/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8855605
>what lies beyond the event horizon?
The Cauchy horizon, obviously,

>How much did you or are you paying for your STEM degree?
169€, twice a year

> University you're currently or did attend?
Göttingen, Germany

>Major?
Physics

>Did you pay with CASH or STUDENT LOANS?
CASH

>Will you be working for the rest of your life to pay back your student loans like a slave?
/

> Did your parents help you pay for college?
Yes.

>What will you do with your degree in the next 5 years?
What does anybody ever do with a degree?
The knowledge gained in what counts to me. I'll be doing some job (chances for a good career in academia seem too small) and I'll continue learning in my free time, hopefully finding out out something noteworthy.

He's too greedy/competitive.
If I'd not already fallen out of my delusion with academia, reading the catfights on on the HoTT mailing lists would definitely end it. (They get deleted, though)

You're programming, right? It's scary to know those people engineer our cars.

-80 + 1080 · f_G(x/90-46/9)

You're programming, right? It's scary to know those people engineer our cars.

-80 + 1080 · f_G(x/80-46/9)

You're programming, right? It's scary to know those people engineer our cars.

-80 + (1000-(-80)) · f_G(x)

>>7080404
Okay, with software I didn't mean general purpose programming languages, but chemistry specific programs.
I'm in the field of chemical kinetics (e.g. CHEMKIN is big)

>>6704789
I'm doing a PhD in at a respected institute. Sometimes I ask myself that question. Other times I think to myself: why not.

As I saw someone putting it at another board: There is literally no place besides 4chan where people just blandly say what they think.

>>6704793
How do you actually come to the conclusion the others are better? And isn't that a good thing, in principle, you can learn from them.

Generally, what do you do in particular, what is your field?
It's good to have some people around to know their stuff. Since when are you lurking and in what discussions have you been participating, in general?

>>6621057
Thanks, though I've actually read some of the book (pic related) which contains Ishams long paper and if I recall correctly, they work in a presheaf category and that should even be a topos and Cartesian closed category in particular and so have products and even exponential objects.
(I didn't get back to the approach when I saw Urs Schreiber rant negatively about it - but I guess that's what academics too if they work in the same field and have completely different approaches.)

Anyway, I asked around and now my candidate is the category of fields:
A structure preserving morphism between two fields F1, F2 can only be if the fields have the same characteristic. Therefore this category lacks a whole lot of morphisms.