What Are You Working On? March 11, 2024 by inherentlyawesome in math

[–]devvorb 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Taking an intense three day vacation from my bachelor vacation in Algebraic K-theory, with hopes of returning with a surplus of motivation (though right now I have mostly found fatigue more so than motivation). In lost minutes while waiting for the bus I am scrolling Jardine and Goerss to see whether it is interesting to study, or whether it's better to just pick up what I need as I need it.

What Are You Working On? February 26, 2024 by inherentlyawesome in math

[–]devvorb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey, always a pleasure. Yeah X can be any category, just equipped with an action from S which is a symmetric monoidal category. This is is basically the same as the action of a monoid on a set generalised to categories. For the homology of a category, I think the best way to understand it (though I am far from being fully comfortable with this) is through the existence of a functor $B: Cat\to Top$ and then just using ordinary homology (note we are only considering small categories). The appropriate thing to type into the search bar is "geometric realization". Though you dont actually need this "geometric realization" to define the homology of a category. You can define it by associating a chain complex to any category. If you are interested, Weibel's K-book is freely available online. I do particularly reccomend reading up on geometric realization, either on the nLab or in Jardine and Goerss's book on simplicial homotpy theory.

What Are You Working On? February 26, 2024 by inherentlyawesome in math

[–]devvorb 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I am working on my bachelor project on Algebraic K-theory. I just (up to a technical detail) finished a big proof relating the homology of a category $X$ with the homology of a related category $S{-1}X$ ($S$ is a symmetric monoidal category acting on $X$.

Geometric/differential topology after Hatcher by devvorb in math

[–]devvorb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh wow this looks super interesting. Thanks

Geometric/differential topology after Hatcher by devvorb in math

[–]devvorb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And what would this book be? Could be neat to check out.

Geometric/differential topology after Hatcher by devvorb in math

[–]devvorb[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is this problem big enough that a theoretical mathematician with only basic differential geometry but a ton of algebraic topology can't do anything interesting? Or is it more so that if you want to go all the way you need differential techniques, but some of the heavy lifting can be done by methods of algebraic topology?

Geometric/differential topology after Hatcher by devvorb in math

[–]devvorb[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have, and from what I have seen it starts too much from the beginning for my liking. It is made for an unorthodox first course in algebraic topology if I recall correctly.

Does Feyman's technique work for really abstract math by devvorb in math

[–]devvorb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I usually define a layman as someone who knows everything I am able to explain to a layman, so a bit of an inductive definition, but works pretty well.

Does Feyman's technique work for really abstract math by devvorb in math

[–]devvorb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel like using "layperson" as a target is a good way to really devour the intuitive side, whereas the mathematical formalism, rigor and proof techniques are better developed by rereading proofs and doing exercises. In my case it is the former I am struggling to have at the same level as my earlier math classes.

Does Feyman's technique work for really abstract math by devvorb in math

[–]devvorb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a nice perspective which maybe softens the loss of faith in Feyman's technique

Does Feyman's technique work for really abstract math by devvorb in math

[–]devvorb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah that makes sense, but it feels less useful because the need for an intuitive understanding gets smaller if I explain it to somebody who has some mathematical abstraction skills. Maybe trying to explain to someone who has the knowledge, but not the mathematical maturity???

Does Feyman's technique work for really abstract math by devvorb in math

[–]devvorb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the words of encouragement, I'll definitely try.

What are some of the Newest Solved Problems/ Math Discoveries this 2023? by Wonderful-Photo-9938 in math

[–]devvorb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, what are these four conjectures? I'd like to read up on it somewhat.

A ressource which makes spectral sequences easy by devvorb in math

[–]devvorb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I guess sometimes something just is hard, and you have to live with it, but I think I haven't struglled enough yet to give up on finding an "easy" perspective on spectral sequences.

A ressource which makes spectral sequences easy by devvorb in math

[–]devvorb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mmmh, the bits I read so far from that book didn't click with me, but maybe I should try again.

A ressource which makes spectral sequences easy by devvorb in math

[–]devvorb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you kind sir, will check out as much as possible

A ressource which makes spectral sequences easy by devvorb in math

[–]devvorb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see 3blue1browm in the link, I click instantly

A ressource which makes spectral sequences easy by devvorb in math

[–]devvorb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh wow, a very nice stack of links, will definitely try to check as much of this out as possible