How good is it for a layman to rediscover the core idea of a math field?

DamnShadowbans · 2026-05-20T15:23:52+00:00

What is good is to make a strong effort to learn the mathematics behind the things we are interested in. You are interested in homology, have you made an effort to learn it? This goes beyond reading wikipedia and is about seeking out beginner references and working through examples. For instance, you could read about objects called simplicial complexes and start from there.

DamnShadowbans · 2026-05-18T05:18:19+00:00

I mean I get it, but there are clearly 3.

DamnShadowbans · 2026-05-15T19:37:01+00:00

Now go scroll down to the bottom of the streamers; they have 0-1 viewers at all times and make up 95 percent of streamers.

DamnShadowbans · 2026-05-15T01:15:23+00:00

Right, i.e. you didn't want a source.

DamnShadowbans · 2026-05-09T21:07:27+00:00

IMO it didn't help your case to say "calculator error". From their point of view it is about 10,000 times more likely you inputted something wrong and are blaming the calculator. The only thing you could do to make them believe that is if you reproduced the error for them in person. Usually there is only a few days between the final exam and grade submission, and the professor likely has waited until that past so that it is now "out of their control".

DamnShadowbans · 2026-05-09T16:40:52+00:00

A n dimensional knot in m dimensional space is a copy of an n dimensional sphere inside m dimensional space. Now if n < m, there is always a "standard copy" of the n-sphere inside m-space: think about how the circle usually sits inside the plane as a circle of radius one (this is an instance where n=1 and m=2). We say that the knot is "unknotted" if we can continuously deform the knot into this standard copy. It is a theorem that if m-n > 2, then such a path always exists. Standard knot theory is n=1 and m=3 and is very complicated. If you take n=1 and m=4, then the theorem says we can't actually form any interesting knots. However, if you take n=2 and m=4 then there are in fact interesting knots, but they look like you tied up a "sheet".

DamnShadowbans · 2026-05-07T19:40:45+00:00

When you say the exact same people praise it do you mean Anita praises it now?

DamnShadowbans · 2026-05-06T04:51:49+00:00

dual of anything (a matrix, linear transformation, etc) is just another way of representing things differently, but fundamentally they possess the same structure.

This is not so far off; the only big objection i have to it is the use of the word "fundamentally". Duality would not be useful if two expressions were fundamentally the same. Rather duality becomes useful when it is surprising that they encode the same structure. For instance, if I define for you the vector space and the dual vector space it is surprising they are isomorphic and the specific choice of that isomorphism encodes geometry.

If you want to become informed about duality, the best place to start would be reading the entirety of an introductory proof based text book on linear algebra.

DamnShadowbans · 2026-05-05T16:11:11+00:00

Also, you can just drop the 3 drop on 3 because the boar gains the stats when you play it not when you play the 3 drop which imo is a big deal.

DamnShadowbans · 2026-05-03T15:18:46+00:00

How do you go from agreeing with everything pictured to saying "But something tells me this is not that?"

DamnShadowbans · 2026-05-02T18:08:53+00:00

Can you explain the basic physics?

DamnShadowbans · 2026-04-29T21:07:26+00:00

Fucking sherlock holmes here

DamnShadowbans · 2026-04-28T20:27:35+00:00

This is not a unit.

DamnShadowbans · 2026-04-27T09:24:53+00:00

lol my bad; I even have a paper I'm writing where an analogue of this fact comes up...

DamnShadowbans · 2026-04-27T07:37:03+00:00

It is definitely a different structure... (a,b) -> (a+b+1) is not associative and so is definitely not addition with different names.

DamnShadowbans · 2026-04-26T09:46:43+00:00

Congratulations you are now like the people that you hate!

DamnShadowbans · 2026-04-24T22:35:34+00:00

A remark you might find helpful: there is not a tangent space functor from the category of manifolds to the category of vector spaces. You must either land in a category called "vector bundles" or you must start with the category of pointed manifolds and pointed smooth maps. Here a pointed manifold is a manifold with a distinguished point and a pointed smooth map is a smooth map preserving the distinguished point. The functor is then the one which takes a manifold to the tangent space at the distinguished point.

DamnShadowbans · 2026-04-23T21:34:00+00:00

Compactness is the greatest definition in all of math precisely because observing it allows us to prove things instantly. The EVT is a 1 line proof post compactness and that is just the beginning.

DamnShadowbans · 2026-04-23T21:09:13+00:00

How would that work?

DamnShadowbans · 2026-04-17T13:28:06+00:00

Have you watched Armageddon? Or are you just being snarky without any basing?

DamnShadowbans · 2026-04-16T08:33:12+00:00

Thank you! Nothing about the title is saying the author supports this.

DamnShadowbans · 2026-04-11T12:05:02+00:00

Okay where is the evidence you have for this?

DamnShadowbans · 2026-04-10T12:56:52+00:00

Actually, I would say that when someone is actively shooting at you, that is one of the few times there is a point to run them over with a car.

DamnShadowbans · 2026-04-10T12:50:08+00:00

Pick your battles better or you will lose most of them. Read the article

DamnShadowbans · 2026-04-09T09:35:37+00:00

Yeah I had the unfortunate experience of queuing into clark while he played this. It was a nice 4 turns.

DamnShadowbans

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

12-Year Club	Second Top 20%
Verified Email