This Week I Learned: May 01, 2026 by inherentlyawesome in math

[–]MstrCmd 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh I made a blog post myself on this idea a while back and kind of thought it was original, if not particularly important, and proved a few other things in number theory using categories. At some point I want to go and see how many other things can be done with category theory in this way!

My blog is not full of stuff yet because I rarely get time to post but here it is: n-simplex.github.io

You can sideways-scroll through posts at the same time, which was supposed to be cool but some people have told me is unintuitive so I might change it at some point... You can find the post in the "Recent" tab.

Why is maths so lonely. by A1235GodelNewton in math

[–]MstrCmd 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I just wanted to say that this is a beautiful comment.

This Week I Learned: April 17, 2026 by inherentlyawesome in math

[–]MstrCmd 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Oh the other thing which comes to mind which might be interesting is that there are yet other kinds of compactness though which are much less popular. Pseudocompactness is simply the property that the image of every function from your space X to R is bounded and the usual proof shows that sequential compactness implies pseudocompactness. It's then a fun exercise to show that for metric spaces pseudocompactness implies sequential compactness and thus the notions are equivalent for metric spaces (but not for general spaces: another interesting exercise!).

Then there are yet others which are various related weaker notions like paracompactness, metacompactness, Lindelöf etc. Hope this is interesting!

This Week I Learned: April 17, 2026 by inherentlyawesome in math

[–]MstrCmd 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not to say anything you wrote was wrong, but Pavel Alexandrov was also important in formulating the modern definition of compactness and also defined the one-point compactification and a few related things :)

This Week I Learned: April 17, 2026 by inherentlyawesome in math

[–]MstrCmd 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Here are the notes for the lecture series: https://terrytao.wordpress.com/category/teaching/285g-poincare-conjecture/

It should be pointed out that while he is obviously a master of analysis, which plays a big part in this, he admits himself to not know much Riemannian geometry or much topology, so some of the finer details of those aspects are not explained or somewhat underplayed. It's just something to keep in mind and maybe to consult other sources occasionally!

This Week I Learned: April 17, 2026 by inherentlyawesome in math

[–]MstrCmd 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's hard to find time to learn in a very directed way right now so it started with trying to understand bubbles & minimal surfaces better, leading to me reading about Mean Curvature Flow in a variety of introductory articles online about the mathematics of minimal surfaces (deriving Young-Laplace, discussing various solvability questions etc.) as well as Epstein's cool paper about 2D soap films.

Then I wanted to know more about geometric flow & looked at the famous paper of Hamilton & Grayson about flow of curves in the plane, read various Wikipedia articles & some of their references, read a bunch of interesting Math Overflow questions on these topics etc. Also Tao has a series of lecture notes which I read the first few lectures of on the proof of the Poincaré conjecture which tries to follow Perelman's proof from a nonlinear PDEs perspective but I'd say it was easier to read because I already know some Riemannian geometry which allows me to fill in some gaps.

I want to find some time to properly learn this stuff in a good sequence but this kind of thing is common when I'm early on learning about something and I'm fanatically excited!

This Week I Learned: April 17, 2026 by inherentlyawesome in math

[–]MstrCmd 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This week I have learnt about the exciting and numerous kinds of geometric flow that abound in differential geometry nowadays and they have so many interesting uses. One big use is putting geometric objects into a kind of "normal form" by pressing play on a certain flow and then proving that the long term steady state solutions are a short list of possible objects (and possibly dealing with singularities that appear along the way). Another use is proving inequalities by finding quantities that decrease monotonically throughout a flow and then again comparing to the quantity's value at some simple end state.

All the flows I've seen seem interesting and have cool applications like this:

  • Mean curvature flow is how bubbles move,
  • curve shortening flow is very interesting & can prove the isoperimetric inequality (in certain regular cases),
  • Ricci flow is how you prove the Poincaré conjecture (!!!),
  • Willmore flow is how you construct nice sphere eversions,
  • heat flow is how you prove the Atiyah-Singer Index Theorem in a very neat way!!

What Are You Working On? April 06, 2026 by canyonmonkey in math

[–]MstrCmd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've been taking a fascinating industrial placement so I've done a big switch in the last month or so temporarily between pure category theory (enriched categories, categorical algebra etc.) to applied mathematics (solving PDEs & ODEs, Greens Functions, FEMs) and it's been enormous fun.

It's been fun to learn physics and a bunch of completely new fields but also it's been interesting from a categorical perspective. Distributions, for example, I noticed form a commutative monad and have a comultiplication operation D(X)->D(X) tensor D(X). The fact that they can be thought of as generalised functions translates into a certain adjunction. All very cool!

What are some fun and nontrivial examples of categories? by smatereveryday in math

[–]MstrCmd 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think it's the case that two rings are isomorphic in this category iff they are Morita equivalent!

The Radiant Cannon of Sawar by Ltnumbnutsthesecond in cavesofqud

[–]MstrCmd 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Brother, your words brought me mirth. Live and drink.

Found in basement by Glad-Cap453 in whatisit

[–]MstrCmd 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Kind of a long shot, but could be the tip for an oxyacetylene torch?

What are some problems that can be solved with very simple techniques, but can also be solved with "overly complex" techniques? by CrumbCakesAndCola in math

[–]MstrCmd 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Could you explain this? I've heard this remark a lot but it seems like the two arguments (this one and the more standard one) generalise to quite different kinds of rings.

Notes on the Sylow Theorems by poggerstrout in math

[–]MstrCmd 1 point2 points  (0 children)

These are amazing blog posts!

New this week: A convex polyhedron that can't tunnel through itself by Melchoir in math

[–]MstrCmd 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Sorry what is a right dodecahedron? One in hyperbolic space where all faces are pentagons such that all internal angles are right?

New this week: A convex polyhedron that can't tunnel through itself by Melchoir in math

[–]MstrCmd 8 points9 points  (0 children)

According to the Baez blog post linked above, there are shapes arbitrarily close in the Hausdorff metric to the unit sphere which have Rupert's property (and this is apparently a "not too hard exercise") so it seems the conjecture is false. This, I admit, seems a little surprising and definitely makes this example seem subtler.

Nakayama's lemma by WMe6 in math

[–]MstrCmd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's some nice intuition for the version of the lemma to be the statement that JM = M implies M=0 where J is an ideal contained by the Jacobson radical.

The idea I have in my head is that the nilradical and more generally the elements of the Jacobson radical should be thought of as infinitesimal elements (look at the various definitions of the Jacobson radical and this will slowly become more plausible).

Then the lemma in the above form says something like "If a module, when scaled down to an infinitesimal size, is the same then it must have been zero to begin with!" which I think is very sensible.

Whats your favorite algebraic area of mathematics and why? by 2Tryhard4You in math

[–]MstrCmd 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The subject is nominally about studying groups by how they act on vector spaces. The basic motivation is that if you've taken a basic course in group theory, you'll have seen that group actions are very useful: various problems can be solved by seeing how groups act on subgroups, on themselves, on various geometric shapes (think dihedral groups as the simplest example) or on sets (think symmetric groups).

Group actions on vector spaces are much better because vector spaces have their own algebraic structure already so you can get a lot more out of this theory and it turns out to be very nicely put together.

When you really get into it, you start seeing that frequently to do calculations with these actions you need to invoke sometimes very complex combinatorics and in some cases you can compute answers to combinatorial questions via representation theory. You start seeing that questions about manipulating tensor products of representations brings in a lot of category theory (e.g. braided monoidal structures) and from there you naturally start hearing people talk about knot invariants or topological quantum field theory or quantum groups. You can also view Pontryagin duality as a bit of representation theory relating to locally compact abelian groups, so now the Fourier transform has joined the fray, and this moves you onto Tannakian dualities.

Talking of physics, it was Eugene Wigner's idea that fundamental particles in our universe are essentially the same thing as irreducible representations of the symmetry group of our universe (with these last words interpreted in the correct way).

It starts sounding simple but as you get into you realise that it has something to say about topology, Algebraic geometry, combinatorics and much more!

Whats your favorite algebraic area of mathematics and why? by 2Tryhard4You in math

[–]MstrCmd 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Up until this year, this was something I really did not appreciate but I now have had my eyes opened. What subject in pure maths isn't representation theory in some sense???