/mg/ - Mathematics General #24

[Anonymous No.11794633]

We regret to inform you this will be the final mathematics general, as there is no point continuing past 24.

Previously >>11788501

[Anonymous No.11794673]

>>11794633

>24 is the kissing number

[Anonymous No.11794690]

bros... im going to do some maths...

[Anonymous No.11794711]

Why are physicists often so incoherent? What do they have against structured thought? Unlike engineers they have at least some idea of what the fuck they are doing but they're just all over the place when they structure an argument, making it really hard to spot mistakes...

[Anonymous No.11794714]

STOP BULLYING YOUR SENIORS!!!

[Anonymous No.11794722]

>>11794714
i dont have any seniors...

[Anonymous No.11794749]

>>11794711
Example?

What kind of argument are we talking?

[Anonymous No.11794755]

>>11794722
Are you ancient?

[Anonymous No.11794770]

What LaTeX typefaces does this board support? It supports /mathbb which isn't part of basic LaTeX. Here's a list of what's confirmed:
/mathbf
/mathit
/mathrm
/mathcal
/mathbb
/mathfrak
Are there any more?

[Anonymous No.11794959]

>>11794749
Man I love that book.

[Anonymous No.11794992]

If [math]X[/math] is the top. space given by the fundamental polygon in pic. related. Is
[math]\pi_1(X,P) = C_{21}[/math]? This is my own construction so I know how to calculate [math]\pi_1[/math], I just need someone to verify it.

[Anonymous No.11794998]

>>11794992
*thanks.

[Anonymous No.11795004]

>>11794633
Doesn't numerology belong in /x/?

[Anonymous No.11795027]

>>11794992
Sorry, [math]\Delta[/math]-complex, not fundamental polygon.

[Anonymous No.11795031]

>>11794633
I found a way to express any positive integer as an infinite series using itself as an input.

[Anonymous No.11795040]

>>11795031
Let [math](a_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}[/math] be a sequence where the first one is your integer and the rest are all 0. No take [math]\sum a_n[/math].

[Anonymous No.11795045]

>>11795040
this is the brainlet answer

[Anonymous No.11795053]

>>11795045
Reflects the brainpower of its poster.

[Anonymous No.11795064]

>>11795031
>>11795040
More generally, consider any series with [math]\sum a_n = 1[/math] . Then [math]\sum m a_n = m[/math] .

[Anonymous No.11795065]

According to Wikipedia, the four branches of mathematics are Algebra, Analysis, Geometry and Number Theory. To which of these would you assign Combinatorics, Graph Theory, and Topology?

[Anonymous No.11795077]

damn newton looked like THIS?

[Anonymous No.11795079]

>>11795064
Holy crackers! Clever.

>>11795065
If I had to put those into those boxes, I'd put combinatorics partly in algebra and partly number theory, graphs would be split between algebra and geometry and topology between analysis and geometry (assuming we are speaking of point set, otherwise also a bit of algebra).

[Anonymous No.11795086]

>>11795064
Also a brainlet answer, here [math] m [/math] is extraneous, or rather not dependent on the iterations of the summand

[Anonymous No.11795089]

>>11795065
Combinatorics goes into Number Theory, Graph Theory and Topology both into Algebra.

[Anonymous No.11795092]

I see the algebraic topologists are here

[Anonymous No.11795094]

>>11795092
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.11795095]

>>11795086
summand iteration*

[Anonymous No.11795100]

>>11795086
>>11795095
the fuck does "summand iteration" mean?

[Anonymous No.11795102]

>>11795100
the fucking sequence in the sum you cuck

[Anonymous No.11795103]

>>11795077
Blake had at hing for portraying historical, literary, and mythological characters as Greco-Roman blonde Adonis'es and Aphrodites. I don't know if its because he was a homo or that's just how he envisioned the characters of the Western Canon.

[Anonymous No.11795106]

>>11795100
each iteration isn't dependent on [math] m [/math] for
>>11795064

[Anonymous No.11795109]

>>11795106
"iteration" is not a word used in English to refer to whatever the fuck you're talking about
iteration means doing something multiple times

[Anonymous No.11795124]

>>11795094
>topologists
>proving things

[Anonymous No.11795128]

>>11795109
>iteration means doing something multiple times
what is a sequence?

fuck, the sequence [math] a_n [/math] has to use [math] m [/math] as an input, not just some constant thrown into any series that converges to 1

[Anonymous No.11795133]

>>11795124
besed

[Anonymous No.11795134]

>>11795124
So your claim was essentially a self introduction?

[Anonymous No.11795135]

>>11795124

You don't need to prove an axiom of reality

[Anonymous No.11795145]

>>11794992
There's literally no way I'm computing that, but intuitively speaking, it seems correct.

[Anonymous No.11795151]

>>11795128
>what is a sequence?
a sequence is a list of numbers.
>fuck, the sequence an has to use m as an input
besides being arbitrary and ill-defined, this is still trivial [math]m = \sum \frac{\log^k{m}}{k!}[/math] .

[Anonymous No.11795156]

>>11795145
Actually no, I thought harder and my intuition now says "free product of integers modulo 3 and integers modulo 7 by van Kampen."

Still not checking.

[Anonymous No.11795188]

>>11795151
>trivial
Indeed you can rearrange a polylogarithm or something of the like and get such a series, but deriving one from scratch is more difficult than you might believe.

[Anonymous No.11795218]

What about that square in the top-right, doesn't that provide the the commutator [math]aba^{-1}b^{-1}[/math] via SvK which gives you the direct product?

[Anonymous No.11795247]

>>11794770
This question is quite tricky since LaTeX isn't really used at all.
Also LaTeX, technically has no font except the one which just happens to be used as default.

It uses mathjax (unless I am absolutely retarded) which technically has nothing to do with LaTeX except for being somewhat compatible.

To answer your question compare with: http://docs.mathjax.org/en/latest/input/tex/macros/index.html

[Anonymous No.11795366]

>>11795247
[eqn]\mathfrak{Thank \; You}[/eqn]

[Anonymous No.11795377]

>dies at 26

[Anonymous No.11795651]

What field do you consider the most respected?

[Anonymous No.11795680]

Do you guys have any interest in philosophy? I've found that a lot of math students, myself included, seem to be interested in it.

[Anonymous No.11795681]

>>11795651
triple integrals

[Anonymous No.11795684]

>>11795124

[Anonymous No.11795685]

>>11795651
combinatorics

[Anonymous No.11795694]

>>11795651
Barnett integrals

[Anonymous No.11795695]

>>11795651
PDEs

[Anonymous No.11795701]

>>11795651
category theory

[Anonymous No.11795706]

>>11795651
Homotopy Type Theory

[Anonymous No.11795710]

Alright, /mg/, I need one more upper class elective. I've narrowed it down to either number theory or combinatorics. Which one do you guys recommend?

[Anonymous No.11795711]

>>11795694
based

[Anonymous No.11795713]

>>11795710
If you start number theory and decide you hate it, you can still get skills that are useful for algebra.
If you start combinatorics and decide you hate it, you can only apply it to combinatorics.

[Anonymous No.11795716]

>>11795710
Is it just the plain old "number theory" class? Elementary number theory (i.e. not analytic or algebraic) is pretty lame. Number theory doesn't get fun until you start bringing in the big guns to do it with.
>>11795713
>If you start combinatorics and decide you hate it, you can only apply it to combinatorics.
Massively retarded statement. Basic counting principles are useful for almost literally everyone.

[Anonymous No.11795722]

>>11795716
Yeah, the course is literally titled 'Elementary Number Theory'.

[Anonymous No.11795724]

>>11795710
Depends on what combinatorics class. If it's the """discrete math""" class for CS, no, go with number theory. If it's a grad level combinatorics class, then go with that.

[Anonymous No.11795726]

>>11795722
don't listen to combinatorics fags or algebraists, they can only speak lies to spread their brain parasites to others

Take something stupid like modeling or optimization if you're allowed to

[Anonymous No.11795774]

>>11794711
They say it has to do with not losing track of the physics by careing about the math. You really have to be autistic to fall for that desu, the real reason is that for something as widely used as QM, you need to know advanced topics from functional analysis just for the foundations. For hamiltonian mechanics you need symplectic geometry and for GR riemannian geometry. If you want to have a general panorama of modern physics you need to know how to deal with problems concerning these areas and well, how many mathematicians do you know well versed in all of those fields? There are certainly people who have a good grasp of both worlds, but it's a fuckload of information.

[Anonymous No.11795896]

Any other computer science dropouts here? I was a deluded video-game addict that got into university through affirmative action and actually thought I could be a programmer As you can guess I learned the hard way by getting filtered at Calculus 1 and linear algebra. Nowadays I'm studying mathematics from the foundations to see if I can apply to a real undergraduate without the brown card someday.

[Anonymous No.11795921]

>>11794749
>>11794959
Is it good? I'm trying to go through learn the basic subjects of physics by myself.

[Anonymous No.11795975]

>>11795896
No but I'm an Engin**ring student

[Anonymous No.11796017]

Is the theory of differential equations/dynamical systems the most disorganized and artificially difficult field of math to learn?
I took a course in it and there seems to be barely any standard terminology, few "staple" theorems/techniques (and every book refers to the theorems with different names and with slightly different statement and some important results aren't even named), and different textbooks will focus on completely different things even at the elementary level.

[Anonymous No.11796031]

>>11795651
Interuniversal Teichmuller Theory

[Anonymous No.11796099]

Should I take grad probability after undergrad analysis (rudin), or do I need to take grad analysis first?

[Anonymous No.11796121]

>>11796099
I would ask the prof. It could be either yes or no.
Probability is very closely related to graduate-level measure and integration theory, but some probability classes will rebuild all the measure theory they need from scratch, because the notation/terminology and mindset is quite different than abstract analysis.
If they do that you'll be fine, but if they assume you know a bunch of measure theory you'll be fucked without graduate analysis.

[Anonymous No.11796129]

>>11796121
Makes sense, thanks

[Anonymous No.11796354]

>>11796017
For ODEs this shouldn't be as bad, as there actually is some decent, well established theory.
But for PDEs it gets quite different, since basically nobody knows anything about PDEs. And what is known are many, many different ways to treat certain problems and if you are really lucky even entire classes of problems.

>few "staple" theorems
Because there legitimately are none.
I mean what would be the "central theorem of PDEs"?

For abstract algebra e.g. it is pretty obvious where you should start and what notes you have to hit. Later on the lecturer/author is then able to choose a particular more involved part.

In PDEs there is no obvious starting point, it is a very wide field, with little unifying theory.

[Anonymous No.11796431]

What are the main applications of commutative algebra outside of algebraic geometry?

[Anonymous No.11796526]

>>11796017
Read V.I Arnold and realise that the entire theory of ODE can be derived from the rectification theorem.

(Linear) ODE isn't really a field in itself, it's more IMO a place where linear algebra, real and complex analysis, and differential geometry meet for the first time. It's a very neat way to understand why manifolds are so important.

[Anonymous No.11796658]

As suggested by the arxiv.org administrators, i've been thinking a lot about the recent events and "Black Lives Matter" movement. Here are my thoughts:
a lot of inequalities can be summarised as "an expression with some stuff >= an expression involving same stuff, but more mixed with each other"
to name a few examples:
- any muirhead inequality, the simplest of which is [math]x^2 + y^2 \geq 2xy[/math]
- simple polynomial inequalities such as [math]x^3 + y^3 + z^3 \geq x^2y + y^2z + z^2x[/math] for x, y, z nonnegative
- any holder type inequality, the simplest of which is the cauchy-schwarz
[math]\int |fg| \leq ( \int f^2)^{1/2} ( \int g^2)^{1/2} [/math]
- the definition of paranormal operator on a Hilbert space: an operator [math]T:H \rightarrow H[/math] is called paranormal if [math]||Tf||^2 \leq ||f|| \cdot ||T^2f||[/math] for all [math]f \in H[/math].
i cannot help but make the connection: these inequalities say that (race) mixing is bad, it's better to stay separated - say what you want but the structure of mathematics is inherently racist. the XIX-XX century white male mathematicians might have been subconsciously motivated by their racial beliefs while coming up with those results

[Anonymous No.11796670]

I'm looking for a reference book to re-learn the basics I was "taught" through high school and university. I'm a CE and I find myself struggling in some areas.
Is pic-related a good one?
I'm looking at "the Arts of Electronics" of Maths.

[Anonymous No.11796680]

>>11796658
stupid tranny you slavs aren't white

[Anonymous No.11796684]

>>11796680
that post is obviously satire, you know?

[Anonymous No.11796695]

>>11796658
>holder type inequality
And because of that the Nazis gassed Slavs.
I am truly sorry, but you have to go...

[Anonymous No.11796715]

>>11796670
cont.
I'm also looking at Korn & Korn, and Polyanin & Manzhirov (pic related). This latest one seems to offer the most bang for buck.

Which one should I buy of these three?

[Anonymous No.11796718]

>>11796715
Lang.

[Anonymous No.11796720]

>>11796670
>semendyayev
>semen

[Anonymous No.11796738]

>>11796121
>graduate-level measure and integration theory
Is that what we call Analysis 3 in Germany? You know, the course every math student takes in their 3rd semester?

[Anonymous No.11796742]

>>11796354
The post you're answering to never mentioned PDEs...

[Anonymous No.11796745]

>>11796738
>Is that what we call Analysis 3 in Germany?
No. Usually Analysis 3 does only the basic measure theory to derive the Lebesgue measure (and probably a couple other analytically important measures like the Hausdorff measure), it really isn't set up to go deep into measure theory.
For that my Uni had an optional 4th year course which dived deep into the measure theory you apparently need for probability theory.

[Anonymous No.11796747]

>>11796742
The field of differential equations (which *was* mentioned) is partitioned into ODEs and PDEs.

[Anonymous No.11796749]

>>11796738
stay insecure eurocuck

[Anonymous No.11796753]

>>11796749
I am curious too. What is done in a graduate level measure theory course?
What "Integration theory" do you do there which hasn't been done before.

Is my assessment in >>11796745 correct?

[Anonymous No.11796764]

>>11796718
the fuck is lang?

[Anonymous No.11796766]

>>11796745
I never saw any "deep measure theory" in a probability course that wasn't taught in analysis 3.
>4th year course
you're American, aren't you

>>11796749
have fun doing engineering courses for half your time in college

[Anonymous No.11796771]

>>11796766
have fun seething about Americans for half your time in life

[Anonymous No.11796776]

>>11796766
>in a probability course
No, not probability theory an actual measure theory course.
I never actually took it since I don't actually care all that much about probability theory, but it was legitimately far more in depth then what you do in Analysis 3, since most measure theory is not all that useful in Analysis.

>you're American, aren't you
4th semester I meant, no I am German.

[Anonymous No.11796798]

>>11795065
Topology into geometry
combinatorics into number theory
graph theory into combinatorics

just because one field uses another doesn't mean its essence also belongs there

[Anonymous No.11796810]

>>11795651
Number theory and algebraic geometry. Most of the famous mathematicians of the last half of the 20th century contributed to both, and most of the famous and important problems fall into those. For example, FLT, abc, RH, BSD, Hodge conjecture, Weil conjectures, to name a few.

[Anonymous No.11796813]

>>11795651
my diary

[Anonymous No.11796814]

>>11796813
desu

[Anonymous No.11796896]

bad reasons to study math:

1. the women
2. wealth
3. fame
4. entertainment

[Anonymous No.11796898]

If I have two or more tones, like say 166,84 and 166,85 and play them together on Audacity or whatever the two (or more) add up, what is the resulting frequency?

This seems to have the formula
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys207/lectures/beats/add_beats.html

But I haven't touched this level of math in 6 or so years so I am feeling a bit confused, can someone give me an example please?

[Anonymous No.11796909]

>>11796896
>the women
But there are no women in maths?

[Anonymous No.11796928]

>>11796896
>1. the women
?
Name 5 mathematicians who are known to have fucked even good looking women?
>2. wealth
Like who? Apart from those who famouls switched into finance, the guys who make it big in math will barely get beyond the wage of a Terrence Tao or Villani - and any wage is less than a 23yo can make selling a good app in a Silicon Valley meme boom or crypto
>3. fame
Same as above although history shows a lot of famous mathematicians poor - in particular because living mathematicians are generally only "famous" among other mathematicians.
>4. entertainment
Yeah, do math for the math. There's really not more or less to it.
Unless you count applications.

[Anonymous No.11796955]

>>11796896
shit tier post
it's obvious that you should only study math if you're autistic enough to voluntarily bash your head against the wall for weeks to understand a subject that's irrelevant to real life, and 99.9999999999% of the population does not give a single shit about.

[Anonymous No.11796961]

>>11796896
i study math because it's rich and I like to see connections.

[Anonymous No.11796970]

>>11796955
There's also people who like math, you know. It's not a competition.

[Anonymous No.11796975]

>>11796896
Good reasons to study math:
1. Geometry.
2. Analysis.
3. Topology.
>>11796909
Precisely.

[Anonymous No.11796978]

>>11796970
you have to like math to do what I mentioned - it's implied. Actually "love" would be the more accurate term.

[Anonymous No.11796982]

>>11796670
Stroud's Enginneering Mathemathics maybe? I don't know how deep you want to go.
I head Mathematics: It's contents and meaning is good but I haven't tried it

[Anonymous No.11797056]

>>11796670
just look at the recommended literature of any university math program and download it

[Anonymous No.11797059]

>>11796975
Yeah but nobody ever said "I want to fuck girls, if only I knew Galois cohomology, girls love that shit".

[Anonymous No.11797108]

Today I be readin

https://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/predicativity.pdf
by
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Feferman
which relates to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard%27s_paradox

I also came across pic related during a walk in a part. She said she's married but looking for some fun on the side. Shit was cash.

[Anonymous No.11797169]

>>11797059
>nobody ever said "I want to fuck girls, if only I knew Galois cohomology, girls love that shit".
and this is why we have incels

[Anonymous No.11797181]

>>11797059
represent me like one of your French groups~~~~

[Anonymous No.11797186]

>>11797108
> An article about predicativity not citing Girard's system F?

[Anonymous No.11797246]

>>11797059
there is nothing that turns your average college chick off more than talking about advanced mathematics or physics even though it means that you're high IQ.

Girls like creative types far more. On OkCupid there is one question that goes something like "Which type of intelligence do you value most?" Out of a hundred girls maybe 1 or 2 picked "Logical / Mathematical", and basically all the other ones "Social / Interpersonal" or "Visual / Artistic".

We are fucked, my friends.

[Anonymous No.11797283]

Why do the two curves generated by the equation [math]x^y=y^x[/math] intersect at [math](e,e)[/math]?

[Anonymous No.11797295]

>>11797181
>go to a girl
>give her compliments about her tits...
>she interrupts you by screaming and you get imprisoned
>in reality you were talking about the group

[Anonymous No.11797359]

>>11797246
>Girls like creative types far more.
Everybody likes creative types far more.

"IQ" in the sense some diligent sperg who does logic all day because he has no friends is not very tied to a happy life.
That said, a lot of people are in math and do creative work there.
Sad truth is just from knowing a lot of math, doesn't mean you're "good" at it. Knowing a lot of math doesn't help and is especially pathetic if you're asocial at the same time. They can go together.

>>11797283
Thoughts:
One solution is y(x):=x, so the intersection must be at (X,X) for some X.
The definition is symmetric in x and y, so I suppose we must have y'(X)=-1.
Maybe that and taking the derivative of [math] x^{y(x)}\cdot y(x)^{-x} [/math] helps in finding X. Maybe an exponential ansatz assuming information from the solution.

[Anonymous No.11797427]

[math]\prod_{n=1}^\infty \frac{4n^2}{4n^2-1}=\frac{\pi}{2}[/math]

[Anonymous No.11797467]

>>11797427
no.

[math]\prod_{n=1}^\infty \frac{4n^2}{4n^2-1}=\frac{\pi}{2}[math]

[Anonymous No.11797523]

>>11796982
>Strouds
That book covers only what they normally teach you in the first year. Then he has another book (pic related) that covers second year in another 1500 pages.

I don't know why but the tree manuals I posted above look like a better deal.

>Mathematics:its content and meaning
Holy shit, is this Kolmpgorov the same dude from Kolmogorov's complexity?

[Anonymous No.11797525]

>>11797056
I went to university, and still have some printed books, but they are too specific (calculus, linear algebra, discrete maths). I stored them all.

I want a handbook that points you in the correct direction.

[Anonymous No.11797543]

>>11797523
>1500 pages for calc + probably some basic linear algebra
I bet they also publish one new edition every year or every other year which only changes a few exercises and minor corrections.
Calc books are a huge sham.

>>11796670
Piskounov Differential and Integral Calculus
Shiloh's Linear Algebra

[Anonymous No.11797602]

>>11797543
>Piskounov Differential and Integral Calculus
>Shiloh's Linear Algebra
These are specific books.
I want the lazy man's all in one compact handbook (compact as in 1k pages aprox).

[Anonymous No.11797629]

>>11795065
algebra, algebra and algebra

[Anonymous No.11797632]

>>11797602
Piskounov (tome I) is less than 300 pages. Tome II is 600 pages but it goes way above any "normal" calculus book and it contains most of the algebra in Shiloh.
Shiloh is about 400 pages and goes way, way further and broader than any related book.

A "handbook" which tries to bundle all the subjects from year I or year II will be unreadable because so many details will be skipped, and at the same time very big because they have to include so many things. Those kind of compilations are trash and just a scam to buy their 100$ (at minimum) price tag.

I'm not familiar in "basic level" math books since the ones I used to start were in French (Rammis, if it speaks to anyone), but I can tell you that the "all in one" approach is a pedagogical disaster. Take Pisokounov I and Shiloh and switch from one to the other when you get bored of Algebra or Calculus.

[Anonymous No.11797653]

>read Ruding
>commentary on proof
>according to Riesz representation's theorem
Which fucking one, there is at least three of them

[Anonymous No.11797684]

>>11797653
the one implying the desired result, obviously

[Anonymous No.11797736]

>>11797632
>"basic level"
Not basic level. A handbook.

[Anonymous No.11797750]

>>11795921
It's probably my favourite general relativity book.
I think abstract index notation is the best, but I like Ewan Stewart's version of it more. He's also a phenomenal teacher.

[Anonymous No.11797755]

>>11797653
>at least three
There's the abstract Hilbert space one, the representation of linear functionals as measures one, and what's the third?

[Anonymous No.11797768]

>>11797755
Representation of measures in the real case and in the complex case

[Anonymous No.11797794]

>>11796896
>bad reasons to study math
>the women (female)
Good reason to study math:
The women (male)

ftfy

[Anonymous No.11797887]

>>11797794
Are you a woman (male)?

[Anonymous No.11797888]

>>11797887
Yes.

[Anonymous No.11797890]

>>11797888
Post bussy and soles.

[Anonymous No.11797930]

>>11796975
Undergrad tier subjects. They are shit

[Anonymous No.11797935]

>>11797930
>Undergrad tier subjects.
They are literally the only good ones.
LMAO

[Anonymous No.11797936]

>>11797888
Post belly

[Anonymous No.11797943]

>>11797930
Why do we hate undergrads, again?

[Anonymous No.11797946]

>>11797943
Because insecure undergrads tell us to!

[Anonymous No.11797948]

>>11797943
Because we hate anime posters

[Anonymous No.11797952]

>>11795065
topology is important to all of those fields
combinatorics is an application of algebra
graph theory is an application of combinatorics

[Anonymous No.11797990]

I wish I could be an undergrad for longer

[Anonymous No.11798009]

>>11797990
Is Seven Samurai an /mg/ approved film?

[Anonymous No.11798011]

>>11797990
That's the end of the movie you fucking moron, you're spoiling people who didn't watch it yet.

[Anonymous No.11798016]

>>11798009
The only /mg/ approved movies are:
>Pi
>A Beautiful Mind
>A Brilliant Young Mind
>The Man Who Knew Infinity
>The Imitation Game
>Gifted

[Anonymous No.11798028]

>>11798016
I'm 2/3 of the main character in Pi. I have my fair share of problems inside my head and work with a bunch of jews, but I'm not smart.

[Anonymous No.11798029]

>>11798011
>muh spoilers
nigga
>>11798016
these are all gay movies

[Anonymous No.11798035]

>>11794633
I hate number theory so fucking much

[Anonymous No.11798040]

>>11798035
Why?

[Anonymous No.11798041]

>>11798028
>Pi
I watched it many times when I was in high school, at the time it was such an incredible thing for me since it used math concepts and tried to create a deeply complex plot, but watching it again these days it looks so underwhelming, meh.

[Anonymous No.11798043]

>>11798011
>Implying anyone over the age of 18 hasn't already seen Seven Samurai

[Anonymous No.11798056]

>>11798040
that wikipedia page sums up my issues
a whole lot of random nuggets like "ohh if you add these triangle numbers then..."

[Anonymous No.11798059]

>>11796670
>studying from a reference book
Boy are you going to enjoy yourself.
>>11798016
Is Redline /mg/ approved?

[Anonymous No.11798062]

>>11798016
wrong, we only approve of SCOOB

[Anonymous No.11798065]

>>11798056
Well, if you wanna do math without memorizing concepts and definitions you're in for a hard time bro

[Anonymous No.11798067]

>>11798041
I can't remember too much. It was mostly stupid, but the panic attacks and stuff were well made.

>>11798043
I haven't.

[Anonymous No.11798068]

>>11798062
>>11795684

[Anonymous No.11798071]

>>11798059
>Is Redline /mg/ approved?
Does it have mathematics in it?

[Anonymous No.11798077]

>>11798035
>>11798056
i think that has less to do with number theory and more with wikipedia editors being autistic

[Anonymous No.11798106]

>>11798071
>you can only watch movies that are math-related!!!! i love math! can't you tell??? klein bottle lol! !!!

[Anonymous No.11798113]

>>11798106
We're talking about movies in a math general, what kind of movies were you expecting to be talked about? Fucking retard, go to /tv/ if you wanna talk about other kinds of movies

[Anonymous No.11798119]

>>11797523
>>11796670
>>11796982
Try https://web.evanchen.cc/napkin.html then
It's got a shitton of stuff, some of it incomplete but all with pretty ok explanations and LOTS of examples
Math focused but still
>Holy shit, is this Kolmpgorov the same dude from Kolmogorov's complexity?
It is yes

[Anonymous No.11798140]

>>11798119
>https://web.evanchen.cc/napkin.html
Did anyone here actually studied anything through napkin?

[Anonymous No.11798206]

>>11798140
probably not but i did read some of his EGMO book in preparation for an entrance exam i took a few years back

[Anonymous No.11798217]

>>11798206
>>11798140
on another note i'm super jealous of evan chen. i wish i was as talented / started becoming interested in math in middle school / early high school

[Anonymous No.11798219]

Why does it seem like /mg/ never talks about statistics?

[Anonymous No.11798228]

>>11798219
>statistics
not science or math

[Anonymous No.11798250]

>>11798219
if you have something interesting to post about statistics, then by all means do so

[Anonymous No.11798269]

>>11798206
>EGMO
>Girl
Why lie on the internet, man?

[Anonymous No.11798272]

Post /mg/ approved YouTube channels.

[Anonymous No.11798292]

Am I supposed to pick up AG relatively fast?
What the FUCK is an ample invertible sheaf, and how do they relate to embeddings in projective space??

I'm panicking

[Anonymous No.11798315]

>>11798292
>Am I supposed to pick up AG relatively fast?
No

[Anonymous No.11798322]

>>11798315
I'm just having so much trouble doing exercises, let alone understanding the direction

[Anonymous No.11798327]

>>11798322
You are not alone.

[Anonymous No.11798459]

>>11794633
its ok that this is the last /mg/ since I already passed my quals. /mg/ can die now

[Anonymous No.11798463]

>>11795651
SCV

[Anonymous No.11798466]

>>11798459
What subjects were your quals on?

[Anonymous No.11798470]

>>11798035
hey same
but it comes in handy occasionally then it pisses me off even more.
the impression I got from my number theory requirements was that it is a super difficult subject with questions are easy to read, but not solve

[Anonymous No.11798473]

>>11798466
SCV

[Anonymous No.11798475]

>>11794749
For me its

[Anonymous No.11798480]

>>11798269
euclidean geometry for math olympiads not
european girls' mathematical olympiad dummy

[Anonymous No.11798498]

>>11798463
>>11798473
SCV is not a field, it's a subfield of Complex Geometry. You just outed yourself as a namedropping brainlet, congrats.

[Anonymous No.11798502]

>>11798466
PDEs, numerical analysis, iterative algorithms in linear algebra (e.g. prove this recursion for an eigenpair converges in a given topology), and dynamics (problems were all on mass transport flows)

[Anonymous No.11798506]

>>11798498
this was not me, see actual response at >>11798502

[Anonymous No.11798512]

Does Galois theory have any practical applications in the real world?

[Anonymous No.11798517]

>>11798512
Do you remember when your maths teacher was mad at you for not paying attention, and then you were assigned to solve an equation of the 5th degree?

[Anonymous No.11798518]

>>11798512
tenure-track

[Anonymous No.11798523]

>>11798498
Saying that SCV is a subfield of complex geometry is like saying real analysis is a subfield of differential geometry.

Besides, SCV is obviously a subfield of sheaf theory.

[Anonymous No.11798536]

>>11798512
proving the only practical approach to solving polynomial equations is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QR_algorithm

[Anonymous No.11798543]

>>11798512
no

[Anonymous No.11798563]

>>11798512
Not all maths needs to have practical applications, you know.

[Anonymous No.11798692]

>>11798563
I didn't imply otherwise; I was just curious if there was any further reason to study Galois theory other than interest.

[Anonymous No.11798704]

>>11794633

I wonder whether the OP is aware that a sketch from the old comedy show Mr. Show featured the idea that 24 is the largest number, and that it is impossible to come up with a higher number.

[Anonymous No.11798712]

Thoughts on Shafarevich's Basic Algebraic Geometry? Is it too antiquated / are the exercises as difficult as folks say they are?

[Anonymous No.11798720]

>>11798712
read Lang.

[Anonymous No.11798725]

>>11798720
Why?

[Anonymous No.11798728]

>>11798016
>kitsch, student films, Oscar bait
shit movies

>>11798498
lurk more

>>11798512
yes.
also this: >>11798563

[Anonymous No.11798746]

>>11798712
>Is it too antiquated / are the exercises as difficult as folks say they are?
Who says that? It's introductory text, there isn't anything highly difficult in the book. Now, Hartshorne on the other hand is a really hard book.

[Anonymous No.11798752]

>>11798016
low iq taste tbqh desu
>>11798219
not science or math try >>>/r/eddit

[Anonymous No.11798753]

>>11798746
some leddit user said that the exercises were "basically impossible" when i searched for reviews of the book on that site. other than that, have you hand any experience with the book? is it a good entry-point to AG?

[Anonymous No.11798757]

>>11798140
I'm a brainlet and I perused it to learn about things that sounded neat

[Anonymous No.11798761]

>>11798746
I think you got it the other way around desu.

[Anonymous No.11798762]

>>11798140
I use it on occasion, the examples and the "meta" explanations about how different parts of the theory fit together, what role every concept/technique plays etc etc are very good.
It's pretty good as an intro and overview of a subject before you start studying it thoroughly imo

[Anonymous No.11798763]

>>11798753
>basically impossible
kek wtf, Reddit being Reddit
> other than that, have you hand any experience with the book? is it a good entry-point to AG?
Yeah, it was recommended to me by a professor of mine when he was giving a lecture about algebraic geometry, he also recommended another one by Miles Reid, but I didn't use that one

[Anonymous No.11798770]

>>11798763
How much commutative algebra did you have going into it? I've done some from Atiyah & Michael but I'm not very confident in it. Should I be fine to just look up results in there or another book when they are unfamiliar?

[Anonymous No.11798771]

>>11798728
>shit movies
There are no better math movies out there than those.
>>11798752
>low iq taste tbqh desu
There are no better math movies out there than those.

[Anonymous No.11798773]

What are the pre-reqs for stochastic processes?

[Anonymous No.11798774]

>basic algebraic geometry

that's just High-School algebra

[Anonymous No.11798775]

>>11798771
that's because there's no way for a "math movie" to be good

The Professor's Beloved Equation is ok though

[Anonymous No.11798776]

>>11798770
>How much commutative algebra did you have going into it?
A lot, I did a course on it. This is a really great book based on the parts I read https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9780387942681

[Anonymous No.11798779]

>>11798775
>that's because there's no way for a "math movie" to be good
How so?

[Anonymous No.11798781]

>>11798774
Where do you live that they teach the nullstellensatz in high school algebra?

[Anonymous No.11798782]

>>11798776
I see, thanks

[Anonymous No.11798789]

>>11798781
Sofia

[Anonymous No.11798791]

>>11798781

where do you live that that's basic algebraic geometry

[Anonymous No.11798794]

>>11798789
Very interesting. How far do you get in AG in high school? Do you reach Riemann-Roch?

[Anonymous No.11798795]

>>11798791
what the hell do you think basic algebraic geometry is

[Anonymous No.11798803]

>>11798791
You do realise that all the lines and circles you played with in high school analytical geometry are the most basic sort of algebraic geometry there is? For example, a line is just the zero set of a polynomial f(x, y) = ax + by + c.

[Anonymous No.11798822]

>>11798803
nah dude, the most basic sort of algebraic geometry is learning to add natural numbers by drawing pictures of sticks, or studying fractions by cutting up a cake.

[Anonymous No.11798845]

Can you get software jobs even though you are studying pure math? I really want to just keep studying pure math up to at least a masters if not a Ph.D but I do like writing software and have been learning C in my spare time for fun. Can I still nab a software job with an MSC or Ph.D in math?

[Anonymous No.11798854]

>>11798845
Yeah, for sure. You'd have to find a way to demonstrate your competency in SE some way though.

[Anonymous No.11798871]

>>11798822

exactly

[Anonymous No.11798873]

>>11798845
Damn, waifus+emacs+haskell what a great combination

[Anonymous No.11798890]

>>11794633
i am a poster in the last mathematics general, may this post be remembered

[Anonymous No.11798891]

>>11798845
What's Haskell good for?

[Anonymous No.11798894]

>>11798845

>emacs

Can't believe I fell for this meme. Unfortunately I sunk too much time tweaking my workspace so I can't switch now.

[Anonymous No.11798896]

>>11798891

justifying the existence of category theory

[Anonymous No.11798900]

in a confined space, what 3 dimensional shape has highest volume to surface area ratio? and why?
not homework btw

[Anonymous No.11798902]

>>11798891

Imagine if there were companies out there who had all their system written in Egyptian hieroglyphs and paying out of their asses to people who still know this shit. That's haskell.

[Anonymous No.11798910]

How do you keep yourself motivated to study math every single day? Holy shit I can't waste time being a NEET anymore, it's been almost 2 weeks now that I don't touch a math book and just shitpost here.

[Anonymous No.11798912]

>>11798890
punctuation

[Anonymous No.11798913]

>>11798900

the sphere

[Anonymous No.11798919]

>>11798894
Should've gone for Vim, mate

[Anonymous No.11798923]

>>11798910

Every time you spend at not math the closer you get to 24

[Anonymous No.11798925]

>>11798902
>Imagine if there were companies out there who had all their system written in Egyptian hieroglyphs and paying out of their asses to people who still know this shit. That's haskell.
I'm sorry, I don't think I understood your analogy very well, so Haskell is supposed to be some highly difficult shit without any real purpose other? I don't think it would attract so much computer scientists and mathematicians if that was the case.

[Anonymous No.11798926]

>>11798894
Emacs is worth it for her

[Anonymous No.11798929]

>>11798923
I'm already 23, this is my last chance, if I fail anymore courses, I'll end myself

[Anonymous No.11798937]

>>11798910
It's not a matter of motivation, it's a matter of getting used to doing stuff. Nobody just magically stumbles onto a wellspring of motivation one day that jumpstarts them from watching YouTube 9 hours a day to studying like a Chinese teenager
You're going to have to consistently force yourself to work when you don't want to for a little while and eventually you'l habituate to it and you won't have to wrestle down the "god dammit I don't wanna do stuff" reflex every time.

[Anonymous No.11798940]

>>11798929
Good

[Anonymous No.11798949]

>>11798937
I tried that already, works well for two weeks, after that I become a NEET again, that approach only works with unshakeable discipline, which I don't have

[Anonymous No.11798954]

>>11798940
How's that any good? It's terrible I'm fucked

[Anonymous No.11798957]

>>11798949
>I tried trying but I stopped trying after 2 weeks why didn't it work

[Anonymous No.11798961]

>>11798913
why?
i know that the more faces a 3d shape has the lower its SA:V but would that be an enough proof?

[Anonymous No.11799000]

>>11798327
thank you bro

literally getting suicidal thoughts over this

[Anonymous No.11799003]

>>11799000
I know what you mean. I took the weekend off because of similar feels.

[Anonymous No.11799022]

>>11799000
Work hard and focus, you can do it if you keep persisting.

[Anonymous No.11799039]

>>11799000
>literally getting suicidal thoughts over this
why is everyone in this thread such a melodramatic neurotic bitch?
>nooooo I can't solve this math problem instantly maybe I should just fucking DIE

[Anonymous No.11799045]

>>nooooo I can't solve this math problem instantly maybe I should just fucking DIE

literally me

[Anonymous No.11799096]

>>11799045
me too

[Anonymous No.11799103]

>>11799045
>>11799096
Same.

[Anonymous No.11799109]

>>11799039
Anon, not him but I'm really nervous when I get shit results, because I could be kicked back to my third world country.

[Anonymous No.11799117]

Anyone here know any girls doing math degrees? My uni has around 10 or so of them, half are dating, the other half are ugly feminists, from what I see they tend to be very intelligent in general, how hard is it to find a nice math girl do date, lads?

[Anonymous No.11799119]

>>11799117
Be good at what you do.
Be confident.
If they don't want to date you then move on.
Don't be cringe.

[Anonymous No.11799122]

>>11799117
For some reason undergrad math girls are a lot uglier on average than grad math girls. Also all of the math undergrad girls at my school are pretentious batshit polycule bisexuals (except for the (foreign, not 1st gen) chinks, who are absolute honeys and very cute)

[Anonymous No.11799126]

Do you think that GA is over-emphasized by zoomer undergrads? Why? Because it sounds cool maybe?

[Anonymous No.11799127]

>>11799117
>Anyone here know any girls doing math degrees?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.11799129]

>>11799122
>Math undergrad women are ugl-

[Anonymous No.11799135]

>>11799129
Cambridge selects for beautiful people.

[Anonymous No.11799137]

>>11799129
Since this is the last math general, I want it on record that my little sister is ten times cuter than this lass.

[Anonymous No.11799140]

>>11799126
Geometric Algebra? Graduate Algebra? Graduate Analysis? Geometric Analysis? Group Algebra? Group Analysis?

[Anonymous No.11799143]

>>11799129
Some people are priviledged as fuck, aren't they?

[Anonymous No.11799148]

>>11799143
Are you just now realizing this, anon?

[Anonymous No.11799149]

>>11799140
Oopsie I meant AG (algebraic geometry).
Sorry I do that a lot I am retarded.

[Anonymous No.11799150]

24 is approaching while you're preoccupied with women

[Anonymous No.11799154]

>>11799150
>>11798923
>24
https://youtu.be/i0-FA_svTKg
AND TWENTY-FOUR KEEPS POUNDING AT MY DOOR

[Anonymous No.11799155]

>>11799150
I already know that I'm not gonna make it, so I need a intelligent female to make sure my offspring will be high IQ thus enabling me to train them to become math genius and realize the dreams that I once had.

[Anonymous No.11799161]

>>11799155
I've had this thought too but good look attracting a woman more successful than you. Even if it does happen prepare for the lifetime of emasculation and regret.

[Anonymous No.11799162]

>>11799129
That’s a man.

[Anonymous No.11799163]

>>11799162
>man
That's a social construct

[Anonymous No.11799165]

>>11799154

where did you find this soundtrack of my life

[Anonymous No.11799169]

>>11799163
Hang yourself tranny.

[Anonymous No.11799172]

>tfw you realize your advisor is retarded
fuckkkkk

[Anonymous No.11799175]

>>11799161
Being intelligent doesn't necessarily equate to success.

[Anonymous No.11799178]

>>11799045
I was a housemath to one once. Slight butterface but thick, I would
No idea otherwise

[Anonymous No.11799215]

Is it fair to say that Euler and Newton believed in the divine inspiration of the bible because themselves were gifted men? It seems to me that their point of view was heavily biased.

[Anonymous No.11799249]

>>11799215
The only thing that's fair to say is that both men's religious views shouldn't be discussed on /sci/, much less /mg/ of all places.

[Anonymous No.11799268]

>>11799249

You're just afraid that if divine inspiration is real it means that your sins are pulling you away from the seams of mathematics

[Anonymous No.11799273]

>>11799249
This.
Also, Newton was more into the occult and alchemy than mathematics.

[Anonymous No.11799275]

>>11799268
That would imply no atheists would ever produce anything meaningful, but the huge majority of academia nowadays are atheists.

[Anonymous No.11799338]

>>11799275

>modern academia

Nice way to prove me right. Soulless commies and corporatism can't compete with the men of God.

[Anonymous No.11799367]

Someone is pointing a gun at your head, you need to tell them one entertaining math fact so that they would let you go.
What is it?

[Anonymous No.11799375]

>>11799367
Your grades.

[Anonymous No.11799386]

>>11799367
1729 is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways

[Anonymous No.11799390]

>>11799386
H-how did Ramanujan know about that shit on the spot?????? What a fucking monster

[Anonymous No.11799409]

>>11799386
Not entertaining at all. Shot.

>>11799367
Probably something like Gentzen's LK system. That's pretty cool and the beauty is observable without a lot of math background.

[Anonymous No.11799415]

>>11799409
>logicians are so detached from reality they actually think normal people are interested in their autistic nitpicking

[Anonymous No.11799438]

>>11799386
0 = 1^3 + (-1)^3 = 2^3 + (-2)^3
street shitters BTFO

[Anonymous No.11799446]

>>11799367
Hilbert space curve with all segments orthogonal to each other.
>>11799409
As someone who hates both number theory and mathematical logic, I can tell you with confidence that the Ramanujan meme is substantially more interesting.

[Anonymous No.11799448]

>>11799446
Why do you hate number theory?

[Anonymous No.11799463]

>>11799415
>>11799446
I’m not a logician. I just encountered the LK system in a class a while ago and thought it was very cool and nice. Also why hate any field of math, especially those two which are very old and important.

Tell me what’s entertaining about the taxicab numbers. At least with the LK system you can spin it into an interesting story if you’re a talented speaker; being the sum of cubes n ways seems like such an arbitrary condition and would remind the gunman of high school math.

[Anonymous No.11799506]

>>11799463
>being the sum of cubes n ways seems like such an arbitrary condition
So? What does arbitrariness have to do with being interesting?
Literally all human games are just an arbitrary set of rules. Are you telling me chess is uninteresting because the conditions are arbitrary?

[Anonymous No.11799557]

How do I represent a problem in a matrix? So that later I can apply LLL on it to solve it.

[Anonymous No.11799568]

Should i do degree in maths? I enjoy math but i dont want to be a statistician (especially because its hard to spell).

[Anonymous No.11799604]

>>11799568
If you struggle to spell statistician I'm not sure you're really cut out for a math degree

[Anonymous No.11799648]

>>11799604
I did fine in all my classes (92% end mark).

[Anonymous No.11799665]

>>11799648
College is a different beast than high school. Do you have experience with math competitions and proofs? If not, then it's not really for you.

[Anonymous No.11799684]

>>11799665
I think i did a few open competitions and scored reasonably well. Proofs? Yeah we did a bit of proofs, but im guessing theres some rabbit hole im not aware of

[Anonymous No.11799695]

>>11799684
Download last year IMO's test, if you can answer at least one question then you might succeed in academia, if you can't even begin to understand the questions, then I'll be blunt here and say it's just not the right degree for you.

[Anonymous No.11799700]

>>11799695
I'm sure lots of professors couldn't do IMO problems in high school.

[Anonymous No.11799706]

>>11799700
In third rate universities, maybe. In top universities, nah.

[Anonymous No.11799715]

Has anyone else thought of quitting math and going the actuarial route for a good career? I just don't think I can hack it bros. Thinking about studying for the actuarial exams.

[Anonymous No.11799720]

>>11799706
He was asking if he should get a degree in math. That doesn't mean he has to be a Princeton professor.

[Anonymous No.11799724]

>>11799706
I'm sure there are profs at top unis who never did contest math in high school.

[Anonymous No.11799733]

>>11799720
You shouldn't really be content with mediocrity, why insist on math when you can succeed in other areas of knowledge? Are you really going to be satisfied being completely irrelevant in academia teaching dumb people in a rural shithole for your entire career? Just move on, math is not for everybody.
>>11799715
It's ok, not everyone is meant to do math, if you're struggling so much it's better to move on while you're still young.

[Anonymous No.11799737]

>>11799724
That shows how naive you still are then.

[Anonymous No.11799746]

>>11799733
Maybe he enjoys math a lot and dislikes other subjects? Maybe he likes teaching? Not everybody is doing math to be famous.

[Anonymous No.11799764]

>>11799746
>Maybe he likes teaching? Not everybody is doing math to be famous.
That's settling for mediocrity, not a good way to live at all, besides it's not about being famous, but being relevant in your area, no one in academia gives a fuck to anyone teaching in a university below the top 100.

[Anonymous No.11799769]

>>11799737
?? okay? This is factually false
>>11799684
This sounds fine, honestly. There are other avenues of success other than being a statistician or academia (SWE, finance, etc)

[Anonymous No.11799785]

>>11799764
>nooo you cant just do what you enjoy, you have to adhere to my definition of success which is seeking *relevance* (totally not the same as fame btw)

[Anonymous No.11799790]

>>11799769
>?? okay? This is factually false
You have wny idea how many people who are starting math degrees have competition experience? Any idea how many honors classes students there are out there? Any idea how competitive it is to be accepted for a PhD position in a top 100 university? You people are too naive if you're thinking that professors at top unis couldn't solve IMO problems in their high school years, it just shows you've never set foot in a university and talked to any professor there.

[Anonymous No.11799791]

>>11799764
well my local unis are all top 100 but yeah

>>11799746
im just bad at english, i find reading it difficult because words overlap.

[Anonymous No.11799813]

I feel like all these IMO problems are just beyond what I know, like I sort of understand them but I can't solve them

[Anonymous No.11799818]

>>11799737
fuck off undergrad

[Anonymous No.11799833]

>>11799813
If you can't solve any of them, you haven't been properly trained in mathematics, you'd have a really hard time succeeding in academia.

[Anonymous No.11799834]

This is a good one.

[Anonymous No.11799887]

>>11799790
>You have wny idea how many people who are starting math degrees have competition experience? Any idea how many honors classes students there are out there? Any idea how competitive it is to be accepted for a PhD position in a top 100 university?
Yes. So? Just because a lot of them have competition experience doesn't mean that all t100 profs have it.
>You people are too naive if you're thinking that professors at top unis couldn't solve IMO problems in their high school years, it just shows you've never set foot in a university and talked to any professor there.
What? How is this relevant to my point? Even considering the possibility that all such profs could do contest math (a big if), they don't necessarily have such background.

I still don't know why so many here is castigating >>11799791 as being forever mediocre for low 90s in high school of all places.

[Anonymous No.11799892]

>>11799887
Clarification: I'm sure t100 profs could solve IMO questions at their current state (and even this is not necessarily a guarantee) but it doesn't mean they were supergeniuses or even liked math in high school.

[Anonymous No.11799897]

>>11799887
>mediocre for low 90s in high school of all places.
That means absolutely nothing, IMO are a good measure of mathematical ability though, if one can understand and solve some competition problems that would actually mean their chances of failing are really low.

[Anonymous No.11799915]

>>11799897
Many of my HS Olympiad friends either quit their math majors or chose a different field altogether. Some of the best people in my department had no interest in math in high school, let alone enough of an interest to spend hundreds of hours studying, cranking out problems, and going to competitions.

What are you basing your claims on? Is it possible you’re bitter about your own lack of success?

[Anonymous No.11799923]

>>11799915
>Is it possible you’re bitter about your own lack of success?

[Anonymous No.11799927]

>>11799915
>My small particular experience is representative of the whole

[Anonymous No.11799951]

>>11799927
I’m not saying that. I’m saying that giving up on math because you didn’t participate in olympiads in high school is retarded. Obviously successful Olympiad contestants have a leg up, since they’ve probably had more exposure to real math than most, but they don’t have a golden ticket to academia nor are others fucked because they had other interests in high school.

[Anonymous No.11800058]

>>11799834
What killed me in high school for contests (and still does, somewhat) was always that I'm too fucking slow. This took me almost an hour.

Speaking of, shitposting about "gotta solve OLYMPIAD problems to make it bro" is ignorant of half of why the olympiads are hard in the first place; solving a problem in an afternoon on your couch with a nice hot cup of coffee and a calculator and infinite piss breaks is not the same thing as solving and writing up full formal solutions to an entire test of them in a row in a competition environment.

>>11799951
>but they don’t have a golden ticket to academia
For an extreme example of this you can look at Alex Song. Dude had 5(!) gold medals at the IMO, won Putnam money all 4 years and yet he graduated with bleh grades and didn't even go to grad school. Granted he's pulling hundreds of thousands of dollars at a quant shop so he's not much of a sob story, but he still kind of flubbed out mathematically despite incredible talent for competitions.

[Anonymous No.11800088]

>>11800085

[Anonymous No.11800101]

>>11800058
Yeah I get you. I like these kind of problems because they reveal some curious quirk that may be useful in future research or just make a hw go by faster.
That's why while I like working Putnam problems I'd never sit the exam, because I'd much rather work on them at my own leisure rather than stressing out to a day-long exam.

Maths research is heavy on creativity. Far as I can tell the greatest prestige goes to those who combine elegance with ingenuity.

[Anonymous No.11800334]

>>11799039
I'm doing a phd and my supervisor expects results, you know

[Anonymous No.11800349]

>>11800334
Have you given him any? I haven't for a few months.

[Anonymous No.11800363]

>>11800349
No not really, although by results I meant I told him I'd have read 2 sections of Hartshorne and I still havent done it. My current project goal is pretty hard

[Anonymous No.11800369]

>>11800363
Are you lacking motivation?

[Anonymous No.11800383]

>>11799117
In my courses there were usually two.
The first one an extremely smart super mega autist with whom conversation is near impossible. Imagine a girl so incredibly based that she spends her train ride doing Puzzle books.

The other was an unironic 9/10 who went to the lectures with her Chad boyfriend and sat cuddling in the first row directly in front of me. They both were pretty nice people though.

There were some others, but I really had very limited interactions with them.

[Anonymous No.11800387]

>>11799117
there is a cute undergrad girl who had an IMO medal
obviously i've never even spoken to her

[Anonymous No.11800389]

>>11798925
What the anon said just isn't true. Haskell is neither "incomprehensible" nor "highly difficult".

It is a strange language compared to nearly everything else, but it actually is quite concise and full of meaningful abstractions.

[Anonymous No.11800413]

>>11800369
no, but in having trouble parsing through the textbook, let alone doing the exercises

[Anonymous No.11800425]

>>11800413
It has the reputation being a hard book. Don't give up yet.

[Anonymous No.11800954]

>>11800383
>first one an extremely smart super mega autist with whom conversation is near impossible. Imagine a girl so incredibly based that she spends her train ride doing Puzzle books.
Is she cute though?