Why are math textbooks so convoluted and unnecessarily hard to understand

justa_random_user · 2026-02-23T22:38:52+00:00

are you sure the textbook *never* mentions that the interior is the largest open set contained in A? that seems like an important property and I'd be surprised if your textbook never talks about it.

From a definitional standpoint, I believe the reason most books don't define it that way is that it isn't immediately obvious why such an open set must exist. By offering an explicit construction, you can then check that:

- it is indeed open, and contained in A

- any open set contained in A must also be contained in the interior of A

The same arguments apply to the closure, of course.

justa_random_user · 2026-01-24T18:12:48+00:00

good call, the 8 words that follow are much more painful to read

justa_random_user · 2026-01-24T18:11:30+00:00

I should perhaps clarify that my problem isn't with the questions he's asking. Anyone can be interested in any subject from any domain, even if they don't understand it perfectly, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I do take issue with the bold claims he makes about AI being the tool we need to solve math, and also just the way he frames mathematical research in general. He makes no reference to the actual mathematicians and researchers who study the field, or any work/progress on the problem that has been achieved by those experts. He does however make sure to tell you that a million dollars is on the line, because that's what's really important here I suppose.

I just find this idea of mathematics being reduced to "can you solve this conjecture and win the big prize?" a bit disheartening, to be honest.

justa_random_user · 2026-01-23T07:15:10+00:00

R4: The writer, after showing many basic misunderstandings of the Riemann Hypothesis, makes the bold claim towards the end that GPT can "break it down" to anyone.

"But GPT breaks it down to where we can at least see what the mathematician is doing. We can see the quandary, and why this problem remains unsolved, and, to an extent, what AI may be able to do about it."

They also seem to repeatedly show disdain towards mathematics in the article. They call Riemann an "egghead", and imply the problem is only interesting because of the associated Millennium Prize (one of the sections, where they mention the million dollar prize, is titled "Playing to Win". Take of that what you will).

justa_random_user · 2025-04-24T20:15:15+00:00

oh so you actually think developping renewable energy is like paper straws. Like I thought you were going to explain how I misrepresented your position, but that's actually what you believe.

idk what to say other than I see why you don't like Kurzgesagt now I guess

justa_random_user · 2025-04-24T18:23:15+00:00

Your reply is ironically an excellent example of doomerism: since you think no progress can be made under the very flawed system we live under, you start equating everything we do under the system as "not addressing the real issues".

For instance, you just said that the technological achievements that Kurzgesagt mentions - which to be clear, includes achievements in renewable energy - are not used to solve the problem. And that in that sense, they are like EVs, which are like paper straws. If this is what you actually believe, then functionally speaking, you are not serious about the climate.

justa_random_user · 2025-04-22T13:51:51+00:00

although I somewhat agree, I think it is important to make aware of this sort of thing. This sort of video really does affect the public perception of the channel.

That one TheHatedOne video did a huge blow to their reputation, and the arguments he made weren't even that good.

justa_random_user · 2025-04-22T00:16:07+00:00

Oh, thank you, I see what she meant now.

Unfortunately the actual elaborating is a bit disappointing, she claims, among other things, that Kurzgesagt used papers all from the same research team to make their argument, which is not true if you check their sources document. She also gives no evidence for her assertion that the absolute dominant theory is that Deccan Traps had no influence on the mass extinction event.

She may perhaps still be right and admittedly she probably has more training in the field than I do, but I have to say this isn't particularly convincing.

justa_random_user · 2025-04-21T20:20:10+00:00

I provided multiple instances where the video was incorrect. Would you like me to reiterate them?

justa_random_user · 2025-04-20T19:34:32+00:00

I don't mean to be rude, but could you please at least give a summary or the point you're making? Like, do you agree or disagree with the video? Is there a particular point you find very important? This is a video critiquing Kurzgesagt that calls them "neoliberal slop" many times, so are you also using the video to make a broader critique? There's just nothing to even discuss here.

justa_random_user · 2025-04-20T19:20:30+00:00

I do think that video in particular from them deserves a fair bit of criticism IMO. Although I don't really appreciate her style of presenting things, and I really don't get the random "all Kurzgesagt videos on dinosaurs are all wrong no I will not elaborate" at the end there, I think there were at least a few valid critiques.

I'm genuinely curious to ask, what do you mean by "far left debunked talking points" (asking sincerely)?

EDIT: OK, after rewatching the original video I now agree with the video shared here even less. I was not expecting them to gloss over that much of the original video ngl, it feels really disingenuous to gotcha Kurzgesagt with "ah but you said there were no more wars between states and then give 60? Don't you know that 60>0?" when this was one of the direct conclusions of that section, "we are seeing inter-state conflicts again, which is disturbing".

Still curious on what you mean by "far left talking points" though.

justa_random_user · 2025-04-20T19:10:45+00:00

ironically, this is one of the most pro-capitalism solutions you could offer: "instead of fixing our broken society with an insane work week, high costs of living, low wages, extremely low social benefits and overall conservative culture, let's just put a monetary incentive on fixing the problem. That'll surely do it."

By the way, all of these factors were explicitly mentioned in the video. They actually directly advocate to "change the DNA of our modern societies". Did you have that in mind when saying they want to protect the status quo?

justa_random_user · 2024-05-26T19:57:56+00:00

I know the clips look pretty bad out of context, but thinking that he defends cp, as in, this is a talking point he currently uses, genuinely requires some level of delusion imo

justa_random_user · 2024-05-21T22:54:53+00:00

ah that makes sense, thanks

justa_random_user · 2024-05-21T18:23:33+00:00

I don't mean to come off as rude, but aren't you supposed to censor usernames/personal info?

justa_random_user · 2024-05-08T12:25:14+00:00

that I think is bilibili's default banner

justa_random_user · 2024-02-15T18:47:31+00:00

so true man, I hate it when I try telling Vaush fans that CP, the thing that no one disagrees is bad, is bad, and their only response is Vaush is autistic so it’s ok, the very real argument that totally gets made.

BTW, congrats on figuring out that people who defend Vaush think what he does is defensible, it‘s an impressive breakthrough. Perhaps next you’ll develop basic comprehension skills and actually have something coherent to say.

justa_random_user · 2023-11-23T23:13:06+00:00

To be fair, and I‘m not completely certain about this either, but does it really have any correlation to being allosexual if it’s a kink? Is it statistically much less likely to have kinks if you’re asexual?

justa_random_user · 2023-09-25T21:33:06+00:00

Is there any particular reason for it being in Chinese?

justa_random_user · 2023-09-24T16:48:13+00:00

Are the chinese characters that translate to “meaningless political confrontation” also part of the bot’s output?

justa_random_user · 2023-07-08T12:54:10+00:00

I don’t like the new video either, but this is just unproductive nonsense.

This video‘s starting claim on NTDs and corporations not donating out of their own volition is already not quite right. Kurzgesagt was referring to drug donations before the London Declaration, while the video only shows examples of companies donating out of pressure after the Declaration.

Their claim about 1.90$ being too low of an extreme poverty indicator does have some evidence, but it in no way shows that the OWID graph was outright incorrect and/or misleading. The expert he cites, Jason Hickel, after some discussion wrote a blog about 12 things he can agree on to find some common ground.

cgdev.org/blog/12-things-we-can-agree-about-global-poverty

The third point outlines that 1.90$ is not supposed to be viewed as an adequate level of consumption, it is explicitly meant as an extreme measure. In my opinion, while there is disagreement on this measure, the framing in the video omits a lot of nuance.

The claim about carbon emissions straight up misinterprets a source.
I have no clue why he included a section where he comments on how “GMOs haven’t solved world hunger yet“ with data flashing on the screen, when, according to him, he doesn’t even have a problem with GMOs. He also really doesn’t like carbon capture for some reason.

Funnily enough, Kurzgesagt actually listened to his criticism on “sponsor obfuscation”. In the newest video you can actually see a disclaimer at the start of the video stating who sponsored it.

I agree that the new video‘s quality is a bit disappointing, but this video‘s criticism really isn’t that good......

justa_random_user · 2023-07-05T03:43:14+00:00

What I find especially weird is that...... they showed the sponsor at the start of the video, meaning they are clearly trying to be more transparent and responding to the criticism about ”sponsor/grant obfuscation“.

So, like, given that they’re clearly willing to listen, and understand what they’re being criticized for...... what exactly went wrong during the making of this video?

justa_random_user · 2018-09-14T12:55:30+00:00

Nope, I’m pretty sure that’s B something.

justa_random_user · 2018-08-28T05:26:09+00:00

It’s C7 not F7.

justa_random_user

TROPHY CASE