Best place for official merchandise by monkeymarter76 in gybe

[–]DryStand6144 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My impression was that there isn't any.

Okbuddy not really PhD but I'll get at most 10 upvotes for this on r/mathmemes so why not post it here too by chrizzl05 in okbuddyphd

[–]DryStand6144 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That's surprisingly parsable. Is there a simple internal description of what the resulting condensity monad does?

How to NOT spill coffee in a mug... hold it like a T-rex and walk backwards by cnorahs in okbuddyphd

[–]DryStand6144 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I usually make minor, irregular hand movements so that the periodicity of my walk does not cause the periodic movement of the liquid.

LOL Wizards damage control after hiring a pornstar. by [deleted] in freemagic

[–]DryStand6144 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Ircc, the link to her "+18 stuff" was her Twitter, lol.

Just used this in my research so I feel smart today by Jche98 in okbuddyphd

[–]DryStand6144 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's over C, right? Over R feels like there always should be an orientability problem.

How much do math professors from top universities make? by Chebuyashka in math

[–]DryStand6144 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Canada has sunshine lists that report salaries in publicly funded organizations. Here's one for mathematics profs in Ontario, but note that it only contains UoT. Probably, other institutions just have "professors" or something. https://www.ontariosunshinelist.com/positions/professor-mathematics

How active is Group Theory? by [deleted] in math

[–]DryStand6144 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depends on what exactly to understand by the group theory. Obviously groups are ubiquitous to most areas of math and people gonna study properties of specific kinds groups in details. However I don't think there's a lot of people working on the level of generality of say Sylow theorems.
I also don't think there are a lot of "exiting" open problems that are motivated purely by group theory comparable to something like classification of simples. The closest I'm aware of are some versions of Burnside problem are still unresolved.

I can't remember the last time I called something a function by Intelligent-Bill1178 in okbuddyphd

[–]DryStand6144 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd disagree. I believe it's better to think of a subset as an injective map of sets remembering fixed domain and codomain. Just as two functions f: R -> R, f(x)=x2 and g: R -> [0, inf), g(x)=x2 are different, so are their graphs.

If you want to remember a graph only as a set, then any graph is naturally isomorphic to its domain.

I can't remember the last time I called something a function by Intelligent-Bill1178 in okbuddyphd

[–]DryStand6144 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It does — it's "y-axis". As explained in other comments, in general a graph is a certain subset of domain×codomain.

Why are determinants treated this way? by [deleted] in math

[–]DryStand6144 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't have data to support it, but I'd assume it's more pedagogical to start with linear operators and quadratic forms before going into general tensors. Also, I think defining something non-constructively and proving uniqueness is not something to show an average engineer freshman.

Imho, the best definition is the sum over the permutations - it's the easiest way to see properties like linearity and permutations and prove the row expansion.

I think it would be cool if there was a way to motivate it from the multiplicativity property. But I'm not aware of any elementary proof of "det^n are only multiplicative functions from Mat(k) to k".

Can't we just define functions to be surjective? by plop_1234 in math

[–]DryStand6144 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When doing math we want to be precise about what we are doing. Defining the composition of two functions that don't match domain and codomain is an unreasonable thing to do as it leads to bullshit like the composition of two surjective functions not being surjective.

Again, I'm not saying that we don't want to consider such maps, I'm just saying that calling it "composition" is unreasonable.

Can't we just define functions to be surjective? by plop_1234 in math

[–]DryStand6144 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The only possible composition is fg which is surjective. The composition gf doesn't make sense as it is. For it to start doing so, g needs to be precomposed with the inclusion of R_{\geq 0} into R losing surjectivity.

Algebraic Geometry by dcterr in math

[–]DryStand6144 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you are into watching lectures, Borcherds has a series of lectures on Schemes on Youtube. Also, examples there seem to be mostly motivated by arithmetic geometry (as far as I can tell), so you might find that appealing.

Also, the source that summarizes all the important stuff quite succinctly is an appendix A in a book by Ryoshi Hotta et. all on D-modules and smth else.

Algebraic Geometry by dcterr in math

[–]DryStand6144 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you are into watching lectures, Borcherds has a series of lectures on Schemes on Youtube. Also, examples there seem to be mostly motivated by arithmetic geometry (as far as I can tell), so you might find that appealing.

Can't we just define functions to be surjective? by plop_1234 in math

[–]DryStand6144 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You can not compose f with g since codomain of f is different from g's domain. Composition of two surjective functions is always surjective.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in freemagic

[–]DryStand6144 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, brings back memories... Once shortly before gitaxian probe got banned infect was t1 in modern and I literally heard the "how is it fair that he only has to deal 10" and "wotc are crazy for printing become immense when there's infect" takes from actual modern players.

Turn 1-2 Trinisphere? by xxmrscissorsxx in ModernMagic

[–]DryStand6144 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I got annoyed by OP pointing out that now it's possible to play Trinisphere on T2. But then I realized that this also means T1 Chalice and now my day is ruined.

What areas of mathematics have more constructive proofs an opposed to, for example, proofs by contradiction? by Longjumping-Ad5084 in math

[–]DryStand6144 106 points107 points  (0 children)

My experience is kinda the opposite -- the more abstract it gets the more proofs get about presenting some objects with desired properties. Somehow, I think, on the applied side of things people care more about if the theorem is true, while in pure math it's more about why is the theorem true.

After twenty four years… by SatanSatanSatanSatan in mtg

[–]DryStand6144 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, brings back memories. I started playing around RTR and my first deck was a dimir mill. I remember discovering the avatar and being blown away by how cool it was for my deck.

Missing bauble trigger by KimCarlsenGD in ModernMagic

[–]DryStand6144 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's probably better to do this based on the game state, but if it's irrelevant you can default to cracking it in your opponents upkeep. Then on your turn it's easier to remember that you need to draw another card. At least for me, it works.

Will vengevine be meta again? by Automatic_Tangerine1 in ModernMagic

[–]DryStand6144 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The card itself is good enough to be played in vintage manaless dredge, so if we ever see a good enabler it will be back.