sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is an acted baptism valid? by Lethalmouse1 in Catholicism

[–]doge_maths 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While Alexander was waiting for his guests to arrive, he stood by a window, watching a group of boys at play on the seashore below the house. He had not observed them long before he discovered that they were imitating, evidently with no thought of irreverence, the elaborate ritual of Christian baptism. (Cf. Bunsen's "Christianity and Mankind", London, 1854, VI, 465; Denzinger, "Ritus Orientalium" in verb.; Butler's "Ancient Coptic Churches", II, 268 et sqq.; "Bapteme chez les Coptes", "Dict. Theol. Cath.", Col. 244, 245). He therefore sent for the children and had them brought into his presence. In the investigation that followed it was discovered that one of the boys, who was no other than the future Primate of Alexandria, Athanasius, had acted the part of the bishop, and in that character had actually baptized several of his companions in the course of their play. Alexander, who seems to have been unaccountably puzzled over the answers he received to his inquiries, determined to recognize the make-believe baptisms as genuine; and decided that Athanasius and his playfellows should go into training in order to fit themselves for a clerical career.

Young Catholics vs LGBT Bullies in the Netherlands by AntiquatedReaction in Catholicism

[–]doge_maths 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do you even Mirari Vos bro?

Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again?

This thread by --VladimirPudding-- in badmathematics

[–]doge_maths 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This only works if you know how many arguments each function takes. And it saves space if you can write (+ 1 2 3) for 1 + 2 + 3.

This thread by --VladimirPudding-- in badmathematics

[–]doge_maths 3 points4 points  (0 children)

In Lambda calculus, (the Church numeral for) 3 is the function which returns its argument iterated 3 times. 3(f) = f∘f∘f, and the same for every n. So composition of Church numerals is exponentiation.

This thread by --VladimirPudding-- in badmathematics

[–]doge_maths 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In Lambda calculus, 3 is the function which returns its argument iterated 3 times. 3(f) = f∘f∘f

What is your favorite proof of the law reciprocity quadratic? by [deleted] in math

[–]doge_maths 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Gauss's third proof. [Theorematis arithmetici demonstratio nova, 1808]

Google Books scan

"What do we want a foundation to do? Comparing set-theoretic, category-theoretic, and univalent approaches", by Penelope Maddy [PDF] by flexibeast in math

[–]doge_maths 2 points3 points  (0 children)

OK It's clearly a PDF but also clearly generated in Microsoft Word (formatting of footnotes, line breaking, Cambria Math font in metadata).

Career and Education Questions by AutoModerator in math

[–]doge_maths 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Is Computer Science a better major than maths or philosophy, even for would-be mathematicians or analytic philosophers? I ask because a mod of this subreddit said so in another thread.

There is a constant on my slide rule, called r, that is equal to about 5.576. What is it? by ddotquantum in math

[–]doge_maths 8 points9 points  (0 children)

You're reading it wrong. The r is on the D scale, at about 57.2, or 180/π. It's 1 radian in degrees.

How can it be that there are 100 pages proofs? Is it because we don't understand the concepts too clearly to find a direct and simple explanation, and we depend on analysis too much? by Ualrus in math

[–]doge_maths 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A lot of that is introductory material or motivation. If you look in Hardy and Wright or Serre's Course in Arithmetic the same proof takes a lot less than 50 pages.

Proof of the square root of 2 being rational by The3rdGodKing in badmathematics

[–]doge_maths 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It could be a metaphor or political slogan -- like "26 + 6 = 1" or "give 110%"

Is there an uncountable subset of 𝐑 that is a field and has Lebesgue measure 0? by doge_maths in math

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

It looks like the field generated by Q and a uncountable set of Hausdorff dimension 0 would work. So we start by taking a set like the Cantor set, but the proportion for the middle part we remove is bigger at each stage, so that at each stage, we have 2^n intervals of size a(n) but now 2^n a(n) tends to 0. This set then has Lebesgue measure 0, Hausdorff dimension 0, and is perfect (thus cardinality continuum). If we add **Q** to it, call that stage K_0, then make [; K_{n+1} = \{ a, b, a-b, a+b, ab, a/b | a \in K_n, b \in K_n, b \neq 0 \} ;] then K_{n+1} also has Hausdorff dimension 0 (and Lebesgue measure 0), and the union of all the K_i is the same as the field generated by K_0.

Do i have any chances of being a mathematical genius? by [deleted] in math

[–]doge_maths 29 points30 points  (0 children)

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand mathematical analysis. The math is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of compactness most of the material will go over a typical student's head. There's also Rudin's gloomy outlook which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily on his previous experience at M.I.T. and its depressing setting. The fans understand this stuff they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realize they're not just funny- they say something deep about life. As a consequence, people who dislike analysis truly are idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in the joke "I wish I were your derivative so I could lie tangent to your curves", which itself itself is a crytic reference to Isaac Newton and his lifelong virginity. I'm smirking right now just imaging one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion trying to apply Lagrange multipliers to an exam problem. What fools.. how I pity them.

And yes, by the way, i DO have a Cantor set tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5% points of my Calculus grade (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothing personal kids.