/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12319866
>if unlikely thing happened, then i can explain it in convoluted way!

hey i'm the guy who originally posted the weak* definition lacking full generality and i want to emphasize that most of you people are fucking idiots and that yukariposter is a great boon for the board and for /mg/ and /sqt/
i only meant to make sure the original guy who asked wasn't confused by how yukariposter's response to my definition was phrased. i hold no ill will toward yukariposter and actually appreciated the opportunity to learn about the weak* topology as it applies to operators.
since i am learning operator algebras and such at an early graduate level now, i can say with partial certainty that yukariposter generally knows what they are talking about when it comes to operator algebras and QM, as well as with differential geometry and its noncommutative equivalents. i greatly appreciate having someone with this perspective and background on /mg/ as someone who finds the field fascinating.
and also that shit isn't that hard to learn, i've been doing it for like a year and i know plenty of what the dude talks about, i'm sure any competent grad student who is looking at mathematical physics would easily comprehend most of yukariposter's expositions and responses.

>>10321785
I'm not clicking on that tweet because twitter is shit, but I'll bite and give my perspective.
Math itself is not racist.
Math education can be unequal and unjust, and this can disproportionately affect certain groups. It itself is not racist, but the narrative around it is - people are told they won't be good at math by popular media, and they take those cues. The only people who have a significant number of role models combating that belief are us white guys. I don't think there should be less of that, just more of everyone else too (and less braindead pop media overall).
Statistics can also be presented in a way that is racist, even though a raw statistical analysis cannot be called racist itself. Like, data collection methods could be biased, or the researchers/reporters could make a conclusion that isn't evident from their analysis because they neglect other factors (this happens a lot). Much of the time, they don't neglect these factors, but the people who are looking at the study DO and take the wrong conclusion. This happens on both sides of the "math is racist" argument constantly.
Math academia is not necessarily racist per say, but it is unwelcoming to certain groups just by sheer proportions. I wouldn't feel super comfortable working in my uni's comparative literature department, so I can understand why someone wouldn't feel comfortable in your average math department.
That's just my take, it's not fact.

>>10267432
caltech is a meme

>>10234211
no.
back to your containment board, wherever that is.