/sci/ - Science & Math

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7qSJ19f_QU#t=2m47s

exercise.

>Once again it's Alpha Male 17 here. In case you don't know, the 1 is cause I'm numero uno and the 7 is because I'm lucky to be number one.

How is it alpha to says that you're lucky to be the number one?
Grothendieck is alpha, he organizes math lectures in a warzone. (He is also a little crazy, obviously.) (His father was a famous poilitical anarchist too.)

>2012
>Platonism
I really can't wrap my head around it, I feel it's difficult to not put the human perception of things in the centre of your philosophy.

I find topos theory neat, but to be honest I don't see how category theory is independend to set theory anyway. It's maybe not necessary to use the full axiomatic machinery, but the notion of object (in classes!) you work with still neads the understanding of sets. Maybe the intuistic concept suffices, but set theory is everywhere. I mean it's even informally used in logic (before! introduction of the set theory axioms.) That is the formal way of understanding semantics in logic (structures/models) heavily borrows truths about sets. Denying platonism, I feel you have to be a formalst - and that's the save position anyway.
Why be sad about shit like that anyway. Feel with it!

>>4304483
you wouldn't do that.
anyway, regarding the order, you should just take a look at the feynman rules of the theory.
you want one gauge field in, one out, draw these two lines and look how you can connect them in a minimal way, infolving ghost propagators. then count the vertices, i.e. powers of the coupling and you see what order these graphs will contribute.

>Macintosh, which is a type of apple

fun fact: Rambo is actually names after a type of apples

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambo_apple

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rambo#Origins

http://www.proofwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page

http://www.proofwiki.org/wiki/Category:Proofs

>>4142178
Na, you mentioned the prof, that's what I ment.

I think you do it by coming up with a second weak derivative (i.e. assuming there is another function under the integral which does the job) and then you show that both functions - the standard weak derivative and the new - one have difference zero.