/mg/

[Anonymous No.9548883]

All math no anime edition (also fuck you janny the other thread is at bump limit)

[Anonymous No.9548888]

First for Knuth
https://thesis.library.caltech.edu/2441/1/Knuth_de_1963.pdf

[Anonymous No.9548891]

Are any of Wildberger's criticisms actually valid? None of the ones I've seen are.

[Anonymous No.9548897]

The true non-reddit thread:
>>9548889
>>9548889

[Anonymous No.9548899]

>>9548891
With Wildberger there's always an underlying fundamental difference in the philosophy of math when it comes to his arguments. If you want to somewhat empathize with him, you'll have to learn the basics of finitism/ultrafinitism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/
section 4.3 goes into it a little bit.

[Anonymous No.9548906]

Nice thread name, retard.
>no anime edition
>>>/r/eddit/

[Anonymous No.9548909]

>>9548897
I think you'll find the time stamp of my thread is older than your thread friend.

[Anonymous No.9548913]

>>9548906
why so dumb?

[Anonymous No.9548915]

9548909
R*ddit threads are illegitimate.

[Anonymous No.9548918]

Why are you so immature over a thread? Go be pathetic somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.9548920]

>>9548883
Anime is maths

[Anonymous No.9548921]

9548918
see >>9548915

[Anonymous No.9548926]

>>9548920
This is an off-topic post. Discuss math in the math thread >>9548889

[Anonymous No.9548931]

Any recommendations on how to get into differential geometry?

[Anonymous No.9548938]

>>9548931
Math discussion belongs in /mg/. See >>9548889

[Anonymous No.9548946]

>>9548931
>Any recommendations on how to get into differential geometry?
Spivak volumes 1 through 5

[Anonymous No.9548952]

>>9548946
Math discussion belongs solely in /mg/. See >>/sci9548889

[Anonymous No.9548957]

Reminder to use projective geometry.
[math][t^{2}-1 : 2t : t^{2}+1 ] = \left[ \frac{ t^{2}-1}{t^{2}+1} : \frac{2t}{t^{2}+1} : 1 \right][/math]
gives a parametrization of the unit circle in affine co-ordinates using rational functions, [math]\alpha : \mathbb{R}\to S^{1} = Z_{aff}(x^{2}+y^{2}-1)[/math] by [math] \alpha(t) = (\frac{ t^{2}-1}{t^{2}+1} , \frac{2t}{t^{2}+1})[/math], which hits all points except (1,0).

[Anonymous No.9548958]

>>9548946
>>9548957
Math discussion belongs solely in /mg/. See >>/sci/9548889

[Anonymous No.9548962]

>>9548946
>>9548957
Math discussion belongs solely in /mg/. See >>>/b/9548889

[Anonymous No.9548965]

>>9548891
>Are any of Wildberger's criticisms actually valid?
They're more of a Bishop Berkeley style critique then some kind of Edward Nelson proof. Whether this is "valid" to you I have no idea.

[Anonymous No.9548973]

>>9548965
see >>9548938

[Anonymous No.9548977]

Also, by the same reasoning one uses to develop the rational parameterization of the circle, one can solve the age old problem of generating Pythagorean triples. [math]x^{2} + y^{2} = z^{2}[/math], [math]x,y,z\in \mathbb{Q}[/math] has the form [math](x,y,z) = \lambda(t^{2}-1,2t,t^{2}+1)[/math]. If we let [math]t=\frac{a}{b}\in\mathbb{Z}[/math] (with no common factors) we get
[math][x:y:z] = [\frac{a^{2}}{b^{2}}-1 : \frac{2a}{b} : \frac{a^{2}}{b^{2}}+1] = [a^{2}-b^{2} : 2ab : a^{2}+b^{2}][/math]. Thus all integer solutions to [math]x^{2} + y^{2} = z^{2}[/math], have form [math](x,y,z) = c(a^{2}-b^{2},2ab,a^{2}+b^{2})[/math], for integers, [math]a,b,c[/math] Letting b=c=1 and a=2 you see you get (3,4,5), etc, etc.

[Anonymous No.9548980]

>>9548946
Thanks, I'll take a look.

[Anonymous No.9548998]

How the heck do I visualize symmetric bilinear forms?

[Anonymous No.9549039]

Looking for a Number Theory text. Does it matter if you start with analytic or algebraic? Should I be looking for a text that incorporates both, or neither?

[Anonymous No.9549041]

>>9549039
What's your background? Have you already had any experience with elementary number theory?

[Anonymous No.9549043]

>>9549039
>looking for a [X] text
buy some dover shit it's dirt cheap

[Anonymous No.9549055]

>>9549041
I've read Epp's "Discrete Mathematics and Applications", and perused Lovasz's lectures notes and text "Discrete Mathematics: Elementary and Beyond" as well as "How to Prove It". I remember working with Peano's axioms from Terry Tao's "Analysis 1".

But no, I haven't read a cover to cover text on explicitly number theory. Sorry if this response was dumb, I don't know number theory so I don't know if these will cover my bases appropriately. Also I've yet to work through an Abstract Algebra text, but worked partially through Valenza's introductory LA text.

>>9549043
I'm going to pirate it anyway, so price doesn't matter. Plus my local library system is excellent.

[Anonymous No.9549058]

I need to learn lie groups and diff geometry and don't know were to start, or what path to take. I'm reading Lee smooth manifolds, but it seems he assumes a lot of previous knowledge.

[Anonymous No.9549064]

>>9549055
>I'm going to pirate it anyway
can't wait until your boss pirates your labor

[Anonymous No.9549075]

>>9549064
>boss
lol kiddo, you underestimate my powers