/sci/ - Science & Math

Daily reminder that Teichmuller was a Nazi, member of Nazi party and served in SS, so Memezuki and others by developing IUT spread the Nazi agenda and are literally Hitler

this is now a "roasting American education" thread

why are Americans so shite at mathematics

>>9543024
>france ranking low for math
that is the most trivial picture

>>9543019
fake news

>>9542924
>56%
Not sure if he is asian with those pussy lips

>>9543050
A member of theNSDAP andSturmabteilung from 1931, Teichmüller was drafted into theWehrmachtin July 1939. He took part in the invasion of Norway in 1940

sup piggots

>>9543019
>>9543080
He was a great mathematician. What a waste. He died very young. I can't imagine why he was in a fighting unit and not in Berlin breaking codes. It seems absurd to me.

>>9543024
You do realize that only 60% of the US is white and asian? We do pretty well considering our demographics.

>>9543169
>>9543024
Mexico is 408 and look at all the African countries.

>>9543167
Because he was a die-hard Nazi

2x + 5y = 13

2x + 5y = 34

What's a good introductory book on representation theory¿?

>>9543375
>What's a good introductory book on representation theory¿?
Etingof, or Webb

y = 6.8 - (2x/5) ?

I was reading this short paper "Complete Sets" (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.05124.pdf)) and came across this Conjecture 3.1 (pic related). Is n=37 a counterexample?

(A set of integers is "complete" if the product of all its elements is an integer multiple of the sum of all its elements)

If n=37 (satisfies the odd length condition) then the sum of the first 37 odd primes is 2745=(3^2)*5*61. This set of 37 odd primes isn't complete since the product of the first 37 odd primes only has one factor of 3, so can't be a multiple of a number with two factors of 3. 2745 isn't prime, and [math] \omega(L) = 3 > 2[/math].

>>9543436
What exactly is that omega function describing? The sum of 1 from p (undefined?) divides L? Never seen that notation before.

>>9543493
omega is the number of primes that divide L. (sum over all p, implied to be prime like in every other case somebody uses the letter p, of 1)

>>9543436
>>9543493
Nevermind, just looked it up. Disgusting misuse of notation, by the way.

Anyhow, yeah, it seems like a counterexample. The set isn't complete, the sum isn't a prime, and w(L) is equal to three.

>>9543515
In fact, I wrote a quick Python script to look for more counterexamples. The smallest one is n = 23.

The sum is 961, with a prime factorization of 31^2, so w(961) = 1. Furthermore 961 is not prime, and 961 doesn't divide the product of the first 23 odd primes.

Here are some more counterexamples, from the sets of the first 100 odd primes:
n = 23
n = 27
n = 31
n = 37
n = 93
n = 97

Strange that the author didn't investigate these before-hand, as they're not huge numbers exactly.

>>9543594
Checking the first 1000 odd primes the counterexamples seem to be getting more plentiful, with the average distance between them being much lower. I.e., they're not "spreading out" at all. There were even some "triple" counterexamples, like n = 455, 457, 459.

Please help me. Please. I am struggling in my discrete maths class. I struggle to complete the homework despite reading the chapter and taking notes. I'm at a loss for what to do. Is there a website with notes that can supplement the books notes.

>>9543436
I'd strongly recommend you to write a mail to the author. I checked your claims and they seem to be right.

>>9543375
What kind of representation theory are you interested in? Representation theory is one name for many different topics!

Are category theory and type theory welcome here?

>>9543630
No. Just IQ threads and bashing popular science.

JK, I know someone doing HoTT. Seems to be interesting but I don't know much about it. You're doing HoTT?

>>9543654
Something similar, actually. Temporal type theory. They're both based on toposes.

>>9543436
>>>9543493 >>9543515 >>9543620
Am I correct in thinking Conjecture 3.2 is trivial to prove as well?

Take any finite set of integers [math] T=\{a_1,...,a_n\}[/math] and let [math] T = \{-a_1,...,-a_n\} [/math]. Then [math] S = T \cup -T \cup \{0\} [/math] completes [math] T [/math] since [math] \prod_{i=1}^n a_i \prod_{i=1}^n (-a_i) * 0 = 0 * (\sum_{i=1}^n a_i +\sum_{i=1}^n -a_i + 0)[/math].

>>9543693
Yes, it's a rather trivial and boring thing to do, however. Honestly completing sets in N would be a way more interesting question.

So it seems conjecture 3.1 is false, while 3.2 is trivial.

>>9543019
But can IUT debunk the Holohoax?

>>9543594

>Strange that the author didn't investigate these before-hand.

Scroll to the bottom and you will find your answer. You will never guess where the author is from.

>Department of Mathematics, African Institute for Mathematical science, Ghana

>>9543019
That's pretty cool. Going to read some of his papers now.

>>9543754
>So it seems conjecture 3.1 is false, while 3.2 is trivial.
>African Institute for Mathematical Science
No wonder.

>>9543413
>y = (34/5) - (2x/5)

>>9543874
>>9543850
I still find the idea of complete sets interesting. For example how to complete incomplete sets under N is something worth investigating.

>>9543019
even better

>>9543352
x=2
y=6

x=12
y=2

x=?
y=?

34
5

(24/5) - 6.8 = y

>>9543024

>Israel and hungary not in the top 10

Whatever methodology this used was bad.

∴

2x + 5y = 13 should be the same as y = (13/5) - (2x/5)

I got my certificate!

Where can I find a rigorous approach to vector calculus, akin to something like you'd see in analysis?

>>9544169
>Israel and Hungary
Spotted the kike.

>>9544169
kek
Israel has a sub 95 average IQ.

>>9544620

>>9544624

9544620
9544624
9544626
unfunny and not math related. kys.

>>9544638
nice meme arrows newfag

>>9544638

why can't we all get along? :c

I don't give (You)'s to non math related content.

What's the most Thulean perspective you can have on homotopy? Is it the one by Baues?

>>9544646
Let's find out.

>>9544651
I can guarantee you Varg hates modern mathematics for being too Jewish.
His wife once wrote an angry-ass rant about relativity being a Jewish hoax

>>9544620
>>9544624
>>9544626
But where is the gay (i.e. non-tranny) sex?

>>9544430
I think most real analysis books cover multivariable stuff. I know Pugh and Rudin both do.

>>9544620
>>9544624
>>9544626
But where's the gay (i.e. non-tranny) sex?

>>9544694
It is where it belongs.

>>9544651
Is there any point in doing math if I don't have Hyperborean ancestry?

>>9544651
>>9544707
Am I doomed forever?

>>9544707
No.

>>9544709
Yes, unless you can be adopted into a Hyperborean patrician family. The Romans copied that custom, so find out how it worked there.

>>9544430
Any engineer book suffices.

>>9544705
And where is that?

>>9544694
>>9544732
In >>>/toy/ where subhuman avatarfag physishits belong.

>>9544734
Please watch your language.

>>9544732
Nowhere.

>>9544734
Did you have to swear?

>>9544746
But it's a fact that Grothendieck was gay with Erdos.

Why are all physicists so depressed?
Is it because they cling on to their pseudoscience and sad attempts at math even though deep down they know it's all wrong?

>>9544751
Both were jews. They are not relevant.

>>9544763
Why the antisemitism?
This is /sci/ not >>>/pol/

>>9544754
But Sakurai shows in his "Intuitive approach to cohomology for physicists" that Black Holes exist?

>>9544763
I agree. Day of the ovens when?

>>9544763
>were
Grothendieck is still alive.

Grothendieck toposes are cool though.

>>9544754
How is it pseudoscience?

>>9544786
>Grothendieck is still alive.
Wrong.

>>9544771
If this was /pol/, I would be celebrating the idea that a bald fat guy says the hooknosed demons can call the city where Mohammed was taken to heaven.

>>9544784
ASAP

>>9544786
Nope.

>>9544793
I saw him the other day. Are you implying it was a ghost?

What's the intuition behind Green's theorem?

>>9544806
>Are you implying it was a ghost?
Yes.

Is "mathematical physics" the best field to transfer to from math if I simply can't handle it? I'm a sub 80 IQ black "person".

>>9544802
Will Varg help us in our cause?

>>9544808
see >>>/toy/physics/ for physical intuitions. This is a mathematics thread.

>>9544808
>George Green

>>9544824
I'm quite sure he will. He will at least give us the best Thulêan camo patterns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_Btj_hOVgM

>>9544835
Yes then it is decided.

>>9544828
Are you implying mathematics has no intuition?

>>9544848
see >>9544828 for the implications in my post. It's all there. Proceed to >>>/toy/physics/ if you are unsatisfied with it.

>>9544842
Heill Óðinn and good night to you fellow judenkiller.

>>9544852
Brainlet.

>>9544792
Physicists have a tendency to use Bayesian confirmation to support their theories. All the key problems remain wide open and all physical predictions derived from the modern physics have been contradicted by the experiments.

Modern physics doesn't adhere to the scientific method. Current physics tries not to explain reality, but to simply guess the equations between measured numbers. This is anything but science.

>>9544792
Don't listen to 9544862. Idiot has clearly never taken a serious physics course at a respectable university if they think this is modern physics.

>>9544865
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0310077

It's been 15 years, what has changed?
What empirical reason to believe exists that most any theories of quantum gravity are reproduced by approximation in some vacuum?

>>9544865
>serious physics course
No such thing. Modern physics is play-pretend by its very nature.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.08160

How much longer can physishits pretend to be retarded for before all their funding is redacted?

Whatever helps you sleep at night, ignorant wretches. Would absolutely despise meeting you in person if your posts are any reflection on your character.

>>9544889
>Whatever helps you sleep at night, ignorant wretches. Would absolutely despise meeting you in person if your posts are any reflection on your character.
cringe

>>9544889

If you think Bayesian Analysis makes something “imaginary”....you got a lot to learn about real science and probability.
And posting anime reactions isn’t helping your credibility.

>>9544923
The Bayesian perspective is at most a weak heuristic, there's nothing mathematically rigorous about it.

>>9544430
Chapters 7-8 of Rudin cover that.
But if you want a really cool perspective on it, Munkres wrote an Analysis book that discusses that! One of my favorite math books.

9544923
>And posting anime reactions isn’t helping your credibility.
Keep your reddit filth away from here.

>>9544889

>>9544923
>>9544925
I think there is a large issue philosophically when you avidly act as a proponent to an non-empirical theory or one which is notorious for negative-results, for an empirical science.

What are some good books for getting into calc 3/calc 4 stuff? Multivariable calculus/vector calculus/diff geometry I guess

Proof-heavy and rigorous, please

53.62 = 50 + 3 + (6/10) + (2/100)

>>9544993
I have good calc 3 and 4 but they are in spanish.

>>9545251
I'm a native spanish speaker, so por favor dámelos, quiero prepararme bien, los teoremas (y sus demostraciones) se me son muy confusos a veces

>>9545254
Do you prefer maths in Spanish?

Can you post why you don't believe in Bayesian statistics? I get it is hard to apply correctly, but I don't see how it could be mathematically incorrect. Randomly hide 100 marbles around your house and then set up a search algorithm. I don't see how you couldn't come up with Bayesian math.

>>9545254
http://lya.fciencias.unam.mx/paez/

I was diagnosed with discalculia after dropping out of college for the third time. I never knew if existed until the doctor told me after my mental evaluation. I've always hated math, but excelled at reading comprehension, spelling, and grammar. I was an art student for my higher education career, and stopped taking math and science classes after my junior year of high school. As such I know longer know how to do long division, or even long multiplication. If I have a calculator I can balance a checkbook, and my lumber warehouse job has made basic sums easier just through repition of base 12 dimensions. While there have always been special programs for dyslexic students, I've heard nothing about support for students with discalculia. I get even numbers easily mixed up, I have to orient maps to my point of view to understand them, and I'm easily lost in new places. My brain essentially has trouble associating value to numbers. What sort of resources would a person like me have to deal with such a learning disability?

>>9545278
Your just a brainlet bro.

>>9545278
I would think smart phone apps would help. Ones that could recognized math and numbers through the camera so you could scan documents or signs you did not understand. Good luck.

>>9545283
I would rather not rely on crutches. I was never able to memorize my times tables, and math was always my worst subject because I couldn't ever understand it. Maybe my hatred of it didn't help-- I never understood how anything beyond sums was supposed to help me in my day to day life outside of school.

>>9543019
I already knew that. He was a fine lad indeed

>>9543175
This is maths general not /his (and it wouldn't fit in there either). If you want to bitch about Nazis go to twitter..

>>9545317
>>9545459
IUT discussion belong to /pol/

I fucking hate linear algebra. Even something that is relatively simple like finding the eigenvalues of a generic algebraic (no numbers) 2x2 matrix multiplied with it's transpose makes my eyes glaze over completely. My knowledge of the basic shit is ok, but as soon as there aren't any numbers it sort of falls apart. I passed my undergraduate courses just fine, but recreating the results of research papers that go heavily into proving things and using lots of linear algebra makes me want to vomit.

Is there a cure for this or should I just stay away from this?

>>9545566
I hate calculus but love linear algebra. Wanna fusion and do maths together?

>>9545591
I wish.

>>9545459
The biographies of mathematicians are often included when talking about their findings. Teichmuller was a Nazi through and through.

>>9545271
Sure, Bayesian statistics works for 100 marbles. However, when you have something like 10^500 vacua, that's far too many independent parameters needed to measure.

The burden of proof is still on physicists to show that modern physics can continue its "progress" with subjective probability approaches. String theories themselves are non-empirical so far, as no theory yet gives the standard model with no frills.

What empirical reason to believe exists that most any theories of quantum gravity are reproduced by approximation in some vacuum?

It's intellectually dishonest to continue the progress of modern physics simply because it is not falsifiable (inb4 research also gets us closer to being able to falsify it, which in turn is also "useful"). Modern physics is built on improper priors, it's un-observable, and non-empirical. It's not physics, it's a waste.

>>9545666
There are lots of active branches of physics other than string theory though.

>>9543024
>Taiwan
>Taiwan
>"Chinese Taipei"
C'mon, man. If you gonna represent at least be consistent about it.
不會吧

>>9545271
>>9545666
>>9545673
Discuss physishit garbage in some other place. I recommend >>>/toy/.

>>9545278
A calculator.

>>9545278
>long division, or even long multiplication
>memorize my times tables
In what way is this related to mathematics? You seem to be confusing it with engineering.

>>9545673

>>9543616
check gen.lib.rus.ec

>>9544878
>play-pretend
I guess math is the same. No real rhyme or reason, an occasional insight at best, I guess you have successfully ruined this board congrats

>>9545673
>There are lots of active branches of physics other than string theory though.
String theory isn't a branch of physics.

>>9546140
What am I looking for

>>9546157
neither is QFT

>>9546157
see >>9545976

>>9546192
see >>9545976

>>9546193
String theory isn't physics.

Are nu-mathfaggs scared of physics because you actually have to use proper intuition instead of just hiding behind a wall of notation and abstraction without motivation?

Are Stoic and Epicurean physics worth studying?

Please do not answer if you are a modernist who believes in contemporary """""physics"""""

>>9546199
>physics
>>9546213
>physics
>>9546215
>physics
Such trash is not welcome here. Refer to >>>/toy/physics/ for a proper place to discuss your mental deformity.

>>9546213

How to obtain the proper physical intuitions and motivation needed for studying synthetic string theory?

What role does number theory play in string theory?

>>9546224
Knowingly replying to a post made by a physishit indeed makes you look stupid.
>>9546231
Please see >>9546220

>>9546234
It serves as a proper foundation for obtaining the necessary physical intuitions to develop string theory in a physically intuitive and rigorous way without using walls of notation and abstraction without motivation. Although this matter is better discussed at >>>/toy/.

>>9546231
just make shit up

>>9546220
>>9546235
You will never know the pleasure of knowing abstract math abd applying it to cool shit you pleb. Have fun jerking off to your point set topology and retardes pathological constructions.
>>9546231
Okey you cheeky cunt, you win this one.

>>9546256
Please see >>>/toy/6808137/. The thread for discussing proper physical intuitions of applying "abstract math" to "cool shit" is located there.

>>9546271
>mathfagg thinks endlessly repeating the same retarded joke is somehow funny or "savage"
Lol, aren't you supposed to be creative and shit?

>>9546275
I think he's just one of those pure nu math fags who can't work without abstraction. It's best to ignore them and move on to our board to discuss some cool string theory and concrete stuff like TQFT.

>>9546275
They aren't creative. That would require some real intuition about physics, the real world and string theory which is inherently concrete and not just abstract algebraic wank with no proper physical motivation behind it.

>>9546281
>>9546277
>he thinks all all intuition is necesarilly physical
I bet you can't draw a proper picture of a fibration lmao.

>>9546277
What's so cool about discussing pseudoscience LOL

Why don't we discuss alchemy instead, at least it has nice glyphs.

You don't have to respond, I'm glad you're leaving to your containment board c:

>>9546256
>You will never know the pleasure of knowing abstract math abd applying it to cool shit you pleb.
Literally unironically this! Applying abstract math to abstract math is unphysical garbage and should be shunned by a proper empirical community of scientists.
>>9546287
Serre, the guy who invented fibrations (he also invented spectra, aka spectral sequences) wasn't a physicist. I think his "work" belongs to the realm of abstract wankery and is thus incompatible with true physics.

>>9546296
Serre wasn't a nu-mathematician

>>9546281
If space were curved, we should be able to create perfect Euclidean structures algorithmically and see them either fail to form or measure their sides and find discrepancies. If I am a two dimensional being, and I wanted to know if I lived in Euclidean space, all I have to do is draw a right triangle and measure the sides. If the Pythagorean theorem does not hold, I am in curved space. The same applies to us.

>>9546296
Echoing my thoughts

>>9546298
Serre invented abstract unphysical wankery such as the Serre spectrum, the Hochschild-Serre spectrum and so on. It's clear that his "work" has done great harm to our empirical investigations into the true nature of reality via the concrete tools of TQFT and string theory.

>>9546301
I agree with this deep (for nu math fags lmao) insight, although it really is quite basic and physical in nature. As all physics should be. I'm going to study some string theory now.

>>9546305
I don't know who's trolling who anymore.

>>9546312
Just ignore the nu-math fags. We should create our own threads to separate ourselves (not in the abstract algebro-geometric unphysical wankery sense) from these people.

>>9546296
>the guy who invented fibrations
I'm not a "guy".

>>9546318
>fags
Why the homophobia?

>>9546301
>If the Pythagorean theorem does not hold
This is an unphysical proof method which is not empirically acceptable, please establish the Pythagorean hypothesis using proper physical experiments next time.

>>9546332
He is correct in his reasoning as it currently supports our empirical experimental physical knowledge. I wouldn't be so quick to shun it if I were you, at least not publicly.

>>9546292
This is only true insofar as it makes sense physically, i.e. it has a coherent and proper physical motivation behind it. Using insights from string theory and TQFT, we have shown his statement to be experimentally invalid by drawing a picture of a cofibration in 5D spacetime. So I think we can easily conclude that he and his post should be shunned as the abstract wankery that it is.

>>9546342
Excuse me. This post was meant for >>9546333

>>9546240
Why is physics getting all this faux-hate here? Is it because the nu-math fags (Serre, Grothendieck, Quillen etc.) are afraid to lose their abstraction by trying to properly, by which I mean empirically, understand the (often physically non-existent) objects they are working with? No real understanding can come without the ability of being able to make solid and easy to understand tangible computations with physical objects. I suggest we shun them to discourage such behavior in the future and to refocus the attention of humanity on more important problems, such as proving the cobordism hypothesis without using Cartan-Leray spectra and using only empirical data.

>>9546366
>No real understanding can come without the ability of being able to make solid and easy to understand tangible computations with physical objects.
>what is intensional logic

>>9546370
>intensional logic
It's a canonical example of unphysical wankery dreamt up by the nu-mathematician/nu-philosopher, I am talking about the likes of Eilenberg, Cartan and Grothendieck. They should be publicly shunned for their crimes against empiricism.
You can't truly understand a mathematical object unless you can empirically and experimentally verify its existence and properties. For example, Serre spectra simply do not exist in nature and thus we cannot even know that they exist physically in nature. That much is obvious. On the other hand, something concrete like TQFT and string theory can be readily studied by the empirical mind as their existence is physical and immediate.

>>9544888
This is unphyiscal wankery. Girls cannot make such poses in the empirical world.

>>9545301
Please don't fall into the usual trap of trying to understand objects by learning about so-called abstractions without first knowing their intended physical interpretation.

>>9546377
>Serre spectra simply do not exist in nature and thus we cannot even know that they exist physically in nature

>do not exist in nature
>cannot even know that they exist physically in nature
What's the difference?

>>9546408
Why the sexism?
Some of us are girls >:C

>>9546435
Girls have inherent physical limitations since they are empirical, physical objects and not made up unphyiscal stuff like Adams spectra.

>>9546231
Synthetic string theory is like about nylon strings or something?

>>9546432
It is quite subtle and is noticeable only by those who have obtained a decent level of physical maturity. I suggest you make a screenshot and revisit it later when you understand the linguistic implications of string theory. This will happen naturally as you continue studying concrete topics like TQFT and string theory.
>>9546453
It's about trying to rid string theory of the current infection it has, namely its usage of Eilenberg-MacLane geometrical spaces for drawing pictures of (cohomology groups of) black holes. This should not be tolerated in any empirical community, since EM geometric spaces have not been shown to exist empirically aside from some trivial examples. Synthetic string theory is trying to find methods to address this deficiency by using only our core physical intuitions about the world to study these deep and empirical in their nature concepts.

If the real projective space [math]\mathbb{P}^n=\mathbb{R}^{n+1}/(x\sim \lambda x, \lambda\in\mathbb{R})[/math], then how does one define a real Grassmanian [math]G_n(\mathbb{R}^{n+k})=\{V\subset\mathbb{R}^{n+k}\mid \dim V=n\}[/math] as a quotient of [math]\mathbb{R}^{n+k}[/math]?

>>9546292
Hermeticism + Math = Mustardrace

>>9546486
Literally fuck the pile of unphysical garbage that is "Math". I can't bear to see it mentioned here.

>>9546435
bobs and vagene u mek my kok hard

>>9546482
Is this a troll? The real projective space is just the Grassmannian where $k=1$.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grassmannian#Low_dimensions

>>9546482
what makes you think you can do that ? and P^n is not a quotient of R^(n+1) by the way.

>>9546482
Recent experiments show this to be physically impossible since it implies that the physical Lyndon-Hochschild-Serre spectrum associated to every black hole stabilizes at the second page, which is empirically absurd.

>>9535442
>proofs
Proofs aren't leaving, so you need to become very comfortable with them. Every class from here on out will be proof centric.

For this, doing proofs will help, as will understanding what it is you are trying to prove. Perhaps you can post examples of what you're struggling with?

Some resources I'd suggest are Book of Proof / How to Prove It for developing proof strategies and they are good problem repositories. For Linear Algebra, you want to read your text well, of course, but maybe pairing it with the book "Linear Algebra: An Introduction to Abstract Mathematics" by Robert Valenza will help, as the proofs in that book are deceptively simple. Linear Algebra Done Right is another popular

3B1B:
>https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZHQObOWTQDPD3MizzM2xVFitgF8hE_ab

Lectures by Gilbert Strang, Sheldon Axler, and Wilderberger, respectively:
>https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-06-linear-algebra-spring-2010/video-lectures/
>https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGAnmvB9m7zOBVCZBUUmSinFV0wEir2Vw
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAb12PWrhV0&list=PLIljB45xT85BhzJ-oWNug1YtUjfWp1qAp [Embed]

Additionally you'll want to work on your problem solving and learning abilities in general, and for that there's a whole host of separate texts I could recommend, but a few worth naming might be How to Solve It, Discourse on The Method, The Art and Craft of Problem Solving, How to Study as a Mathematics Major, Learning How to Learn / A Mind for Numbers, etc..

>>9546502
>quotient of R^(n+1)
This in general does not make sense empirically.

>>9546500
Yes, obviously, but I'm asking what is the generalization of the quotient to a Grassmanian.


>>9546502
It is, and because wikipedia claims the topology on the grassmannian is that of the quotient topology, without quoting what topology

>>9546510
>Proofs aren't leaving, so you need to become very comfortable with them.
Proofs are not necessary when you have a proper and physical understanding of the objects involved. Doing experiments yourself helps a lot here.

>>9546512
>without quoting what topology
The topology induced by the trivial metric on the locally free grassmannian.

>>9546512
>but I'm asking what is the generalization of the quotient to a Grassmanian
Are you sure there is even such a generalization? It's not known empirically whether such a thing truly exists.

Is this physics shitposting a regular thing?

>>9546529
Physics seems to be getting a lot of hate here for some reason. I don't even know why.

>>9546532
Yeah, all we want to do is use proper physical intuitions to study math. Everything else should really be shunned as far as I am concerned, I'm sure the string theorists would back me up on this. I'm in TQFT myself.

>>9546528
There actually is. The string theorists at CERN have produced some nice experiments lately.

Honest question, if multiplication is just addition, why doesn't anyone explain multiplying two negstives as such;
3 x 4 = 12
3 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 12

(-3)x(-4) = 12
-(-3)+(-(-3))+(-(-3))+(-(-3)) = 12

Why do they give other explanations like debt and such? Isn't the above example easier to imagine?

>>9546544
This question is empirically nonsensical since both addition and multiplication aren't tangible physical entities you can manipulate using only your physical intuitions.

>>9546536
Post thighs

>>9546512
>It is
it's not

>wikipedia claims the topology on the grassmannian is that of the quotient topology, without quoting what topology
I don't see this in the article. anyway, the dimension of Gr(k,R^n) is k*(n-k). for n=5, k=2 the dimension is 6 and you would like to get a 6-dimensional space by taking a quotient of R^5. not possible. grassmanian naturally arises as a quotient of the stiefel manifold, look it up.

>>9546550
I am bothered by people being easily able to see my pussy and asshole. I'm not some nu-mathematician whore which has no grasp of basic physical concepts.

>>9546549
What? Can't tell if you're trolling me or the sleep deprivation is showing, but addition is very much tangible. You have one stick and if you pick up another you have two.

>>9546555
It's abstractly tangible but not physically tangible. See Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus for details.

Why mathfags are so homosexual? Eating soy makes me better at maths?

>>9546536
See >>9545666

It seems that most physicists use improper physical intuitions. As far as I'm concerned String Theory is garbage... as for TQFT, it seems limited, but please help me understand.

>>9546559
It's all because of nu-math fags like Eilenberg and Kan. Some experiments at CERN suggest that doing unphysical garbage lowers your testosterone levels.

>>9546558
Sorry, the book in it's current state is intangible to me, therefore I have chosen to disregard it.

>>9546562
Most modern physicists buy into the bullshit Grothendieck-Serre-Cartan paradigm of disregarding our core physical intuitions we have obtained as a child. The results are clear, a complete denial of empirically obvious and correct theories such as TQFT and string theory.
Now our main goal is showing the cobordism hypothesis without using any non-physically obvious assumptions and we can begin to reconstruct physics for real this time.

>>9546569
What seems to be the problem? If you don't want to read it see Wittgenstein's Physical Investigations, it also briefly touches on the topic.

>>9546578
No thanks, I'd rather not read meme science. Next thing you know I'll be dropping LSD and living in a barrel.

>>9546585
He explains these concepts pretty well in a physically intuitive way without using any abstract algebraic wankery/machinery. You have to reconsider your hasty decision.

>>9546592
Begone, I have no need for your charms.

>>9546596
It really messes with the mind when you first read it but after a while you start to understand. It's similar to discovering string theory for the first time, although slightly more unphysical, but that isn't saying much since string theory is currently the most physical/empirical thing known to humanity.

>>9546515
They are necessary if you want to pass your class, ya dingus

>>9546614
Current math classes are not aimed at a good understanding of physical objects and the intuitions needed to study them physically and empirically, which shows that we can simply shun and disregard these classes as they hold no empirical value whatsoever.
They are merely a bastardized version of true physics, this phenomenon is nowadays called the "Cartan-Eilenberg perspective".

>>9546554
How ironic, a physicist won't show his physique.

>>9546641
I don't consider myself to be a physicist, I'm a "Mathematical Physicist" (it irks me to use "mathematical" because of the Grothendieck-Serre mafia; let it be clear that by "mathematics" I mean mathematics which places empiricism above all else) which is of course totally different from "Physicist" since we study such rigorous topics as TQFT and string theory.

>>9546668
>since we study such rigorous topics as TQFT and string theory.

Top kek

>>9546673
You have much to learn regarding physical intuitions, nu-math fag.

>>9546686
Why the homophobia?

Can a mathematician really be called a mathematician if they don't Zercher deadlift?

Can a mathematician really be called a mathematician if they don't Zercher deadlift?

>>9546720
It depends on the empirical status of "Zercher deadlifting". I am reasonably certain that Cartan and Eilenberg engaged in it, so we can safely say that it it is unphysical and homosexual and should thus be shunned and despised.
What about this girl on the picture you have attached to your post? Is she a mathematician? The physical kind I mean.

>>9546553
What you wrote makes no sense physically speaking. Please rewrite your post with this consideration in mind.

>>9546720
If you don't Jefferson deadlift get the FUCK out of my department.

>>9546199
By definition, physics is the study of string theory and TQFT. We only trust true empiricist string-theoretic/TQFT methods.

>>9546756
Words are a medium that reduces reality to abstraction for transmission to our reason, and in their power to corrode reality inevitably lurks the danger that the words themselves will be corroded too. Training of the body must take precedence over training of thought if it is to create and supervise its own ideas.

Why the homophobia? A little homoeroticism never killed nobody.

Also, she's not a girl... she's a guy. Hint: she's me, therefore, she's a physical mathematician.

>>9546553
>>It is
>it's not
It is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projective_space#Definition_of_projective_space

>quotient of the stiefel manifold
thats what i was looking for, thanks

>>9546781
Why would I step in the humanities department?

I take it the animefag got rejected by a physics slut?

>>9546790
At this distance from the earth, intellectual adventure and physical adventure could join hands without the slightest difficulty. This was the point that I had always been striving towards.

Their homoalgebra has been used to create and deploy WMDs to harm string theorists. This fact should not be forgotten.

How physical is she exactly? She looks pretty small for a guy.

>>9546882
>physics slut
People who study physics (TQFT and string theory) have too high of a purity level for them to be called "sluts". I take it you're a nu-mathematician trying to follow (unsuccessfully, I might add) in the footsteps of the French nu-mafia? Sounds super boring, but good luck.
Come back only if you can find a proof of your "homotopy hypothesis", maybe then it can become the cornerstone of something concrete like TQFT.

>>9546885
She's a big guy.

Mathfaggs can't even compute a jacobian lmao.

>>9546912
Literally and unironically this skrrt. I am laughing at their pathetic asses as we speak. Soon the TQFT seminar will be gathering at HQ and I will try to read out your post right then and there just to shame the two nu-mathematicians present among us. Sadly, I don't have the authority to make them leave the premises so this will have to suffice for the time being.

>>9544716
This is not physically/empirically well-defined.

>>9546895
>Come back only if you can find a proof of your "homotopy hypothesis", maybe then it can become the cornerstone of something concrete like TQFT.

Why do you keep posting this? The Homotopy Hypothesis is proven.

>>9546951
The cobordism hypothesis can be proved, so where are the proofs of this homotopy "hypothesis"?
Answer: there are none, because cobordism hypothesis is the cornerstone of something concrete (i.e. TQFT and string theory) while this homotopy hypothesis is the cornerstone of absolute algebraic wank.

>>9546965
Is this supposed to be some meme?

>>9546971
Yes and no. Those mathematicians that dislike the supposed "lack of rigor" in physics should also reject statements proven assuming generalized RH/CH.

>>9546882
He cheated on me.

>>9542924
If I want to understand algebraic topology, what subjects should I know in topology? Say, what chapter should I read in Munkres, beyond the first, second and third one?

>>9546991
Why would you read Munkres? LOL

>>9547001
What should I read then

>>9546991
Knowing basic string theory (and some TQFT) and being able to compute contour coends is sufficient. Although I would actually say "Fuck algebraic topology". It can't even prove its own homotopy "hypothesis" while in Mathematical Physics we have successfully proved the cobordism hypothesis using nothing but pure physical intuitions to guide our path. And this is not even getting into how it utterly shits on and ignores basic teachings of physics such as holding empiricism and experiments in high regard. The Serre spectrum is anti-empirical and un-empirical by its very nature. Just draw a picture of the fibration in question and everything should be obvious. There is no need to invoke anything unphysical.
>>9547012
I recommend just studying the physical world around you for a while before jumping straight into walls of notation and abstraction. Actually, after some time you will find that everything physical in a theory, i.e. everything in it which is worth a damn is entirely obvious without using any abstractions.

>>9546991
You don't need much beyond the basics. In algebraic topology you often restrict to "nice" categories of spaces where the confusing pathologies that can appear for general spaces aren't relevant.

>>9547018
Go fuck yourself, autistic nigger

Are you trying to prove some point? You sound mad, but I don't quite get your meta ironic shitposting.

>>9547018
What's wrong? ((

>>9547019
I've read until the Tychnoff Theorem. Would this be sufficient? I wouldn't lose anything if I just "jumped" to algebraic topology?

>>9547048
You will be fine.

>>9547045
Although the girl you posted is cute indeed, it doesn't excuse your tacit support of the shit that has been going on lately in mathematics, namely its move towards abstract algebraic wankery initiated by the French mafia instead of being true to its empirical nature. This pretty much answers "What's wrong?".
A better question would be "How to fix it?" and I don't have an answer to that. But I and many intellectuals suspect string theory and TQFT might have a big role to play in it. I am currently very interested in an elementary physical proof of the cobordism hypothesis using string theoretic methods and no abstract wankery.
>>9547048
Yes, but please consider developing your own notation and proper intuition so you don't hide behind a wall of foreign notation and abstraction without motivation.
And it's actually "Tychonoff hypothesis" since it has not yet been verified by actual experiments in the real world.

>>9544684
That is the only correct perspective to have on modern unphysical and unempirical "mathematics". It is truly a disturbing sight to behold.

>>9545591
Calculus?
>nut
Linear Algebra?
>instantly flaccid

>>9546510
>the proofs in that book are deceptively simple.
Indeed, the proofs in that book are a deception created to try and divorce mathematics from the empirical world.

>>9546213
basically
and while I love physics I imagine that most mathematicians and physicists on this board are also butthurt because engineering typically requires easier math while being more applicable and better paid

>>9547070
I'm glad that another mathematical physicist is in these threads. Thank you.
Yes, physicists not directly participating in experiments usually experience blind hatred (sometimes even escalating to violence) towards engineers. I've seen it happen too many times at this point and I can't turn a blind eye anymore. I think we and "mathematicians" have much to learn from engineering.
I think using experiments and string-theoretic thinking can truly further our understand of mathematics, by which I mean true mathematics, not the garbage dreamt up by Serre and Grothendieck.
Which field of physics are you in by the way, string theory or TQFT?

[1-3^(5m)]=2[1-3^(10m)]
I'm stuck at this. help.

>>9547083
What is the practical and physical meaning of this? If there is none, you should simply not post such unempirical trash here.

>>9547070
I have to disagree with your last point, TQFT is very applicable to the real world. Some people even call it "concrete".

>>9547087
it's a fish growing

>>9547064
How about this:
Abstract unphysical wankery à la Serre, Quillen, Eilenberg, etc?
>instantly flaccid

>>9547093
Please explain it in proper physical terminology. It's not quite clear what you mean by these abstractions.

>>9547102
slowpoke
nvm, already got it right

>>9547105
As in the pokémon? What does that have to do with physics and deep empiricism?

>>9547058
Oh, c'mon... Can you remove a couple of layers of irony?

Mathematics isn't buckled to the seat of the empirics train, unlike physics. You can discuss the latter, that's what this thread was. If you want to discuss the former take it to >>>/his/

Make a thread and maybe someone will talk Frege and Kant with you, or just stop pretending to be retarded.

>>9547058
I'm not a girl.

>>9547118
Mathematics is (by definition) the study of TQFT and string theory and maybe some AQFT over exotic spacetimes. How the hell is it not "buckled into the seat of the empirics train"?
Are you this brainwashed by Serre and Grothendieck? Please study some basic quantum mechanics to understand the full beauty of physical and empirical reasoning where you can 100% experimentally verify everything being said. In fact, you should probably switch to Mathematical Physics if you wish to gain any deep knowledge about anything meaningful. You're probably studying something invented by the nu-philosophers/nu-mathematicians of our time. Why even bother when you could be uncovering deep secrets of our universe through studying TQFT? We need more people in the field. Please, reconsider and start learning some TQFT. I recommend Sakurai's great book as a prerequisite.
When you are convinced that you truly want to join us, just contact me or my associates here and we will discuss it further. My TQFT group is currently having deep meetings 5-6 times a week. Be aware that you have to be a staunch empiricist to join them.

>>9547124
Is this statement empirically verifiable? If not, I don't give a FUCK about it or anything like it.

>>9547133
It is, why don't you come over I'll empirically show you. I'll bend you over and fuck your boy pussy while you moan and shout TQFT theorems at me, then I'll pull your head back to go for a kiss but actually spit in your mouth. It's totally fine if you're not into being a bottom, just invite your TQFT group. I don't mind being a middle, but I won't be a bottom.

itt weak soyboys

>>9547154
>It is, why don't you come over I'll empirically show you. I'll bend you over and fuck your boy pussy while you moan and shout TQFT theorems at me, then I'll pull your head back to go for a kiss but actually spit in your mouth. It's totally fine if you're not into being a bottom, just invite your TQFT group. I don't mind being a middle, but I won't be a bottom.
Are you okay?

>>9547091
Hence "typically"
>>9547082
Sorry to disappoint but I am not a mathematical physicist unless you include computational and mathematical modelling of materials in that field. If I were to choose, though, I would pick TQFT.

>>9547096
don't like
I think a primary reason I don't like linear algebra as much is because I took it at an engineering school and it was very watered down and boring. I studied calculus on my own before going to university and I liked how easily it could be applied to life.

>>9547171
It's not too late to transfer to TQFT. We need more people in the field to help counter Grothendieck and his lackeys. See the details in >>9547129

>>9547166
There's no empirically verifiable answer to that question.

>>9547129
>Mathematics is (by definition)
Maths has no generally accepted definition desu

>>9547178
Calculus is instantly and obviously physically meaningful. Not so with "algebra", which should be done away with entirely in any mathematics education program, this includes grad school.
Not only is it non-physical, but it actually became anti-physical as well after Grothendieck and Serre came along. So just ignore it and study physical theories such as calculus, TQFT and string theory.
>>9547184
But the post you replied to contains a generally accepted definition of it.

>>9547194
Who hurt you?

>>9547233
Mainly Grothendieck and Serre. And their minions of course.

THIS BOOK RULES

>>9547257
[screams algebraically]

>>9547257
>abstract
You don't need abstractions to truly study our empirical and physical world. Just use well-developed theories like TQFT and string theory to do that. Intellectuals have been working on them for ages now. You need to learn them. I recommend Sakurai's book on QM for starting out, then contact me here and I will provide further instructions.

>>9547264
What book would you recommend on inorganic chemistry?

>>9547274
The aforementioned masterpiece by Sakurai.

hello is this the cringe thread

>>9547257
>isomorphism theorems
>free abelian groups
>advanced group theory

>>9547288
yes, these bastards are a bunch of wannabes

>>9547288
No. This is the empirical mathematics thread.

>>9547279
You seem very knowledgeable, what book would you recommend on differential geomorphology?

I have a pretty strong background in algebraic topography, if that helps.

>>9547333
The epic "String theoretic investigations" by Sakurai and Wittgenstein volumes 2 and 3. Volume 1 can be read if you have a weak background in empirical algebraic TQFT.

>>9547261
[screams optional theorem chapters]

>>9547264
ur dum as fuck lol. gb2/phsyicsgen/ u NERD

>>9547297
> ur brand of maths pic related

>>9547370

>>9547083
It's saying that if you work out the sum on the left it should be the same as the sum on the right.

>>9547443
This is physically undefined.

Taking differential equations right now at my university and the professor is literally hot garbage. I sit in the front area and can't read his handwriting or understand his thick accent. When we ask for examples on the topic he says no and tells us to look it up in the textbook. I don't pay for this shit and to teach myself the content.

>>9547513
Just try to grasp the physical concepts and ignore all the abstraction/notation. Going outside and sitting under a tree actually helps with thinking the physical/empirical ideas through.

>>9547518
Did reading this >>9546213 caused you PTSD?

>>9547518
Yeah, I've heard the content isn't hard and doing the homework and teaching myself it really doesn't seem too bad. The professor is just awful with lecturing the content and just ends up confusing us more than anything on what we are even learning.

>>9547531
Yeah, math professors try too fucking hard to emulate Grothendieck and fail miserably, he was at least a decent speaker.
Just ignore the nu-math fags and try to absorb all the physical content of a theory and ignore all the "algebraic" and unphysical unempirical garbage inherent in most of modern "math".
I also recommend starting to learn about TQFT and quantum mechanics. Sakurai's book is really good, the only prerequisites are knowing how to evaluate integrals. So about 2-3 years of studying should suffice.

>>9547544
Well I'm actually an EE major and I only need to take DiffEq and Linear Algebra left but I may still look into those. Thanks, anon.

>>9547549
He's trolling you, you moron.

>>9547549
It's never too late to switch to physics. We need more people in my TQFT group.
>>9547576
I'm being completely genuine with him.

Man, it's been a while since a literal autist got this triggered.

>>9547576
>He's trolling you, you moron.
I'm not a "he".

>>9547878
Who are you then? An unempirical entity? Fuck off, dude.

Is my uni shit if it doesn't offer any undergrad courses in stochastic processes or probability theory?

>>9547937
Why did you think this was even remotely appropriate to ask in a thread titled "math general"?

>>9546991
I would recommend reading the chapter on paracompactness. They encapsulate almost all spaces used in algebraic topology, plus partitions of unity are extremely important in both algebraic topology and differential geometry

All these stupid letters from 20 alphabets you can't even pronounce

Unified maths notation when

>>9547937
No.

>>9548859
>>9548859
new
>>9548859
>>9548859

>>9548883
>>9548883
new
>>9548883
>>9548883

New non-reddit version.
>>9548889/
>>9548889/

>>9548894
The janitor has been informed.

>>9548922
>announcing your reports
So you won't deny being a redditor? As expected.

New real version:

>>>9549094
>>>9549094
>>>9549094