#serious-discussion
1 messages · Page 297 of 1
I prefer neither
Interesting.
you're probably going to do airstrike if I choose one
I don't judge i'd do the same
UAV would first be deployed within your area about 100 meters out to avoid electrical interference
I think you're the real AI here.

No promises lil bro.
then a ballistic airstrike could target your nearest or exact location and do the job
I refuse to talk further for I believe that you're
something
hey
@outer crag
would you like a quick recipe on a fun device???
Can they airstrike the food they delivered in order to cook it to perfection? Cus that would be real intelligence
possibly
if you train it hard enough. it's possible
@tawny mortar welcome to the mathcord! 
ty
since when did u start putting periods in ur sentences
For a while now!
good 4 u
🫶
morning guys
GM bro
not screaming the keyboard's caps lock was on
xd
something happened to your sleep schedule?
Quite the opposite, I fixed it... although im not enjoying it 
I just woke up good morning to y’all and evening and night to others
good morning everyone :]]]]
evening folks! (and morning/afternoon to ppl in other parts of the world)
seia seia seia seia
wot
cute but also kek
kek
returned from a day of depresso
rudin's functional analysis?
i didn't know about this book
would it be necessary if i already am aiming for amann?
idk amann
i only read rudin
some people try abbott
i think it doesnt matter
as long as u are learning the same stuff
that's fair
seiya :3
:3
seyana
sorena
soyana
wakaruuuu
shirankedo~~
nyanpasu
the creature
its u
true!!!!
I need
You need
i need
need
need
This is book I'm reading :3
:3
:3
:3
Is there any explaination for how did the ILATE priority order for by parts integration come from?
Is there any significance at all for it?
Hello
well the top priority would be ones which are hard to integrate
and since they're hard to integrate you dont want them as your v term
also, ones which have a nice derivative take priority since you have to integrate u'v
Basically, what makes calculations easier, that has more priority?
uh you might end up in a case where its impossible to integrate if u make bad u,v choices
i cant think of an example rn
yeah smthn like that maybe
i was reading through some Oxford Maths admissions stats and it talks about calculating a students PSI score, what is this and how is this used?
hi pi
we are friends
man i should frequent discussy 2 more often. vibes are immaculate
It's the superior discussy, yes
Proof: 1<2
I mean, imagine being worse than #discussion

Oh you mean #advanced-lounge ? /j
That one is mostly fine apart from the occasional LLM crank

who are you
Just reacting from afar 👻
i love it here 
oh wait owlcider do you know about distributions?
~~ you mean better functions ~~
hi convergence!
Only probability distributions
I figured
they're very cool :)
Hello pseudo
I don't differentiate so I've never had much use for them
Functional analysis?
mhm, right
The language of measures has served me well enough
category theory, actually
Woah that's new
-# is it??
yeah distributions have helped me understand the yoneda lemma even better
It's usually functional analysis folks that talk about it

No it's not as a future cat theorist I have categorized you in the "physics but does cat theory category " ~~ A 2-category one might say~~ 
they're not mutually exclusive~
but yeah it turns out distributions are to functions as presheaves are to objects
what do you guys think of the 369 nikola tesla theory
I think that i don't know what the 369 nikola tesla theory is
Just got kicked off of one of the only picnic tables in my part of my city because it's apparently on private property
I've been using that table for over a year and nobody has ever gotten upset about it before, hell I don't think I've ever even seen someone use it before
(Its at the edge of a park-like area that I always assumed was public)
But this old guy threw a fit about me sitting there reading a book, so I had to leave and find somewhere else to sit :(
This book uses so much mathfrak..
Anyway, venting complete, back to book
It feels like there is not a page without there being some line full of mathfrak stuff 
When does math become meth
I lied I'm still pissed off
Like there's nowhere to sit outside in this part of town because people like him hate the idea of homeless people existing
So sorry I didn't notice the tiny private property sign that's facing the other way from where I came from
And I left as soon as he told me! He didn't have to keep going on and on about it
And frankly that table is closer to the sidewalk than it is to the paths inside their private little park (With no fence btw), so part of me is pretty sure that they put that table there for people to use
why do they have a picnic table on their private property next to a park
or is it like museum or something
No it's an old people condo next to a church
So I mistakenly though that the park, like the church next to it, was open to the public
But I guess it really is more connected to the condo than it is to the church
you should donate a table to the church to set up right next to theirs
as an F U
because you know what will happen🤡
That'd be funny, but I don't think I could really make that work
And I'm literally moving in 2 days anyway
ok, if you're leaving anyways
new plan
put up signs for a potluck picnic at that table on the day you're leaving
Lmao maybe
But again, this is not the first time I've hung out at this table and this is the first time anyone's made a stink about it so I'm pretty sure it's the minority of people there with sticks up their asses
yea, or someone left a mess recently
or both
I think he was just derping
it becomes math when u actually understand it

Hello
vero :3
Hi :3




long tradition in germany 
mathfrak for integration variables 
Cat
@vast wraith you will enjoy this little interaction on this MO post
welcome to the mathcord!
welcome to the mathcord!

Hru? Haven't seen you around for a while.
Professional fox o.O
thanks i’ll have a look later
Stillwell is awesome
the hyperbola the worst quadratic curve
actually everything other than the ellipse (and circle) sucks
No!! No!!!!!!
👀
Hyperbolae are fine :-(
wack take
circles are good but ellipses can go right to hell
what!!
ellipses are just circles but more fun
theyre like circles if circles were a pain to deal with
EXACTLY
i mean… true
theyre like if a circle had nothing good about it
hyperbolae look boring, feel boring, and have boring properties
tfw arclength of an ellipse
ellipses on the other hand
are awesome
-# also im biased cuz ive done far more work with ellipses than hyperbolae
-# like ive done a lot of stuff dealing with the earth
-# and the earth is an ellipse
-# ...oid
ellipseoid
ellipsoids at least sometimes have something going for them
simple
let C be the circumference of the ellipse, and a be the semi major axis, and e be the eccentricity if the ellipse
define π_e to be C/(2a)
then C = 2 π_e a
:3
if e = 0 then π_0 = 3.14159....

Circles vinidacted once a-maybe-gain
ok but what if i want the arclength between any two given points on the ellipse
something something eccentric anomaly...
imagine living in the real world pff
also guh i was supposed to practice byee
byee
Imagine capsules.
True index: over 9000
Cya jens
anyway hyperbolae are just wannabe ellipses
true
circle > hyperbola > ellipse
circle > parabola > hyperbola > ellipse i think is the complete ranking
i still agree
circle > ellipse > parabola > hyperbola
no lol
grrr
this is true\
i wouldve ranked it this way
I see you still need to witness the awesome world of hyperbolic geometry

Theyre the same thing
Hyperbolic 3-manifolds are friend shaped
I am taking refuge here until the rage bait tsunami abates
I believe in 鹿乃ism, the Deer God
Unbelievably homosexual creature
Quoting heiv.blooski.social (@HeivDurr)
︀
Bro thinks it's all sunshine and rainbows
Insanity
nG I gotta know why does number theory require a lot of more complex math?
number theory is not the only field that uses a lot of machinery
that said number theory is a very old subject and almost every other area of mathematics turns out to be useful in one way or another to problems in number theory
what are the other fields
algebraic geometry, symplectic geometry, mathematical physics...
these also use a lot of heavy machinery
these fields overlap with number theory a lot but there is plenty of stuff in these fields which is more separate from number theoretic motivations
but yeah number theory in particular benefits both from really heavy algebraic geometry machinery and also lots of hard analysis input
and often you can get the two to play off each other
Does number theory also propel alg geo and hard analysis too?
yeah absolutely
maybe not "hard" analysis but the foundations of analytic geometry are being completely rewritten as of late, mostly motivated and informed by number theory and arithmetic geometry
one reason why a lot of modern number theory relies on such heavy machinery is that people have become quite comfortable with the strategy of translating problems in number theory into more geometric problems, and a lot of the spaces that arise most naturally by doing this end up being pretty exotic and require rather strong geometric foundations to work with properly
this strategy has been incredibly successful historically it makes pretty heavy demands on formalism
Grothendieck and his school developed the modern approach to algebraic geometry through schemes for this sort of reason, there were explicit problems in number theory (the Weil conjectures) which exceeded classical methods
I see thanks, btw any good books for geometry (in general) that'll help you learn geometry well?
depends on background lol
Like?
I mean if you want to learn the basics of modern algebraic geometry you have to go through something like Hartshorne or Vakil
and you would probably want to learn that material before learning any other more exotic flavors of geometry that show up in number theory these days
What about analytical geometry?
this is a completely psychotic recommendation if you haven't gone through algebraic geometry or been exposed to more classical stuff on analytic geometry before, but I would suggest the various notes and lectures from Clausen and Scholze
this is the most modern and least shitty way to approach analytic geometry and it fixes almost everything that was wrong with all the previous approaches
if you want something like p-adic geometry specifically then the Berkeley lectures on p-adic geometry from Scholze-Weinstein are really good (required reading for people who later want to understand this Fargues-Scholze paper geometrizing p-adic local Langlands)
the adic space/perfectoid space approach to p-adic geometry in those notes has been around for a lot longer; that formalism still has some issues, but it's more than expressive enough to do a ton of geometry and number theory
hiiii nG
Ooh thanks nG
and hi convergence!
Hello pseudo
hru

I'm doing better than usual 

decided i should put stuff somewhere it won't clog up #category-theory 
Categorical hot takes is a bold thread name
i think it's accurate
Perhaps
why wouldn’t it be?
Category theory is a hot take for some
then my takes are even hotter 🔥
Epic
and monic!

:3
Gave you the Role that does nothing selfrole.
Hello, i am new to this server but i am looking forward to lurking around and reading, and maybe on the occasion, actually saying something :)
Also, i wanted to ask since this seems like a good place for it, does anyone have any advice for doing math in terms of ergonomics? Like how to do a lot of math without hurting your wrist or eyes.
I personally struggle with writing math, especially for long times or quickly, so i use latex and typically type my notes in lectures. Its the only way i can keep up with the pace of the lecturer.
But recently i discovered that my drawing tablet stand (for digital art) fits a notebook on it perfectly and it also collapses in my bag very nicely. It does unfortunately mean that my notes are horizontal and you have to use graph paper instead of lined, but i find it minimizes neck and back strain since i often hover over my math with my eyes very close to my paper. I imagine a nicely-shaped wood block could serve the same purpose, so id recommend it for anybody who wants to do math comfortably but does not have giant blackboards at perfect standing eye-level for doing math on at home :)
symplectic geometry 
is it that different from riemannian geometry?
you essentially just study smooth manifolds endowed with a special type of 2-form, right?
yes it's rather different compared to Riemannian geometry
in the Riemannian situation you study smooth manifolds equipped with nondegenerate symmetric 2-tensors, these give you metric tensors on tangent bundles and then you can do all the usual differential geometry stuff with curvature and so on
in the symplectic situation you don't have local invariants like curvature by Darboux's theorem, so you really only have topological invariants in the end
symplectic geometry is much more rigid as a consequence
not quite as rigid as complex analytic geometry but close!
hmm, that's weird to think about
what're the usual motivations for symplectic geometry? just physics?
all I know tbh is that you it's related to hamiltonian systems or smth
not just physics
whatever that might be
although physics is a big reason why these things are important, phase spaces of classical mechanical systems are symplectic manifolds
a lot of the techniques originally motivated by physics are useful in other areas though
a large part of symplectic geometry is related to stuff like mirror symmetry and enumerative invariants in algebraic geometry
like here's a really nice enumerative result that really kickstarted things like Gromov-Witten theory
compute the number N_d of rational curves of degree d passing through 3d-1 points in general position in CP^2
N_1=1 (one line passes through two points) and N_2=1 (one conic passes through five points) are ancient results
N_3=12 (twelve cubics pass through eight points) is also pretty old but much harder
N_4=620 is like, borderline impossible with classical methods
all the way up through the 1980s N_5=87304 was the best result on this particular enumerative problem
well then in the 1990s Kontsevich just computed the whole generating function all at once
ok this is lowk goated
the result follows by the associativity of the cup product in the quantum cohomology ring, which is an extension of the cohomology ring of a symplectic manifold
just as the usual cup product encodes intersection numbers of submanifolds, the quantum cup product encodes "quantum intersection numbers" of submanifolds (connected by pseudoholomorphic curves, counted by Gromov-Witten invariants)
in particular even though symplectic manifolds have no local invariants and only topological invariants, these invariants are really rich and often interact rather deeply with quantization
Isn't there also a class of manifolds which have both a metric and a symplectic structure
I mean sure
Wait every manifold has a metric
Kahler manifolds are quite well studied, they simultaneously carry complex, Riemannian, and symplectic structure
yes but this is a structure not a property
I think that's what I was thinking of
Kahler is one of the handful of special holonomy structures a manifold can have
special among Kahlers are Calabi Yaus
Do manifolds tend to have many non-isomorphic metrics
yes
you can often study moduli spaces of metrics and say nice things about these
the case of conformal/complex metrics on Riemann surfaces is quite well studied in particular
Especially closed hyperbolic n-manifolds (as long as n = 2)
Even R^n?
b...but n=3
sure
I mean people also study all the distinct smooth structures you can put on topological manifolds
S^7 has 28 distinct smooth structures
R^n has a unique smooth structure unless n=4 in which case there are uncountably many
Even R^4
I thought it was just some weird 4-manifolds which have lots
The fact that there seems to be a "God-given" one is less a function of uniqueness and more, there's one we interact with. But you could in principle just start writing down a metric and it can work
I wanna work through milnors paper on these sometime
Milnor is great
I remember working through the hypersurface singularities stuff for a course once
I'm just scarred from even approaching papers after peeking into kervaire's paper on the 10-manifold with no smooth structure
the what
:O
this paragraph
i wonder if our universe being 4D means we run into trouble
not really no
there's plenty of physics that can only exist in the case d=4 :^)
I only realized just now that M really is orientable 
me and a friend thought it was a forgotten assumption
maybe I can try again after another semester's worth of topology
nice!
Any one plz give me best Organic chemistry doubt asking server

#old-network -> Chemistry
Seiya :3
:3
organic chemistry tutor
Thnk u so much but i that chemistry server is not that much active
then try searching "chemistry" in the discover page
Oh okh
Makes the math harder, so that counts as trouble :p
is our universe really 4d though
like what 😮
appears so
4d Yang Mills gauge theory is kind of special in that dimension
and certain consistency conditions/anomaly cancellations only hold in this dimension
when you try to define various field theories and try to perform quantization one thing that can stop you from doing this are various anomalies
without certain anomaly cancellations you can't produce well-defined quantum field theories and you can't extract well-defined numbers from them
Bosonic string theory for example has a conformal anomaly if you try to run this construction on an arbitrary spacetime manifold, but the anomaly cancels in 25+1 dimensions
i dont think lorentz invariance is real
Yang Mills is special to dimension 4 because that's the dimension where curvature 2-forms have Hodge duals which are also 2-forms, otherwise it doesn't even make sense to write down the Yang-Mills functional
when the hell do i get to this fancy physics
nlab
Oh hell naw
nlab is quite good for learning physics if you are mathematically inclined
any decent qft book
zoo wee mama
amazon book store, perhaps
sorry i left for a sec but thank you
qft and the standard model by schwartz is good
Ultimate discord pfp
He has got some taste ngl
i appreciate it haha
This is where The Leech Lattice and also E8 Lattice comes in. At least with string theory.
Gmm


hello
thank u very much,,,,,,,, nice to meet u
Likewise friend!
you are football player?
Sorry no, why do you ask?
your name is same as the player
Oh, Its just a common name, I suck at football
really?
Anyways, just wanted to say hi
btw, nice to meet u
Nice to meet you too, sky
so , what is your hobby?

hahah me too,,,,
It’s okay friend, math is interesting enough right?
i think you are injo
Injo? What does that mean?
where are you from?
México
Welcome to the server @silk hearth
Thank you! Excited to be here!
you two guys are all bots
I don’t think so, at least
the only bot I see here is higher!
who is that?
Yes, but 鹿乃 is not a vocaloid
She covers a lot of vocaloid songs, though
My apologies, I’m not really familiarized with her, I’m just aware of her existence
So…
May I ask why is higher! a bot or…
I haven’t unlocked that server lore yet
How else would you explain this?
Higher is a benevolent android
And throws hippos off airplanes and cliffs
Hippos are evil, so that’s okay too
They spin their tails when they shit so it sprays everywhere.
Higher is Jo Swinson?
Well, I was referring to them being extremely violent
But yeah, that too
The ultimate evil
You know a creature is bad when someone named MalevolentAntichrist refers to it as “The Ultimate Evil”
I'm not familiar with uk politics
They should be the mascot of every single social media platform.
Oh perhaps she does. But so does higher. They even have photographic proof
Apropos
What are you doing?
Busy.
why did u stole my name lol
isn't it? so sorry and btw nice to meet u
let me introduce myself
aight
iam 26 years old and live in San Francisco
go on
you are so difficult
can someone explain function spaces to a 17 yo like me?
and then explain what it means for a function to be dense
Think of function space like a room full of functions, just like we have a number line that holds all the numbers.
Just like we group numbers into sets (like integers, fractions, real numbers), we can group functions into spaces based on rules they follow. For example:
All functions that are continuous on the interval [0,1]
oh okay
that sounds straightforward enough
so what does it mean for a function to be dense
a function space specifically is a set of functions where the functions can be added and multiplied by numbers without going out of the space
so its a vector space of functions
usually function spaces are sets of functions that share a certain property
like continuity, or integrability, or something like that
a function cant be dense, that doesnt make sense
a subset of a function space can be dense in the function space
that means that any function in the space is the limit of a sequence of functions just from your subset
individual functions are not dense on their own.
so for example, power series give you sequences that converge to lots of functions
it turns out that the stone-weierstrass theorem says that the set of polynomials is dense in the space of continuous functions
"Dense" applies to sets of functions, not single functions.
on a closed interval
similarly, fourier analysis tells us that the set of finite fourier series (finite sums of cos(nx) and sin(nx) are dense in the space of L^2 functions on [0, 2pi]
(those are the functions whose square is integrable)
in particular, bounded functions
source? 
no
what does this mean?
if V is a function space, and U is a subset of V, then U is dense in V if...
whenever f is in V, theres a sequence of functions fn in U such that fn converges to f
this is what density always means for subsets
do you know how the real numbers are constructed from the rational numbers?
just what i said, U is dense in V if every element of V is the limit of a sequence in U.
yeah rays has a good point, the rationals are dense in R
me?
oh
i do not
no i mean what does it mean to be a subset of a set
so this is basically saying that the limit of a sequence of rationals map out the whole R set?
like U is smaller than V
yes, any real number is a limit of rationals
yep
so you mention universal approximation theorems in your bio
thats another density theorem
yeah thats why i was learning about it
universal approximation theorems say which function spaces neural networks are dense in
neural networks are special functions
they form a subset of different function spaces
the question is, how well can we approximate different functions with a neural network?
well theoretically to any desired degree of accuracy
a. is there a sequence of nns (that you could get from, say, training) that converge to a function you want?
b. how do we find that sequence (how do we train)
UAT only guarantees existence therefore cannot answer b
part b isnt answered by density. density just says there is some sequence, not how to find it
or am i wrong
ummmm
yeah i think so
maybe
yeah cause density says "for every function in V, there exists a sequence in U..."
so yes
do you study UAT in math.. or did you do deep learning too
not really, i just started learning about it recently from someone else im working with who does ML
interesting
i know what the theorem states im just trying to learn the math behind it
and why the proof works
the original proof was proved on sigmoidal functions using contradiction
the answer is yes right?
yes if you allow general nns
whats a general nn?
okay i get what youre trying to say
so uh
question 2
whats a discriminatory function
why cant i paste images
bruh
not sure
Just take logs :3
then it becomes a series problem
it was a smart move
Now you cry cuz it's hard
witht factorization
it is though
i didn't see that
i am scared of having to evaluate more of those
not sure i wanna continue reading that ca book
:(
i hate calculating stuff like this
Reminds me of Euler product calculations
welp
the chapter is about some euler product
i thought it sounded fun
yeah
...
fun
It is fun but yeah it's messy calculation
would take it any day instead of this
:(
good luck
i am thinking of skipping some parts of the book
not sure how i'll do that
usually i just start and go linearly
._.
i could go to the section that sound the most fun
though i will most likely have to backtrack lots of stuff
studying with book hard
this looks fine
the indices are not fine
what
didn't you tell me a while ago, that your workplace had an espresso machine
and that you
just noticed something actually
yes but I'm not in my workplace these days since I'm on vacation
how did the 1-X^(-alpha) in the denominator go away
I never questioned that
I just took what my prof did for granted
The room you are in suddenly grows dark, and a figure appears before you. Before you can react or ask a question, the figure extends his own query. There are two pills presented to you. One is a strong Blue color, and the other a deep Red.
"I stand before you, and every human being on your planet. I present them the same question, and that is this.
“If you you take the Blue Pill, and over fifty percent of the human race chooses as you do, then all will live."
“If you take the Red Pill, then you are guaranteed to live, but if more than fifty percent of the human race chooses as you do, those who chose the blue pill will perish."
Which pill do you reach for?
Alternative question: Which choice saves the highest estimate amount of lives assuming 8 billion people choose randomly?
Bonus question, what does the average probability of people taking the blue pill have to be for it to be the better choice for you to save as many people as possible on average?
@nocturne glacier welcome to the mathcord!
oh hard question 
I told the prof about it. The reason they are using the tilde is because the Hecke algebras we are using has some change of variables but other than that it's basically the same thing
Then they were like "well I put the tildes to indicate it's different and might conflict with the normal hecke"


automorphism
@vivid halo recently you said you usually google when you think about a problem a little and don't find a solution; what do you do when you can't find anything? Or does that usually not happen
Use noggin
exactly
so after you google because you thought about it for a little (you said it can be as little as 5 minutes) and don't find anything, that motivates you to think about it more yourself
Uh yes lol
Are there some searching techniques you picked up over the years?
Not really
Mostly just know how to use Google properly a lot of people don’t know how to Google properly
uh, can you give an example on something mathematical you google 'properly'? I assume you mean stuff like filetype:pdf?
classic mistake
true
Nah just keywords better
Sounds like Matrix
@vernal token
Remember the arctan sum over fibonacci?
I think I figured out a messy way to solve it
That would make you miss out on the stackexchange posts
Oh
Idk
lmao
nice!!
very gud :3
proud of you
what did you find o.O
"analysis" is the most nondescript name of a math field i've ever seen, who named this
Algebra

well there's the algebra that 95% of people think of and theres algebra in its entirety
also "groups" "rings" "fields" "magma" ts pulled out of a hat
whats a measure in measure theory? i dont understand it
What's your definition of measure?
like a way to quantify things
is the way to assign a size
wdym?
so you don't know the mathematical definition, then?
i do not
i already saw the definitions
yeah
i just didnt understand it
so what are you struggeling with then?
so i came to discord
what did you not understand
i am not sure what you mean?
the reason i dont understand is prolly bc im pregrad
no image perms
In mathematics, the concept of a measure is a generalization and formalization of geometrical measures (length, area, volume) and other common notions, such as magnitude, mass, and probability of events.
yeah
what does generalisation mean here
oh
i need this bc im trying to understand the proof behind
the universal approximation theorem
for a project
so after understanding measures im probably going to ask you what a signed measure is
so you want to know why a measure is a generalization of geometrical lengths?
or what is the question
i don't fully understand i believe
do you want to know like the bigger question
sure?

Of course
You showed it's pi/2? I mean, before telling it here, you could consider sending it in
It's funny that you continued trying it, I thought you found it dull
fox
poor head 
It doesn't i think
They do that all the time to hunt in the snow
So that the prey can't go away
Yeah it doesn't hurt them - that's very deep snow
they do it to catch mice/voles running around in tunnels in the snow that they can hear
Mice + voles = moles
When you think about it mathematically, do you think God exists? According to Gödel's approach, it seems like He does, but of course that's not enough; it would be strange to attribute existence to Him.
lol

what is bro yapping about
isn't it obvious
no
i believe in God
what is Mathematics even about
Do you believe in the existence of God?
And what are you basing your opinion on? I'm curious about the views of theists (I'm not an atheist).
the answer is that nothing godel did proves anything about god
I don't believe in the typical gods, e.g. Christian, but I'm not ruling out the existence of a higher power.
I've made a conclusion that the most fundamental things of existence are axioms. Like even physical things were defined into existence perhaps by words
well no
and in the bible, God brought things into existence with his words "let there be … (something)"
bro forgor
so ya, I've concluded maybe that's just it
You have to differentiate logical/mathematical axioms and "axioms" in other fields like Physics or Biology, which more often than not would be called laws.
idk the godel stuff. i think ive seen a short about it once but i forgor
Gödel has nothing to do with your pseudointellectual yap, don't mean to be rude
I answered, I would be interested in a discussion with you.
As you wish
Personally, due to the limitations of our logic and reasoning, I try to think of the thing called God as something beyond us and beyond that cycle. Personally, I don't think such a thing can be perceived, but I don't want to attribute any qualities to it in the full sense.
Don't hesitate to inspire me where I am lacking.
I agree and share the same point of view, as I wrote above "I don't believe in the typical gods, e.g. Christian, but I'm not ruling out the existence of a higher power."
Are you religous / do you believe in one specific god?
And what I wonder is, if this is something like the limits of human thought, what exactly should humanity strive to develop? To be honest, the main reason I turned to mathematics was my instinct to try to understand the absolute in some way. I may be younger than the average age here, but my desire to be certain about things is very strong.
I am trying to be a Christian like newton.
How old are you if you don't mind me asking? Isn't your profile saying pending-posgraduate?
I am 14 years old and I want to correct the mistake in that role. :d
What do you mean what exactly should humanity strive to develop?
I'm not familiar with Newton's religion views
I am referring specifically to mathematics because I view this task as a final solution approach in abstract fields.
If there is an absolute limit (not being able to comprehend God), or if we can say that it is not possible to perceive the third dimension from the second dimension, then in your opinion, in which direction should mathematical and abstract research go?
Of course there are limits to our comprehension, take 4 dimensional space. We can most certainly work with it and A LOT of interesting reserach is done in this dimension but we can not perceive it like we do the 1,2,3 dimension. It's impossible for us. But again - this doesn't stop us from doing research. I also don't know how the existence of God is relevant here.
I consider God's existence to be an absolute limit, so I thought it was relevant because we cannot fully understand it, but when creating the fourth dimension, we refer to certain things, such as the things around us, like time, but if we were in the second dimension, we could not create the third dimension by assuming an absolute height...
1+1=?
11
what is 1 what is +?
It's that easy in differential equations
11+11=?
its hard
i does not want to respond
=1111
Actually, I was going to say that, you know 😕
Yeah as I said - there are things we can not perceive or understand. But that's clear. So what. We're trying to crack that boundary
Don't worry if you are a beginner, come to my house and I will teach you for free.
😂
No, brother, I teach mathematics for free.
Do you believe we can do it? Are you saying that the third dimension can be calculated from the second dimension? Please go into detail. Don't underestimate my age.
Your talking points are vague. What do you by "third dimension calculated by the second dimension"?
My friend, I am a mathematician, don't worry, I will explain to you.
When the first dimension meets the second, a break occurs, resulting in a third dimension, which returns to the first dimension.
If you mean comprehend visually then no. If observer and space are 2D the observer cannot "see" the third dimension.
You are on Earth, what does it have to do with space?
sybau ragebaiting ahh
This is just a hypothetical example. What I mean is, when there are such limitations in mathematics (such as the incomprehensibility of the third dimension from the second dimension), what do we do about these things? Or how does our goal change?
💩
come 1vs1 fortnite
valorant ?
do you have roblox
We have to differentiate between our notions of limitations. 1) We cannot physically comprehend or do something at all no matter what we do. Example seeing 4d like 3d. Write a number out with 10^10000000 figures because we don't have enough ink or in that case atoms. 2) Things we didn't prove yet like the Riemann Hypothesis or other open theorems. -> We can't do anything about the first one but we try to push boundaries and solve them in the second case
I am aware of the physical impossibility, but I am personally curious about our approach to mathematical and direct abstract limits. You may say that if it is impossible, then it is impossible, but I think that the mathematical community may have different ideas and philosophies.
Thinking about this is nice, but that's not what mathematicians do. We leave that to the philoophers. Mathematicians have different goals and it is the second point in my earlier answer.
Also you have to learn to be precsise and ask precise question. That's the cement of all of mathematics. In my opinion this discussion is very vague, I don't even really understand your points/questions.
I understand, sir. Actually, my main question was about how to approach things that seem mathematically impossible, because limitations seem terrifying.
This is going to be my final message, I have to leave. 1. If you are asking about things which have nothing to do with math and seem impossible e.g. proving existence of God, flying etc. you can philosophize about that, but mathematics isn't going to help you directly and it's not the aim of mathematicians. 2. If you're asking about things which in the context and realm of mathematics seem impossible, i.e. to solve or prove then that's the entire point of mathematical research - there is no general answer on how to approach these problems.
All right, sir, thank you for your time.
Godel proposed an argument for God based on the concept of a positive property, but the specific version he presented leads to model collapse, I think.
There are other versions that avoid it, though. I'm not as knowledgeable on that type of argument.
Newton wasn't really Christian (He wasn't Trinitarian). His religious beliefs were kind of out there.
Wasn't he Gnostic or something
Either way Newton was off his rocker
Smart guy but out of it
When things become hard to visualize geometrically, then tend to be examined more algebraically. Rigor is in place to help when geometric intuition fails. (At least that's how I am currently seeing it.) For example, a thousand-dimensional shape is hard to visualize, but one can still examine its properties if it is described algebraically.
@split marten welcome to the mathcord!
does it matter if i take the sat or act
no\
lmao
why is it impossible to see 4d as 3d
@lavish bobcat welcome to the mathcord!
i know im being nitpicky here and its not the main point but i dont think thats true
Thank you
i’m starting calc 1 in a few weeks.
i took precalc last fall.
i took trig spring semester.
i never actually finished algebra, never took geometry, but i’ll fill in the gaps as i go.
algebra is kinda crucial
unfortunately they don’t teach it at my college—passed precalc with good marks anyway
i had a friend that majored in physics without ever having learned algebra
she did say that that was challenging for her
good luck!!
🍀
precalc and trig both did use a lot of algebra
mhm algebra feels kinda important to me lowk
i only ever passed prealgebra, in my early teens, then just never really used math again until last year
WALDLESSSS LOLLL
o.o
....what..

yes i know
hello sir
right?? i found out about that when we were in multivariate 
That's pretty crazy though if you really think about it!
right?? it's amazing that she got so far by filling in gaps and picking up tricks as she went ig
Sad
That truly is amazing, wondrous even! ^^ I'd probably couldn't do that lol, I go by the book, for the book lol, speaking of book I actually got a physics book a few days ago, and I'm starting to reading some of it and it is quite intriguing lol
Newton was born nearly 200 years after the end of the middle ages tho
yayy i love reading
i'm considering finding a nice textbook to read soon
Still, ~1700?
It's not that far away.
For physics or? I usually go by the recommendations by the math sorcerer, he's been quite good with his recommendations imo! ^^
He was born at 1643, about 190 years after the middle ages was over. I do think that's a lot of time tbh
i'm especially interested in reading a stack on decisionmaking rn lowk
for computers ^^ probably
i mean, if you really think about it, humans have been here for thousands of years
I thought the 1600 were part of the middle ages?
Well i'll clarify
Ooooooo I see I see, I couldn't do all the computer stuff, my brain would probably pop before I could understand the basics (which is already happening to me with physics and mathematics in itself)
I guess not, it was commone for the 1500-1600 to have gnoticism.
Also some sort of magic.
in 476 AD, certain barbarians called ostrogoths conquered Rome
That's when antiquity ended
And the middle ages started
In 1453, the turks conquered Constantinople
That's when the middle ages ended
And the modern period started.
Cool, neat.
This still is true.
Yh still
But gnosticism exists since the beginning of christianity
I would recommend the channel Esoterica to learn more about the texts from the time period.
Yeah, but the specific blend that it had at the time, with the emerald tablet, etc.
that was like a thing 1500s +
the apostles's disciples were actively opposing gnosticism in the 2nd century AD. Heck, you have a whole book in the 180's against the gnosticis
Yep.
I have no idea what you are talking about but i might look it up
Your still avoiding the point.
Wait there was a point? I thought this was just a chill talk
My point was that Newton was like everybody else back then.
Nah he was different
Yeah I was watching stuff on different medical people from the time.
Where he was considered a heretic later, and was killed or maybe not.
Very different
Na.
As different as you can be
Otherwise he wouldnt do anything
He would just be drinking with his buddies in late 17th century london or whatever
But ik what you mean
I mean different to us maybe, but to other people at the time.
Idk man.
I dont think Newton was killed
Bro was 84 yrs old when he died
Not Newton another guy.
Apprently he was late middle ages.
What's his name
Centuries following his death, Peter of Abano was known as the greatest sorcerer of his day. Born in the 1250s, he would compose a huge variety of works attempting to reconcile the philosophy of Aristotle, medical theory and practice, Astrology and Natural Magic. He would also delve into the world of Astral Necromancy, the nature of Incantation...
What's his name bro
Pietro d'Abano
Yeah apprently he wrote a l o t.
And was influentual for the middle ages, but it often forgotten.
Well if he was a medieval sorcerer then he got what he deserved
But he probably wasnt a sorcerer was he
Just some very smart guy i think
An alchemist
Yk what i'll give you a chance
I'll watch that video
Okay, nice!
Bro
40 minutes?
Why does that guy deserve a 40 minute long video
Yeah, it's good stuff and thorough.
He wrote quite a bit.
You do know there were non-sorcerers who were much better than him right
non-sorcerers were the true geniuses of the middle ages actually
Avicenna
Averrois
Aquinas
Yeah, but that's not interesting to me. Ew, Aquinas (if that's the same one).
(though Aquinas only made theological and philosophical contributions tbh)
Yeah, I didn't like his stuff even though I probably believe some of it.
Yh the greatest theologian in history and the second greatest philosopher in history
Probably, I just don't like what he says.






