/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12202029
Well, anon has suggested, although I might be misinterpreting him, that flat-earthers extrapolate the earth's local flatness to a global flatness.
In my opinion, this doesn't make sense. The earth isn't locally flat. The earth is locally bumpy, with hills, valleys and the like.
However, even if you're going up a mountain or going down a hill, gravity points in the same downwards direction. We know, with the benefit of hindsight, that gravity actually points to the center of the earth, and not a global downwards coordinate. But otherwise extrapolating that gravity everywhere points to a same downwards direction makes perfect sense.
So, from then on, assuming that the earth is actually a sphere or some sort of log would essentially imply that the oceans slip off of it, so you're forced to assume it's flat.

In addition, if you look at something like https://www.livescience.com/24310-flat-earth-belief.html , you'll notice that flat-earth has a weird explanation of gravity. They don't say something like "there's a really large mass beneath the earth disk that produces gravity as per Newton's theory", it's actually the disk accelerating upwards.

That's what I think, at least.

>>12159527
>killing the thread this fast
Rude desu.
Also, your solution to 2. is incorrect. You're given [math]m + 1[/math] polynomials and [math]\mathcal{P}_m[/math] has dimension [math]m + 1[/math].

>>12150465
I think you could start out with just linear algebra, basic group theory and ring theory (maybe some topology for compact groups), but rep theory was one of those subjects like number theory where the requirements gradually expand until they become literally everything.
>inb4 how basic is the group and ring theory
Serre recalls in his Linear Reps of Finite Groups what's an abelian group and how you do products of abelian groups,