(s)=f(x).

Rewrite s in the form ax+b for some a,b in F:

If x = 0, let b = s and a be any number in F.
Then ax+b = a 0 + s = s.

If x is not 0, let a = x^-1, the multiplicative inverse of x in F, and b = s - 1.
Then ax+b = (x^-1) x + (s - 1) = 1 + (s - 1) = s.

In both cases, ax+b = s and g(ax+b) = g(s) = f(x).


Edit: Never mind, I think I misread the problem.


K. In fact, you can easily come up with counterexamples over the complex or over the reals.

The generalization I have in mind is to number fields with real embeddings, and the significant fact is the existence of a lattice L of F (F is finite extension of Q, with real embedding), i.e. L is free abelian group with rank = [F:Q], and the L sitting in F tensor_Q R, where the latter is given a topology as a vector space, is a discrete subgroup.
AlienAlias
Profile Joined June 2009
United States324 Posts
September 10 2010 21:55 GMT
#24
so basically the question is to prove that if f(x) and g(x) are polynomials (rational etc) of the same degree, there will be some a and b in which f(x) = g(ax + b)? or is there something else in this whole talk of sets and fields that I'm missing?
mieda
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
United States85 Posts
September 10 2010 21:57 GMT
#25
On September 11 2010 06:55 AlienAlias wrote:
so basically the question is to prove that if f(x) and g(x) are polynomials (rational etc) of the same degree, there will be some a and b in which f(x) = g(ax + b)? or is there something else in this whole talk of sets and fields that I'm missing?


No. The question is properly stated as it is. You're adding the assumption that deg f = deg g now, which will follow from the condition f(x) = g(ax + b) but that requires a bit of work still.
AlienAlias
Profile Joined June 2009
United States324 Posts
September 10 2010 22:03 GMT
#26
On September 11 2010 06:57 mieda wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 11 2010 06:55 AlienAlias wrote:
so basically the question is to prove that if f(x) and g(x) are polynomials (rational etc) of the same degree, there will be some a and b in which f(x) = g(ax + b)? or is there something else in this whole talk of sets and fields that I'm missing?


No. The question is properly stated as it is. You're adding the assumption that deg f = deg g now, which will follow from the condition f(x) = g(ax + b) but that requires a bit of work still.


I'm sorry, I'm just trying to understand the original problem because I'm not exactly sure what
Suppose f(Q) = g(Q) (i.e. the sets of values of f and g on the rationals are the same).
means. In my first post, I thought this meant the same thing as f(x) = g(x), which means by law of identity they are the same function and thus the question is silly.
However, apparently it involves things by the names of 'sets' and 'embedded fields' and other things I've not heard of before, so I'm trying to see if I can simplify it to terms that I would understand. I saw an example of f(x) = x^2 and g(x) = (2x)^2 for which f(Q) = g(Q), so I figured that whole thing meant the degree was equal.
mieda
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
United States85 Posts
September 10 2010 22:11 GMT
#27
On September 11 2010 07:03 AlienAlias wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 11 2010 06:57 mieda wrote:
On September 11 2010 06:55 AlienAlias wrote:
so basically the question is to prove that if f(x) and g(x) are polynomials (rational etc) of the same degree, there will be some a and b in which f(x) = g(ax + b)? or is there something else in this whole talk of sets and fields that I'm missing?


No. The question is properly stated as it is. You're adding the assumption that deg f = deg g now, which will follow from the condition f(x) = g(ax + b) but that requires a bit of work still.


I'm sorry, I'm just trying to understand the original problem because I'm not exactly sure what
Show nested quote +
Suppose f(Q) = g(Q) (i.e. the sets of values of f and g on the rationals are the same).
means. In my first post, I thought this meant the same thing as f(x) = g(x), which means by law of identity they are the same function and thus the question is silly.
However, apparently it involves things by the names of 'sets' and 'embedded fields' and other things I've not heard of before, so I'm trying to see if I can simplify it to terms that I would understand. I saw an example of f(x) = x^2 and g(x) = (2x)^2 for which f(Q) = g(Q), so I figured that whole thing meant the degree was equal.


I see. I'll try to clarify what f(Q) = g(Q) means.

First, f(Q) means the set of all numbers in the range of f when you restrict the domain of f on the rationals. So for example, if f(x) = x^2 then f(Q) is the *set* or collection of all numbers y such that there exists some rational number x with y = x^2. For example, 25 is in this set because 25 = 5^2. 25/36 is also in the set because 25/36 = (5/6)^2 . You take the collection of all these numbers y such that there exists some x rational with y = f(x), and that's given a notation f(Q).

Likewise g(Q) is the collection of all numbers y such that there exists (depending on y) some rational number x such that y = g(x).

So the condition f(Q) = g(Q) just says the two sets are equal. In plain terms, it says that for any rational number x, you can find a rational number y (depending on x) such that f(x) = g(y). And vice versa.
Muirhead
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
United States556 Posts
September 10 2010 22:14 GMT
#28
On September 11 2010 06:29 mieda wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 11 2010 06:25 Muirhead wrote:
f(Q) clearly equals g(Q) if f(x)=g(ax+b)

Thus WLOG f and g have integer coefficients that are relatively prime and 0 as their constant terms.

Suppose f(x)=a_nx^n+...a_1*x.

Suppose g(x)=b_nx^n+...+b_1*x.

Let p^r be a prime power dividing a_1 but not b_1, if such a prime power exists. Then f(x) will always be divisible by p either less than or equal to 0 times or more than r times, while g(p) is divisible by p at least once and at most r times.

So this means that f(Q)=g(Q) then a_1= plus/minus b_1

One can continue inductively through all the coefficients


Need a lot more details, and I'm not convinced of this argument either. You're saying WLOG assume 0 as their constant terms? And then you're assuming deg f = deg g (this is true, but you didn't mention how to prove this at all). And then there's the next paragraph which doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

Enjoy your Friday anyway!


My argument works. By "being divisible by p" k times I mean that the p-adic valuation of the rational number is blah blah... I think I assumed f,g have the same degree but it doesn't affect the argument if they have different agrees.
starleague.mit.edu
Muirhead
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
United States556 Posts
September 10 2010 22:14 GMT
#29
Also my argument works for any number field :D
starleague.mit.edu
mieda
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
United States85 Posts
September 10 2010 22:16 GMT
#30
On September 11 2010 07:14 Muirhead wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 11 2010 06:29 mieda wrote:
On September 11 2010 06:25 Muirhead wrote:
f(Q) clearly equals g(Q) if f(x)=g(ax+b)

Thus WLOG f and g have integer coefficients that are relatively prime and 0 as their constant terms.

Suppose f(x)=a_nx^n+...a_1*x.

Suppose g(x)=b_nx^n+...+b_1*x.

Let p^r be a prime power dividing a_1 but not b_1, if such a prime power exists. Then f(x) will always be divisible by p either less than or equal to 0 times or more than r times, while g(p) is divisible by p at least once and at most r times.

So this means that f(Q)=g(Q) then a_1= plus/minus b_1

One can continue inductively through all the coefficients


Need a lot more details, and I'm not convinced of this argument either. You're saying WLOG assume 0 as their constant terms? And then you're assuming deg f = deg g (this is true, but you didn't mention how to prove this at all). And then there's the next paragraph which doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

Enjoy your Friday anyway!


My argument works. By "being divisible by p" k times I mean that the p-adic valuation of the rational number is blah blah... I think I assumed f,g have the same degree but it doesn't affect the argument if they have different agrees.


p-adic valuation of what? How did you reduce to the relatively prime case? And what is relatively prime?
Muirhead
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
United States556 Posts
September 10 2010 22:18 GMT
#31
On September 11 2010 07:16 mieda wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 11 2010 07:14 Muirhead wrote:
On September 11 2010 06:29 mieda wrote:
On September 11 2010 06:25 Muirhead wrote:
f(Q) clearly equals g(Q) if f(x)=g(ax+b)

Thus WLOG f and g have integer coefficients that are relatively prime and 0 as their constant terms.

Suppose f(x)=a_nx^n+...a_1*x.

Suppose g(x)=b_nx^n+...+b_1*x.

Let p^r be a prime power dividing a_1 but not b_1, if such a prime power exists. Then f(x) will always be divisible by p either less than or equal to 0 times or more than r times, while g(p) is divisible by p at least once and at most r times.

So this means that f(Q)=g(Q) then a_1= plus/minus b_1

One can continue inductively through all the coefficients


Need a lot more details, and I'm not convinced of this argument either. You're saying WLOG assume 0 as their constant terms? And then you're assuming deg f = deg g (this is true, but you didn't mention how to prove this at all). And then there's the next paragraph which doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

Enjoy your Friday anyway!


My argument works. By "being divisible by p" k times I mean that the p-adic valuation of the rational number is blah blah... I think I assumed f,g have the same degree but it doesn't affect the argument if they have different agrees.


p-adic valuation of what? How did you reduce to the relatively prime case? And what is relatively prime?


I'll write it up in more detail later if nobody else gets it by tonight :D. My Friday is filled with the all important and super sexy Starcraft LAN at MIT :D
starleague.mit.edu
mieda
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
United States85 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-09-10 22:19:31
September 10 2010 22:19 GMT
#32
On September 11 2010 07:18 Muirhead wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 11 2010 07:16 mieda wrote:
On September 11 2010 07:14 Muirhead wrote:
On September 11 2010 06:29 mieda wrote:
On September 11 2010 06:25 Muirhead wrote:
f(Q) clearly equals g(Q) if f(x)=g(ax+b)

Thus WLOG f and g have integer coefficients that are relatively prime and 0 as their constant terms.

Suppose f(x)=a_nx^n+...a_1*x.

Suppose g(x)=b_nx^n+...+b_1*x.

Let p^r be a prime power dividing a_1 but not b_1, if such a prime power exists. Then f(x) will always be divisible by p either less than or equal to 0 times or more than r times, while g(p) is divisible by p at least once and at most r times.

So this means that f(Q)=g(Q) then a_1= plus/minus b_1

One can continue inductively through all the coefficients


Need a lot more details, and I'm not convinced of this argument either. You're saying WLOG assume 0 as their constant terms? And then you're assuming deg f = deg g (this is true, but you didn't mention how to prove this at all). And then there's the next paragraph which doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

Enjoy your Friday anyway!


My argument works. By "being divisible by p" k times I mean that the p-adic valuation of the rational number is blah blah... I think I assumed f,g have the same degree but it doesn't affect the argument if they have different agrees.


p-adic valuation of what? How did you reduce to the relatively prime case? And what is relatively prime?


I'll write it up in more detail later if nobody else gets it by tonight :D. My Friday is filled with the all important and super sexy Starcraft LAN at MIT :D


Becareful there, Starcraft can take up all your time even on weekdays if you're not careful I quit Harvard CSL since I was spending way too much time on ICCUP :p
Muirhead
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
United States556 Posts
September 10 2010 22:21 GMT
#33
On September 11 2010 07:19 mieda wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 11 2010 07:18 Muirhead wrote:
On September 11 2010 07:16 mieda wrote:
On September 11 2010 07:14 Muirhead wrote:
On September 11 2010 06:29 mieda wrote:
On September 11 2010 06:25 Muirhead wrote:
f(Q) clearly equals g(Q) if f(x)=g(ax+b)

Thus WLOG f and g have integer coefficients that are relatively prime and 0 as their constant terms.

Suppose f(x)=a_nx^n+...a_1*x.

Suppose g(x)=b_nx^n+...+b_1*x.

Let p^r be a prime power dividing a_1 but not b_1, if such a prime power exists. Then f(x) will always be divisible by p either less than or equal to 0 times or more than r times, while g(p) is divisible by p at least once and at most r times.

So this means that f(Q)=g(Q) then a_1= plus/minus b_1

One can continue inductively through all the coefficients


Need a lot more details, and I'm not convinced of this argument either. You're saying WLOG assume 0 as their constant terms? And then you're assuming deg f = deg g (this is true, but you didn't mention how to prove this at all). And then there's the next paragraph which doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

Enjoy your Friday anyway!


My argument works. By "being divisible by p" k times I mean that the p-adic valuation of the rational number is blah blah... I think I assumed f,g have the same degree but it doesn't affect the argument if they have different agrees.


p-adic valuation of what? How did you reduce to the relatively prime case? And what is relatively prime?


I'll write it up in more detail later if nobody else gets it by tonight :D. My Friday is filled with the all important and super sexy Starcraft LAN at MIT :D


Becareful there, Starcraft can take up all your time even on weekdays if you're not careful I quit Harvard CSL since I was spending way too much time on ICCUP :p


Hm you wouldn't happen to be Arnav Tripathy, Alex Zhai, Zachary Abel, or Yi Sun would you? I imagine you at least know those people
starleague.mit.edu
mieda
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
United States85 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-09-10 22:49:06
September 10 2010 22:22 GMT
#34
On September 11 2010 07:21 Muirhead wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 11 2010 07:19 mieda wrote:
On September 11 2010 07:18 Muirhead wrote:
On September 11 2010 07:16 mieda wrote:
On September 11 2010 07:14 Muirhead wrote:
On September 11 2010 06:29 mieda wrote:
On September 11 2010 06:25 Muirhead wrote:
f(Q) clearly equals g(Q) if f(x)=g(ax+b)

Thus WLOG f and g have integer coefficients that are relatively prime and 0 as their constant terms.

Suppose f(x)=a_nx^n+...a_1*x.

Suppose g(x)=b_nx^n+...+b_1*x.

Let p^r be a prime power dividing a_1 but not b_1, if such a prime power exists. Then f(x) will always be divisible by p either less than or equal to 0 times or more than r times, while g(p) is divisible by p at least once and at most r times.

So this means that f(Q)=g(Q) then a_1= plus/minus b_1

One can continue inductively through all the coefficients


Need a lot more details, and I'm not convinced of this argument either. You're saying WLOG assume 0 as their constant terms? And then you're assuming deg f = deg g (this is true, but you didn't mention how to prove this at all). And then there's the next paragraph which doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

Enjoy your Friday anyway!


My argument works. By "being divisible by p" k times I mean that the p-adic valuation of the rational number is blah blah... I think I assumed f,g have the same degree but it doesn't affect the argument if they have different agrees.


p-adic valuation of what? How did you reduce to the relatively prime case? And what is relatively prime?


I'll write it up in more detail later if nobody else gets it by tonight :D. My Friday is filled with the all important and super sexy Starcraft LAN at MIT :D


Becareful there, Starcraft can take up all your time even on weekdays if you're not careful I quit Harvard CSL since I was spending way too much time on ICCUP :p


Hm you wouldn't happen to be Arnav Tripathy, Alex Zhai, Zachary Abel, or Yi Sun would you? I imagine you at least know those people


I do know Zachary, met him at the math lounge. I don't know the rest.

In fact, are you taking a course at Harvard by any chance?
category
Profile Joined July 2009
United States85 Posts
September 10 2010 23:16 GMT
#35
I was wondering if it might be useful to prove that the degrees must be equal as an intermediate step. But I have no idea how to prove even that.
mieda
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
United States85 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-09-12 06:37:04
September 10 2010 23:35 GMT
#36
On September 11 2010 06:25 Muirhead wrote:
f(Q) clearly equals g(Q) if f(x)=g(ax+b)

Thus WLOG f and g have integer coefficients that are relatively prime and 0 as their constant terms.

Suppose f(x)=a_nx^n+...a_1*x.

Suppose g(x)=b_nx^n+...+b_1*x.

Let p^r be a prime power dividing a_1 but not b_1, if such a prime power exists. Then f(x) will always be divisible by p either less than or equal to 0 times or more than r times, while g(p) is divisible by p at least once and at most r times.

So this means that f(Q)=g(Q) then a_1= plus/minus b_1

One can continue inductively through all the coefficients


This is wrong and you should be careful there, it's a common error that a lot of students seem to make. Take f(x) = x^3 + 4x and g(x) = x^3 + x^2 - 2x. the 2-adic valuation (additive) v(4) = 2 and v(2) = 1. Here your r = 2. But v(g(2)) = 3 > 2 = r now.

Also, you seem to be proving that if f(x) = a_n x^n + a_{n-1} x^{n-1} + ... + a_1 x and g(x) = b_n x^n +b_{n-1} x^{n-1} + ... + b_1 x are of those form (no constant terms and contents of f,g are 1) and f(Q) = g(Q), then all the corresponding coefficients are +/- of each other. Here's a counterexample: Take g(x) = x^3 + x^2 - 2x as above. Then g(x+1) = x^3 + 4x^2 + 3x. But -2 and 3 have different 2-adic and 3-adic valuations, even though the images of g(x) and g(x+1) on the rationals are the same.

There are some other road blocks that I can immediately think of in just doing simple valuation calculations, so you'd better write up a detailed attempt. It most likely won't work.

As Richard likes to say, devil's always in the detail :p .

Speaking of which, I remember I was trying to show him some calculations I did with etale cohomology of some rigid analytic spaces (the method I used, as you might know was to compute combinatorially by finding some open affinoids with good reduction - well you need a semistable model also - and you can imagine how complicated it can get with spectral sequences of rapoport-zink) and I was very sure some parts were standard calculations, little did I know he caught one error and proceeded to tell me a lengthy story with "devil's in the detail" as his point. Of course this problem is nowhere as complicated as computing spectral sequences, and does admit elementary solutions, but he taught me to always be careful

Valuation calculations is the first thing one would try for this problem. I think you probably need to do a little more than simple valuation calculations, but who knows.

Edit: Rapoport is visiting Harvard at the moment. If you do algebraic geometry you should probably talk to him while he's still here ^^
KristianJS
Profile Joined October 2009
2107 Posts
September 11 2010 00:56 GMT
#37
Looks interesting, I'll have a go. Thinking geometrically seems to give some intuition and I have some vague ideas as to how the specific behaviour of polynomials can come into play, but nothing crystallized yet. Bedtime too anyway so will try again tomorrow
You need to be 100% behind someone before you can stab them in the back
mieda
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
United States85 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-09-11 01:23:37
September 11 2010 00:58 GMT
#38
On September 11 2010 09:56 KristianJS wrote:
Looks interesting, I'll have a go. Thinking geometrically seems to give some intuition and I have some vague ideas as to how the specific behaviour of polynomials can come into play, but nothing crystallized yet. Bedtime too anyway so will try again tomorrow


Great!
mieda
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
United States85 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-09-11 08:31:58
September 11 2010 08:25 GMT
#39
I just finished typing my solution to this in LaTeX, so anyone who would like to see my solution can PM me!

Edit: I'll post it tomorrow or day after tomorrow probably.
FiBsTeR
Profile Blog Joined February 2008
United States415 Posts
September 11 2010 14:16 GMT
#40
Gogogo muirhead! MIT fighting! :D

Remember me mieda? We played on iccup and east before. Do you play sc2 now?

Oh and btw it's not being able to solve problems like these that push me further and further into the less pure land of CS.
Prev 1 2 3 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
OSC
00:00
OSC Elite Rising Star #15
TBD vs ArTLIVE!
Liquipedia
Replay Cast
00:00
uThermal 2v2 Circuit: May
Liquipedia
OSC
21:00
Mid Season Playoffs
ArT vs ReBellioN
HonMonO vs Ziomek
Shameless vs LunaSea
MilkiCow vs GgMaChine
Moja vs HiGhDrA
Jumy vs TBD
Demi vs NightPhoenix
Solar vs Cham
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 280
Livibee 126
StarCraft: Brood War
Leta 386
JulyZerg 175
ToSsGirL 48
Nal_rA 28
Shine 11
TY 10
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K1313
Other Games
summit1g9359
C9.Mang01486
shahzam1153
kaitlyn23
Organizations
Dota 2
PGL Dota 2 - Secondary Stream5059
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 18 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH300
• Light_VIP 108
• practicex 36
• IndyKCrew
• Migwel
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• sooper7s
• intothetv
• Kozan
• LaughNgamezSOOP
StarCraft: Brood War
• RayReign 82
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
League of Legends
• Doublelift6168
• Stunt365
• HappyZerGling78
Other Games
• Scarra1713
Upcoming Events
WardiTV Invitational
5h 20m
HiGhDrA vs Nicoract
MaNa vs HiGhDrA
HiGhDrA vs Reynor
Nicoract vs Reynor
MaNa vs Nicoract
MaNa vs Reynor
MaxPax vs Spirit
Krystianer vs Spirit
OSC
7h 20m
BSL 2v2 ProLeague S3
13h 20m
Korean StarCraft League
21h 20m
SOOP
1d 3h
sOs vs Percival
CranKy Ducklings
1d 4h
WardiTV Invitational
1d 5h
Cheesadelphia
1d 9h
CSO Cup
1d 11h
BSL: ProLeague
1d 12h
Hawk vs UltrA
Sziky vs spx
TerrOr vs JDConan
[ Show More ]
GSL Code S
2 days
Rogue vs herO
Classic vs GuMiho
Sparkling Tuna Cup
2 days
BSL: ProLeague
2 days
Bonyth vs Dewalt
Cross vs Doodle
MadiNho vs Dragon
Replay Cast
2 days
Wardi Open
3 days
Replay Cast
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
Cure vs Percival
ByuN vs Spirit
RSL Revival
5 days
herO vs sOs
Zoun vs Clem
Replay Cast
5 days
The PondCast
6 days
RSL Revival
6 days
Serral vs SHIN
Solar vs Cham
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Season 17: Qualifier 2
BGE Stara Zagora 2025
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
NPSL S3
Rose Open S1
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
2025 GSL S2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025
PGL Bucharest 2025

Upcoming

Copa Latinoamericana 4
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
SEL Season 2 Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
HSC XXVII
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.