/mg/ - math general

[Anonymous No.10737655]

previously >>10727663
talk about math
fuchs-fomenko homotopical topology edition

[Anonymous No.10737667]

>>10737655

Fuchs once substituted for our analysis class. Incredibly nice man, even if most of the class was acting braindead that day and couldn't answer any of his questions. :/

A week later our regular professor gave us a talk about how lazy students in American universities reminded him of the collapse of communism back home.

[Anonymous No.10737671]

>>10737667
did you suck him off

[Anonymous No.10737685]

>>10737671
No!

[Anonymous No.10737703]

Help, please >>10737602

[Anonymous No.10737797]

>>10737703
this isn't a computer "science" thread

[Anonymous No.10737896]

How do you guys approach a new textbook? Do you use the Feynman method?

[Anonymous No.10737935]

>>10737896
the feynman method? differentiating under the integral sign??

[Anonymous No.10738017]

what can you tell me about the equality [math] a^{b} = b^{a} [/math] ?

[Anonymous No.10738074]

>>10737896
>Do you use the Feynman method?
Why would I use some low-level psysishit's """method""" to study a non-physishit subject? You aren't making much sense right now.

[Anonymous No.10738122]

>>10737896
Go straight to exercises, if I can't do them, read the chapter.

[Anonymous No.10738129]

>>10737896
I just physically approach it and start reading it.

[Anonymous No.10738142]

>>10738129

>*opens textbook*
>y-you too

[Anonymous No.10738174]

>obsess over a problem for 8 hours, no progress is done
>solve it while eating lunch

[Anonymous No.10738193]

>>10737576
???

[Anonymous No.10738197]

>>10737655
Only homotopical if spheres are intersecting.

[Anonymous No.10738208]

>>10738017
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_xʸ_%3D_yˣ

[Anonymous No.10738228]

>>10738142
kek

[Anonymous No.10738306]

>After Jacob's death Johann's jealousy shifted toward his own talented son, Daniel. In 1738 the father–son duo nearly simultaneously published separate works on hydrodynamics. Johann attempted to take precedence over his son by purposely and falsely predating his work two years prior to his son's

academia

[Anonymous No.10738325]

>>10738306
>hydrodynamics
Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.10738620]

Who's your mathfu?
For me it's Marie-Sophie Germain.

[Anonymous No.10738634]

Lads, I'm a bit lost here. I have some things to ask. First -- should the [math]F_y[/math] after that "if and only if" be a caligraphic [math]\mathcal F_y[/math]? It seems like it should be, and it is a typo, but then, the mere definition of a skyscraper sheaf would validate that assertion and all skyscraper sheaves would be quasi-coherent.

But if it isn't a typo, then where exactly does it come from?

My idea for a proof is that [math]\mathcal F[/math] is quasicoherent iff every point has a local presentation over the structure sheaf. We can equivalently look at the stalks of the presentation. Since quasicoherence is a local property, we can take [math]X[/math] to be affine. There is only one non-zero stalk that we have to worry about, which is precisely for the point [math]x[/math].

Therefore, we have to show there exists an exact sequence [math]\bigoplus_I\mathcal O_X|_U\to \bigoplus_J\mathcal O_X|_U\to F\to 0[/math]. But exactness is a local property, so equivalently, we have to show for every prime [math]y\in\mathcal O_{X,x}[/math], the localized sequence is exact. In particular, since [math]F[/math] is an [math]\mathcal O_{X,x}[/math]-module, already such an exact sequence exists at the localized level for [math]x[/math], so we can base the aforementioned sequence on it.

Now, to derive from a contradiction that [math]F_y=0[/math], we would require that [math](\mathcal O_X|_U)_y=0[/math] for primes [math]y\subsetneq x[/math], or that alternatively, the first map in the localized sequence is an isomorphism for such points (although I'd find it unlikely that this is possible AND that also [math]F_x\neq 0[/math]). However, I don't see how either are the case.

[Anonymous No.10738644]

>>10738620
>Who's your mathfu?
:'-(

[Anonymous No.10738871]

>>10737703
Usually you can go from local to global by imposing some convexity condition. In the case of Dantzig's 1957 paper he imposes such conditions on a class of problems to show. If you haven't already read it, then here.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/167356

[Anonymous No.10738876]

>>10737655
I like these illustrations

[Anonymous No.10738934]

>>10737896
>tried teaching a close friend and colleague of mine some results in a recent article I've read about gauging finite symmetries in spin-TQFT and classification SET phases
>end up spending the entire night teaching him [math]K[/math]-theory instead

[Anonymous No.10738938]

>>10737667

Davis?

[Anonymous No.10738974]

>>10738876
>I like these illustrations

He's got a ton more (most of which I believe are in Fuchs Fomenko): https://www.anatoly-fomenko.com/anatoly-drawing.html

Although Wild Burger seemingly doesn't believe pic related exists, lol: https://njwildberger.com/2015/12/02/the-alexander-horned-sphere-is-it-nonsense/

[Anonymous No.10738987]

>>10738938
Yes. I had the privilege of taking the analysis class with Soshnikov. Like I said though our class was probably a disappointment for him. Apparently, it's too difficult for most students to give a shit about the second half of real analysis in a compressed summer session, and coming from a Soviet background, I think he was rather appalled.

[Anonymous No.10739037]

Hey guys, I am interested in sacred geometry, the golden ratio, torus', and the platonic solids among other things. Is there a good resource to learn about more advanced geometry?? I've got a compass and a ruler. What is the furthest that would take me? I want to learn more about geometry partly because of my interest in patterns, chess, and space. Thanks a bunch : ]

[Anonymous No.10739060]

>>10738634
>First -- should the [math]F_y[/math] after that "if and only if" be a caligraphic [math]\mathcal F_y[/math]
Well no, otherwise the question would be trivial.
Now how do we proceed ?
If [math]\mathcal F[/math] is quasicoherent, then its pullback to spec(O_{X,x}) is also quasicoherent with module of global sections F.
As a corollary, the stalk [math]\mathcal F_y[/math] at each y is exactly [math]F_y[/math], which concludes.
Conversely, if [math]F_y = 0[/math] for each [math]y \ne x[/math], then [math]\mathcal F[/math] is isomorphic to the quasicoherent sheaf associated to F over spec(O_{X,x}) (which we check stalkwise).
Indeed, letting [math]i: spec(O_{X,x}) \to X[/math] be the canonical morphism, the morphism [math]F \to \mathcal F_x[/math] induces a morphism [math]\tilde F \to i^*\mathcal F[/math] which is easily seen to be an isomorphism (because we can check it stalkwise).
Moreover, the pushforward of that latter sheaf is quasicoherent over X (because the morphism [math]i[/math] is affine) and coincides with [math]\mathcal F[/math] over X.

[Anonymous No.10739068]

>>10739060
To clarify the end, by "the latter sheaf" I mean [math]\tilde F[/math]. The previous isomorphism induces an isomorphism [math]i_* \tilde F \to i_*i^* \mathcal F \simeq \mathcal F[/math]. Indeed, we easily check that in our case the natural morphism [math]i_*i^* \mathcal F \to \mathcal F[/math] given by the adjunction is an isomorphism (again stalkwise).

[Anonymous No.10739172]

>>10738174
>think about a problem for 4 hrs
>think up a trivial counterexample while shitposting

[Anonymous No.10739235]

>>10738174
>obsess over a problem for 15 hours
>thinks he has found a proof while eating lunch
>jots down
>proof is actually circular
>repeat

[Anonymous No.10739236]

>>10738876
You can download them, if you want.

[Anonymous No.10739684]

>*cracks open Stewart
>Yup, it's math time

[Anonymous No.10739696]

>>10739684
I hear it's real fun doing math with a destroyed brain.

[Anonymous No.10739704]

>>10739696
is that your opinion as a licensed md ?

[Anonymous No.10739731]

>>10739704
It's my opinion as someone who is glad to see some kid filtering himself out of the field.

[Anonymous No.10739740]

>>10739731
you'll have to try harder /b/ro

[Anonymous No.10739761]

>>10739740
C O P E
>>10739696
you honestly shouldn't have said anything and let him continue thinking what he was doing was a good idea. From now on lets not tell people that using stimulants to study is a bad idea. It is as you said a great way to filter brainlets.

[Anonymous No.10739767]

>>10739761
>>10739696
>its bad because its bad
the reddit intellectuals

[Anonymous No.10739769]

>>10739767
>Openly letting everybody know on a pakistani soap making forum that you are a brainlet who doesnt have an attention span longer than 15 minutes.

[Anonymous No.10739779]

>>10739769
what part of forced-trolling to you enjoy ?
i know you are an udergrad otherwise its even more pathetic - sorta like high school kids making fun of middle school kids - to bag on random undergrads since i assume a graduate would give a fuck less what some college kids are doing

[Anonymous No.10739781]

>>10739704
>licensed md
Most of them are known to be scam artists.

[Anonymous No.10739786]

>>10739781
>>10739761
>>10739696
>medicine is a scam
based self induced schizophrenia anons

[Anonymous No.10739790]

>>10739767

[Anonymous No.10739793]

>>10739786
>medicine is a scam
It's not, dude. ADHD medication is not a scam. Our government would never lie to us about something like that. That's just reaching the realms of fantasy.

[Anonymous No.10739799]

>>10739779
the more you respond, the more apparent your stupidity becomes. Face it, you are obviously too stupid and uninterested in math to study it without medicine.
>>10739786
yes please continue taking your meds mr schizo, we value your contributions to society.

[Anonymous No.10739804]

>it's the last thread all over again

[Anonymous No.10739805]

>ftw just got got
n-no bros i thought you where supposed to be cool not like the reddit libtards cucks
i-im cool memer like you guys, l-look here is the feels guy but im posting him ironically
please dont kick me out of the secret club

[Anonymous No.10739806]

>>10739804
All me.

[Anonymous No.10739809]

>>10739804
>1:2 poster to posts ratio
>mostly meta
If you go to rebbecablack and find threads from 2010 you can see things where better back then

[Anonymous No.10739813]

>>10738174
reminds me of that one guy who worked on a problem for many years, only to one day randomly try proving the opposite, and succeeding in a manner of hours

[Anonymous No.10739818]

>>10739805
based! i just got redpilled by reading this post. kekked so hard too even my roommate came in wondering what the hell was going in, anyway.
wait a sec, can't focus. [math]\text{*takes prescription dose of adhd medication*}[/math]
ahh... now that's better. where were we again? oh, yeah, math. you can stay here, bro. we all study math here, as you can see by this deep discussion we're having right now.

[Anonymous No.10739821]

>>10739818
good night

[Anonymous No.10739822]

>>10739813
that image desu, fuck.

[Anonymous No.10739841]

>>10739060
Thanks, but unfortunately the book hasn't introduced pullbacks or pushforwards, or in particular how they behave at the level of quasicoherent modules.

However, I thought of another plan of attack, please correct me if I'm wrong:

The condition of quasi-coherence of an [math]\mathcal O_X[/math]-module [math]\mathcal F[/math] is equivalent to the fact that for every point [math]x\in X[/math], there exists an open affine neighbourhood [math]U[/math] such that [math]\mathcal F|_U=\bar M[/math], that is, it is associated to some [math]\mathcal O_X(U)[/math]-module [math]M[/math]. As noted before, we need only care for the specified point [math]x[/math], and suppose [math]U[/math] is such an affine neighbourhood. Naturally, since [math]\mathcal F|_U(U)=F[/math], the associated module will be [math]\bar F[/math]. Checking at the level of basic open sets, if [math]x\not\in D(g)[/math], a basic open set in [math]U[/math], we have [math]0=\mathcal F|_U(D(g))=\bar F (D(g))=F_g[/math] for elements [math]g\in \mathcal O_X(U)[/math]. Therefore, by taking the limit, it is always the case that for primes [math]y[/math] that are not [math]x[/math], [math]F_y=0[/math].

Conversely, take any affine neighbourhood [math]U[/math] of [math]x[/math] and we have by definition that [math]\mathcal F|_U(U)=F[/math], and [math]\mathcal F|_U(D(g))=F[/math] if [math]x[/math] is in the basic open set [math]D(g)[/math] and [math]\mathcal F|_U(D(g))=0[/math] otherwise. But note that [math]x\in D(g)[/math] implies that [math]g_x\in \mathcal O_{X,x}[/math] is a unit. These two pieces of data show that [math]\bar F[/math] is the associated module, which gives us quasicoherence.

[Anonymous No.10739860]

>>10739821
Good night. I myself amd going to enter a heightened sense of reality by taking some prescription [math]\color{green}{aspen \smile dexamfetamine}[/math] and prescription [math]\color{red}{\text{redbull}~^\aleph}[/math] to fully narrow in on my calculus studies. Did I already mention how I suffer from the serious condition known as [math]\color{red}A\color{yellow}D\color{green}H\color{blue}D[/math]? Love math by the way.

[Anonymous No.10739866]

>>10739236
Thanks Lori

[Anonymous No.10739870]

>>10739860
Are there non-medical ways of fully achieving control over whether or not your mind just wanders off into the distance? I wanna try the ADHD-redpill to experience this heightened sense of realism, but I'm too scared I'll be dependent on it as a mathematician.

[Anonymous No.10739873]

>>10739870
Nope

[Anonymous No.10739888]

>>10739873
Fuck it then. Do I just show up at my doctor's and fake being an autist who can't even hold a conversation consisting of more than 5 words? Will this get me access to whatever this anon >>10739684 is having?

[Anonymous No.10739891]

>>10739888
Maybe or you can go talk to a dealer

[Anonymous No.10739896]

>>10739891
I'm not going to break any laws of my country, that's just barbaric and disrespectful. Would drinking copious amounts of redbull have the same affect on me? I don't even mind if the affect was being halved from an ADHD-redpill.

[Anonymous No.10739905]

>>10739841
Yes, that'll do it

[Anonymous No.10739907]

>>10739888
Do it, anon. Be sure to get the extra supreme pack though (200-300 pills instead of the cheap 100 pills ration). Don't cheap out on your future as a mathematician. I also recommend popping [math]\frac{1}{2}[/math] of your preferred dosage throughout the day just to keep you in this extra focused state so it's easier to get through your daily routine without feeling bored as hell.

[Anonymous No.10739934]

>>10739907
>I
Mathematicians use "we".

[Anonymous No.10740001]

>>10739888
If you feel you have an issue concentrating/staying awake you will get it from psychiatrist (you arent really faking anything if you think it might be affecting your quality of life and ability to study)

Here is how to get it:
>Go to GP/MD and get referral to a psychiatrist, or simply go straight to a psychiatrist (not psychologist)
>Describe your inability to concentrate
>He will suggest ADHD, if he doesnt then say you might think its ADHD
>He might give you a self-assessment test or just ask you more about your problem
>Just answer anything that indicates that you cant concentrate for long periods of time

The best i can explain the effect of medicine is:
>I want to do something
>So you can go do it without feeling unsatisfied or unentertained
It wont get you high (after first dose) and will just make you feel more confident
Just like most drugs you wont know the side-effects for sure untill you try it, like i did Ritalin before and it bade me pee allot and made me more horny, but current pills only make me less hungry and have to force myself to sleep sometimes.
Hopefully that answers your questions :^)

[Anonymous No.10740109]

>>10737655

> G a finite group of automorphisms of X

I thought an affine variety was just a closed set of affine space, without any operations necessarily associated with it. What do they mean by this? are they talking about automorphisms of the coordinate ring?

The hyperlinked example 1.21 refers to "the group of automorphisms of X" as well.

> Y = X/G

If we're treating the affine variety X as a group, how do they know that G is a normal subgroup of this group? Is it commutative or something?

Clearly, this has to be a quotient of groups because G is a group, yet they refer to it as the "quotient space."

[Anonymous No.10740114]

>>10740109

[Anonymous No.10740124]

>>10740109
An affine variety is the spectrum of a polynomial ring.

[Anonymous No.10740131]

>>10740124

The book has not mentioned the concept of a spectrum

[Anonymous No.10740139]

>>10739860
How do you color stuff in math mode?

[Anonymous No.10740142]

>>10740131
You can safely throw away that book then.

[Anonymous No.10740147]

>>10740142

1. It's a well-known AG text (Shafarevich)
2. It does mention the concept of a spectrum, but not before chapter 5

[Anonymous No.10740148]

reminder that using drugs and stimulants proves you don't have a chance in mathematics academia
>>10740139
why don't you right click on the colored text and find out?

[Anonymous No.10740186]

>>10740148

Erdos did it and he lived a very long and sucessful life in Academia

[Anonymous No.10740187]

>>10739235
>obsess over thesis for 4 years
>finally time for dissertation
>give presentation
>blank stares
>committee chair asks "Is the set non-empty?"
>tfw you just proved a bunch of stuff about the empty set

This supposedly happened to a PhD candidate at my uni a few years back

[Anonymous No.10740192]

>>10740147
Is it Shafarevich's basic algebraic geometry or his algebraic geometry?
I'd honestly recommend the latter over the former, even as an introduction. Riemann surfaces are a really comfy entry to algeo.

[Anonymous No.10740202]

>>10739870
meditation

[Anonymous No.10740210]

>>10740148
>math conferences don't universally involve coffee

[Anonymous No.10740214]

>>10740187
>define an object
>derive a great number of properties of it
>can never constructively give it
>go to presentation
>blank stares
>committee chair gets up and proves it doesn't exist
>fuck fuck fuck
>rework the entire thing in a week as an intuitionist project
>they actually accept it

I can feel in my heart that this happened somewhere.

[Anonymous No.10740221]

>>10740186
erdos is a pathological counterexample to a generic property in the space of mathematicians
>>10740210
coffee is normalized enough that i don't care, but i try not to drink it myself.

[Anonymous No.10740238]

>>10740109
What he means there, is a finite subgroup of the group [math]\text{Aut}(X)[/math] of automorphisms. You know what an affine variety is, and you know what a polynomial map (or morphism) of affine varieties is. An automorphism of a variety [math]X[/math] is a morphism [math]\phi:X\to X[/math] that has an inverse morphism [math]\phi^{-1}:X\to X[/math]. The set of all automorphisms naturally forms a group. Shafarevich is asking you to consider a finite subgroup of these automorphisms. For example, you might have a variety that is a circle. I think in this case the group of automorphisms is [math]SO(2)[/math] (I might be wrong on the name). A finite subgroup might be, for example, the subgroup generated by a morphism that consists of a 90º rotation. It has 4 elements.

Now Example 1.21 might define how to create a new variety, which can be taken as the quotient variety by the group G. As you know, any morphism of varieties induces a contravariant morphism on its coordinate ring. The coordinate ring k[X] has a subset that consists of those polynomials which are invariant under taking the morphism. It turns out that when you consider this subset in the case of all the morphisms of a finite subgroup of Aut(X), this is a subalgebra of the coordinate ring k[X], and which can be interpreted as a coordinate ring of some variety. This variety is defined as the quotient X/G, and there is a natural morphism X to X/G that is induced from the inclusion of the subalgebra into k[X].

[Anonymous No.10740240]

What's a good book to revise undergrad
Probability, Statistics and Measure Theory and maybe add a bit to it?

[Anonymous No.10740298]

>>10740240
a grad book in measure theoretic probability obviously

[Anonymous No.10740322]

>>10740240
Idk what you mean by revise, but
>Williams - Probability With Martingales
is a good advanced undergrad text on measure-theoretic probability

[Anonymous No.10740327]

>>10740238
>>10740109
Mathematicians use "we".

[Anonymous No.10740331]

>>10740327
No, we don't.

[Anonymous No.10740395]

>>10738871
Thanks a lot bro, but
>Download ($30)
I'll try to find his paper somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.10740397]

>>10740240
>>10740240
>undergrad measure theory
Is there a graduate measure theory?
Is graduate measure theory a code name for analytic subsets autism?

[Anonymous No.10740401]

>>10740395
sci-hub, brother

[Anonymous No.10740405]

>>10740397

[Anonymous No.10740569]

>>10740405
>Doob
dropped

[Anonymous No.10740585]

>>10738974
he's also a crackpot seeing ancient slavic runes in sunspots

[Anonymous No.10740625]

wish I knew how to cook meth bros, adderall is so expensive

[Anonymous No.10740746]

>>10738174
>every epithany occurs on the toilet

[Anonymous No.10741124]

>>10740148
[math]\color{pink}{\mathsf{Cool}}[/math]

[Anonymous No.10741637]

>>10740202
What's the best way to properly learn it?

[Anonymous No.10741686]

>>10741637
what could you possibly mean by this?
how would one "learn" meditation?
just sit there and focus on not thinking. i oftentimes pretend that i am looking at the thoughts flying through my brain, and i push them past as they go or if they linger i casually observe them and allow them to pass on without noting anything meaningful about them. this sort of visual exercise makes it very easy for me to sit and not think about anything or move at all for 30 minutes.

[Anonymous No.10741790]

Guys whats a good vector calculus book, spivaks calculus doesnt cover it

[Anonymous No.10741795]

>>10741790
Loomis & Sternberg

http://www.math.harvard.edu/~shlomo/docs/Advanced_Calculus.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Math_55

[Anonymous No.10741808]

>>10737655
dude like crystals man. Those new agers are right crystals are like frequencies man. You you got a repeating pattern in space, a spatial frequency. I'm high as balls right now, but is it possible to describe crystals with complex numbers and shit? I know that's it's really fucking useful to describe the structure of some crystals, especially zeolites and metal organic frameworks with infinite graphs. This has been exceptionally useful in the field of chemistry. But what about complex analysis?

[Anonymous No.10741832]

>>10741795
That book looks like a fucking mess.

[Anonymous No.10741854]

>>10741832
What else did you expect from a vector calculus book?

[Anonymous No.10741861]

>>10741854
A normal book? What the hell is with americans and calculus.

[Anonymous No.10741864]

>>10740187
>works obsessively for 4+ years
>never once thinks "maybe I should compute an example"
algebraists
not even once

[Anonymous No.10741865]

>>10741832
>>10741861
It's messy because it's for Harvard freshman. They have nothing to build on except calculus, so the authors build everything from linear algebra to differential forms from scratch.

[Anonymous No.10741870]

>>10741865
I will not deny that would make the class very challenging, but it seems a bad way to build mathematical maturity. Though if you actually are a kind of genius then maybe I'm just being a brainlet to them.

[Anonymous No.10741873]

>>10741865
holy Jesus, Noam Elkies has some very based notes for Math 55 that mashup Axler's LADR with Baby Rudin:
http://www.math.harvard.edu/~elkies/M55a.05/

[Anonymous No.10741885]

>>10741870
>but it seems a bad way to build mathematical maturity.
Sure, but that's not the point of the class at all. Knowing how to write proofs is an outright prerequisite for math 55. The course is intended for big dick tryhards who were mathematically mature already in high school and want to cram through elementary uni math as fast as possible so they can get on to more modern math, not people just starting on abstract math for the first time.

[Anonymous No.10741888]

>>10741637
practice
read minfulness in plain english or some other well rated book
it's worth doing

[Anonymous No.10741958]

>>10740109
>are they talking about automorphisms of the coordinate ring?
Yes and no. They mean invertible regular maps from the variety to itself. It turns out that the "pullback" morphism induced on the algebra of regular functions is then an automorphism and, conversely any such automorphism induces an automorphism of the variety in that sense.

[Anonymous No.10741989]

Math brainlet here. Need help.

Can anyone come up with a logical equation for something that can be represented by

(H) (i) (P) (2B^2) or some variation of that?

Dont ask why

[Anonymous No.10741996]

>>10739870
Don't use drugs like other anons said, even if it gives you help with attention/focus short-term (which it likely won't anyway), long term it will fuck you over to the point of having more of a problem than you have now.
Getting enough sleep, staying hydrated (specifically from water, not other drinks), and healthy diet will help with focus far more than medication ever will.
Also, having your life in order so you don't have things hanging over your head or unfinished tasks will help (even if you're not consciously thinking about those problems/tasks/etc when getting distracted, the subconscious existence of them in the back of your mind will make you have a harder time focusing on things)

[Anonymous No.10742356]

>In addition to these professors, past students of Math 55 include Bill Gates[19], Richard Stallman.[5]
>Richard Stallman

while /g/ is fizzbuzzing and making fun of stallman he's congressing among fields medalists and billionaires lmao

[Anonymous No.10742385]

>>10742356
Math 55 is a class for hacks and failures.

[Anonymous No.10742458]

>>10741989
>math brainlet
bud, you are an 'overall brainlet', if anything

[Anonymous No.10742536]

Anyone have a nice guide on getting started with Coq?
I recall reading about some video lecture series (about the professor using coq within emacs) in an earlier thread a while ago but I can't find the source.

[Anonymous No.10742570]

>>10742385
seething non ivy leaguer

[Anonymous No.10742579]

>>10742536

"Certified programming with dependent types" by Chlipala.

[Anonymous No.10742591]

>>10742579
Looks comfy with lots of examples. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.10742595]

>>10737685
but you wanted to...

[Anonymous No.10742636]

>>10742570
I took the equivalent classes to math 55 at my uni in the first year and it was fine. Didn't have any proofs background going in. Of course I know their problems and shit are probably very hard so maybe I did something more like math 25? but still, pathetically easy stuff. All undergrad math is simple and immediate.

[Anonymous No.10742649]

>>10742636
>All undergrad math is simple and immediate.

[Anonymous No.10742668]

>>10742649
if you disagree with my post you probably aren't gonna make it. sorry.

[Anonymous No.10742675]

>>10742636
>all undergrad math is simple and immediate
Not quite right. Specifically, it isn't true because the subjects in and of themselves are simple, but because mathematicians have been cleaning up the definitions, proofs and presentations for a couple hundred years, and the intuitions have been explained dozens and dozens of times.
So I'd say "undergrad math isn't easy, but learning undergrad math is."
>>10742668
He wasn't disagreeing.

[Anonymous No.10742695]

>>10742675
yes, i agree with the first part just fine. you're right. doesn't really affect my point.
also, i wasn't sure whether or not he was disagreeing, hence my use of "if"

[Anonymous No.10742700]

>>10742636
lmao

[Anonymous No.10742733]

There are algebraic real numbers which cannot be written down using radicals, meaning, they solve a polynomial but they don't have a "closed form."

Has there been any attempt at defining some kind of notion of "canonical form" for all elements of [math]\mathbb{Q}^{alg}[/math]?

[Anonymous No.10742805]

>All undergrad math is simple and immediate

4chan Incel

>If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.

Isaac Newton

[Anonymous No.10742839]

>>10742733
I suppose you could appeal to the fact that A is a Q vector space. Getting a canonical form amounts to finding a basis for A. I don't know if anyone has tried this, but my guess would be that it's untenable though.

[Anonymous No.10742845]

>>10742839
Yah, there's a reason Hilbert didn't give a constructive proof to the basis theorem.

[Anonymous No.10742855]

>>10742805
>Isaac Newton
Who?

[Anonymous No.10742856]

>>10742855
Kek

[Anonymous No.10742860]

>>10742855

People mostly know him as he invented calculus and the airplane

[Anonymous No.10742871]

>>10737655
How difficult is Diff Geo and is it realistic after finishing Royden and Spivak/Munkres’ Calculus/Analysis on Manifolds (not a math major thinking of switching soon)

[Anonymous No.10743011]

>>10742871
Certainly can be done with a decent grasp of analysis and linear algebra.
Also depends on what you mean by diff geo? If it's just curves and surfaces it will be fairly easy. Things more centered around riemannian geometry and differential forms will be harder

[Anonymous No.10743015]

How does someone get good at working in public? Every time I have to work with someone else or study in a library I get so nervous that I can't think about anything other than fucking up. I can't think about the problem when I am stuck on how many people are or aren't watching me.

[Anonymous No.10743021]

>>10742805
of course i stand on the shoulders of giants when i say undergrad math is immediate. so do the math 55 kids.
it's completely obvious to anyone with a brain that the ideas of compactness and such were IN NO WAY clear or immediate to the famous analysts developing them. of course this was a very long and arduous process. but now that's done, and you could explain compactness to a 10 year old. it's not impressive to read baby rudin and axler in your first semester of college.

[Anonymous No.10743024]

>>10743015
no one is watching you
there
stop being a fucking moron
no one gives a single shit what you're doing

[Anonymous No.10743045]

>>10743024
I sometimes tell myself that and it doesn't do anything. And in some cases that is just plain wrong. I might just start day drinking again. Screw it.

[Anonymous No.10743054]

>>10743045
don't day drink. what is wrong with you? jesus
put headphones on and a hat or something
also you're actually just wrong, it is 100% true that no one is ever looking at you. you're being a schizo.

[Anonymous No.10743066]

>>10742860
>he invented calculus
but that was Leibinz...?

[Anonymous No.10743072]

>>10742733
Stop and think for literally more than 1 second what a radical is. Saying the solution to [math]x^2=2[/math] is the number [math]\sqrt2[/math] is a self-referential circular argument. [math]\sqrt2[/math] literally stands for the number that when squared, equals 2, up to some sign convention. It just so happens that radicals are an easy-to-understand algebraic number. When you want to find a solution in terms of radicals, you're implicitly saying that you want a solution in [math]\mathbb Q[\sqrt2][/math], or more appropriately, [math]\mathbb Q[x]/(x^2-2)[/math]. Radicals exist for all degrees, and in fact, they can be used to solve all equations up to degree 4. There is no reason why one couldn't have started from the get go by adding solutions to [math]\mathbb Q[/math] of polynomials of the form x^n - x -d. I'd bet these also solve all polynomials up to degree 4, and hence they are just as canonical as solutions to x^n - d. It's just that your implicit human bias prefers roots.

And indeed, it can be shown that all solutions to quintics can be solved in terms of radicals, and the so called bring radicals, which are solutions to polynomials of the form x^5 - cx - d. In just this way, we can generalized to all polynomials (although I'm not sure if we have yet found a systematic way to find the required ones for each degree).

[Anonymous No.10743088]

>>10743072
Of course, I meant:
>When you want to find a solution in terms of radicals, you're implicitly saying that you want a solution in [math]\mathbb Q(\sqrt[d] n:(d,n)\in\mathbb N\times\mathbb Z)[/math], or more appropriately, [math]\mathbb Q[x_{ij}:(i,j)\in\mathbb N\times\mathbb Z]/(x_{ij}^i−j)[/math].
>For example, when you found a solution in terms of square roots of 2, then you found a solution in [math]\mathbb Q[x]/(x^2-2)=\mathbb Q[\sqrt 2][/math].

[Anonymous No.10743447]

This is more and less accurate, right?

[Anonymous No.10743468]

>>10743447
>abelian fields
What year is that from?

[Anonymous No.10743567]

What mathematician biographies have you read? Right now I'm reading Andre Weil's autobiography and Edward Frenkel's autobiography

[Anonymous No.10743602]

>>10743468
Don’t know. I stumbled across this pic on this board.

[Anonymous No.10743791]

>>10743468
>>10743602
Well, abelian fields is stupid, since field already assumes commutativity (division rings are the ones that don't have it), Abel didn't do much concerning fields, and even in the picture it doesn't make sense, since already in the arrow from semigroups to rings they added commutativity.

[Anonymous No.10743832]

Well, mg?

[Anonymous No.10743838]

>>10743791
iirc, in the old days, field was not assumed to be commutative. So abelian field makes sense for the field definition at that time.

[Anonymous No.10743845]

>>10743791
>in the arrow from semigroups to rings they added commutativity.
That's for the first operation.
>Abel didn't do much concerning fields
What is Abel-Ruffini.

[Anonymous No.10743846]

>>10743838
dude, p sure the concept of division ring didnt exist until much later, if anything.

[Anonymous No.10743848]

>>10743845
ah yes, the famous abel-galois theory

[Anonymous No.10743861]

>>10743447
>thought I could escape reductionism in math
>see this bullshit

[Anonymous No.10743952]

>>10743846
He's right. Strictly noncommutative division rings have been studied since the later part of 19th century, but mathematicians referred to them as fields as late as the 1960s.

[Anonymous No.10744009]

>>10743832
There can only be one:
>The proof is trivial and left as an exercise to the reader.

[Anonymous No.10744011]

>>10743861
Didn't really come of as reductionist, more of how the different branches relate to one another.

[Anonymous No.10744329]

I know it's a^2 / b^2 but what is the exponent rule called? 2+2+2 over 3+3+3 is the same as 2/3

[Anonymous No.10744344]

>>10744329
Reduction, I guess.

[Anonymous No.10744348]

>>10743447
>"""quantum""" field theory
>general relativity
>accurate
Refer to >>>/toy/.

[Anonymous No.10744414]

Is Boyd's convex optimization book for undergraduate courses or graduate?

[Anonymous No.10744425]

>>10744414
How about you give it a try. Just because it may say "intended for graduate students" or something similar does not mean an undergraduate can't read it, and if it says it's for UGs, but a graduate student doesn't know the basics, it is fine for the grad student to read it as well. Stop letting labels restrict yourself and open the book.

[Anonymous No.10744441]

>>10744414
>for undergraduate courses or graduate?
Why would you care? You aren't a brainlet, are you?

[Anonymous No.10744467]

>>10744425
>>10744441
I just finish reading it and manage to do most of the exercises I was interested in.
I want to know if what I did was undergrad stuff or if I can brag about "graduate level mathematics" online.

[Anonymous No.10744488]

>>10744467
>"undergrad stuff" or "graduate level mathematics"
Why would you care? You aren't a brainlet, are you?

[Anonymous No.10744499]

>>10744488
I am. That's why I want to brag about being able to do graduate stuff when I can.

[Anonymous No.10744503]

>>10744499
>graduate stuff
What do you mean by that? You can't even do "graduate stuff" if you aren't a "graduate".

[Anonymous No.10744513]

>>10744467
>brag about "graduate level mathematics" online
Reading CS garbage like "convex optimization" isn't something worth bragging about, and if you did, you would have to brag about doing "graduate level CS" anyway.

[Anonymous No.10744521]

>>10744499
>I am.
We don't accept your kind here. Use >>>/g/.

[Anonymous No.10744539]

Lads, I'm trying to improve at maths but I find that I'm constantly forgetting as much as I'm learning. It's very frustrating. Does anyone have any advice for a brainlet like me?

[Anonymous No.10744562]

>>10744539
Define "forgetting". It's fine if you just can't recall something in full detail, but it still makes sense to you upon rereading your notes.

[Anonymous No.10744641]

>>10744562

It feels like I'm not actually learning if I'm constantly going back to notes though

[Anonymous No.10744649]

>>10744641
You shouldn't expect expect to fully understand and digest everything you come across for the first time. That's not how it works with anything even remotely complex, unless you're already familiar with the material on some level.

[Anonymous No.10744875]

>>10744641
As you're learning a language, no one would expect you to have perfect recall of every word you learn.
And you'd be drilling a language. You're probably not drilling math.

[Anonymous No.10744890]

>>10744009
>La demostración es trivial y se deja como ejercicio al lector.

[Anonymous No.10745011]

>>10744539
>forget
>relearn
>forget again
>relearn a second time
You'll forget less with each iteration of the cycle.
>>10744009
A prova é trivial e deixada como exercício ao leitor.

[Anonymous No.10745050]

>>10744009
六四事件,又稱六四天安門事件

[Anonymous No.10745100]

>>10745050

Tiananmen square protests 1989

[Anonymous No.10745515]

>it has been confirmed ([31])
>[31] D. ickwad, private communication
why is this allowed

[Anonymous No.10745525]

so has wilberger been trying to lay a mathfu all along?

[Anonymous No.10745594]

>>10745525
>write them all down
So what did the student do?

[Anonymous No.10745595]

>>10743861
rapcak back to >>>/toy/

[Anonymous No.10745606]

>>10743011
do you have a recommendation for a gentle introduction to the latter set of topics?

[Anonymous No.10745615]

>>10745594
Why are you asking us?
>>10745606
>gentle
John Lee's Introduction to Smooth Manifolds and Petersen's Riemannian Geometry.

[Anonymous No.10745616]

>>10744539
try using anki

[Anonymous No.10745629]

>>10745594
He did:
2,3,5,7,9,11,13,...

[Anonymous No.10745640]

>>10745616
What would you ever use it for in math? It's only good for drilling basic shit like an initial vocabulary base for some language.

[Anonymous No.10745670]

>>10745640
there are many facts and definitions in mathematics, so using it for them would be good
be creative!

[Anonymous No.10745677]

>>10745670
>there are many facts and definitions in mathematics
And every single one of them is useless without proper context.
>be creative!
Trying to reduce learning (and understanding) definitions to basic memorization doesn't seem very creative.

[Anonymous No.10745686]

>>10745670
additionally, it is worthwhile keeping going with it because the longer you use it the more you will know what makes a good card and what doesn't

essentially a card will create a response to a cue and it is important to consider what response you want to each cue

[Anonymous No.10745694]

>>10745677
>And every single one of them is useless without proper context
fortunately you should have an understanding of mathematics that allows you to place these facts in their proper context

>Trying to reduce learning (and understanding) definitions to basic memorization doesn't seem very creative.
no one suggested that it would replace understanding
the first poster i replied to said he was having difficulties remembering

[Anonymous No.10745712]

>>10745615
thank you

[Anonymous No.10745716]

>>10745712
tu too

[Anonymous No.10746091]

I have a TI-86. For instance, if I go .01*.01 it will display 1e-4. I want it to show .0001. When I go into mode, the calculator is set for "normal" not scientific and is set to "float". I don't recall it ever doing this before, but I replaced all of the batteries including the backup and was wondering if there was some other setting I was missing, or maybe it has always been like this.

[Anonymous No.10746103]

>>10746091
why would anyone prefer that.

[Anonymous No.10746125]

>>10746091
>I have a TI-86.
Refer to >>>/sci/eng/ or >>>/g/.

[Anonymous No.10746361]

anyone have any favorite nontechnical math literature? stuff like biographies or histories, or other types of stories.
i loved this book, a biography of erdos. it's very well written.

[Anonymous No.10746414]

>>10746361
Pick up Lax's Functional Analysis and just read the end of chapter notes.

[Anonymous No.10746426]

>>10746361
>anyone have any favorite nontechnical math literature?
Categories for the Working Mathematician is a classic non-rigorous book.

[Anonymous No.10746440]

>>10746426
>non-rigorous
As opposed to what?

[Anonymous No.10746445]

>>10746361
I would love to go on a month long vacation to a Pacific island and do something like this with the love of my life if I had a love in my life ;_;

[Anonymous No.10746448]

>>10746440
>As opposed to what?
Rigorous.

[Anonymous No.10746454]

>>10746361
>a biography of erdos
>math literature
>erdos
>math
??

[Anonymous No.10746456]

>>10746448
>Rigorous
Refer to >>>/lit/.

[Anonymous No.10746457]

>>10746448
Could you give an example of a rigorous text on category theory?

[Anonymous No.10746460]

>>10746457
>rigorous text
>theory
See >>10746456.

[Anonymous No.10746463]

>>10746457
>Could you give an example of a rigorous text on category theory?
As far as I know there aren't any.

[Anonymous No.10746481]

>>10746457
>rigorous text
What do you mean by that?

[Anonymous No.10746485]

>>10746456
>asking for antonyms
Refer to >>/lit/.

[Anonymous No.10746508]

pic related is my brain's topology

[Anonymous No.10746513]

>>10746445
don't worry, i'm sure soon you'll find a caring loving big burly hairy husband.

[Anonymous No.10746532]

>>10746513
>big burly hairy husband
Where to find one that does math?

[Anonymous No.10746545]

>>10746361
I'm enjoying both of these books >>10743567

[Anonymous No.10746561]

>>10746532
>Where to find one that does math?
They don't appear naturally in nature, one must train a twink that does math to become a big burly hairy husband that goes math.

[Anonymous No.10746599]

>>10746508
given that you're using topology to elucidate how your brain is smooth, I'm not going to argue

[Anonymous No.10746619]

>>10746599
topology alone does not supply differentiable structure

[Anonymous No.10746622]

>>10746619
pic related in >>10746508 is your brain's differentiable structure

[Anonymous No.10746623]

>>10746532
>wanting a husband who does math
>not one that does chemistry in a government funded lab to finance your house husbandry and math hobby

[Anonymous No.10746625]

>>10746622
please demonstrate the existance of a diffeomorphism.

[Anonymous No.10746626]

>>10746625
take the identity

[Anonymous No.10746630]

>>10746626
rude

[Anonymous No.10746636]

>>10737935 >>10738074 >>10738122 >>10738129 >>10738934
I'm not the one that talked about the feynman's method but it's clear none of you know what anon is talking about, it's something mentioned by Scott H. Young, the "Feynman method", and it has to do with rewriting what you read in your own words, or say difficult concepts, rewriting them in a way you can understand it. Personally I kind of do something similar to the "Feynman's method" but not exactly, it's more a method of mine, where I try to synthesize what I read in the most parsimonious way possible and of course using my own insights

[Anonymous No.10746649]

>>10746532
Crossdress.
>10746636
Are you being daft on purpose?

[Anonymous No.10746651]

>>10746636
>using my own insights
So you just keep around blank sheets of paper?

[Anonymous No.10746652]

>>10746636
i want to bully you until you squeal and cry like a little piggy

[Anonymous No.10746679]

Hello, Bosch's "Algebraic Geometry and Commutative Algebra" anon here with a little update.

For those that remember my last post, I had just read through the first 200 pages (ie the first half of the book), which consist entirely of commutative algebra (with a few brief digressions into AG). It very closely resembles Atiyah/Macdonald's book, but more complete, clear and wholesome, and includes some important topics introducing homological algebra. I'd very much recommend it over A/M.

Now I've read a bit over 100 pages into the AG part of the book... And I can say it's been a bit of a ride so far. After a brief glance at Hartshorne, I can say it is basically at the same level, and covers pretty much the exact same as chapter 2 and most of chapter 3, however, again in a more complete, clear and developed way. It is very systematic, and everything seems to fall into position in just the right way. Nevertheless, given that the content is on the same level as Hartshorne, it is still quite difficult to parse through it. There are not many classical examples to rely on (in fact, the book mentions that it intentionally does not cover any classical AG), so the book still loses some motivation. However, the beginning chapters are as good as ever, where there is an informal discussion of the topics at hand, which brings some intuition to an otherwise very abstract setting.

The book enjoys a very 'top-down' approach, which introduces a lot of generality and abstractness, which results in crystal clear definitions and proofs, at the cost of losing track of your senses and intuition at times. Nevertheless, before reading this book, I had tried Eisenbud/Harris and had to leave disappointed at the unrigorous exposition, where I instead lost track because I did not have a firm grip on the concepts (perhaps I'll have a look after I'm done with Bosch). I had to leave that book after their definition of quasi-coherent ideals - completely incomprehensible despite its importance.

[Anonymous No.10746683]

>>10746679
>Hello, Bosch's "Algebraic Geometry and Commutative Algebra" anon here with a little update.
>For those that remember my last post, I had just read through the first 200 pages (ie the first half of the book), which consist entirely of commutative algebra (with a few brief digressions into AG). It very closely resembles Atiyah/Macdonald's book, but more complete, clear and wholesome, and includes some important topics introducing homological algebra. I'd very much recommend it over A/M.
>Now I've read a bit over 100 pages into the AG part of the book... And I can say it's been a bit of a ride so far. After a brief glance at Hartshorne, I can say it is basically at the same level, and covers pretty much the exact same as chapter 2 and most of chapter 3, however, again in a more complete, clear and developed way. It is very systematic, and everything seems to fall into position in just the right way. Nevertheless, given that the content is on the same level as Hartshorne, it is still quite difficult to parse through it. There are not many classical examples to rely on (in fact, the book mentions that it intentionally does not cover any classical AG), so the book still loses some motivation. However, the beginning chapters are as good as ever, where there is an informal discussion of the topics at hand, which brings some intuition to an otherwise very abstract setting.
>The book enjoys a very 'top-down' approach, which introduces a lot of generality and abstractness, which results in crystal clear definitions and proofs, at the cost of losing track of your senses and intuition at times. Nevertheless, before reading this book, I had tried Eisenbud/Harris and had to leave disappointed at the unrigorous exposition, where I instead lost track because I did not have a firm grip on the concepts (perhaps I'll have a look after I'm done with Bosch). I had to leave that book after their definition of quasi-coherent ideals - completely incomprehensibl
what's the tl;dr?

[Anonymous No.10746690]

>>10746683
>I've read 100 pages of the AG part
>It basically mirrors Hartshorne but develops differently
>It's much clearer too, including the proofs
>very abstract, general and 'top-down'

[Anonymous No.10746695]

>>10746690
>very abstract, general and 'top-down'
As opposed to what?

[Anonymous No.10746700]

>>10746695
As opposed to a more unrigorous and intuitive approach, as is seen in Eisenbud/Harris, as is seen at the end of my review.

Although I know you're just memeing and couldn't care less

[Anonymous No.10746708]

>>10746700
>intuitive
How is "very abstract, general and 'top-down'" somehow not "intuitive"? Are you an actually disabled person with no intuition for "very abstract, general and 'top-down'"?

[Anonymous No.10746714]

>>10746679
>at the cost of losing track of your senses and intuition at times
It must feel really bad to be this much of a brainlet that clear definitions and """abstractness""" make you literally lose your senses.

[Anonymous No.10746715]

>>10746708

[Anonymous No.10746722]

>>10746714
>>10746715

[Anonymous No.10746723]

>>10746715
I don't understand what this facebook image is supposed to convey. Did you post to the wrong thread? >>>/v/ is that way.

[Anonymous No.10746727]

>>10746722
>>10746723

[Anonymous No.10746731]

>>10746708
I'd imagine he was complaining that the lack of rigor made him lose sense of how the algebra was being applied to describe the geometry.
I honestly struggled with AG because there are way too many definitions and I couldn't recall shit.

[Anonymous No.10746732]

>>10746679
>unrigorous
>motivation
>intuition
>abstract
>rigorous
Garbage post. Didn't even bother reading. You might wanna repost it to >>>/lit/ though, they enjoy this sort of stuff.

[Anonymous No.10746737]

>>10746731
>the lack of rigor
What lack of rigor are we talking about? He said that its "non-lack of rigor" or "abstractness" (whatever the fuck that means) made him "lose his senses", not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.10746740]

>>10746708
of course it's not intuitive unless you're grothendieck
look at what you're fucking talking about

[Anonymous No.10746743]

>>10746679
i appreciate your post and the thought you put into it.

[Anonymous No.10746744]

>>10746737
>He said that its "non-lack of rigor" or "abstractness" (whatever the fuck that means) made him "lose his senses", not the other way around.
I'm not a "he".

[Anonymous No.10746746]

>>10746740
>of course it's not intuitive
To someone literally disabled in the brain perhaps.
>unless you're grothendieck
You don't need to be a frog for it to be intuitive to you.

[Anonymous No.10746750]

>>10746746
i suppose the 99.99% of the population which will never understand modern categorical algebraic geometry is disabled, then?

[Anonymous No.10746751]

>>10746743
>the thought
What thought? You could literally randomly replace most of the buzzwords in his post with antonyms and it still makes perfect sense.

[Anonymous No.10746756]

>>10746750
>modern categorical algebraic geometry
This is redundant, we say "algebraic geometry".

[Anonymous No.10746762]

>>10746750
>99.99% of the population
I'm clearly talking about people with an interest in learning AG. If you claim that ""abstractness"" isn't intuitive to you and that it makes you lose your senses, you're clearly disabled in some way.

[Anonymous No.10746767]

>>10746744
>I'm
Mathematicans use "we are".
>>10746762
See the above message.

[Anonymous No.10746773]

>>10746740
It's extremely intuitive if you have an actual basis in Riemann surfaces, differential geometry and algebraic topology, since Grothendieck is essentially constantly applicating techniques from those fields.

[Anonymous No.10746779]

>>10746756
i'm making the distinction that one could easily explain the purpose and methods of classical algebraic geometry to any person you pull off the street.
>>10746762
maybe you're disabled because it doesn't make you lose your senses?
yep, i think you're the disabled one.
>>10746773
and it's extremely intuitive if you have a basis in classical algebraic geometry too, which is how anyone with a brain learns it at first.

[Anonymous No.10746783]

>>10746779
>maybe you're disabled because it doesn't make you lose your senses?
I'm sure it might seem that way from the point of view of an absolute retard. But we don't care about what retards think around here.
>which is how anyone with a brain learns it at first.
>anyone with a brain
How would you know that?

[Anonymous No.10746786]

>>10746708
Have sex

[Anonymous No.10746788]

>>10746779
>make you lose your senses
Imagine being this much of a weakling that ""abstractness"" literally makes you lose your senses.

[Anonymous No.10746790]

>>10746779
>classical algebraic geometry
Why would you actually waste your time studying that junk tbqhwyf.

[Anonymous No.10746791]

>>10746786
>sex
Refer to >>>/soc/ or >>>/b/.

[Anonymous No.10746794]

>>10746790
To cry about how "modern math" has become too "unintuitive" for me. I can't handle basic abstractions.

[Anonymous No.10746796]

>>10746783
>>10746788
this is why algebraists aren't mathematicians. people who just pretend they understand what they're doing behind dozens of walls of abstraction are a humiliating crowd to clump in with actual intellectuals who work on analyzing things with structure that's actually interesting (topology and differentiability of course) instead of just farting around with le fancy words and le epic commutative diagram tautologies.
yeah, algebraists fucking ruined geometry for everyone.

[Anonymous No.10746798]

>>10746767
Is the "we" some sort of Lacanian triple consisting of the mathematicians "I" telling the stuff to the "Other" while also being a third person listening to the presentation of "I"?

[Anonymous No.10746801]

>>10746779
>and it's extremely intuitive if you have a basis in classical algebraic geometry
Doesn't seem that way judging by all the mentally disabled people in these threads crying about basic shit like Hartshorne being too abstract.

[Anonymous No.10746802]

>>10746790
because it's actual math and not completely autistic meaningless retarded bullshit for people who get hard over being worthless hacks who can publish literally everything as long as their diagrams commute

[Anonymous No.10746804]

>>10746796
>(topology and differentiability of course)
Those are special cases of algebra these days, get on with the times.

[Anonymous No.10746805]

>>10746801
i think that anyone who thinks hartshorne is unintuitive is not cut out for math.

[Anonymous No.10746810]

>>10746798
We wouldn't know. We're a mathematician, not a pseudo-intellectual hack.

[Anonymous No.10746812]

>>10746804
i'm aware, and yet they are the only remotely interesting special cases. and the things real mathematicians care about are the things that aren't analyzed through algebraic methods. but whatever.

[Anonymous No.10746813]

>>10746805
>i think that anyone who thinks hartshorne is unintuitive is not cut out for math.
Hartshorne's book isn't bad because of the content, but because Hartshorne is a lousy expositor, he's the Lang of algebraic geometry.

[Anonymous No.10746814]

>>10746812
>real mathematicians
Seems like a pseudo-intellectual buzzword to appear more "legitimate" when you otherwise don't stand out in any way. I recommend discussing this at >>>/lit/.

[Anonymous No.10746816]

>>10746813
>he's the Lang of algebraic geometry.
Lang is a meme.

[Anonymous No.10746818]

>>10746812
>things that aren't analyzed through algebraic methods
No such thing, unless you're living in the 19th century or are just being purposefully ignorant.

[Anonymous No.10746819]

>>10746814
the word "real" is not a buzzword, nor is it in any way pseudointellectual.
perhaps you'd be able to correct some of your linguistic choices over on >>>/lit/?

[Anonymous No.10746822]

>>10746818
>No such thing, unless you're living in the 19th century or are just being purposefully ignorant.
Algebraic methods are dishonest, it's not a matter of ignorance.

[Anonymous No.10746823]

>>10746819
>the word "real" is not a buzzword, nor is it in any way pseudointellectual.
Discuss the ontological impliciations of this word at >>>/lit/ instead, also explain to them how some random irrelevant subfield of math is actually what deserves to be ontologically and trully and exclusively called "real".

[Anonymous No.10746826]

>>10746818
alright, i'll rephrase my wording. things that aren't analyzed in the majority by algebraic methods. PDEs, dynamical systems, hard analysis, analytic number theory, etcetera.

[Anonymous No.10746827]

>>10746822
>dishonest
>matter
Refer to >>>/lit/. I hear they love discussing ethics and the nature of reality there.

[Anonymous No.10746828]

>>10746826
>PDEs, dynamical systems, hard analysis, analytic number theory, etcetera.
So what's commonly known as "computer science"? Why do you think this is relevant in a thread literally titled "math general"?

[Anonymous No.10746831]

>>10746823
Sorry, this whole post reeks of pseudo-intellectual drivel. I'd recommend taking this sort of rhetoric to a board such as >>>/lit/ where they may better appreciate your philosophical ramblings on the ontological nature of particular units of language.

[Anonymous No.10746833]

>>10746826
>in the majority
Use >>>/lit/.

[Anonymous No.10746838]

>PDEs, dynamical systems, hard analysis, analytic number theory, etcetera.

[Anonymous No.10746839]

>>10746813
>Hartshorne's book isn't bad because of the content
Nobody was arguing that it was good. Just that only a brainlet would consider it "unintuitive".

[Anonymous No.10746844]

>>10746826
>PDEs, dynamical systems, hard analysis, analytic number theory, etcetera.
>>10746125

[Anonymous No.10746846]

>>10746828
god, i fucking hate your guts. i really, really cannot stand you one bit.
what do you think will happen, 20 years from now? you'll be rotting in your pathetic grave. 6 feet above your worm-ridden corpse will lie a carelessly strewn stone with your name carved on it, and a simple epithet: "tryhard". all because you bought into the algebra meme, because you giddily feasted on the brain-numbing exercises of dummit and foote as a young undergrad, you invented ludicrous names for your horrific amalgamations of mathematical structures as a graduate student, and as a postdoc you obsequiously groveled at the feet of once-intelligent professors whose rounded background fled them for a sad, drawn out fade into obscurity as they pushed out and pulled back and took inverse limits and attached topological spaces to rings and applied derived functors.
that tombstone is a relic of a moment when you recognized how utterly worthless it all was, and decided, "i've humiliated myself enough."

[Anonymous No.10746849]

>>10746838
i thought you were based remiposter but it turns out you are in fact actually cringe.

[Anonymous No.10746851]

>god, i fucking hate your guts.
Stop reading right there. The truth hurts.

[Anonymous No.10746852]

>>10746826
Why would anybody even touch those fields? It's like going to a med school just to become a scatologist.

[Anonymous No.10746853]

>>10746846
>calling them ""inverse limits""
Oh, so you're an undergrad. That explains a lot.

[Anonymous No.10746855]

>>10746846
>god, i fucking hate your guts. i really, really cannot stand you one bit.
>what do you think will happen, 20 years from now? you'll be rotting in your pathetic grave. 6 feet above your worm-ridden corpse will lie a carelessly strewn stone with your name carved on it, and a simple epithet: "tryhard". all because you bought into the algebra meme, because you giddily feasted on the brain-numbing exercises of dummit and foote as a young undergrad, you invented ludicrous names for your horrific amalgamations of mathematical structures as a graduate student, and as a postdoc you obsequiously groveled at the feet of once-intelligent professors whose rounded background fled them for a sad, drawn out fade into obscurity as they pushed out and pulled back and took inverse limits and attached topological spaces to rings and applied derived functors.
>that tombstone is a relic of a moment when you recognized how utterly worthless it all was, and decided, "i've humiliated myself enough."
based

[Anonymous No.10746858]

>>10746849
>cringe
I think they have those "cringe" threads on >>>/b/. You should fuck off there.

[Anonymous No.10746860]

>>10746853
i haven't bothered to study category theory beyond my undergraduate "ventures" into the subject because i am not a hopeless dolt.

[Anonymous No.10746862]

>>10746858
>I think they have those "cringe" threads on >>>/b/.
Mathematicians use "we", not "I".

[Anonymous No.10746866]

>>10746849
>>10746855
>based
On what?

[Anonymous No.10746867]

>>10746858
>You should fuck off there.
Do you really need to swear?

[Anonymous No.10746870]

>>10746860
>she thinks that what she calls """inverse limits""" is """category theory"""
Oh, so you're an undergrad. That explains a lot.

[Anonymous No.10746874]

>>10746860
>beyond my undergraduate "ventures"
You can usually only say "beyond" for something you have actually went beyond. Visit >>>/lit/, they'll explain this stuff to you.

[Anonymous No.10746876]

>>10746866
"Based" is in reference to the adjective in the name of the popular musician "Based God". "Based" is internet parlance which is used to signify agreement and praise.

[Anonymous No.10746879]

>>10746876
>Based God
What is this God based on?

[Anonymous No.10746886]

>>10746876
>>10746879
>God
>adjective
>reference
>internet parlance
Seems like something that should belong solely on >>>/lit/.

[Anonymous No.10746887]

>>10746879
I'm not a reliable resource, but my assumption would be the years of hip hop culture leading to his rise to fame.

[Anonymous No.10746895]

>>10746870
>>10746874
Please explain to me, in your abstract, intuitive terms, what exactly we should be using to describe a notion which I in the past assigned the name "inverse limit" and what I in the past ascribed a categorical context.
I'm always open to learning.

[Anonymous No.10746899]

>>10746895
>asking to be spoonfed

[Anonymous No.10746900]

>>10746895
>I
>I'm
I meant "we" and "we're". My apologies.

[Anonymous No.10746901]

>>10746895
>me
>I
Mathematicians use "us" and "we", not "me" and "I".

[Anonymous No.10746902]

>>10746899
fine, i'll look it up in nLab.
>an inverse limit is the same thing as a limit
oh

[Anonymous No.10746906]

>>10746895
You could make a >>>/lit/ thread if you're an undergrad having trouble with understanding basic language. Those guys are pretty good at that sort of stuff.

[Anonymous No.10746916]

>>10746906
Thanks, but I'm a bit new to /lit/! So I'm nervous about misstepping and committing a board faux-pas. Hey, could you do me a favor and make that thread for me?

[Anonymous No.10746930]

>>10746916
Sure, just be sure to make all of your post in that thread from now on.
>>>/lit/mathematical/

[Anonymous No.10746936]

>>10746916
We'll also leave a post number just in case you're an undergrad at using the catalog too.
Thread no.: 13345369.

[Anonymous No.10746937]

>>10746930
Thanks for being so thoughful.

[Anonymous No.10747652]

Do you guys know of any job listings targeting mathematicians in Europe? I've found the following so far:
https://jobs.eu-maths-in.eu/
https://euro-math-soc.eu/jobs

[Anonymous No.10747864]

>>10746849
While Yukari is an unlikeable hag that is only posted by literally one guy, Remilia is a charismatic princess loved by many.
I personally like dynamical systems and hard analysis a lot, but PDEs isn't really my thing.

[Anonymous No.10747909]

>>10747864
okay you're based then
and i'm still gonna think of you as one person
>>10747652
you could have a job sucking my dick, i'll give you a blackboard if you need it for your "hobby"

[Anonymous No.10747914]

been microdosing cocaine lads