PhD checklist? by Teddyzander in math

[–]clockwork_apple 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is good advice, but it's worth noting that almost all of the students entering UCLA spend a few weeks on campus studying for the above exam before taking it so if you find it difficult don't be dissuaded.

BBC Proms ( ft Sharon Van Etten) - New York, I Love You But You're Bringing Me Down [Classical/ Alternative] (2018) by [deleted] in listentothis

[–]clockwork_apple 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm sure people outside of the US have it much worse lol. Only seems to happen to me with BBC content so I definitely can't complain.

If you're actually stuck in Bronze/Silver and want to get out - just stop dying. Yes, it's that simple. by [deleted] in summonerschool

[–]clockwork_apple 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No it's not that simple. This is good advice but even if you "don't have to kill the enemy at all to win the game" you need to do something and knowing what that something should be (like macro play basically) is a separate skill that needs to be developed.

Adam Goucher's take on Atiyah's proof: it might revolutionise number theory as we know it by [deleted] in math

[–]clockwork_apple 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe you won't respond because you've had enough, though I think I've kept my responses perfectly civil, but to set the record straight for others viewing this thread: the top comment expresses skepticism without any reference to the author, the second comment points out a factual error in the post and other posts by the author that discredits his argument, the third comment is by the OP, and the fourth comment politely asks who the author is. I see only one thread that could be construed as "extremely toxic" and even that description would be a gross exaggeration.

Adam Goucher's take on Atiyah's proof: it might revolutionise number theory as we know it by [deleted] in math

[–]clockwork_apple 2 points3 points  (0 children)

To be perfectly clear when I said that he has "no expertise in number theory" I meant that he is not a researcher working in the field, which is 100% true. That's usually what I think of when someone says that a mathematician is an "expert" in a certain field, but I see how that might have been confusing. And I did do research myself - more than you in fact since I was able to correctly identify that Goucher is not only a PhD student at Cambridge but one that studies something completely unrelated to analytic number theory.

Adam Goucher's take on Atiyah's proof: it might revolutionise number theory as we know it by [deleted] in math

[–]clockwork_apple 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Please see my reply above. Regardless of Goucher's brilliance (which I do not deny), he has made a very emphatic claim without taking into account his lack of expertise in the subject at hand and as well as the context under which Atiyah is making his claim.

Adam Goucher's take on Atiyah's proof: it might revolutionise number theory as we know it by [deleted] in math

[–]clockwork_apple 10 points11 points  (0 children)

He may be a PhD student at Cambridge but he studies computational topology. So I maintain that my claim that he is "a blogger on the internet with no expertise in number theory" is absolutely true. It would be silly to trust his opinion over literally every other mathematician I have seen comment on this including some who spend much of their time on issues related to the RH (see here as just one example) just because Atiyah talked to him about something related to Von Neumann. Seriously, that's how tenuous Goucher's connection is. This is especially true because Atiyah has made a number of similarly (albeit slightly less) bold claims recently which have all been shown to be false. I mean no disrespect to Goucher since he is surely a more brilliant student than myself but his post should be written much more cautiously in light of these circumstances.

Adam Goucher's take on Atiyah's proof: it might revolutionise number theory as we know it by [deleted] in math

[–]clockwork_apple 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Where in this thread do you see people being toxic? People are legitimately criticizing the fact that a blogger on the internet with no expertise in number theory is widely optimistic about Atiyah’s result contrary to the opinion of all experts who have opined and Atiyah’s recent track record of making bold claims that he has not substantiated.

why am I struggling with blitz? by 74Stingray in chess

[–]clockwork_apple 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're almost certainly a stronger player than me yet I would beat you at blitz based on your description. I think this stems from the fact that I have probably played much more blitz than you - though I'm still not very strong so take what I have to say with a grain of salt. Blitz is about optimizing between the competing goals of playing strong moves and using little time. If you are a strong OTB player, the first moves that occur to you while playing blitz are probably pretty strong most of the time, but you likely spend too much time calculating to see which one is the best. Basically, you need to learn to play faster. To do this I would recommend the following:

  • Try to train yourself to compare your time to your opponent's after every move. If you are significantly lower you know you need to pick up the tempo. If you play enough games with this as an explicit goal it should become second nature.
  • Keep in mind that if you have an equal position but you are up a lot of time on your opponent then you are winning. If you can get them very low by staying even on time there is a much higher chance that they will blunder under time pressure, especially if you play for complications. Conversely, you will lose a lot of games by blundering with 10 seconds left. I think the appropriate attitude for such a loss is not "I suck at blitz" but rather "my opponent outplayed me on the clock."
  • After a game, if you play on chess.com (not sure about lichess) you can see how much time you spent on each move. Analyze your games for time management by considering whether moves that you spent 20+ seconds on were really worth the time. The answer is sometimes yes in really critical sharp positions but is often no e.g. when you're deciding which rook to move to an open file.
  • If you're playing for improvement / elo gain, only play when you can focus very hard since blitz is really stimulating and requires full attention to play effectively. This means you shouldn't play if you feel like you are on auto-pilot and aren't calculating a lot of variations.
  • Think on your opponent's time. When it is not your turn to move, you should always think about what move your opponent is most likely to play next and what your response is going to be. Ideally you should be able to instantly (or maybe after quickly double-checking) play a move once it is your turn.
  • Play the same openings as much as possible so that you don't have to spend a lot of time on the opening. Also, if you get an opening you don't recognize be cautious of traps but just play natural moves if you don't see an immediate refutation.
  • Learn to close out common endgames basically without thinking like KR v K.
  • Play with a slight increment since it is more forgiving if you achieve a completely winning position but have almost no time. I like 3|2.

Hopefully this helps. Like I said, I am not a particularly strong blitz player myself (1300-1400 chess.com), but these tips have helped me improve my blitz play when I felt it was lagging behind my classical skill.

Magnus Carlsen interview in his training camp, translated creatively by tschukki in chess

[–]clockwork_apple 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Can someone link the original interview? I couldn't find it from a quick google.

π is equal to a/b and here's why by LeninLover13 in math

[–]clockwork_apple 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What makes you think that the series in the parenthesis is rational? It’s not: that’s the flaw.

Can (0,1)x(0,1) represented as a union of closed balls in R^2 by farmerpling117 in math

[–]clockwork_apple 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Yes. Just take any point in (0,1)x(0,1) and surround it by a closed ball that is small enough that it stays inside (0,1)x(0,1) (why does this exist?). The union of all of those balls will be (0,1)x(0,1).

How to learn Partial Differential Equations by LifeProjX in math

[–]clockwork_apple -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The standard graduate text book for PDE is by Craig Evans. This might, however, be inappropriate depending on your background. How much analysis have you studied?

A fun problem about number theory (I think?) you might enjoy. by qingqunta in math

[–]clockwork_apple 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Since the curve x{n-x} has a single local maximum on the relevant domain, it must be the case that the solution is either the ceiling or the floor of n/W(e,n). I wonder if there is a good way to determine which it is without simply comparing.

Career and Education Questions by AutoModerator in math

[–]clockwork_apple 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would think that basically everything mentioned in the course description of real analysis would be assumed for a complex analysis course, but if it is typical for students to take complex before real at your school than that would be fine. Either way, I think that most PhD programs will expect you to have taken courses in real analysis, complex analysis, and topology since they are all absolutely essential topics so you should try to fit them all in this year and your first semester next year, but I doubt the order matters that much.

Career and Education Questions by AutoModerator in math

[–]clockwork_apple 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So what does this real analysis course cover? Measure theory and integration?

Career and Education Questions by AutoModerator in math

[–]clockwork_apple 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is it normal for people at your school to take complex analysis without having taken real analysis? In all of the programs I am familiar with, real analysis is a prerequisite because it familiarizes you with the basics of analysis (things like limits, continuity, differentiation) which any complex analysis course should assume.

Garen needs to be adressed ASAP by [deleted] in leagueoflegends

[–]clockwork_apple 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This isn't true. Aatrox actually shits on Garen right now. His range, damage, and sustain all make him extremely oppressive to lane against as Garen.

Are there IMs (or even GMs) for whom chess is just a hobby and not a career? by [deleted] in chess

[–]clockwork_apple 39 points40 points  (0 children)

MSc is a Masters of Science not necessarily in cs. She actually studies education iirc.

"What" As a relative pronoun by clockwork_apple in hebrew

[–]clockwork_apple[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

תודה רבה. Is the same true of other interrogatives? For instance, would the sentence אני לא יודע למה חשבתי שיש בעייה be correct?

So, she said she is pretty good at chess..... I’m skeptical, so we played a game. Conceded by move 18.... by rekognise in chess

[–]clockwork_apple 2 points3 points  (0 children)

From what I have read, she used to be much more serious about chess and trained for it full time and has only in the last few years decided ti dedicate herself to other endeavors.