Summer of Math Exposition #2

[Anonymous No.14556893]

Anons will you be uploading any videos. Nows your time to shine /sci/.

Mathematician, professors, and experts will be allowed collaborate with content creators and video editors.

August 15 is the deadline

https://youtu.be/hZuYICAEN9Y

[Anonymous No.14556897]

>>14556893
Imagine if someone inserted homosex theorem as one of the video presentations.

[Anonymous No.14557406]

we need to see Grant's bookshelf

[Anonymous No.14557430]

>>14556893
I hope grant suffers macular degeneration early in life so that he’s forced to think only in the vague impressions of cargo culted math concepts he picked up fucking around in desmos in his 20’s ultimately killing himself when he realizes he isn’t any more a visual thinker than people the average pajeet that draw up leet code problems on whiteboards

[Anonymous No.14557472]

>>14557430
Seethe. Grant is a wonderful human being who has inspired the lives of thousands of students. He's achieved more than you ever will.

[Anonymous No.14557485]

>>14557430
Euler remarked on his loss of vision, stating "Now I will have fewer distractions."

[Anonymous No.14557541]

>>14557430
Have sex

[Anonymous No.14557638]

>>14556893
The problem with this challenge is that you can only win if you cater to that 3b1b guy's conception of wha interesting math is, i.e. "oh aha" moment tricks that have a chance of being visualized. I'm not sure if it's healthy.

[Anonymous No.14557640]

>>14556897
Keck
That'd be epic.

[Anonymous No.14557643]

>>14557638
Well they are actively involving professors and stuff this year so there will be a lot more of your rigorous videos just with professional quality.

[Anonymous No.14558292]

>>14557430
What posseses people to write shit like this? Is it the (You)s?

[Anonymous No.14558293]

>>14557638
every good math should be visualisable on the grounds that the purest for of math is geometry and all the rest is just another way of describing the underlying mathematical platonic forms that geometrical/visual representation still convey the best. It's different languages describing the same thing.

[Anonymous No.14558537]

>>14557638
Sheave cohomologies can be visualized quite easily.
Like with arrows onto categories, I do it every day.
And motivation for them is quite interesting as well.

[Anonymous No.14558556]

>>14558293
fundamental groups of projective spaces or even better GL_n(K) or SL_n(K).
Bézout's theorem.
Yoneda Lemma.

I'd argue that a lot of "forced" visualization destroys pure abstract intuition and should be a side effect of studying simple/simplish examples.

Like visualizing tangent spaces, that might work for lower dimensions, but the feeling of tangentials goes bananas beyond 4D.
Tensoring let's say rings or other abelian categories' objects is also only visualizied with very concrete examples rather than in the general case.
Anything with limits is getting a shitshow trying to make it visual because "what about the other possibly infinite points/sets/(sub-)spaces"/whatever

[Anonymous No.14558568]

>>14558537
Is this supposed to be a counter to what I said?

[Anonymous No.14558595]

>>14558568
No, it is an emphasis on your point that this challenge is super biased and most if not all concepts (!) can be visualized and be extremely interesting.
But 3 turds in 1 water is just that what he sounds like.

[Anonymous No.14558782]

>>14558292
It's like when the dude with the small penis compensates for its lack size, but in this situation interchange it with his minds lack of IQ. This is the only way he can cope.

[Anonymous No.14559309]

>>14556897
>>14557640
Still got the textbook image, though.
Would like for a substantive but clever entry into
this theory. But then...how can we handle the
questions about how it works?

[Anonymous No.14560607]

>>14558556
Exactly, then they are surprised when OMG Spec(R) is almost never Hausdorff! How can this be?!

[Anonymous No.14560620]

>>14556893
>summerfags

[Anonymous No.14560718]

>>14558556
>>14560607
Past the point of visualization, you're not doing geometry anymore, you're doing logic with retarded terminology and intuitions desu. (I would've said "and set theory", but set theory is a superfluous substitute for predicate logic anyway)