/mg/ maths general: name our band edition

[Anonymous No.11549474]

talk maths, formerly >>11539096

[Anonymous No.11549480]

First for functional analysis and combinatorics

[Anonymous No.11549484]

>>11549480
wow what a based and functional analysispilled po-
>combinatorics
*puke emoji*

[Anonymous No.11549521]

>>11549484
Strange, among people I know there seems to be a high correlation between liking FA and liking combi.

[Anonymous No.11549669]

>>11549484
Yeah, everyone knows FA and numerical analysis are the canonical god-tier choices.

[Anonymous No.11549683]

What maths are the most important for figuring out how to solve the AI alignment problem?

[Anonymous No.11549687]

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kXSETKZ3X9oidMozA/the-level-above-mine

>Or sadder: Maybe I just wasted too much time on setting up the resources to support me, instead of studying math full-time through my whole youth; or I wasted too much youth on non-mathy ideas. And this choice, my past, is irrevocable. I'll hit a brick wall at 40, and there won't be anything left but to pass on the resources to another mind with the potential I wasted, still young enough to learn. So to save them time, I should leave a trail to my successes, and post warning signs on my mistakes.

Is Le Metabolic Privilege Man right?

[Anonymous No.11549845]

>>11549683
Game theory, classical AI (search) and modern RL methods (including adversarial methods).

[Anonymous No.11549881]

>>11549687
>lesswrong
cringe

[Anonymous No.11549885]

>>11549474
But asking for real, what name would you give to their band?

[Anonymous No.11550358]

>>11549885

Twenty One Pilots :^)

[Anonymous No.11550420]

>>11549521
makes sense to me, you only know hacks and pseuds

[Anonymous No.11550426]

>>11550358
Well they DO mention Nicolas Bourbaki in one of their songs.

[Anonymous No.11550625]

>>11549687
Don't know why but I genuinely can't stand anyone mentioning bayesianism to the point where I'm physically sick when I see Bayes formula.

[Anonymous No.11550753]

>>11550625
>I genuinely can't stand anyone mentioning bayesianism
Why?

[Anonymous No.11550828]

>>11550753
Basedboys love bayesianism. Retards think it can explain everything.

[Anonymous No.11550859]

>>11549687
>Is Le Metabolic Privilege Man right?
While I generally would assume that a priori anything he says is false, learning more math at a younger age is usually a good idea if you want to understand more of it.

[Anonymous No.11550881]

Did the Finnish category theorist weeb (?) really kill himself?

[Anonymous No.11550917]

>>11550881
Wait what? Can you expand on this? Who was he?

[Anonymous No.11550947]

>>11550917
Dunno, just copypasted from the previous thread. I think I might have a vague memory of him, but not sure.

[Anonymous No.11550984]

>>11550947
Would be great to know more about this. I used to talk to some Finnish category theorist weeb on discord but we haven't talked in a few years now. He was a cool dude. I hope that's not him.

[Anonymous No.11551015]

https://youtu.be/MNuaHchtrUw
Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.11551039]

>>11551015
toposes will help solve 0 interesting maths questions

[Anonymous No.11551066]

>>11551039
Math isn't about solving stuff mr engineer, it's about understanding structures

[Anonymous No.11551138]

>>11551015
tfw you prove well known folklore results

[Anonymous No.11551264]

>>11551066
These two are totally equivalent. Understanding the structures makes it necessary to solve problems, that's basically the point of mathematics...

[Anonymous No.11551306]

>>11551264
>These two are totally equivalent
They're not. You can solve stuff without understanding the structures involved (for example you can find the root for a 2nd or 3rd degree polynomial without knowing shit about Galois theory or even knowing what a ring is). On the other hand, you can completely understand and classify structures that aren't useful for solving a specific problem (topos aren't like that though).

[Anonymous No.11551320]

>>11551306
>for example you can find the root for a 2nd or 3rd degree polynomial without knowing shit about Galois theory or even knowing what a ring is
That example just shows that there are different ways to understand the same object.

If you seek to understand numerical analysis, the problem of how to find the square root of two seems necessary.

>On the other hand, you can completely understand and classify structures that aren't useful for solving a specific problem
Almost nothing applies to any given problem. This is totally meaningless.


You are just saying that one particular problem leads to one particular understanding and one particular understanding is required for one particular problem, which is obviously true, but also obviously irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.11551340]

>>11549687
what a whiny faggot

[Anonymous No.11551348]

>>11551066
look what category theory did to my boy

[Anonymous No.11551355]

>>11551320
>That example just shows that there are different ways to understand the same object.
No. If you just know the quadratic formula you don't know why it works like that.
>If you seek to understand numerical analysis, the problem of how to find the square root of two seems necessary.
Yes and you can do it just fine without understanding the underlying structure.
>Almost nothing applies to any given problem. This is totally meaningless.
>You are just saying that one particular problem leads to one particular understanding and one particular understanding is required for one particular problem, which is obviously true, but also obviously irrelevant.
You were the one saying that :
>These two are totally equivalent
I'm not saying that because it's clearly false.

[Anonymous No.11551374]

What is the best book for learning LaTeX?

Is pic related good?

[Anonymous No.11551376]

What is the best book for learning LaTeX?

Is pic related good?

[Anonymous No.11551385]

>>11551355
>If you just know the quadratic formula
What? If you solved the problem you obviously know why it works.

>the underlying structure.
The underlying structure is both analytic and algebraically. Neither view point is "superior" they just correspond to different problems.

>You were the one saying that :
Notice that I DIDN'T say that one particular problem is equivalent to ALL understandings or that one understanding is equivalent to ALL problems.
The set of problems and the set of possible understandings are equivalent.

I think you are either a retarded undergrad who tries to have the "superior understanding" or some decent algebraist who has been lost in is own thoughts so long that he forgot why he got there in the first place.

[Anonymous No.11551420]

>>11551376
LaTeX is a programming language, the best thing to learn it is to just use it.

I had a quick look at that book and while I certainly believe that you can learn a lot from it, especially if you had no prior exposure. There are also some things I personally do not like about it.

[Anonymous No.11551440]

>>11551385
>What? If you solved the problem you obviously know why it works.
Yes, but that doesn't tell you anything about cubic equations for example so you can't generalize it, therefore you haven't truly understood what is going on.
>>11551385
>The underlying structure is both analytic and algebraically. Neither view point is "superior" they just correspond to different problems.
Don't even know what you're referring to. Never said anything about algebra/analysis.
>Notice that I DIDN'T say that one particular problem is equivalent to ALL understandings or that one understanding is equivalent to ALL problems.
Notice that I didn't say that either.
>The set of problems and the set of possible understandings are equivalent.
The amount of problems and understandings are clearly too big to be sets, but since you have something against category theory as all incels on /mg/ apparently do, I expected you to not understand that.
The rest of your post is just an ad personam attack.

[Anonymous No.11551453]

>>11551420
In order to use it, one must first learn its commands and theory, right?
>There are also some things I personally do not like about it.
Like what?

[Anonymous No.11551455]

>>11551440
dilate categorytranny

[Anonymous No.11551457]

>>11551440
>The amount of problems and understandings are clearly too big to be sets
No. Since any human understanding has to be able to be explained in finitely many words every understanding and every problem is a finite string of finitely many symbols, thus the set of problems and the set of understandings are subsets of the set of all ordered sets of strings smaller then the maximum (finite) amount of symbols a human can read in his lifetime.

[Anonymous No.11551485]

>>11551455
Seethe more, incel.
>>11551457
>Since any human understanding has to be able to be explained in finitely many words
Said who? Clearly the number of problems are at least the size of the category of sets, which is too big to be a set. Then, either you say that there are less understandings than there are problems, and what you said was wrong, or there are as many problems as understandings, and therefore they cannot form a set either, so you're wrong.
Conclusion: you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.11551488]

>>11551376
As >>11551420 said it's best to just use it for whatever you want and learn along the way by reading manuals (e.g. Overleaf's), references and TeX StackExchange.

[Anonymous No.11551508]

>>11551453
>In order to use it, one must first learn its commands and theory, right?
Yes. And I am not telling you not to use this book, but what I am telling you that 95% of learning will be done by you writing stuff on your computer and running into problems.

>Like what?
Any person who writes in LaTeX will pick up some particular habits, concerning document structures and packages.
Personally I prefer the koma script classes and tools around it, as opposed to the Standart/AMS tools he uses.
Similarly for the bibliography he uses one particular tool, while I might prefer another.
But thinking about it that seems to be the case for every book and flipping through the PDF it seems quite decent.

But, I think you should avoid at any cost "just reading it". The first few chapters will teach you the basics and after that you should really try to do what you want and use the book as a reference, since there is A LOT in it you might not need or care about (like doing presentations).

>>11551488
The overleaf things are usually pretty good, although almost always rather shallow. And stack overflow is, as always, hit or miss, either the question will be answered very well and in detail or it will be a useless mess.

[Anonymous No.11551513]

>>11551485
>Said who?
Any problem which can not be stated is not a problem.
Any concept which can not be understood isn't a concept at all.

>Clearly the number of problems are at least the size of the category of sets
Clearly not.

[Anonymous No.11551519]

>>11551488
>>11551508
I see, thanks for the help, how did you guys practiced writing in LaTeX?

[Anonymous No.11551532]

>>11551513
>Any problem which can not be stated is not a problem.
>Any concept which can not be understood isn't a concept at all.
You're the one saying that. But now I understand why you are butthurt at category theory. You're a CS fag.
>Clearly not.
Clearly it is. For any set E, I can give you the following problem:
"Describe the elements of E".

[Anonymous No.11551549]

>>11551519
>how did you guys practiced writing in LaTeX?
I wrote lecture notes for a couple of classes and of course my thesis, together with the occasional smaller things.

It's really something you just need to practice, to get good at. Once you have understood the basic principles it becomes pretty much automatic.

[Anonymous No.11551556]

>>11551532
>You're a CS fag.
How dare you throw around these vulgar things? I just called you a retarded undergrad and now you swoop to those levels?
Also, no. I am not in CS.

>For any set E
Only finitely many E's are describable.

[Anonymous No.11551557]

Threadly reminder that set theory is outdated and we should find a new foundation for Mathematics

[Anonymous No.11551563]

>>11551557
>foundations

[Anonymous No.11551565]

>>11551557
>outdated
In what sense?

>a new foundation for Mathematics
Namely?

[Anonymous No.11551567]

>>11551556
>Only finitely many E's are describable.
Yes, that's why we can't solve all problems. Doesn't mean those problems don't exist.

[Anonymous No.11551575]

>>11551567
>Doesn't mean those problems don't exist.
A problem can only exist if it is describable. A problem isn't a mathematical object, it is a human one.

[Anonymous No.11551586]

>>11551565
>In what sense?
It was already mentioned in the last thread, not everything is a set, for instance proofs.
>Namely?
Homotopy type theory

[Anonymous No.11551591]

>>11551575
>A problem can only exist if it is describable. A problem isn't a mathematical object, it is a human one.
You're just postulating stuff.

[Anonymous No.11551598]

>>11551591
>You're just postulating stuff.
What in particular?
Obviously problems aren't mathematical objects...

[Anonymous No.11551599]

>>11551586
>Homotopy type theory

[Anonymous No.11551602]

>>11551598
You're the one who described them as forming a set to begin with.

[Anonymous No.11551606]

>>11551599
>No counter-arguments, just anime pic
Thanks, I've won this debate.

[Anonymous No.11551610]

>>11551606
>Thanks, I've won this debate.
Mathematicians use "we", not "I".

[Anonymous No.11551612]

>>11551606
>post retarded opinion
>everybody has to waste their time arguing with me or I win

[Anonymous No.11551619]

>>11551602
>You're the one who described them as forming a set to begin with.
You are missing the point. I described problems through their human descriptions.
And obviously just because you can describe something mathematically doesn't make it a mathematical object. Obviously you may object to this, but consider that for "mathematics" to be meaningful it must be exclusive, meaning there must be non-mathematical thing.
So if you accepted that problems, as described by me, were mathematical object, then you also had to accept that EVERY object is a mathematical object and in conclusion a carpenter would just be a particular kind of mathematician.

>>11551606
Vomiting anime girls are a knock-out argument. Face it. You got BTFO on an intellectual level.

[Anonymous No.11551695]

>>11551015
I'd tap that

[Anonymous No.11551707]

[math]\emph{detailed description}[/math]

[Anonymous No.11551714]

this thread is just meaningless meta bantz

[Anonymous No.11551747]

>>11551695
people tapping that is the only reason she has a job

[Anonymous No.11551764]

who is the best looking mathematician

[Anonymous No.11551767]

>>11551764
me

[Anonymous No.11551779]

>>11551764
Scott Balchin.

[Anonymous No.11551788]

>>11551557

Grothendieck tried to convince the people in the OP about this. It didn't pan out.

[Anonymous No.11551840]

>>11551557
Almost no mathematicians care about foundations, hell most set theorists don't even care about foundations. You're free to go and do your homo type theory, no one cares.

[Anonymous No.11551845]

>>11550881
Assuming you equate being alive with being visible in these threads. Pretty intense Berkeley stuff from the original asker.

>>11550984
Aww. The rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated.

>>11551015
I've listened to her live. I didn't get anything new from her talk, but it was very peasant to listen to. I love the accent.

[Anonymous No.11551861]

>>11551840
>hell most set theorists don't even care about foundations
That's a stretch

>>11551764
Define mathematician

Where's the friendly reminder to work with physicists guy.
I wonder what some of the best most generic physical examples are. Thinking along the lines of "the pendulum" here.

[Anonymous No.11551873]

there's so many god damn properties in topology. how the fuck do you deal with it all

[Anonymous No.11551879]

Undergrad who knows very little about category theory here. Are there any category graphs which are non-planar? What would be the implication of a non-planar category graph?

[Anonymous No.11551890]

>>11551879
I can give you an interesting problem: let G be a planar category graph. Denote by k the smallest integer such that there exists a partition of the category of all categories into k categories, such that a morphism of the discussed category graph never connects categories inside one of those k categories. Given all that, what is the smallest k which works for every planar category graph?

[Anonymous No.11551894]

>>11551873
Make a chart of how they are connected to one another on a piece of paper or, even better, construct a schizophrenia wall.

[Anonymous No.11551896]

>>11551861
Set theorists care about set theoretic problems. What large cardinals are compatible with such and such a property? How complex in terms of definable equivalence relations is the isomorphism problem for countable abelian groups? Go to a set theory conference and see how often foundations comes up. The one I was at two years ago had one guy, out of more than twenty.

[Anonymous No.11551908]

>>11551873
maybe focus on particular objects of interest

>>11551896
what are the names of bigger set theory conferences?

[Anonymous No.11551915]

>>11551890
Firstly, thanks. Secondly, I now understand the stupidity of my question.

[Anonymous No.11551927]

>>11551908
The biggest one I've been to is the ASL yearly meeting. In fact at the ASL meeting there is set theory breakout and a foundations/logic breakout.

[Anonymous No.11551932]

Category theory is nothing but mathematical cuckoldry. Think about it, instead of doing novel research on actual objects in algebra, analysis and topology the category theorists observes and analyses the methods of active mathematicians. Like a true cuck, the category theorists derives satisfaction and meaning from productive activity of others.

[Anonymous No.11551947]

>>11551845
hi tranny

[Anonymous No.11551955]

>>11551932
>t. low brain organization

[Anonymous No.11551957]

>>11551947
>Transphobia outside of /pol/
Looks like someone needs to go back to their containment board

[Anonymous No.11551966]

>>11551957
I had an unfortunate experience of living with a tranny mathematician. It is really sad to see a balding 30something year old poisoning himself with female hormones and pretending that the pitch of his voice is higher.

[Anonymous No.11551989]

>>11551932
you're just making cuckholdry attractive with this comment

people should do what they like - what higher goes does topology achieve otherwise?

[Anonymous No.11551992]

>>11551947
Hi, I guess.

[Anonymous No.11551996]

>>11551966
You think that gives you right to offend trans people whenever and wherever you feel like?

[Anonymous No.11552018]

>>11551996
Yes

[Anonymous No.11552020]

Dilate

[Anonymous No.11552023]

>>11551996
I don't care about feelings of people who think that enabling mentality ill people mutilate and poison themselves is a sign of compassion. Go clutch your pearls somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.11552024]

>>11552018
Nice, so let's set up a meeting IRL so you can say that directly to my face

[Anonymous No.11552026]

>>11551519
I started by writing notes and solving my courses' exercise sheets in LaTeX. By doing that you naturally learn the math mode codes, how to use environments and how to create your own macros (since a ton of shit such as typing [math]\mathbb R[/math] or a matrix is very tedious). After that you might want to look into Beamer for presentations, TikZ to create figures, and maybe then delve deeper into the inner workings of the engine if you ever want to make your own document templates — only then a book might be good.
>>11551966
nothing to do with them being a tranny. pathetic people transcend any sort of shitty identity politics (which have no place in this general, by the way).

[Anonymous No.11552028]

>>11552024
Setting up meetings with strangers on the internet is a good way to get yourself killed.

[Anonymous No.11552032]

>>11551376
>>11551519
>>11552026 (Me)
also, reposting this since nobody has done so yet

[Anonymous No.11552040]

>>11551420
It's a markup language.

[Anonymous No.11552041]

>>11552040
What's a markup language?

[Anonymous No.11552064]

>>11552040
If we get pedantic, LaTeX is a set for macros for TeX and the latter is a Turing-complete programming language that happens to be used mostly for document markup.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2968411/ive-heard-that-latex-is-turing-complete-are-there-any-programs-written-in-late
https://www.overleaf.com/learn/latex/Articles/LaTeX_is_More_Powerful_than_you_Think_-_Computing_the_Fibonacci_Numbers_and_Turing_Completeness

[Anonymous No.11552072]

>>11552064
So, what is LaTeX exactly?

[Anonymous No.11552106]

How do I represent a ring in LaTeX?????


[math](A,+,•)[/math] ?

[Anonymous No.11552112]

>>11552106
[eqn]R[/eqn]

[Anonymous No.11552120]

>>11551996
Yes. The belief that there is a right to "not be offended" is beyond absurd.

[Anonymous No.11552128]

>>11552040
>It's a markup language.
Yes. But it is also a fully featured programming language, which can do anything else a programming language can do.
For example you can write Interpreters for other programming languages with it.
https://www.tug.org/TUGboat/tb11-3/tb29greene.pdf

>>11552072
20 years of ideas thrown together by people trying to turn very complex human ideas into good looking documents for printing.

[Anonymous No.11552139]

>>11551376
Not about learning the LaTeX language, but using snippets makes it so much faster to write LaTeX code. There are snippet managers for most text editors. For vim I recommend ultisnips
https://castel.dev/post/lecture-notes-1/
You should learn to use macros too as others have mentioned.

[Anonymous No.11552140]

I'm looking for topics for my 20ish-page undergrad senior thesis. I've taken algebra, analysis, topology, alg. geom, number theory, etc. I know I want to do something geometry-related. A buddy of mine is doing foliations and I think that they're reallllly cool but I don't wanna copy his topic. I was thinking about doing Lie groups, their representations and applications to particle physics but desu I think that's a little bit too advanced for me. Though I'm looking for something similar...

Could anyone recommend some really cool, but manageable, geometry/topology topics (e.g. foliations) that I should give a looksee? Thanks!

[Anonymous No.11552149]

>>11552140
Why not ask one of your professors?

[Anonymous No.11552152]

>>11552140
Do symplectic geometry.

[Anonymous No.11552156]

>>11552149
They gave a pretty extensive list of sample topics but many are super broad/not that interesting to me. Lots of number theory stuff. Just figured why not ask here

[Anonymous No.11552159]

>>11552152
Why?

[Anonymous No.11552163]

>>11552140
Do something related to lens spaces.

[Anonymous No.11552165]

>>11551440
>solving the quadratic equation doesn't tell you anything about cubic equations

You are projecting your own plug-n-chug need to be spoonfed mind onto others. I know plenty of talented people who have solved the quadratic equation independently without it being shown to them and went on to investigate cubic and higher order equations, again, independently. These people eventually went on to learn galois theory because it is unavoidable, but they did not start out with galois theory. unfortunately there is a certain breed of math student that skips ahead to advanced subjects without understanding how to get there independently and then projects that ignorance onto others all why bemoaning how mathematics is *really* about structures and not *mere* problem solving. it is clear you have never solved a fucking problem in your life independent of what your instructor has given you and therefore your opinion is garbage and no one capable of independent thought should take you seriously. honestly fucking theorist fags are always the dumbest most pretentious social climbers who don't actually like math they just want to wave around there abstraction-peen so they can call people plebs. get a fucking life dude, some of us actually like solving problems and not just talking about it to impress people.

[Anonymous No.11552166]

>>11552156
I mean. I have no suggestion for you, but if you can't come up with anything else I am pretty certain that most professors will gladly suggest you some topic if you write to them and are a bit specific.

[Anonymous No.11552170]

>>11552165
calling the based department on this.

[Anonymous No.11552173]

>>11552140
>but desu I think that's a little bit too advanced for me
It's not, really. You've taken algebra and topology, you should be perfectly well-equipped to read a book about Lie groups. And AFAIK (I'm not a physishit) most of the applications to quantum theory are fairly concrete and can be done without ever leaving the world of explicit matrices.

[Anonymous No.11552186]

>>11552140
>I know I want to do something geometry-related.
Pssst kid, ever heard of category theory?

[Anonymous No.11552202]

>>11552186
A splendid idea! Let the anon do something related to geometric realisations of categories.

[Anonymous No.11552207]

>>11551840
>almost no mathematician care about foundations

That may be true, but the fact that the formalism of set theory is a pre-requisite to proof writing and thus advanced courses is in fact a foundational problem in mathematics education and thus mathematics as a whole. The biggest problem with set theory is that it is redundant as a language since it is equivalent to first order logic- and yet still the formalism persists- one wonders why?

[Anonymous No.11552214]

>>11552140
read into incidence geometries and non-Desarguesian planes.

[Anonymous No.11552215]

>>11552207
>one wonders why?
Because change is, as always, hard. And usually only occurs after a disaster.

[Anonymous No.11552218]

>>11552140

I don't understand why you can't also do foliations? The fact that you think it is cool too means you will be able to collaborate with him on future papers. You aren't "copying" him in a superficial/unethical way if foliations are intrinsically interesting to you as well.

[Anonymous No.11552230]

>>11552165
What the fuck are you even on about schizo ? You don't know shit about me or my mathematical achievements. I've probably solved more useful problems than some braindead faggot like you. I spend most of my time solving problems. When solving a problem, you can just solve it and be satisfied with it like the smoothbrain you are, or you can try to generalize your result through a new structure. That's what mathematicians do. Nobody gives a shit about solving problems. Oh cool, you solved RH. Who cares?
Now, if you created useful tools to solve the problem, that can be generalized to solve more problems, now that's interesting. It's all about the structures you create, solving problems for the sake of it is something schizos do.

[Anonymous No.11552236]

>>11552230
Yikes. Someone got triggered hard!

[Anonymous No.11552241]

>>11552140
As someone who doesn't know anything about it, you could probably do something on projective planes/projective geometry.

[Anonymous No.11552247]

>>11552230

Looks like I touched a nerve. You do realize that if you focus on solving problems you can't progress to harder problems without generalizing from previous ones right? Anyone who actually solves problem knows this. There isn't someone who "just solves problems" and also can't think abstractly. It doesn't work like that. You would know this if you actually solved problems and didn't just regurgitate theory.

[Anonymous No.11552277]

>>11552247
I think he means that when you solve a problem in a new way that can also be used to solve other already known problems, or new theories, you have done a good job being a scientist. But he said it being a triggered sperg.

[Anonymous No.11552281]

>>11552247
>You do realize that if you focus on solving problems you can't progress to harder problems without generalizing from previous ones right? Anyone who actually solves problem knows this.
Yes that's exactly what I said.
>There isn't someone who "just solves problems" and also can't think abstractly. It doesn't work like that. You would know this if you actually solved problems and didn't just regurgitate theory.
Ever heard about the 4 colour theorem retard?

[Anonymous No.11552282]

>>11552277
I had a college number theory professor that would give you high marks if you could solve a complex problem in a new way. And he would talk to you if he could use your solution to solve other known problems.

[Anonymous No.11552286]

>>11552277

He might have meant to say that, but instead it was actually

>schizo
>braindead faggot
>smoothbrain
>structure
>structure
>tool
>structure
>schizo

Which is actually not far off from what he was saying earlier just a little less articulate. Anyway I'm done arguing with this guy. These types always have to look down on others for actually liking math and if they can't handle getting called out on it then too bad for them. Done with their shit.

[Anonymous No.11552290]

>>11552286
Cry me a river, nigger.

[Anonymous No.11552297]

>>11552286
That was the triggered sperg part of his response, what he said wasn’t wrong, he was just being a pretentious douche doing it. Be glad you aren’t him, he’s a jaded smart person. Those people’s lives suck.

[Anonymous No.11552302]

Which is the best book for learning category theory, Maclane or Awodey?

[Anonymous No.11552306]

>>11552281

So, more than one person has worked on the four color theorem, and I highly doubt that among the "problem-solvers" of that group of people, they had difficulty thinking abstractly. But have fun believing that in your ironically narrow view of what abstract means.

[Anonymous No.11552309]

>>11552302
Algebra: Chapter 0.

[Anonymous No.11552316]

Friendly reminder to pay a monthly tribute to physicists.

[Anonymous No.11552318]

>>11552309
Kek

[Anonymous No.11552323]

>>11552302
category theory for dummies

[Anonymous No.11552327]

>>11552149
>>11552152
>>11552163
>>11552166
>>11552173
>>11552186
>>11552214
>>11552218
>>11552241
Thanks for the (You)'s I think I'm gonna do Hopf Fibrations

[Anonymous No.11552328]

>>11552159
Never listen to the Yukari poster. HE never has anything of value to add to this general.

[Anonymous No.11552330]

>>11552323
>for dummies
Never use books with 'for dummies' in its title

[Anonymous No.11552332]

>>11552328
You can't really know if he's the real yukari poster or just some random poster posting yukari pictures

[Anonymous No.11552333]

>>11552281
From the wikipedia page:

>De Morgan
>Cayley
>Kempe
>Tait
>Petersen
>Hadwiger

Not seeing a lot of "schizos" who "only solve problems" and "can't think abstractly about structures" on this partial list. I mean you really think Cayley couldn't think abstractly? Think about what you're saying dude.

[Anonymous No.11552334]

>>11552140
I don't think representations and applications to particle physics are to high level for you. For instance, you might want to study the representations of the Poincare group (Wigners classification of particles) via Mackey Theory.

Alternativly, good ideas for topics with elements in topology, analysis and geometry can be found in Roes books (Winding around -> Bott periodicity theorem) (Elliptic operators etc. -> Atyiah Singer theorem)

[Anonymous No.11552337]

>>11552327
Hopf fibrations are a good topic.

[Anonymous No.11552339]

>>11552330
>Never use books with 'for dummies' in its title
Always use for dummies books, no matter the subject. Neuroscience, Nazism, opera, chemical bomb making, the "for dummies" book is top tier

[Anonymous No.11552342]

>>11552332
HE also recommended symplectic geometry, which is a well-known red flag of the Yukarinigger.

[Anonymous No.11552346]

>>11552318
I'm serious.

[Anonymous No.11552352]

>>11552337
yeee and I can talk about monopoles and the topology of qubits and shit. Think it'll be p chill

[Anonymous No.11552356]

>>11552339
Kek

[Anonymous No.11552357]

>>11552342
It's not a 'he' it's a she, she already said it in the last thread, misgendering is a criminal offense in some states

[Anonymous No.11552360]

>>11552352
How are Hopf fibrations related to those?
>>11552357
Thankfully I'm not in the JewS. And you're correct, IT'S and IT.

[Anonymous No.11552367]

>>11552357
Too bad he lives in Canada.

[Anonymous No.11552372]

>>11552367
How do you know she's from Canada?

[Anonymous No.11552374]

>>11552372
He*

[Anonymous No.11552375]

>>11552374
*It. Actually wasn't it some faggot gook?

[Anonymous No.11552376]

>>11551989
think about it logically

[Anonymous No.11552378]

>>11552375
Yep.

[Anonymous No.11552387]

>>11552302
category theory in context by E. Riehl

[Anonymous No.11552394]

Should I go to Portland or Arizona state?

[Anonymous No.11552397]

>>11552360
>How are Hopf fibrations related to those?
You use Hopf embeddings to describe the Bloch sphere (geometrically represents qubit)

[Anonymous No.11552399]

>>11552302
No Math people
Awodey
Math people
Maclane

[Anonymous No.11552414]

>>11552399
Awodey is easier than maclane?

[Anonymous No.11552417]

>>11552302

seconding
>>11552387

ct in context is the best ct book IMO

[Anonymous No.11552422]

>>11552417
Why?

[Anonymous No.11552448]

>>11552397
No... the Bloch sphere is literally just a sphere, and is not the main ingredient in TQC. One may use the Hopf fibration to describe circle bundles on the sphere, the sections of which describe (compactified) quantum states. Just a stationary qubit is given by sections of a line bundle over a single point, there's nothing topological that can happen here, you actually need your qubit to move on a sphere in spacetime
Besides, quantum states are described via the trivial fibration (i.e. not Hopf) unless the Pontrjagyn invariant [math]\mu[/math] is non-zero.Non-trivial topology occurs only when the wavefunction is multi-valued across a great circle, which occurs when there's a monopole enclosed.

[Anonymous No.11552464]

>>11552448
Ohhhh-kay. Thank you for humbling me. I've got a lot of work ahead of me before I actually understand QC.

[Anonymous No.11552466]

>>11552422

Have you read many other intro CT books? They always make it seem like it's just a new notation for functions. Not even close. It's way more abstract than that. Like she says in the preface it's about analogies. I've always been fascinated by analogies but I never imagined them being "useful." It's such a bizarre way of looking at math- because it isn't necessarily specific to math. In fact I would argue it is more common to use analogies outside of math than within it- which is why it's so strange. Obviously in graph theory you can have labeled directed hyper graphs and you can find equivalence between them, but CT takes this to another level without the numerical baggage of graph theory.

[Anonymous No.11552471]

>>11552466
>They always make it seem like it's just a new notation for functions.

[Anonymous No.11552488]

>>11552471
>taking things out of context so you can feel superior for a few seconds

Nice.

[Anonymous No.11552497]

Should i still pursue mathematics if i'm going to have to start my degree at 23 or am i too old to contribute to the field?

[Anonymous No.11552501]

Is Corr(x,y) the same as Corr(y,x) in stats?

[Anonymous No.11552525]

>>11552497
Your window is closing very quickly. You can probably still make it, especially if you have some background and aren't starting from absolute "hurr what's a function" zero, but you need to get moving and you don't really have time to fuck up at all along the way.

[Anonymous No.11552541]

>>11552497
If you are dedicated and talented it isn't too late.

[Anonymous No.11552542]

>>11552497

Realistically, if your focus is exclusively just on contributing to the field, then you should expect at most the following results assuming you are extremely motivated and work exclusively towards this goal with no distractions.

1. you are the third or fourth author
2. the results are new but not all that important
3. the journal isn't #1 in your subject

If you can live with those conditions then it's not too late to start.

If on the other hand you want to be the first author of a groundbreaking paper in the leading journal of your subject, then yes, it probably is too late.

[Anonymous No.11552553]

>>11552542
>>11552497

Final thought:

"It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit."

[Anonymous No.11552571]

>>11552525
>>11552542
what sort of autism is this? starting a few years later when you have several decades to actually research makes all the difference? This is the sort of thing only an autist could believe.

[Anonymous No.11552575]

>>11552542
>1. you are the third or fourth author
You have no idea what you're talking about. Where the hell do math papers have 4+ authors?

[Anonymous No.11552587]

grothendieck

[Anonymous No.11552594]

>>11552575
https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0502359.pdf

[Anonymous No.11552598]

>>11552571
The issue with starting late is not mathematical. It's that getting stable in academia takes a very long time.
You could start at 30 and succeed in math, sure. But you'll be 35 before you're being paid, in your 40s by the time you actually have a real job, and it will take you a few extra years before you finish moving around and actually settle into your final professorship. So you either wait until your mid 40s to try and start a family, or you drag your wife and kids all over the country with minimal choice over where they're going while you make pennies and have no time for them because you're working 70h/week on a PhD, or you accept that you're just going to be alone forever.
You can make those choices, but it's not worth it for most people. Even for most people autistic enough to do a PhD in math.

[Anonymous No.11552613]

>>11552598
I don't really care about relationships or starting a family. I've been self teaching myself algebra and got excited over the idea of becoming a mathematician but what worries me is the idea that mathematics is a young man's game. I feel like i might have missed my chance of being noteworthy.

[Anonymous No.11552615]

>>11552594
It is not typical for a pure math paper to have several authors. Also, in that case, authors are ordered alphabetically, not by importance, so this "first author" concept does not really exist in math

[Anonymous No.11552632]

>>11552497
it's never too late

[Anonymous No.11552641]

>>11552615
You don't have to mansplain that paper to me. You wanted 4 or more authors.

[Anonymous No.11552650]

>>11552613
>I don't really care about relationships or starting a family
You don't now. Unless you are absolute king giga-autist, you probably will in 5 or 10 years.

[Anonymous No.11552653]

>>11552613
It is not just about relationships. Although, on that note, you should be aware that life happens. If you are just envisioning starting a bachelors, your phd is a little under 10 years away. Quite a lot can happen in that timeframe.
But there is also the fact that there is a bit of a stigma around being "old" and starting out in academia. Your age probably will not have any bearing on your mathematical skills (I mean, you are still really young), but it might shine a negative light on your resume when you are to apply for postdocs and permanent positions later on, unless you have some really impressive work.

[Anonymous No.11552659]

>>11552615

It is also not typical for a 23 year old to begin a mathematics degree. The point of my post, which went right over your head, was that if you are starting late, don't expect to be a rockstar, you're going to have to collaborate- something you are clearly too intelligent to know anything about.

[Anonymous No.11552662]

>I don't really care about relationships or starting a family
ah yes, smells of undergrad.

[Anonymous No.11552664]

How do you graph the first derivative of a given function?

[Anonymous No.11552667]

>>11552659
>you're going to have to collaborate
Literally everybody collaborates. This statement is vacuously true.
Phrasing it as "you're okay being 4th author" (besides indicating that you're so ignorant of math you actually think author order indicates anything other than the Latin alphabet) means you're saying it's not "collaboration" but you leeching off somebody else's work in a minor role.

[Anonymous No.11552670]

>>11552664
I punch it into Wolfram and trace the output.

[Anonymous No.11552674]

>>11552650
>>11552662
I'm not exactly autistic but i have schizoid tendencies
>>11552653
Is the stigma exclusive to mathematics or all of academia?

[Anonymous No.11552682]

>>11552674
"Schizoid tendencies" just means you're a introvert.
If you derive enough obsessive enjoyment out of math to be able to do a PhD, you don't have real schizoid disorder, and you're not going to be excluded from the desire to not be spending your 33rd Christmas jacking off to anime and eating pizza, unless there's something else wrong with your head.

[Anonymous No.11552685]

>>11552674
>Is the stigma exclusive to mathematics or all of academia?
I'd say most of academia is like that, but since math seems to especially attract schizos, people are more suspicious of people who are too old to be where they are.

[Anonymous No.11552694]

>>11552685
Most of LIFE is like that. Anyone unusual is initially treated with suspicion by most people.
I'm not convinced you'd be looked at any funnier applying for a postdoc in your late 30s than you would be applying for an entry-level software dev job with no experience at that age.

[Anonymous No.11552722]

>>11552659
>not typical for a 23 year old to begin a mathematics degree
Says who?

[Anonymous No.11552729]

>>11552682
I'm sorry, I don't mean to offend, but you have a terrible view. So Wittgenstein was an idiot for just focusing on his working all his life? Newton was an idiot for being celibate until his death? Kierkegaard was an idiot for breaking up his marriage in order to focus on his work? Grothendieck was an idiot for isolating himself? No everyone feels satisfied with a 'normal' life where you have wife and kids and all that stuff.

[Anonymous No.11552759]

>>11552497
I started at 18, but I fucked up, then became a NEET for 3 years, then started again at 22, I'm 23 now, don't know if I'll make it, but whatever, I'm staking everything in Math. To hell with the future, we only live once, gotta do what you wanna do now

[Anonymous No.11552761]

>>11552613
>>11552729
Based.

I mean, you guys telling him that he might want to start a family have a point, but I am one of those guys that having a family is completely out of the picture. I have been told this repeatedly over the course of many years with seemingly good intentions. This might not have done much more than make me yearn for what I can't have.

[Anonymous No.11552845]

>>11551066
Mmkay and how do you study structures, my friend? By solving problems.

[Anonymous No.11552852]

What's a good book to get into functional analysis?

[Anonymous No.11552858]

>>11552852
functional analysis for dummies

[Anonymous No.11552863]

>>11552852
Category Theory in Context

[Anonymous No.11552943]

Why is statistics so fucking awful? It's not that difficult, it's just boring af

[Anonymous No.11552957]

>>11552943
I'm partial to a bit of probability but hypothesis testing and all that science shit is insufferably boring.

[Anonymous No.11552996]

>>11552598
>family
where do you think we are?

[Anonymous No.11553029]

>>11552694
besides at 23 it's just 3-4 years. Compared to a normal human lifespan that's nothing. Its not even that unusual. Outside of america many people spend some years in the army. In israel many people spend 3 years. That guy clearly knows nothing about academia or life. 3-4 years give or take most definitively won't do much to impact your chances of having a family (certainly if you're a man). Nothing he says makes much sense.

[Anonymous No.11553046]

>>11553029
Did you just assume his gender? You realize how problematic that is, right?

[Anonymous No.11553102]

>>11552943
>Why is statistics so fucking awful?
The entire purpose of statistics is to deal with awful sets of data that are too ugly to have a proper mathematical explanation. It's shit by design.

[Anonymous No.11553286]

>>11552852
Linear Functional Analysis by Alt. Check out Brezis's book too.

[Anonymous No.11553475]

>>11551557
>I'm going to propose something so radical in a field I have no understanding of
>And also I'm going to post a retard looking anime girl to show that I'm a weeb!
You have to be older than 18 to post here

[Anonymous No.11553752]

Anyone here familiar with random matrix theory / Haar measures / Weyl integration formula? I'm trying to compute the average of a function [math]f : \mathrm{SO}(2n) \to \mathbb{R}[/math] which is NOT a class function (i.e. it is not invariant to conjugation in its argument).

In the case of class functions, the formula is fairly well-known and I've found plenty of references for how to compute it. However, I've not been able to find a *practical* formula/technique for computing (or even estimating) the integral when [math]f[/math] is not a class function. The closest I've gotten is starting from ground zero, the Weyl integral formula:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximal_torus#Weyl_integral_formula
As I understand it, the main difference is that you need to first compute the inner integral [eqn]\int_{G/T} f(y t y^{-1}) \, d[y],[/eqn] where the notation means [math]y \in G[/math] ([math]G[/math] a compact Lie group),[math]d[y] = d(yT)[/math] is the Haar measure for the quotient group after modding out the maximal torus (maxmially commuting subgroup), and [math]t \in T[/math] is arbitrary.

Anyway, my question is, since [math]\mathrm{SO}(2n)[/math] is a classic Lie group and its maximal torus is relatively simple (set of all block diagonal matrices, where each block is the standard 2x2 rotation matrix), surely this integral/measure has been studied and has some more concrete expressions, no?

[Anonymous No.11553893]

In Banach spaces, the norm closure and the weak closure coincide for convex sets by Hahn-Banach.

Consider a convex set in the space of bounded operators on a separable Hilbert space. Does the norm closure and the weak operator closure coincide?

[Anonymous No.11553939]

>>11552230
Found the one mathematician that didn't ever get laid

[Anonymous No.11553943]

>>11553893
Let [math]T_n[/math] be the operator on [math]\ell^2[/math] which is defined by
[math]T_n(x_1, x_2, \dots) = (0, 0, \dots, x_{n+1}, x_{n+2}, \dots)[/math]
Let S be the convex span of [math]\{T_n\}_{n \geq 1}[/math]. Then S is closed wrt. norm topology.
However, [math]T_n \rightarrow 0[/math] in the weak operator topology, so the closures are different.

[Anonymous No.11554715]

What if you guys wanted to do a masters in a uni that's in another state than the one you live in? How would you make a living there on your own while still having time for the masters?

[Anonymous No.11554717]

>>11549474
Invalid Proofs

[Anonymous No.11554747]

>>11554715
>How would you make a living there on your own while still having time for the masters?
camwhoring

[Anonymous No.11554819]

>>11554715
>going to an unfunded graduate school
"no"

[Anonymous No.11554832]

>>11554715
I took two years working to save up before i did my masters. Calculate your budget and you should be fine. However, the rent in my city is lower than average compared to the rest, so it was easier for me.

[Anonymous No.11554845]

>>11553893
>>11553943
>Tn(x1,x2,…)=(0,0,…,xn+1,xn+2,…)Tn(x1,x2,…)=(0,0,…,xn+1,xn+2,…)
Are you being ambiguous on purpose?

Anyway, while I think I'd be capable of doing functional analysis, all topology-related fields are full of those definitions that are hard to remember and you always have to look it up again. At least that's how I feel.
Even doing category theory and juggling adjoints (which are a similarly elusive game), is simpler to remember how things behave.
Probably I'm just missing the representative examples to recall all those things.

[Anonymous No.11554933]

>>11554845
I meant
[math]T_1(x_1, x_2, x_3, \dots) = (0, x_2, x_3, \dots)[/math],
[math]T_2(x_1, x_2, x_3, \dots) = (0, 0, x_3, \dots)[/math],
and so on.

[Anonymous No.11554943]

>>11554933
I thought so, Zizek

[Anonymous No.11554954]

>>11554943
I am eating from the trash can, the trash can of topology.

[Anonymous No.11554966]

Is algebraic topology the most beautiful, fascinating, complex, elegant, exquisite, wonderful field in all of mathematics?

The answer is: Yes, yes it is.

[Anonymous No.11554968]

>>11551996
Who's gonna stop me?
>>11552024
What are you going to do? Beat him up? What makes you think you have the right to do that?

[Anonymous No.11554971]

>>11554966
Haha funny meme, but you meant numerical analysis and dynamical systems, Right?

[Anonymous No.11554975]

>>11554954
Yeah, we're already eating out of the trash can of set theory all the time.

[Anonymous No.11554981]

>dynamical systems

Yes.

[Anonymous No.11554985]

>>11554966
Yes, especially homotopy theory.

>>11554975
And so on and so on.

[Anonymous No.11554991]

>>11554968
>Who's gonna stop me?
The law, if not the law, then society's moral values, if not society, then my fists will have to make do.
>What makes you think you have the right to do that?
Anyone has the right to step up when they see an injustice being commited, especially if it's against endangered minorities.

[Anonymous No.11554992]

>>11554981
>Bald
So that's the power of dynamical systems, heh? Not bad at all...

[Capital is arriving from the F(...) No.11554995]

>>11554991
*societies ethical values

Unless you think society is an acting entity in a Idealist kind of sense

[Anonymous No.11554996]

>>11554985
It should be 'homotopical topology' by fuchs-fomenko on that image for it to be perfect

[Anonymous No.11554998]

>>11554995
Whatever

[Anonymous No.11555000]

>>11554992

some things cant be unseen

[Capital is arriving from the F(...) No.11555001]

>>11554998

[Anonymous No.11555002]

>>11555001
lame meme dude

[Anonymous No.11555010]

What math book would you want to delete entirely from your mind just so you could have the pleasure of reading it all over again?

For me it would be none because math is fucking boring

[Anonymous No.11555022]

If you can't use it in algebraic geometry, it's not real math.

[Anonymous No.11555024]

Why does the fact that countable union of countable sets is countable require axiom of choice? Don't we have a surjection from [math]\mathbb{N}\times\mathbb{N}[/math] to the resulting set? Am I implicitly using axiom of choice somewhere?

[Anonymous No.11555025]

>>11555022
If your field uses set theory or category theory as its foundation, it's not real math

[Anonymous No.11555052]

>>11554715
Leeching of my parents...

[Anonymous No.11555060]

>>11555024
>Don't we have a surjection from [math]\mathbb{N}\times\mathbb{N}[/math] to the resulting set?
Try constructing it without invoking AC.

[Anonymous No.11555076]

>>11555025
>If your field uses set theory or category theory
So all math?

[Anonymous No.11555078]

>>11555060

Got it, thanks.

[Capital is arriving from the F(...) No.11555079]

>>11555024
[math] A \times B [/math] for countable A and B is countable without makebelieve, and [math] {\mathbb N} \times {\mathbb N} [/math] even moreso.

But when you say a countable union _of countable_ sets, then think of the latter as an infinite sequence of some sets, not all the same, and for which you have not individually describes any maps to [math] {\mathbb N} [/math] yet.

[Capital is arriving from the F(...) No.11555084]

>>11555024
A×B for countable A and B is countable without makebelieve, and ℕ×ℕ even moreso.

But when you say a countable union of countable sets, then think of it as an infinite sequence of some sets, not all the same, and for which you have not individually describes any maps to ℕ yet.

[Anonymous No.11555093]

>>11554996
Good point, I agree. For pointing out an actual mistake of mine, I'm sorry but you must die.

[Anonymous No.11555221]

>>11554966
You could study everything in the world, yet you choose to study homologies of n-dimensional gay faggot manifolds. Sad!

[Anonymous No.11555254]

>>11555010
underrated post
learning is zero fun

[Anonymous No.11555264]

https://twitter.com/CardColm/status/1249038195880341505

[Anonymous No.11555275]

>>11555264
No one cried when Do Carmo fucking died, why are differential geometers so hated?

[Anonymous No.11555285]

>>11555076
Yes, refer to my older post >>11551557 for more info

[Anonymous No.11555290]

>>11555285
To me what mathematicians have been doing these last few years is no different than a child drawing abstractions on a piece of paper

[Anonymous No.11555305]

If you're worried about foundations, just do combinatorics and graph theory. There are enough problems about finite objects to last you a lifetime.

[Anonymous No.11555312]

>>11555305
Want me to ignore that the whole of math is wrong and people don't care? I'm trying to save mathematics here son

[Anonymous No.11555352]

>>11555264
F

[Anonymous No.11555391]

>>11555305
>There are enough problems about finite objects to last you a lifetime.
But finite sets are only well-defined up to the dark numbers

[Anonymous No.11555395]

>>11555391
>prejudice against numbers just because they're a different colour
it's 2020, shitlord. this isn't okay anymore

[Anonymous No.11555409]

>>11551714
Yes reddit and twitter will do that BOARD CULTURE if you invite them here because you're lonely and bored of one another, desu :^)

[Anonymous No.11555427]

>>11555395
Uh, what? You realize how problematic your post was just now? You implicitly said that being racist was OK in the past, what the fuck? Racism was never OK.

[Anonymous No.11555439]

>>11555427
But were there people of colour back then? There were no colours in photographs.

[Anonymous No.11555448]

>>11555439
Color is a social construct, we're all human beings

[Anonymous No.11555463]

>>11555000
such as those sexy double trips
>>11555010
>>11555254
based tardy posters

[Anonymous No.11555466]

>>11555264
no official source yet, though.
>>11555275
maybe it's just that people hate diffgeo for being tedious as fuck

[Anonymous No.11555468]

>>11555448
Indeed it is. Whiteness is constructed so that one can be half black, half hispanic etc, but not half white. Either one is white or a person of colour. That's some done social constructing.

[Anonymous No.11555476]

REEEEEEE

https://twitter.com/CardColm/status/1249038195880341505

[Anonymous No.11555509]

>>11554845
You just have to remember that weak topology and weak operator topology are two different things.

[Anonymous No.11555599]

>>11553752
Honestly, you should ask this question on math stacks instead of /mg/, you'll likely have much better luck.

[Anonymous No.11555648]

What's the difference between algenraic topology and algebraic geometry? Are they interconnected and stuff? I'm new to this math thing

[Anonymous No.11555665]

>>11555463

Daily reminder that advanced math isn't advanced and you should be integrating PDEs not proving whether diagrams commute.

[Anonymous No.11555681]

>>11553752
I had written up a couple paragraphs on this trying to simplify things (via Gysin/complexification/principal fibrations) further but I couldn't find anything satisfactory, so I opted to not say anything. Unless one has a specific [math]f[/math] in mind I don't think it's worth the effort, hence the lack of literature. At this point you may as well just brute force the integral via an embedding [math]SO(n) \hookrightarrow S^{n-1}[/math]

[Anonymous No.11555687]

>>11555648
The first involves smooth functions and homotopies on spaces that are usually thought of as a set and as "bent" in some way, the second involves solutions of equations, often thought of as grid like domains.
Both subjects are broader than this sentence might make it out to be, though.

[Anonymous No.11555698]

>>11555665

[Anonymous No.11555704]

>>11555687
Which one should I follow?

[Anonymous No.11555709]

>>11555687
Terrible post lmao

[Anonymous No.11555722]

>>11555709
Could you give a better explanation then?

[Anonymous No.11555727]

>>11555722
Of course.

[Anonymous No.11555744]

>>11555727
Go on then.

[Anonymous No.11555750]

>>11555744
Go on what?

[Anonymous No.11555754]

>>11555750
Give your explanation.

[Anonymous No.11555756]

>>11555754
Of what? How your post is terrible?

[Anonymous No.11555761]

>>11555756
Of the differences between algebraic geometry and algebraic topology.

[Anonymous No.11555764]

>>11555761
>differences
Lmao. Terrible post

[Anonymous No.11555768]

>>11555764
Ugh
>the state of /mg/
What are you doing here if you're mathematically ignorant?

[Anonymous No.11555770]

>>11555768
>mathematically ignorant
Lmao, ask yourself that question.
>associates alg top with smooth maps
>associates alg geo with polynomial equations
Lmao

[Anonymous No.11555774]

>>11555770
Still waiting for your own explanation then. But you can't give one, can you? Your only reason to be in this thread is to shitpost and criticize people who tries to help others. I'm done with you, keep talking alone, you're scum.

[Anonymous No.11555793]

>>11555774
Lmao keep seething brainlet

[Anonymous No.11555822]

>>11555756
>How your post is terrible?
that isn't me you*re replying to
(I made the "terrible" post)

And I donno, I already explicitly weakened my statement so much that I don't think it can be all that terrible. It won't lead to much confusion

[Anonymous No.11555858]

>>11555822
Shut the fuck up brainlet and gtfo of here, go study a little math before posting

[Anonymous No.11555890]

>>11552026
those two should kiss desu

...f-for science

[Anonymous No.11555898]

Anons, I'm 18 years old and I've always wanted to excel in math but I didn't have any material to work on, sure I had access on the internet but I thought self-learning for math was impossible because I've been taught that math is one of the hardest things to learn, I thought I only need guidance at the start which I'll get in university and then I'll be able to learn mathematics by myself and hopefully excel at it and make a career out of it, but now that I'm in college it feels like everyone is so much ahead of me, is it because I've had a horrible high & middle school education and had no interest in math in my early and mid teens? Is there hope for me to excel in math? I know where to start, I just need to know if I'll ever be extremely good at it if I'm starting late.

[Anonymous No.11555912]

>>11554971
Based. I want to switch to this stuff for my Master's, find a job if I can. Any tips?

[Anonymous No.11555925]

>>11555912
I was just memeing desu, I haven't a clue. Good luck tho! :)

[Anonymous No.11555928]

>>11549474
>name our band
Literally never had sex, including the woman

[Anonymous No.11555930]

>>11554985
Homotopy theory is really fucking gay. Fomenko-Fuchs is still an Elder God tier book though, and no, it's not a contradiction.
>>11555221
>he thinks algebraic topology is still about manifolds
Anon, I...

[Anonymous No.11555932]

>>11555275
There were posts about it on /mg/ though, and I don't know why you'd care about any other mathematician's opinion on anything.

[Anonymous No.11555944]

>>11555912
Go to Brazil, there's a place in the middle of the jungles of Rio where the best dynamicists gather to futher develop the field. Not even kidding, search for IMPA.

[Anonymous No.11555955]

>>11555930
>Elder God tier book
What are the other Elder God tier books in mathematics?

[Anonymous No.11555958]

>>11555681
Not that your input is ever of any help whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.11555965]

>>11555648
Because you're new, and those are two very advanced topics, it'd be really hard to get across their differences, which are many and technical. Just because they both have algebraic in their name doesn't mean their somehow heavily interdependent, although so far as I know there are non-trivial intersections between them, but they go beyond my basic knowledge.
Tell us your background and we might be able to tell you which you might prefer, but if you're "new" then it's no use to even ask yourself this question. Just do maths, get there eventually, and you'll see for yourself.

[Anonymous No.11555969]

>>11555898
>now that I'm in college it feels like everyone is so much ahead of me
Why does this bother you?
>I just need to know if I'll ever be extremely good at it
Why do you want this?

I'm being extremely serious anon, you might have your priorities and outlook completely wrong, as I do, and let me tell you that it's not something I'd recommend.

[Anonymous No.11555972]

>>11555944
I don't want to be involved in academia, but thanks for the recommendation (even if it is Brazil of all fucking places, and Rio of all fucking Brazilian cities).

[Anonymous No.11555982]

>>11555955
>What are the other Elder God tier books in mathematics?

[Anonymous No.11555985]

>>11555969
Because I want to be a mathematician, I want my future career to be around numbers, equations, doing research in math and I don't exactly have an answer to that, I don't want to do anything else besides that, I don't see myself doing anything else besides that. And for a person who doesn't want a career in math and is simply forced to take and yet understanding or already knowing how to solve all types of problems better than me, a person who aspires to be a mathematician, just makes me feel like a delusional loser.

[Anonymous No.11556030]

>>11555982
>Diophantine Equations
Holy shit, people still study that?

[Anonymous No.11556053]

>>11555687
I shouldn't have said "smooth", I think that was a triggering mistake

[Anonymous No.11556060]

>>11556030
wut

Of course, it's rich with many old unsolved hands on describable problems

[Anonymous No.11556069]

>>11556060
It's just that we learn that shit in the first semester of undergrad here, I thought it was already an outdated subject and all

[Anonymous No.11556079]

>>11555985
>And for a person who doesn't want a career in math and is simply forced to take and yet understanding or already knowing how to solve all types of problems better than me
See, this is what I'm talking about. It's an ego problem. Tell me, if this person never ends up doing mathematics but you do, who will be the better mathematician? Gauß (motherfucking Gauß) though Newton was better than him, but it didn't stop him. And all of Gauß's contemporaries knew he was better than them, but they still did mathematics that studied to this day. I can keep going all day long if you want. If you really want to be a mathematician, you really need to let go of this childish (because it is quite infantile) desire to be the best. I can't, which is why I'm abandoning it, but the same is not necessarily true for you.

[Anonymous No.11556084]

>>11556069
Does [math] \dfrac {4} {n} = \dfrac {1} {x} + \dfrac {1} {y} + \dfrac {1} {z} [/math] have a positive integer solution for every integer [math] n>2 [/math] ?

[Anonymous No.11556094]

>>11555925
Atop saying desu faggot, you can’t speak Japanese.

[Anonymous No.11556096]

>>11556084
Yes, that's obvious.

[Anonymous No.11556103]

>>11556079
Are you saying the PHILOSOPHER Newton was a better mathematician than motherfuckin' Gauss? I don't think you even understand the scope of Gaiss' contributions and genius, he proved a 1000-year-old problem before entering undergraduation, he told astronomers to point their telescopes to a certain location in a certain time and there they could see the comet they were searching for without success, he singlehandedly developed the mathematics of his time by 50 years.

[Anonymous No.11556106]

>>11556094
This faggot here doesn't know how the board works

[Anonymous No.11556114]

>>11556096
[math] s(a,b) := \sum{n=0}^{b-1} a^k [/math]

[math] s(5,3)=s(2,5)=31 [/math]

[math] s(90,3)=s(2,13)=8191 [/math]

Are there any other four naturals >2 that solve the equality?

>>11556103
Looks like he's saying Gauß thought it.

[Anonymous No.11556116]

>>11556106
C'mon I feel sorry for him, let's not bully the newcomers, we've all been new once upon a time.
>>11556094
Hey newfag, try typing 't.b.h.' without the . and see what happens

[Anonymous No.11556117]

>>11556096
[math] s(a,b):=\sum_{k=0}^{b-1} a^k [/math]

[math] s(5,3)=s(2,5)=31 [/math]

[math] s(90,3)=s(2,13)=8191 [/math]

Are there any other four naturals >2 that solve the equality?

>>11556103
Looks like he's saying Gauß thought it.

[Anonymous No.11556123]

>>11556117
>Are there any other four naturals >2 that solve the equality?
I don't understand where you're trying to get at? Is that number theory?

[Anonymous No.11556125]

>>11556116
Yeah, but we lurked instead of posting like a fucking retard.
>>11556117
>Looks like he's saying Gauß thought it.
Gauß said there were three great era changing mathematicians: Arkimedes, Newton and Eisenstein. Who's the qt btw?

[Anonymous No.11556130]

>>11556123
Are there any u,v,w,z such that s(u,v)=s(w,z).
Yes, that's some simple to state unsolved problems in number theory. Along the lines of >>11556060, I don't think people will ever stop trying to tackle those.

[Anonymous No.11556163]

>>11556130
I see, so Cohen's book is a good intro to Number Theory? Or would you recommend something else?

[Anonymous No.11556199]

not looking for answers, but how do I properly approach questions like this? I didn't struggle with any of the questions before in the exercises but can't figure these out. limit and ratio tests are inconclusive for the ones that I've attempted and the inclusion of stirling's formula leads me to believe that they'll accept approximate solutions

[Anonymous No.11556213]

>>11556199
You have to approach them confidently, stare them straight into the eye, and give them a firm handshake.

[Anonymous No.11556218]

>>11556213
I'll try showering and a change of clothes too. Thanks for the advice!

[Anonymous No.11556224]

I don't get what the big deal is about calc 2 problems; have they tried meeting new people? Maybe they should get outside more and just put themselves out there

[Anonymous No.11556240]

>>11556213
I asked to speak to the problems manager and he told me to do 51 with a limit comparison test and 52 with the integral test.

[Anonymous No.11556253]

>>11556199
What book is that? Apostol?

[Anonymous No.11556257]

>>11556253
pearson "early transcendentals" isbn 0321570561, 9780321570567

[Anonymous No.11556263]

>>11556257
Wtf? Why are you studying that shit? Learning calculus II on a deep level is totally useless unless you want to score higher on the putnam so you can show off to your friends

[Anonymous No.11556275]

>>11556263
>studying for the Putnam instead of just solving the problems in the heat of the moment
Holy shit, the absolute state of brainlets.

[Anonymous No.11556278]

>>11556263
I don't know why. I dropped out of uni and now that I'm returning to uni and I'm studying my old stuff so that I can test out of calc

[Anonymous No.11556279]

Hey /mg. I'm drunk as fuck, but I just want to sayt math makes me want to jump from excitement. That is all.

[Anonymous No.11556300]

>>11556275
>Solving problems in the heat of the moment instead of just mentally proving every single possible problem that could be on the test before it even starts
Heh, sorry kiddo, try harder next time

[Anonymous No.11556754]

>>11555930
Nothing wrong with being gay, though.

>>11555982
Just how many Cohens are there in maths?

[Anonymous No.11556880]

>>11555955
Any book written by Serre, Grothendieck, or Deligne.

[Anonymous No.11557079]

>>11556880
>tfw there's people who unironically think like this on /mg/
>>11556754
>Nothing wrong with being gay, though.
Why the homophilia?
>Just how many Cohens are there in maths?
Oy vey, a goy has noticed! Shut it down, SHUT IT DOWN!

[Anonymous No.11557101]

>>11557079
Back to /pol/.