/mg/ maths general: packed sphere edition

[Anonymous No.11266272]

talk maths, formerly >>11252098

https://actu.epfl.ch/news/maryna-viazovska-receives-the-2019-fermat-prize-5/
>The 2019 Fermat prize in mathematics has been awarded to Professor Maryna Viazovska, who holds EPFL’s Chair of Number Theory, for her solution to the sphere packing problem. The Fermat prize of mathematics is a bi-annual named after the famous French mathematician Pierre de Fermat. The prize rewards mathematicians under 45 years old whose research words are in Number Theory, analytic geometry, probability and research related to the variational principles.

>Maryna Viazovska’s solution to the sphere packing problem in dimension 8 and in dimension 24 brought her worldwide fame and a large number of awards, such as the Salem Prize, the New Horizons in mathematics prize or more recently the Satter Prize.

[Anonymous No.11266275]

phenotype

[Anonymous No.11267326]

Threadly reminder to work with physicists.

[Anonymous No.11267336]

There's already a new /mg/, bre.

>sphere packing problems in dimensions 8 and 24
I had hoped it would be something actually interesting.

[Anonymous No.11267347]

>>11267336
I'll use this one since >>11267326 is here.

[Anonymous No.11267352]

>>11267336
>There's already a new /mg/, bre.
This /mg/ was here first.

[Anonymous No.11267460]

>>11267347
Since when are you shilling physics that hard?

[Anonymous No.11267781]

>>11266272
blessed Viazovska /mg/

[Anonymous No.11267967]

>>11267460
I shill working for physicists not physics itself.

[Anonymous No.11267972]

Undergrad here. Does this course look worth taking? Or should I take a set theory and logic course instead. I can only really fit one in.

[Anonymous No.11267976]

>>11267972
What are your research interests?

[Anonymous No.11267982]

>>11267976
I'm not interested in physics, and I've heard that's what functional analysis is about. I like geometry and number theory so far.

[Anonymous No.11267992]

>>11267967
>I shill working for physicists not physics itself.
What is your working philosophy?

[Anonymous No.11267997]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.13334.pdf
>Comparing demographics of signatories to public letters on diversity in the mathematical sciences
>Chad M. Topaz, James Cart, Carrie Diaz Eaton, Anelise Hanson Shrout, Jude A. Higdon, Kenan İnce, Brian Katz, Drew Lewis, Jessica Libertini
>(Submitted on 31 Dec 2019)

>In its December 2019 edition, the Notices of the American Mathematical Society (AMS) published an essay critical of the use of diversity statements in academic hiring. The publication of this essay prompted many responses, including three public letters circulated within the mathematical sciences community. Each letter was signed by hundreds of people and was published online by the AMS. We report on a study of the signatories' demographics, which we infer using a crowdsourcing approach. Letter A highlights diversity and social justice and was signed by relatively more people inferred to be women and ethnic minorities. These signatories represent a broader range of institution types and levels of professional security. Letter B does not comment on diversity, but rather, argues for discussion and debate. It was signed predominantly by individuals inferred to be men who have ethnicities not underrepresented in the mathematical sciences, and who are in professionally secure positions at highly research intensive institutions. Letter C speaks out specifically against the use of diversity statements. Individuals who signed both Letters B and C, that is, signatories who privilege discussion and debate and who oppose diversity statements, are overwhelmingly inferred to be tenured white men at research universities.

[Anonymous No.11267998]

>>11267992
>philosophy
Sorry that's not my area of expertise so I can't comment on that.

[Anonymous No.11268095]

Lately I've been pondering about the following. Assume that you have a compact [math]n\geq 2[/math]-dimensional complex manifold [math]X[/math]. Further assume that you magically know all analytic subvarieties of [math]X[/math] that are of complex dimension [math]n-1[/math]. Can you say ANYTHING about the cohomology of such a subvariety [math]Y\subset X[/math] without any additional information? Meaning is there any restriction on, say, [math]H^{1,1}(Y,\mathbb{R})[/math], by information on the cohomology groups of [math]X[/math] or some other geometric data on [math]X[/math]?
Not really sure if this is a retarded question, but my feeling tells me that the answer will either be no restriction at all in general, or a fucking insanely complicated set of restrictions that can never be explicitely calculated.

[Anonymous No.11268154]

>>11268095
Just by virtue of Dolbeault being a cohomo theory you can use relative/Meyer-Vietoris exact sequences to extract algebraic properties.

[Anonymous No.11268159]

how is grad school like being an employee?

[Anonymous No.11268187]

>>11267997
HOLY SHIT LOL

What next? We aren’t going to accept math papers because the authors are white men? Since when is an argument based on the gender of the writers and not the argument itself?

[Anonymous No.11268189]

>>11266272
I think that's a man, baby

[Anonymous No.11268190]

>>11268154
>Meyer-Vietoris exact sequences
Thanks m8! I really need to step up my more abstract alg-topo knowledge... Until now I've basically been working in real affine DG, but for some reason explicit formulae for cohomology stuff, like Kähler forms and related spaces, are now suddenly very important for my research. And I'm having a hard time since I'm either stupid or algebraic geometers prefer not to calculate and analysts prefer not to diagram chase and, hence, trying to mix stuff is fucky.

[Anonymous No.11268199]

>>11268159
errday i want to kms

[Anonymous No.11268204]

>>11268190
No problem hun.
>trying to mix stuff is fucky
I understand perfectly how you feel; mathphys is such a discipline after all.

[Anonymous No.11268215]

are there any interesting active areas of research in statistics ? also what are your general thoughts of statistics and statisticians

[Anonymous No.11268221]

>>11268215
stats can be barely considered math and learning it as a mathematician requires first and foremost the understanding that this was made for mouthwatering idiots that cannot be trusted with any sort of competence on their part.

[Anonymous No.11268244]

>>11267972
>>11267976
>>11267982
Bump my question just once.
Please guys!

[Anonymous No.11268287]

>>11268159
Pretty comfy if you like teaching and enjoy what you're learning. Depressing if you want to make decent money before you turn 30.

[Anonymous No.11268309]

>>11268244
>geometry and number theory
set theory and logic will be useless to you
functional analysis is useful for geometry somewhat but not really directly
it's not about physics at all, physics people use it but functional analysis is the study of infinite dimensional vector spaces with a norm or some other topology. you can think of it as infinite dimensional geometry (geometry of function spaces) though you'd be wrong.
set theory and logic is half a waste of time and half enlightening. it is by no means needed.

[Anonymous No.11268397]

>>11268287
What if you don’t like teaching?

[Anonymous No.11268539]

>>11268221
*to have any

[Anonymous No.11268601]

>>11266272
How to fuck her.?

[Anonymous No.11268621]

>>11268159
Go to work in the morning, leave in the afternoon, do stuff, and get paid monthly. Also, you may have to do some tutoring/teaching etc. That way it is like a job. Also, you can get fired if you aren't good enough, or break the rules somehow.

[Anonymous No.11268634]

anybody have solutions for exercises in basic mathematics by serge lang?

[Anonymous No.11268638]

>>11268634
You do after you have done the exercises.

[Anonymous No.11268643]

>>11268638
my solutions is wrong though

[Anonymous No.11268657]

>>11268643
Surely you can do better.

[Anonymous No.11268842]

How does (2) split in Q[sqrt(2), sqrt(3)]? It ramifies in all three intermediate subfields, and since the field is a normal extension, by considering the inertia subfield we find that it totally ramifies in the big field. Yet I can't find the prime in the big field.
Also, this should also give us that (2,sqrt(2)) = (2, 1+sqrt(3)) in the big field, since they are both the square of the prime over 2. Yet I can't seem to express sqrt(2) to be in (2,1+sqrt(3)) and vice versa. Any help?

[Anonymous No.11268949]

Watcha all think of John Baez new math Journal?

https://compositionality-journal.org/

[Anonymous No.11269066]

>>11268095
If the space is Stein, you also have all the classical theorems about Stein spaces desu.

[Anonymous No.11269120]

>>11268949
If the number of math professors isn't increasing, ehy do we need MORE math journals?

[Anonymous No.11269150]

>>11269120
Topics are changing and Elsiver should be faded out.
I'm not a big fan of the category theory twitter-gang, but I may review a paper or two.

[Anonymous No.11269199]

>>11269120
Could be because there are more people, including students, who write and submit papers.

[Anonymous No.11269218]

>>11268397
Some grad students in my department request remedial courses like college algebra every term, because of how low-effort they are to teach. You can just phone it in every day, especially if you've taught it before. Your students won't like you much, but I guess that wouldn't matter to you if all you're looking for is an easy assignment.

The other option is grading papers, if you're a total masochist. I think most departments will start you off with teaching assignments though; ours doesn't give us the option to grade until about 3 years in.

[Anonymous No.11269665]

I'm stuck on this:
>https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/449388/understanding-power-series-multiplication-step

I don't understand the explanation past breaking down the products in (a_0 + ...)(b_0 + ...). Why does the author of the answer write [math](a_k x^k)(b_l x^l)[/math] rather than [math](a_k x^k)(b_k x^k)[/math]?

[Anonymous No.11269670]

>>11269218
For me, it's more the public speaking aspect. But I should probably just get over that. I think I'd like teaching after that.

[Anonymous No.11269673]

>>11269670
You're going to HAVE to get over it eventually if you want to stay in academia. May as well get it out of the way now while it's easier.
Everyone teaches. Through some combination of luck/talent/nepotism you might be able to land research-only positions for a while here or there but you'll still be talking in seminars and at conferences and things like that.

[Anonymous No.11269676]

>>11269665
>>11269665
>Why does the author of the answer write (akxk)(blxl) rather than (akxk)(bkxk)?
Try expanding (a_0+a_1x+a_2x^2)*(b_0+b_1x+b_2x^2) and you'll see.

[Anonymous No.11269677]

>>11268634
>anybody have solutions for exercises in basic mathematics by serge lang?
Lang is a meme.

[Anonymous No.11269687]

>>11266272
>There is thus an asymmetry between a positive and negative statement in intuitionism. If a statement P is provable, then it is certainly impossible to prove that there is no proof of P. But even if it can be shown that no disproof of P is possible, we cannot conclude from this absence that there is a proof of P. Thus P is a stronger statement than not-not-P.

Similarly, to assert that A or B holds, to an intuitionist, is to claim that either A or B can be proved. In particular, the law of excluded middle, "A or not A", is not accepted as a valid principle. For example, if A is some mathematical statement that an intuitionist has not yet proved or disproved, then that intuitionist will not assert the truth of "A or not A". However, the intuitionist wilI accept that "A and not A" cannot be true.

[Anonymous No.11269694]

>>11269665
because when people talk about multiplying series it's always in a sense of how you multiply finite polynomials:
(a2x^2+a1x+a0)(b2x^2+b1x+b0) = a2b2x^4 + (a2b1 + a1b2)x^3 + (a2b0 + a1b1 + a0b2)x + a0b0
not a2b2x^2 + a1b1x + a0b0
it's the same thing how we multiply matrices intuitively it seems to be reasonable to multiply them component-wise but it's the other multiplication what brings a lot of useful properties, same with series.

[Anonymous No.11269728]

>>11267997
>Consensus based math
Neat.

1+1 = 3

[Anonymous No.11269770]

>cotangent is the reciprocal of tangent
makes sense
>cosecant is the reciprocal of sine
>secant is the reciprocal of cosine
what retard thought this was a good idea?

[Anonymous No.11269789]

>>11269770
>what retard thought this was a good idea?
no idea. in europe we don't use secant and cosecant at all

[Anonymous No.11269792]

>>11269770
>cosine is the reciprocal of sine
>cocosine is the reciprocal of cosine
>>11269789
What do you use, some word in arab?

[Anonymous No.11269810]

>>11269792
sine, cosine and tangent, cotangent kind of seldom

[Anonymous No.11269815]

co should just be the reciprocal. so sine and cosine, tangent and cotangent, secant and cosecant.

would be more logical that way

[Anonymous No.11269877]

>>11269673
Well, I think I'll have an easier time talking about math than I did superficial topics in my public speaking course. I've accepted that I need to get over it if I'm going to live my best life and thanks for the tips. I'll try looking for opportunities to speak somewhat publically in the meantime so I'm a little more prepared..

[Anonymous No.11269943]

The way I remember it is that the Greeks (and Euclid in particular) were morons who should've made the reciprocals sec/sin and csc/cos instead of csc/sin and sec/cos, which makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.11270054]

>>11268949
Applied Category theorist journal

https://twitter.com/akarp/status/1194681886469021696

[Anonymous No.11270148]

>>11270054
Is that you?
I don't disagree.

[Anonymous No.11270153]

>>11269687
What does the look convey?
I made a constructive containment thread
>>11270046

[Anonymous No.11270159]

there has to be a better way

[Anonymous No.11270192]

>>11267997
Good to know that if your a white man, you should fuck off from Academia

[Anonymous No.11270320]

>>11267997
>inferred to be men who have ethnicities not underrepresented in the mathematical sciences
So white men, of course, but also Indians/East Asians?

[Anonymous No.11270405]

[Anonymous No.11270475]

>>11270148
No

[Anonymous No.11270545]

>>11268601
You must show your worth by extending her theorems.

[Anonymous No.11270660]

>>11270545
I would extend something in her repeatedly, if you catch my drift.

[Anonymous No.11270671]

>>11270660
got a bit of a man face desu, go for it tho

[Anonymous No.11270684]

>>11270671
Our sons will be strong-featured slavic warriors

[Anonymous No.11271237]

Which one had the most innate talent?

[Anonymous No.11271256]

>>11266272
>a fifth of the way into the 21st century
>still taking b&w photos

[Anonymous No.11271272]

>>11268601
Integration by parts?

[Anonymous No.11271359]

>>11270159
unit circle and the right triangles with sides 1-1-√2 and 1-√3-2.

You can deduce stuff like sin(atan(x))=x/√(1+x^2) by considering a right triangle of sides 1 and x, and there's also a diagram to find cos(x+y)=cos(x)cos(y)-sin(x)sin(y).

You can find these on wikipedia at List of trigonometric identities

[Anonymous No.11271715]

>>11271237
I go with: the order for n which they are listed

[Anonymous No.11271735]

>>11271237

[Anonymous No.11271778]

>>11271735
But Gauss is always praised for being dat Wunderkind, so it seems innate talent is higher there

[Anonymous No.11271846]

Is this a typo? Shouldn't it be a subset sign not a proper subset, so A is a subset of B and could be equal, or else (i) would not be true

[Anonymous No.11271872]

>>11271237
fuck, marry, kill. ymmv

[Anonymous No.11271882]

>>11271846
>[math]A= \mathbb{N} \{1}[/math]
>[math]B= \mathbb{N}[math]
Also, one is true either way lad, even if you insist on finite sets.

[Anonymous No.11272463]

>>11266272
i was talking to some ML people (FAANG workers so presumably not completely retarded) and tried to dig down to the bottom of what all their processes, statistical analysis etc. etc. are actually derived from. the conversation went something like this

>so how do you know x?
>ah well we have a cool function
>whats that function derived from
>ah well we have a couple more cool functions

and so on. eventually he said something interesting

>theres basically 4 important numbers which everything is derived from: 1, -1, e and pi. all maths is combining these in different ways

is that actually a meaningful statement and if so, can i get a quick rundown on where e and pi come from? CS brainlet so no super maths please

[Anonymous No.11272484]

>>11272463
>is that actually a meaningful statement
no

[Anonymous No.11272507]

I'M COOOOOOOOMMUUUTING

[Anonymous No.11272559]

How to make math equation here?

[Anonymous No.11272579]

>>11272559
>How to make math equation here?
What have you tried?

[Anonymous No.11272580]

>>11272559
start with an identity and go from there

or you could write an opinion paper that White Men need to leave Mathematics, your call

[Anonymous No.11272582]

>>11272579
loly

[Anonymous No.11272586]

> [math]0 \in \mathbb{N}[/math]

[Anonymous No.11272613]

>>11272579
Let's see

x-\frac{1}{x}=1

x^8+\frac{1}{x^8}=?

[Anonymous No.11272636]

>>11272613
use the eqn and /eqn tags
[eqn]x-\frac{1}{x}=1\\
x^8+\frac{1}{x^8}=?[/eqn]
\\ is a newline

[Anonymous No.11272638]

\[
x-\frac{1}{x}=1\]
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.hostmath.com/Math/MathJax.js?config=OK"></script>

\[x^8+\frac{1}{x^8}=?\]
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.hostmath.com/Math/MathJax.js?config=OK"></script>

[Anonymous No.11272639]

>>11271846
Some people use [math]\subset[/math] to mean non-strict containment, where others would use [math]\subseteq[/math]. I assume the author is just one of those people.

Also, in the future please give context for things like this. P(A) has a lot of possible meanings.

[Anonymous No.11272645]

>>11272636
ah, thanks

[Anonymous No.11272670]

[eqn]x-\frac{1}{x}=1 \\ x^8+\frac{1}{x^8}=?[/eqn]

[Anonymous No.11272685]

>>11272670
use the quadratic equation, nigga

[Anonymous No.11272999]

is it safe to take math courses over the winter / summer. since they are much shorter I'm worried that I wont learn as much.

[Anonymous No.11273132]

>>11267997

Are they out of their fucking minds? All out racial profiling of people for having an opinion? That shit should be taken off the arXiv asap

[Anonymous No.11273143]

>>11273132
>2020

[Anonymous No.11273147]

>>11272685
how

[Anonymous No.11273161]

>>11267997
The funniest part is where they outsource the data collection for their social justice study to 15 cents per task mechanical turk slaves.

[Anonymous No.11273168]

>>11266272
>Viazovska
I look at this picture and feel again "the pangs of despised love"

[Anonymous No.11273175]

>>11267997
>ctrl f
>"jew"
>nope
heh

[Anonymous No.11273202]

Maybe it's a stupid question, but in the articles and books I'm reading it doesn't have a good answer. What would be a good notation for a set of vectors such that they have fixed values in some entries and in the rest they have a free variables?

[Anonymous No.11273238]

>>11273202
Also, I know in most you can just order the variables and just say w.l.o.g. but it seems like an interesting problem and I have not found a good solution.

[Anonymous No.11273255]

>>11273202
>>11273238
Maybe something like an explicitly written down affine space? E.g.
[math]V:=\left(\begin{matrix} 1\\ 0\\ 0\end{matrix}\right)+\mathrm{span}_{\mathbb{R}}\left\{\left(\begin{matrix} 0\\ 1\\ 0\end{matrix}\right),\left(\begin{matrix} 0\\ 0\\ 1\end{matrix}\right)\right\}[/math]

[Anonymous No.11273621]

>>11272463
>theres basically 4 important numbers which everything is derived from: 1, -1, e and pi. all maths is combining these in different ways
Very wrong, some misconcept from euler identity.

[Anonymous No.11273666]

>>11266272
What are your thoughts on this book? Prerequisites? I know a little of differential topology but took an alg top course (we used hatcher) and was thinking of reading Bott-Tu. Wondering if it's worth reading it.

[Anonymous No.11273680]

>>11267997
>letters that go against 'woke' opinion only signed by people with permanent jobs
>people with permanent jobs are old and less diverse than previous generation
Not very surprising imho.

[Anonymous No.11273765]

>>11267997
>people from ethnic groups sign stuff that helps them
>white people with high positions sign stuff that helps them
really makes you think, if you're 5 year old that is

[Anonymous No.11273811]

>>11266272
how tf do i learn quadratic equations

[Anonymous No.11274107]

Should I study Chaos Theory or Information Theory?

[Anonymous No.11274110]

>>11273811
kek

[Anonymous No.11274112]

>>11273811
Read Conics and Cubics.

[Anonymous No.11274122]

>>11273666
Why don't you read it and find out yourself? It takes less than a minute to find it and open the book, since you have internet.

[Anonymous No.11274228]

>>11274107
why not both?

[Anonymous No.11274229]

>>11274107

no

[Anonymous No.11274238]

>>11274228
>>11274229
>>11274107
I changed my mind. I'm going to study information geometry.

[Anonymous No.11274241]

>>11274238
That's almost worse.

[Anonymous No.11274298]

>>11274238
May I ask why you are interested in that?

[Anonymous No.11274326]

>>11270153
dead thread

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

[Anonymous No.11274521]

"Geometric algebra" is "Clifford algebra", and it is no good to hide this by renaming it. Hestenes didn't invent it, and his approach is pedagogically awful and adds nothing new.

[Anonymous No.11274556]

>>11274521
Sounds good.
It's a cool and pure subject.

[Anonymous No.11274575]

>>11274556
>Clifford Algebras
>cool and pure
Oh no no no.

[Anonymous No.11274619]

>>11274521
>no big red dog

[Anonymous No.11274643]

>>11274575
What are you saying? You don't like 4x4 dimensional representations of some nice groups?
Or am I supposed to read this in a Super Mario voice, like
https://youtu.be/XR6eUDrh6YU

[Anonymous No.11274663]

*deep breathe* negative numbers don't exist, the commutative property is illogical, decimals are irrational and don't exist. you wasted your time memorizing digits of pi, if you do trigonometry algebraically you are a brainlet and should quit mathematics.
*kicks over garbage can and slams door*

[Anonymous No.11274671]

>>11274663
*deep breath*
Autism.
*leaves*

[Anonymous No.11274750]

>>11273202
[math] V= \left\{ \begin{pmatrix} 2 \\ a \\ b \end{pmatrix}; a,b \in R \right\} [/math]

[Anonymous No.11274871]

>>11272463
fucking lol
>>11274521
based
>>11274663
>>11274671
go back

[Anonymous No.11274880]

>>11272463
>>11274871
They're AI Researchers - very high paid people with top pedigrees. Probably smarter than us lol.

[Anonymous No.11274906]

>>11274880
would love to punch bryan caplan's smarmy bet winning weasel face in, then fuck his fat gross wife and give her some more retarded kids

[Anonymous No.11274927]

>>11274906
I don't even know those people. Do """intellectuals""" really listen to them?

[Anonymous No.11274933]

>>11274927
bay area rationalists and their extended culture do, yeah

marginal revolution reading, eric weinstein portal watching, machine learning and AI gwern studying faggolis

>muh GPT2 is gonna take over the world!!

[Anonymous No.11274938]

>>11268601
Good luck, she is married with children and pregnant atm

[Anonymous No.11275574]

I still don't understand wedge products. Every definition I've read is fucking garbage and defines it in terms of the something or other algebra over whatever and I only know basic abstract algebra (what is group, ring, field, field extension, isomorphism, grassman ring). What's an intuitive definition an undergrad grug brain like me can understand? I did hoffman+kunze and babby rudin.

[Anonymous No.11275968]

>>11275574
read Pugh

[Anonymous No.11276064]

>>11275574
you literally only need to know what a vector space is. this all takes some time to sink in, you just have to get used to it.
firstly, make sure you know what a multilinear form is. this is just a transformation taking k vectors in some vector space (for us over R) and sending them to some value in R, and it is linear in each variable. so a linear functional is a 1-linear form, and an inner product is a 2-linear form. an example of a 3-linear form is the determinant of the matrix of 3 column vectors in R^3.
we can multiply multilinear forms, also called "tensors," using something called the tensor product. it's really simple, all it does is give you a new multilinear form with more variables, and the first bunch get put into the first form while the next bunch get put into the second form. then you just multiply the resulting real numbers.
now, not all multilinear forms are "nice." but some of them, like the determinant, are, and we call these "alternating." what alternating means is that when you swap the position of 2 vectors, the sign flips. just like swapping 2 columns of a determinant. why do we like these alternating forms? they respect something called "orientation," e.g. the right hand rule in R^3, or CCW rotation in R^2. don't worry about that. we call the set of all the alternating multilinear forms the exterior algebra. this consists of a bunch of vector spaces (one for the 1-linear forms, one for the 2-linear forms, etc) where we can multiply any 2 forms in the algebra using the tensor product.
but there's a problem! the tensor product of 2 alternating multilinear forms is always another multilinear form, but it isn't always alternating!
cont

[Anonymous No.11276075]

>>11276064
the wedge product is what fixes that. it's really unimportant how it actually does this, but basically it just acts like the commutators you know from group theory to give you the symmetry you need to preserve alternation. think T times S + (-1)^power S times T. that's not exactly right but you get the idea.
ok, well what's the point? the point is that these make sense if you look at them on the tangent spaces of manifolds, and there you can define a derivative operator which differentiates a multilinear form. then you can go the opposite direction (sort of) and integrate a form. but now since we've got a manifold and not a vector space, things are a little messy (you have a multilinear form for each point of the manifold, defined as a multilinear transformation of each tangent space). whatever. doing the work, you get all kinds of neat stuff out of this that isn't possible without the formalism of the exterior algebra, the alternating property, and the wedge product.

[Anonymous No.11276151]

>>11267972
>>11267982
Functional analysis will likely be far more useful to you, though I think harmonic analysis would even be a bit better. There have been a lot of breakthroughs in applying methods from analysis (in the more conventional way) to problems in (combinatorial) number theory by people like Tao, Gowers, and Bourgain. If you want to get really out there, a problem known as the kakeya needle problem (the progenitor for the entire field of geometric measure theory) is deeply relate to several areas of mathematics from number theory to partial differential equations. It's probably the area where analysis would be most beneficial. In a less direct way, more developing similiar techniques and ideas in a number theoretic context rather than directly applying the fourier transform is the work of Tate and Langlands (really Harish-Chandra but still). Basically the work of Tate brought a new set of very powerful tools in a more abstract setting, and people like Harish-Chandra who developed these ideas in important but concrete settings laid the foundation for applying these very concrete analytic tools in a very abstract setting, giving rise to noncommutative harmonic analysis. This is quite a ways away form standard functional analysis, but the latter is a good starting point for the former.

>>11266272
>>11267326
https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.01319
Sphere packing from the perspective of quantum gravity

>>11267997
>overwhelmingly inferred to be tenured white men at research universities
Ah yes, unlike those pesky Indians, East Asian, Jews, and so on. So basically, white men = anyone who isn't a black or Hispanic women?

>>11268159
I hate my students and they hate me

>>11268949
An interesting idea, and I do appreciate the fact that after so long of category spergs claiming that all their waffling will lead to some really groundbreaking insights at every level of mathematics there's finally a dedicated journal to elucidating why anyone might give a shit.

[Anonymous No.11276154]

>>11276151

>>11272999
You can, but I think at that point self study is a better option.
>>11275574
You can think of the wedge product as abstracting many of the properties of the determinant, Hubbard and Hubbard may be more your speed.

[Anonymous No.11276169]

>>11275574
Exterior algebra of a vector space V represents oriented parallelepipeds spanned by vectors of V. The product v ∧ w is literally the parallelogram spanned by v and w. The alternating property v ∧ v = 0 means that a parallelogram with same sides should be considered zero (degenerate).

Probably more useful is the exterior algebra of V*, the dual space. Elements of V* are linear functions on vectors of V. Elements of the k-fold exterior product are linear functions on k-dimensional oriented parallelepipeds in V. They can be thought of as a device for measuring k-dimensional volume or density etc. It's a bit tricky to say what the wedge product of forms looks like, but I hope you get the idea.

Algebraically, evaluating a form on a parallelepiped boils down to computing various subdeterminants of a matrix which has the spanning vectors in columns. Point is that it's defined in a coordinate-free fashion. When you leave R^3 and move to manifolds, differential forms are what you integrate, because they obey the correct transformation laws (the change of variable formula is already built in).

[Anonymous No.11276335]

>>11276151
>I do appreciate the fact that after so long of category spergs claiming that all their waffling will lead to some really groundbreaking insights at every level of mathematics there's finally a dedicated journal to elucidating why anyone might give a shit.

Algebraic geometry is THE dominating subject in math (far too many unis and people do it) and it has been using category theory since the 50's extensively. The idea that category theory is a meme is a meme. It's a-historical to pretend it's a niche thing.

I gather the only problem for those memes is that when Lawvere etc. found that topos theory can express logic, the "category theory for foundations" triggered all too many mathematicans.
But in any case, the notions of category - say the inverse limit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_limit
is very central to a lot of algebra and extremely inconvenient to state in any way than using category theory.

[Anonymous No.11276338]

>>11276151
>I do appreciate the fact that after so long of category spergs claiming that all their waffling will lead to some really groundbreaking insights at every level of mathematics there's finally a dedicated journal to elucidating why anyone might give a shit.
Algebraic geometry is THE dominating subject in math (far too many unis and people do it) and it has been using category theory since the 50's extensively. The idea that category theory is a meme is a meme. It's a-historical to pretend it's a niche thing.
In any case, the notions of category - say the inverse limit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_limit
is very central to a lot of algebra and extremely inconvenient to state in any way other than using category theory.

I gather the only problem for those memes is that when Lawvere etc. found that topos theory can express logic, the "category theory for foundations" triggered all too many mathematicans.

[Anonymous No.11276346]

>>11276338
Also, according to Beaz himself, he gave up on n-cateogries for the more CS and biology related applications when he thought he couldn't and wouldn't want to compete with approaches of bigger and crazier men.

[Anonymous No.11276580]

>>11276346
Man, this screenshot gives me the smuggest fucking smile whenever I see it.

[Anonymous No.11276637]

>>11276580
What are you doing on 4channel, Lurie?

[Anonymous No.11276749]

How can I get prestigious letters of recommendation from professors abroad? I'm from a third world shithole, and most professors here except for those at the math department have no research at all. Btw I'm in CS self-studying some real analysis from Tao on the side.

[Anonymous No.11276764]

>>11276637
he's had a lot of free shitposting time since he became a stay at home dad

[Anonymous No.11276801]

>>11276749
First off, they must know you or any of your work.

[Anonymous No.11276828]

>>11270405
This should be proposed to all governments

[Anonymous No.11276913]

>>11276169
>>11276064
thank you that makes perfect sense

>>11275968
I used pugh for the topology section, I guess I'll read the chapter that deals with that

[Anonymous No.11276967]

>>11276801
Should I make a blog about the research that I am doing?

[Anonymous No.11276991]

>>11276913
no problem anon, we're here to help and encourage

[Anonymous No.11276996]

>>11276991
>we
Speak for yourself, I'm here to shitpost.

[Anonymous No.11277030]

WUZ NINE PLUS TEN

[Anonymous No.11277286]

>>11276338
Oh, I know about the extensive use of category theory not just in algebraic geometry, but in algebraic topology, and homological algebra as well, and I have no problem with it. But they use basic category from what I can see, similar to how most mathematicians only use the basics of set theory. But then you go to n-lab and suddenly Urs' autism is firing on all cylinders claiming infinity categories are gonna solve every problem in mathematics and what not, that's what I have a problem with. If category theory is really set to be a new framework for the foundations of mathematics to the point that it usurps basic set theory, it needs more justification of its use in other fields.

[Anonymous No.11277387]

Found myself falling into the category theory meme, but I think my real interest in the topic is because I want to get into universal algebra. Any tips, resources?

[Anonymous No.11277412]

>>11277387
https://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~snburris/htdocs/UALG/univ-algebra.pdf

[Anonymous No.11277483]

>>11277286
Sounds like a well-balanced perspective.
Regarding the boasting of proponents, I'm afraid if you look at history, even the good things were often shilled in absurd ways by their creators.

>>11277387
I haven't read it yet myself, but that book called "An Invitation to General Algebra and Universal Constructions" looked very nice

>>11270054
I took a look
https://youtu.be/GMrzjGTm_5c

>>11276967
Can't hurt I guess

[Anonymous No.11277588]

>>11277286
Why yes, I have enough foresight to see that infinity categories are gonna solve every problem in mathematics, how could you tell?

[Anonymous No.11277609]

if only i had the intelligence and foresight to study math instead of computer science. i would not be alone among indifferent/hostile foreigners. truly my greatest mistake was not applying myself in high school and studying a hard science. that's what i was meant to do. perhaps in another life.

[Anonymous No.11277626]

>>11277609
Lots of Pajeets I presume?

[Anonymous No.11277688]

>>11277483
>I'm afraid if you look at history, even the good things were often shilled in absurd ways by their creators.
To be fair, Grothendieck was kind of whiny at times with that sort of thing. "B-but, what do you mean Deligne solved the hardest part of the Weil conjectures without formalizaing mixed motives. H-he's an asshole, I'm gonna go into the mountains and shit talk him for 1000 pages." I mean, sure, there were a lot of perspectives that did end up being pretty useful to adopt, I do kind of buy into the groupoids hype in algebraic topology, but he could've still been less of a dick about it.

[Anonymous No.11277698]

>>11277609
>if only i had the intelligence and foresight to study math instead of computer science. i would not be alone among indifferent/hostile foreigners. truly my greatest mistake was not applying myself in high school and studying a hard science. that's what i was meant to do. perhaps in another life.
I studied math and now work exclusively with Asians.

[Anonymous No.11277706]

>>11277688
>but he could've still been less of a dick about it

[Anonymous No.11277708]

>>11277698
Same, wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't a fucking sausage fest.

[Anonymous No.11277709]

@11277483
>creators
>he still believes in the modernist retardation of "mathematical ideas are created and are mental constructs, not purely discovered metaphysical objects"
Consult >>>/r/eddit/.

[Anonymous No.11277729]

>>11277709
>>he still believes in the modernist retardation of "mathematical ideas are created and are mental constructs, not purely discovered metaphysical objects"
I'm not a "he".

[Anonymous No.11277732]

>>11277709
>metaphysical objects
This is a meaningless notion.

[Anonymous No.11277738]

>>11277732
On the contrary, it is the only meaningful mathematically well-defined notion.

[Anonymous No.11277755]

>>11277732
Don't bother arguing with him. Platonism is high functioning schizophrenia.

[Anonymous No.11277769]

>>11277755
>NOOOOOOOOO!!! I AM CREATING THESE OBJECTS!!! I AM AN INTELLIGANT MATHEMATICIAN MOM!!! I USED A CATEGORY TO CREATE THIS OBJECT EX NIHILO!!! IT DID NOT EXIST PRIOR TO MY FLESHY MIND CONCEPTUALIZING TI!!!!!

[Anonymous No.11277779]

Is there literally (as opposed to figuratively) anything more pathetic than deniers of the neoplatonistic mathematical position?

[Anonymous No.11277792]

^^^
Based & redpilled.

[Anonymous No.11277859]

>>11277729
>t. male born

[Anonymous No.11277861]

>>11277698

cs is a front for eastern immigration. almost all graduate students are foreign. my uni doesn't eat it's own dogfood because foreign professors want foreign students and the domestic adjuncts half-ass their jobs.

[Anonymous No.11277869]

>>11277755
Explains all the schizo posters on this board

[Anonymous No.11277886]

Which theorems do /mg/ reject? For me, it's Bayes theorem, Corollary 3.12, and the four color theorem.

[Anonymous No.11277896]

>>11277886
Anything espoused by so-called "intuitionists" and "constructivists" insofar as and insomuchso as it goes against proper mathematical tradition.

[Anonymous No.11277904]

>>11277896
All theorems of raw intuitionistic logic are classically valid - do you have a particular theory in mind??

[Anonymous No.11277907]

Is it still the GOAT?

[Anonymous No.11277910]

>>11277896
All theorems and even the word for word proofs of raw intuitionistic logic are classically valid.
Do you have a particular theory in mind??

[Anonymous No.11277914]

/mg/'s favorite journals?

[Anonymous No.11277919]

>>11277914
Whichever journal will publish my subpar work.

[Anonymous No.11277922]

>>11277910
>raw intuitionistic logic
>valid
oh no no no

[Anonymous No.11277961]

>>11277709
>>he still believes in the modernist retardation of "mathematical ideas are created and are mental constructs, not purely discovered metaphysical objects"
What is an example of something that has been created?

[Anonymous No.11278033]

Where can I find the solutions for Calculus and Analytic Geometry 9th edition by Thomas and Finney?
I searched libgen, found nothing so I googled for it but the only website that had it wanted credit card information. The other editions are very different from the 9th one so I can't really use those.


And also in general, where do you find solutions for books for free?
And also is /mg/ the right thread to ask this?
If not, I apologize.

[Anonymous No.11278040]

>>11278033
>Where can I find the solutions for Calculus and Analytic Geometry 9th edition by Thomas and Finney?
In your mind.

[Anonymous No.11278061]

What do you think of that book?
Is it good for self study?
Do you think that the Sage exercises are useful?

[Anonymous No.11278130]

>>11278061
>self study
As opposed to what?

[Anonymous No.11278308]

>>11278040
I am not that smart.
How do I get that smart?

[Anonymous No.11278349]

>>11277729
>not realizing that in this discussion discovery paradigm is isomorphic to creation paradigm

[Anonymous No.11279108]

>>11278061
>Judson
haha nose

[Anonymous No.11279325]

Could someone help answer my question? I'm not particularly good at maths, but I believe (1.1) is correct.
Which of the two is correct?

[Anonymous No.11279333]

>>11279325

it tells you, the bottom one has =/= instead of =

[Anonymous No.11279336]

>>11279325
They are both correct

[Anonymous No.11279360]

>>11279325
>I'm not particularly good at maths
Wrong, you're a fucking brainlet that can't even understand something simple that throw into your ugly ass face, give up on anything you dream of, you'll never make it, you're not particularly good with anything at all.

[Anonymous No.11279381]

>>11279333
>>11279336
Thank you. Have a nice day.
>>11279360
You too, friendo.

[Anonymous No.11279382]

>>11279325
The first one is correct. The second one tells you they're not equal, which is definitely correct most of the time but is not always true, for insance if n=1 then they are equal. The problem is a little iffy. I would argue with someone about it. Sure, these expressions cannot be manipulated into one another. But it is not true that under any evaluation of the free variables in the expression they are nonequal. There exist evaluations where they are.

[Anonymous No.11279401]

>>11279382
Makes a lot of sense that it would be the same if n = 1. Thank you!

[Anonymous No.11279415]

>>11279401
See the thing is, I don't know if it makes sense or not, because some people would say "yes, these are nonequal because they are not always equal" and some people would say, "no, these are not nonequal because they are not always nonequal"
I would suspect that the first party of people would be right, but it's leading me to question what exactly it means to say two expressions are nonequal.
Actually no, I'm not questioning that at all. I know the first group of people are right. (1.2) should be true. But the notation for saying expressions are nonequal is super ambiguous.

[Anonymous No.11279420]

>>11279381
>You too, friendo.
Math is not for you, never come back here again, your type isn't liked around here, imbecile.

[Anonymous No.11279422]

>>11279415
I get what you mean, but in reality if n=1 they should be the same, right?
Shouldn't 1.2 be contingent on n > 1?

[Anonymous No.11279425]

>>11279420
That's okay, my friend, you won't have to tolerate my for long. Have a nice day.

[Anonymous No.11279426]

>>11277886

> tfw too smart for the 4 color theorem
> tfw too smart for IUT
> tfw smarter than every statistician

[Anonymous No.11279432]

>>11279425
>Have a nice day.
Talking to a person like you has already wasted my day.

[Anonymous No.11279438]

>>11279432
Sorry to hear that, may your day be tolerable from here on out!

[Anonymous No.11279463]

>>11279438
God, you're such an insufferable cuck, grow some balls

[Anonymous No.11279657]

>>11279463
this

>>11279425
fuck off you stupid piece of onions garbage

[Anonymous No.11279659]

I've just thought of a shitty useless theorem.
Let [math]f \in L^1( \mathbb{R})[/math] be periodic. Then f=0.

[Anonymous No.11279666]

>>11277896
>all constructive proofs are wrong
What autism is this?

[Anonymous No.11279668]

>>11279666
>reading what people didn't write
What satanic power is this?

[Anonymous No.11279692]

>>11279668
All constructive proofs are wrong.

There, I said it, what's your excuse now?

[Anonymous No.11279721]

>>11277896
>Oldschool quotation marks

[Anonymous No.11279765]

>>11279692
Ahem, watch and learn:
Death of the author.

[Anonymous No.11279970]

Mathematically speaking, how much would a cryptocurrency with a non-wasteful proof of work algorithm be worth? Asking for a friend.

[Anonymous No.11280149]

don't forget to eat your lentils so you can do better math :)

[Anonymous No.11280158]

>>11280149
For me it's red kidney beans.

[Anonymous No.11280202]

Is several complex variables a good field to research in?

[Anonymous No.11280516]

>>11280202
no

[Anonymous No.11280529]

>>11280202
no

[Anonymous No.11280532]

>>11277738
>it is the only meaningful mathematically well-defined notion
please demonstrate

[Anonymous No.11280533]

>>11280516
Why?

[Anonymous No.11280546]

>>11280533
Look, you're not proving the Riemann Hypothesis, ok? Stop deluding yourself and chose a field where you are actually comfortable in, your entire academic life will revolve around it, chosing it hastly and with impossible objectives in mind will make you miserable in the future.

[Anonymous No.11280549]

>https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.01319
>72 pages
How did mathematicians read such papers in the days before digital PDFs? How did they organize such things way back in the day? Do any of you guys actually print these things out to read them?

[Anonymous No.11280554]

>>11280549
What do you mean? They just, you know, read them...

I do print and hardcover them to archive in my personal library, which I hope to one day make public if I can gather a lot of good books in several areas of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.11280609]

>>11280202
No, but it's extremely sleek and intuitive.
Would recommend studying it on vacations.
>>11280546
What does the Riemann hypothesis have to do with Several Complex Variables?

[Anonymous No.11280728]

>>11280609
SCV is the field all normies are turning into because they think they'll prove the RH.

[Anonymous No.11280748]

>>11280728
Weren't they told that results from SCV don't work for CA and vice versa?

[Anonymous No.11280878]

>>11280554
Did they really print out all that paper for all those papers to read?

[Anonymous No.11280890]

>>11279422
Nah, I'm saying if n is left unspecified, since they sometimes aren't equal it's still true. If you have two expressions which are sometimes equal and sometimes not, you can't call them equal. So you write that they're not equal (even if for some inputs they may be)
This is weird and you shouldn't bother thinking about it.

[Anonymous No.11280894]

>>11279659
Well? Obviously. I'd hardly call that useless, and I'd hardly call it a theorem. It's probably very useful somehow.

[Anonymous No.11280909]

>>11279325
Think about it smaller terms
Which makes more sense?
Let [math]n=2, A=\{1,1\}, B=\{1,2\}[/math]

[eqn]\sum_{i=1}^2\frac{a_i}{b_i}=\frac{1}{1}+\frac{1}{2}[/eqn]
or
[eqn]\sum_{i=1}^2\frac{a_i}{b_i}=\frac{1+1}{1+2}=\frac{2}{3}[/eqn]

Clearly they're not equal, and we just want to add the group of fractions defined by [math]A[/math] and [math]B[/math], so the first one.

[Anonymous No.11280913]

>>11280909
What a dumb post.

[Anonymous No.11281075]

>>11279721
"excuse me"?

[Anonymous No.11281080]

>>11281075
It seems my joke went over your head. I meant to imply that every rhetorical use of "..." is equivalent to (((...))).

[Anonymous No.11281081]

>>11277896
Based. Going to pray for your health today anon. We need to fight back against the corrosion plaguing our beloved maths.

[Anonymous No.11281258]

>>11277779
The neoplatonic position is compelling because it is beautiful, but I don't think I'll ever believe it. I'm sorry>>11277779

[Anonymous No.11281262]

Hi all
I'm will write and produce topical math songs for you guys.
Which maths does /mg/ want made into songs?

xx

[Anonymous No.11281263]

>>11277886
the existence of random variables

[Anonymous No.11281266]

>>11281262
wheels bro, keep on rollin'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_theory

[Anonymous No.11281437]

>>11281258
>I don't think I'll ever believe it
You're just deficient from all of the modernist brainwashing you've undergone. Humans weren't built for this and you can probably unfuck yourself if you're autistic enough to be on this site.

[Anonymous No.11281440]

>>11281266
based

[Anonymous No.11281450]

>>11277732
>>11277755
based

[Anonymous No.11281467]

Hey, Coomer meme lad, I have an idea.
>the 20 year old physicist
>AAAAAAA I'M SYMMETRIZING
>calls representation theory group theory
>has never evaluated an integral without using some symmetry to cancel something out and get an even harder integral
>AAAAAAAANABELIAN GAUGE AAAAAA
>doesn't even know Sylow's theorems, just coomputes irreducible representations
>spins

[Anonymous No.11281524]

>>11281467
>physicist
What does this have to do with /mg/ (the maths general)?

[retard mommy No.11281572]

>>11281524
Are you implying physicist weren't a core reason how and how far math progressed?
The seperation by occupation is not very usefull. Musicans aren't the only people who can make or work with music, even if they are the ones who do it best and in it's clearest form.

[Anonymous No.11281586]

>>11280546
That wasn't at all my intention. It just interests me and I haven't really heard people talk about it much so I wanted to learn more.

[Anonymous No.11281590]

>>11281586
Do you like sheaves?
Several complex variables is largely applied sheaf theory.

[Anonymous No.11281593]

>>11281590
there are no applications of category theory, stop lying

[Anonymous No.11281600]

>>11281467
>>11281524
you could make coomer guy look like yukari and add some diff geo + operator algebras stuff to this too

[Anonymous No.11281602]

>>11281590
I'm open to learn sheaf theory. There's pretty much no field of math I would not want to learn more about. Granted of course I would like to specialize but I like seeing things come together in the bigger picture.

What are pre reqs for sheaf theory anyway? Algebraic topology?

[Anonymous No.11281625]

>>11281602
>Algebraic topology?
Pretty much algebraic topology and homological algebra.
Whatever several complex variables book you pick should just guide you along stuff like defining a sheaf, constructing sheaf cohomology, etc, by itself, tho.

[Anonymous No.11281710]

>>11281572
>physicist
>Musicans
>music
What does this have to do with /mg/ (the maths general)?

[Anonymous No.11281835]

>>11281710
It's an analogy you goof.
Before you ask, analogies are also relevant to math.

[Anonymous No.11282409]

https://projecteuclid.org/download/pdf_1/euclid.ss/1009213726

[Anonymous No.11282450]

what are the physics and cs equivalent of napkin math project

[Anonymous No.11282635]

>>11282450
lol

[Anonymous No.11282654]

>>11282450
unironically tell them to git gud

[Anonymous No.11282869]

https://projecteuclid.org/download/pdfview_1/euclid.ba/1533866667

[Anonymous No.11282877]

>>11282869

hi miguel

[Anonymous No.11282888]

>>11282877
alo signore

[Anonymous No.11283090]

>>11282450
napkin is worthless trash. so thankfully nothing that i know of.

[Anonymous No.11283241]

God... Please... If t=e^x , then x=?

[Anonymous No.11283330]

>>11283241

take the natural log of both sides

ln(e^x)=x=ln(t)

[Anonymous No.11283335]

>>11283330
How do you even think of this.... Absolute genius... Thank you so much... I'm crying

[Anonymous No.11283499]

>>11283335
never post in our thread again

[Anonymous No.11283503]

>>11280549
>Do any of you guys actually print these things out to read them?
Yes. Makes morning commutes entertaining.

[Anonymous No.11283853]

>>11280549
>Do any of you guys actually print these things out to read them?
If it's an important paper to study, yes. It's still more helpful to me to have a tangible physical copy. Also not having to stare at a computer screen all the time is a plus.

[Anonymous No.11283857]

what does the equal sign mean

[Anonymous No.11283864]

>>11281467
>>11281600
Lmao yes please do this

[Anonymous No.11283869]

~2 weeks before the thread becomes usable again (assuming its not flooded with retards panicked over failing their linear algebra class in which case we get to witness /mg/ butcher lin alg again lel)

[Anonymous No.11283894]

>>11283869
let a nigga smoke a joint asshole , now tell me what equivalence damn means

[Anonymous No.11284273]

>>11283857
depends on the underlying framework

[Anonymous No.11284377]

>>11283503
>>11283864
>AAAAAAAAAAAAA I'M COOMUTING
>AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA THE METRO IS GOING OFF THE CHART I'LL CHANGE COORDINATES

[Anonymous No.11284396]

>>11283857
It depends on your foundational framework. There are lots of small but important distinctions you can make. In set theory we typically say two sets are equal if they have the same members.

[Anonymous No.11284521]

Where can I find a comprehensive list of applications for solving systems of equations/matrix inverses?

[Anonymous No.11284527]

>>11266272
she is cute

[Anonymous No.11284529]

>>11284521
Somewhere else. Not here.

[Anonymous No.11284542]

>>11284521
Confucius says:
>If a problem has a numerical implementation, it involves matrices at some point.

[Anonymous No.11284560]

>>11284521
Why do you need a list? numpy/scipy should do the job

[Anonymous No.11284610]

[Anonymous No.11284626]

>>11284610
follow the numbers

[Anonymous No.11284797]

>>11284610
5

[Anonymous No.11284892]

>>11284529
>>11284542
>>11284560
I need a list for pedagogical purposes.

[Anonymous No.11284900]

>>11266272
>another roastie postie

[Anonymous No.11285101]

>>11284900
What's a good textbook for learning maths ground up?

[Anonymous No.11285352]

when you guys talk about doing cs undergrad + math grad or math undergrad + cs grad, how would you implement it? is it doable together?
I'm doing second year informatics and was thinking about starting math next year but dunno if I can (especially after that, together with doing grad informatics)

One of my frens does cs + math from first year already, but he seriously is a genius.. also our school is said to be quite good and informatics literally have the same math syllabus as math.. just far less lectures spent on it, so I will be doing a lot of the shit for the second time, and the only think that will actually get more advanced is analysis.

Is it worth it? Is it doable?

[Anonymous No.11285361]

>>11285352
Anon, double majoring is an american thing done by americans.
You should focus on your course.

[Anonymous No.11285393]

>>11285361
I'm a math+cs student from yurop and feeling p. damn good about my choices

[Anonymous No.11285399]

>>11285361
good advice.
how 'bout I just take the four-semester analysis course and move on with mostly informatics though?
do you think that would be useful for anything?

[Anonymous No.11285440]

I took calculus in high school in 2004 and I've signed up and paid to take my college's calculus 2 course. Class started yesterday. I might have a heart attack this first month. I already know I'm gonna get fucked by absolute values or something on every test. Oh, there's like 4 tests total and those are the only graded assignments

RIP me. Well, worst case scenario I fail and have to retake the class. It's fun to finally be studying math again. I'm reviewing some algebra and I'm just wondering how this shit's gonna go lol

[Anonymous No.11285455]

>>11285399
>how 'bout I just take the four-semester analysis course and move on with mostly informatics though?
I don't see any issue witht that.
>do you think that would be useful for anything?
What's covered in the four semesters?
Real, Complex, Fourier and Functional analysis?
Complex and Fourier are both extremely useful.
Real analysis and functional are "convenient", practically speaking.
So for example, physicists "use" functional analysis, but they mostly carry out computations in quantum mechanics by analogy with linear algebra and direct computation.
Lebesgue integrals are also extremely convenient.

[Anonymous No.11285457]

/a/ is trying to do geometry
>>>/a/197663395

[Anonymous No.11285487]

>>11285455
>What's covered in the four semesters?
looking at the syllabus, I can't give a simple answer, since I don't know which parts of analysis are which.. I will just list the topics:
> limits, elementary functions (log, trig, etc.), derivation, Taylor
> sequence limits, series, elementary transcendental functions, function properties (Rolle, Lagrange, Cauchy)
> metric spaces, multivariable calculus, Cauchy product of series, ODEs
> metric spaces again, fourier series
missed a few minor topics

[Anonymous No.11285493]

>>11285487
one more question.. how important are practicals for these topics, I have tons of analysis textbooks downloaded.
If I read all four Stein-Shakarchi books, how much will I miss?

[Anonymous No.11285514]

>>11285487
>four semesters
>this basic shit
Don't do it unless you want to waste your time.
Are you sure that's the full syllabus and that it's four semesters long?
>>11285493
>how much will I miss
Not only will you not miss anything, you'll learn 2~3 books worth of stuff that isn't there.

[Anonymous No.11285532]

>>11285514
there are few topics I left out, but it's actually about the full thing

from what I've heard, the uni is trying to go deep into all of the topics and takes its time to make sure the students understand well and are also good at mechanically solving problems and at proofs

[Anonymous No.11285581]

>>11270159
what do you mean? not even hard to memorize

[Anonymous No.11285610]

>>11285532
>from what I've heard, the uni is trying to go deep into all of the topics and takes its time to make sure the students understand well and are also good at mechanically solving problems and at proofs
That sounds like a gay faggot excuse for having a weak syllabus.

[Anonymous No.11285626]

>>11276346
Lazy mexican!

I kid, I kid

[Anonymous No.11285632]

>>11285610
>faggot
Why the homophobia?

[Anonymous No.11285636]

>>11266272
Built for BBC

[Anonymous No.11285669]

>>11285440
calculus 2 is literally all trivial. just executing things a very simple computer program can do.

[Anonymous No.11285673]

>>11285399
you don’t need to take a 4 semester analysis series for CS at all, they don’t use functional analysis in TCS nearly as much as TCSfags will let on, measure theory, and basic real analysis are most of what you need.

[Anonymous No.11285685]

>>11279432
i dont care

[Anonymous No.11285708]

>>11285440
>already know I'm gonna get fucked by absolute value
Damn, if this is what you're worried about, then I'm afraid to say you have terminal brainletism. Good news is you still have a decent shot of getting a C on the third retake, assuming it's the same instructor each time. Best of luck anon.

[Anonymous No.11285752]

>>11285669
>calculus 2 is literally all trivial. just executing things a very simple computer program can do.
Which school for brainlets do you go to?

[Anonymous No.11285761]

>>11285685
>i dont care
Mathematicians use "we", not "I".

[Anonymous No.11285815]

>>11285761
We are number one

[Anonymous No.11285826]

>>11285708
It's one of those things that if you're not on your game you can omit in your answer and end up getting the entire answer wrong because you failed to put the absolute value sign. If you don't understand why this would make me nervous when I haven't taken a math class in 15 years... you've either done so much calculus you're taking your highly practiced skill for granted, or you haven't done calculus at all

[Anonymous No.11285931]

Is there a math discord?

[Anonymous No.11286052]

>>11285752
My university didn't have "Calculus 2" because Calculus is assumed knowledge. Feels good not being American.

[Anonymous No.11286057]

>>11285752
A very good one. Not like I took calculus there. Began with proper analysis. Anyone who takes calculus in college has no future in math.
>>11286052
You say this like it's interesting. It's not. No one with a future in math comes into college without a full knowledge of real single variable calculus.

[Anonymous No.11286069]

>>11286052
>My university didn't have "Calculus 2" because Calculus is assumed knowledge.
Who said anything about university?

[Anonymous No.11287319]

>>11266272
Wife material desu.