/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12517353
Well what's optimal, that's a normative phrase.
It might be effective for a time of discovering certain new things, but I guess it's a phase. Possibly you also mean that the affinity of popular algebraic geometers leads to a stream of texts that present math just like so, and that new students waste their twenties in learning.

In physics at least, where I dare to pass judgement, I have the feeling that a new speedup of progress can be achieved by a cleanup of terminology. I'd like for future book to stop with the habit and desire to carry along old conceptions, mixing them with new results and thus create those convoluted messes.

>>12517490
>>12517621
My vague understanding is that he looks at
[math]\int f\mu[/math]
with
[math]f\colon S\to R[/math]
as
[math] \mu\mapsto \big(f\mapsto \int f\mu\big) [/math]
with and his better topological spaces have some cartesian closed properties so that
[math]{\mathrm {Hom}}({\mathrm {Hom}}(S, R), R)[/math]
is a much better objects, some topological abelian group in itself. Something something profinite group, FinSet, something.

>>12517220
good effort

>>12517410
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/carrying