#serious-discussion
1 messages · Page 465 of 1
I mean if you know how reference frames work then the objection here goes away
Of all the things to get hung up on in relativity
so I would suggest learning about reference frames in this context to dispel the objection that you currently have
I don't think it's an unreasonable objection, it's just that there's a perfectly reasonable solution to it
This isn't even like, relativity?
It's Newtonian relativity lmao
Not general/special
this is just classical inertial reference frame business
this isn't relativity
it's Newtonian relativity
I call almost every model that describes something I feel slightly shaky on psuedoscience. I wont call evolution pseudoscience science because it makes too much sense. But there are other theories that I feel there is a potential for a way better model to exist but we just dont know it yet, I call these pseudoscience also.
This is just feelings
Not that I believe it’s pseudoscience
...
lol alright
Its just a funny word
maybe dont use loaded terms like "pseudoscience" to mean "i dont understand"
I call almost every model that describes something I feel slightly shaky on pseudoscience
Now that's a quote for the books
although idk what there is to understand
honestly
okay noninertial reference frames are fucky
no it isnt that I dont understand
its that it doesnt feel super duper intuitive
So i just call it pseudoscience
well uhh don't do that lol
even though thats not what i literally mean
i find it perfectly intuitive
same
is it not a funny word though?
it's a very inaccurate word for the situation you're describing
you havent said pseudoscience ironically before?

Someone get Max in here
XD
sure some of modern physics is "pseudoscience" but I don't think this applies to really standard things like frames of reference lol
ig it was hard for me to understand conceptually at first
sure but that doesn't mean it's pseudoscience
also i cant call anything in math psuedoscience
Personally I think homotopy is pseudoscience
it feels far more natural to me than like
idk, anything else in physics?
in fact, the weirdest part of relativity is when reference frames dont match our newtonian intuition
im talking about when i first encountered it which was only 5 years ago
like c
Since I'm struggling to understand it right now
since then i barely thought anything of physics unless mentioned
math concepts cant be pseudoscie
since its not science
it just feels like taking a complex analysis course and saying the hardest part to understand was the cauchy riemann equations
its just bullshit

What are those again?
this is funny bc I am in a psychology class and we just covered pseudoscience vs science
That's like that differential equation thing right
i dont mean it in that sense mystique
i didnt know you ppl took the word psuedoscience for real
always thought of it as a jokey word

...
What are u v x and y here again
similar to calling people psueds
these are for determining holomorphicity
f(x, y) = u(x, y) + iv(x, y) for u, v real functions
I mean when you use words without any sense of seriousness then people will not take you seriously, that's all that's going on here and that's on you
it wasnt meant to be taken seriously);
thats why i asked how much physics is unfounded psuedoscience
fair enough, but we're just pointing out how you come across speaking in this way
thought it was cleary a joke
but yes a lot of modern physics is somewhat pseudoscientific
i wouldnt know
Personally I think Newtonian mechanics is pseudoscience
lol
obviously robust things like the notion of reference frames are about as solid as you can get in terms of science
do yall actually use psuedoscience seriously?

Yes?
yes lol
How is that a question
its a big world i guess
you sound like a crank when you call standard physics pseudoscience
until this convo
that's the issue
This is like
english is a diverse language the more i know
bold tiffany after we talked about k vectors everything went downhill
where the fuck are you hearing it used in a nonserious manner
its a really technical term to use jokingly
mostly growing up around friends
If I found out someone used the word "proved" entirely ironically
calling everything psuedoscience if we disagree
i cant help where I grew up lol what do you want from me
your money
well maybe drop using that phrase in conversations like this?
lest you be misunderstood for a crank
keep using pseudoscience, ignore the haters
so you seriously think there is unfounded pseudoscience in physics then?
"I jokingly call literally everything that the government does socialist, it was obviously a joke, didn't know people took the term socialism seriously"
I mean
Based on the way people use that term
we call shit capitalist all the time
That could be accurate
why is this too hard to believe
I still have no fucking clue what capitalism is
using big words funny sometimes
capitalism is pseudoscience
abelist emoji rip
k lol
it's when you capitalize certain words for dramatic effect
it's a rhetorical technique
But I notice that whenever people talk about hating capitalism I tend to also hate the thing they seem to be talking about
now you're using the word "ableism" in a non serious way
When I can tell what they're talking about
just stop eroding language it's all we ask
wtf eroding
I See
Eroding language is fun tho
erosion is the movement of sediment
im confident if I was speaking this conversation wouldnt turn out this way because of accents
where are you from?
Imagine assigning meaning to words
slaw
The purpose of a fish trap is to catch fish, and when the fish are caught the trap is forgotten. The purpose of a rabbit snare is to catch rabbits. When the rabbits are caught, the snare is forgotten. The purpose of the word is to convey ideas. When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words? He is the one I would like to talk to
from usa east but parents arent
none of family is
@sick burrow capitalism is an economic system where:
(a) goods are distributed by relatively unregulated market systems
(b) property, labour, and capital are traded as goods [often with some extra restrictions, but still fundamentally market-based]
"relatively unregulated" is a bit of a loaded phrase
capitalist systems can have a lot of regulations potentially
Wait is that not a free market?
but compared to full-on communism, they're a lot more free
free market systems are a subset of capitalist systems
I thought capitalism was different from a market
oh god
its like rules for a market system
basically every modern economy is capitalist in some way
#econ-general-2 when??
somewhere like china is less capitalist
What is the alternative
the alternative is socialism
But that doesn't make sense with how the word socialism is used
there are historical systems like mercantilism
yea okay the other alternative is anarcho-primitivism 
but no ones advocating for mercantilism in 2021
capitalism/socialism/economics isms are rules on agents of a market system
agents are the individuals/entities that contribute to change in a system. and thats all macro i know
People say that single payer healthcare, free college, higher minimum wage, possibly even universal basic income are all socialist
the dichotomy is individual control of means of production versus state control of means of production
where state can mean a lot of things
"socialist" is used to mean a lot of things lmao
its kind of an overloaded term
politically
somewhat
same with capitalist
yea
But those can easily exist in market based systems where property labor and capital are traded as goods
those are called socialist since they reduce the freedom of the market to achieve some welfare outcome
the system itself can still be capitalist
is this the econ server
even if it has socialist aspects
yea absolutely
welfare states within a capitalist system are not really socialist
econ doesnt talk much about socialism since one of its fundamental assumptions is that markets are typically good
since this has nothing to do with state control of means of production
right, the policy itself can be socialist without the entire economy being socialist
I think the definition in terms of ownership of means of production is the most useful albeit broad definition
why let people make the decisions? we should just let AI control the means of production
as a rule of thumb, if you as a labourer typically do not "directly own" the products of your work
like if you dont own your company or whatever
youre probably not in a socialist system
is done sometimes
if you want to get more specific you have to delineate what sort of implementation of socialism you're talking about, e.g. Marxist socialism or national socialism or fascism etc
"own" is a bit of a loaded term
since socialist systems dont understand "ownership" the way capitalist ones do
this is why i stick to math
What would the alternative to capitalism look like
the government assigns everyone a job
economics is more fun than ohysics wtf
everyone gets a stipend according to how much they work
That seems stupid as fuck
these stipends are used to buy goods at rates set by the government
this is a particularly radical form of socialism
it isnt stupid you are just jealous
yea literally
its possible to have socialism in a system with a market though
not really
which might seem a lot more sensible
its just that not everything is on the market
you can have aspects of socialism sure
its literally the economics of isekai
???
but a centrally planned economy will always collapse
labour is on the market
since you have no actual way to set prices correctly
Like keep the current system but
right yea
generally they have a system where
employees of a company sit on its board
and decide prices and whatnot themselves
or hire people to do that for them
Add a fuckton of new taxes and regulations
right
and directly see the profits of their labour
rather than getting paid wages or whatever
so your labour isnt priced according to the market
but your goods are
there are certainly hybrid systems that combine aspects of capitalism and socialism that don't suffer from the huge issues of purely socialist economic systems
its kind of a weird system since theres a lot of organizational issues
there are also more anarchist forms of socialism
which basically say "fuck all that, we're all gonna form happy communes that work together"
"from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"
yea this subverts socialism and capitalism because there is no means of production whatsoever to own
so people are informally organized into "communes" (micro-communities) that work collaboratively towards shared goals
there is no pricing system, no market, no central authority
everyone shares resources amongst each other
maybe some bartering and whatnot happens
yea I mean this is pre-economy
since thats how economies have worked for thousands of years
which subverts this dichotomy
full-on anarchism is kind of a meme
but you can have aspects of anarchism in a political system
btw this is where the term "communism" comes from, bizarrely
even though communism as it typically manifests is authoritarian
marx's end vision was for the authoritarian part of communism to be just a "stage"
as the state is dissolved and the economy transitions into a better form
this uh... hasnt really happened in any communist state
right and his original analysis of economy is like, completely wrong
marxists insist its because of corruption or because they werent doing "real communism" or because of US intervention or whatever
but the pessimistic view is that those are just excuses
and the communist vision is too idealistic to work
I mean this is the case of all strongly socialist states, not just Marxist socialist states
national socialist Germany collapsed for the same reason
eh i wouldnt say that
nazi germany collapsed because they kinda
you know
lost a war
I mean they lost a war largely because of supply side issues that a centrally planned economy could accommodate
using geometers?
not least their issues with oil
ehhh arguably sure
nazis weren't socialist lol
i dont think any other economic system wouldve saved germany
though
they were just super overextended
yea they were lol
their name was
they weren't Marxist socialists by any stretch
hitler sort of uh
killed all the socialists in there though
hitler killed the leftists
but the underlying economic ideology was absolutely socialist
ehhh
is he mentioned daily on this server
its kind of a perversion of socialism
...no, the nazi party did not operate on any socialistic principles lol
i think calling it "socialist" is misleading
since it didnt have the same end goals as socialist systems
I don't think that's true
they still wanted a market
they certainly had very different goals from Marxist socialist economic philosophy
they just wanted a highly controlled and heirarchical market
that is, they wanted heirarchies in the market to be determined by party policy
rather than by social class
this is kind of anti-capitalist but not really similar to any other system of socialism
I mean they wanted the means of production to be controlled by a race state rather than a class state
See it seems to me
That an unregulated free market is an incredibly efficient system if all you care about is producing the most stuff
they were certainly not capitalist in many senses of the term, seeing as the original ideology was immensely critical of capitalism and borrowed a lot of economic ideas from Marxist socialists
yeah but they purged a lot of the more outspoken socialists after taking power
But then you realize that wealth inequality, human rights, and the environment are actually kinda important
in any case, the nazi germany economy never really transitioned into their vision
sure, because these were socialists of a different creed
wartime economies will do that for you
nG i mean like
socialists in the party
strasserists et al
sure
I just mean to say that the ideological ties to socialism are much stronger than one might initially believe
not really
i think that was a lot of dogma that never really manifested though
like their "marketing" certainly used socialist ideas
I mean literally one of the core justifications for expansion into Europe was the fallacy of diminishing profits
and they did try and exert government control over the market prewar
once the war happened though
they became a full on military economy
like everyone else
okay sure
ok the thing that gets me though
wait what did the nazis do that was socialist? i don't think there was any distribution of power into the working class
is like you define capitalist as "when market"
and their economy was fundamentally structured such that the only way to support it was through constant expansion
socialism has nothing to do with working class
and socialist as "when government controls production"
that's Marxist socialism specifically
oh yeah mixed up communism and socialism
but then in political discourse no one actually uses the words that way
that argues this on the grounds of a class state
but socialism is more broad than this
@sick burrow depends on country honestly
certainly national socialism diverged very substantially from Marxist socialism, it was very directly critical of it
die linke calls itself "socialist" and is certainly an honest representation of those principles lmao
the world does not end at north america 
but yeah I should have specified
the linke
like I don't see how taxing the rich, raising the minimum wage, forgiving student loans, or having the government pay for college or are at all socialist
if you define the terms that way
theyre policies that increase state control over the market
hence theyre "more socialist" than the status quo
I agree these aren't necessarily socialist in the means of production use of the term
but they dont change the overall economy towards socialism necessary

yeah but isn't "state control over the market" an essential part of capitalism
no
ig they are socialist bc the government is making those changes, instead of those changes occuring naturally?
no
you can have libertarian capitalism
how can you have a market without some degree of state control
hell
libertarian capitalism is kind of
enshrined in the US constitution
and it took a very generous reinterpretation of some of the constitution
to allow the federal government to change this
lmao
I mean you can have absolute libertarian capitalism which is just about as dysfunctional as purely state centralized socialism
most successful states aren't pure in either of these directions
right
is socialism specifically state control? like isn't it just social ownership in general?
to be clear here
no sane person should argue that the state shouldn't have some degree of control over the market
socialism is state control of means of production. What amounts to the "state" is dependent on the particulars of the ideology that is an offshoot of this
the original intention of the framers of the US constitution probably hoped for the state to have very little control over the market
they were big adam smith guys
to Marxist socialists the state is a class state and the power is in the hands of the working class
to national socialists the state is a race state and the power is in the hands of a racial group
etc
almost all policy that the federal government pursues wrt economics is justified by a single line of the constitution
congress has the power "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"
is that not the state regulating the market?
this is known as the "commerce clause"
and it has been interpreted VERY generously
to allow the state to like, raise taxes and stuff
so how would you describe capitalism?
the framers of the constitution probably didnt intend for this
not that it matters
and you kinda need taxes to function
I would describe capitalism as individual means of control of production
obviously if you take this to an absolute extreme
but like
this would entail some form of absolute libertarian capitalism which isn't what happens in practice
if taxes were raised a bunch
Starting in 1937, following the end of the Lochner era, the use of the Commerce Clause by Congress to authorize federal control of economic matters became effectively unlimited. Since United States v. Lopez (1995), congressional use of the Commerce Clause has become slightly restricted again to be limited to matters of trade or any other form of restricted area (whether interstate or not) and production (whether commercial or not).
the government started paying for college
much like in socialist systems there is still some amount of individual control that remains
the minimum wage was raised
They used the commerce clause to ban guns before
or even universal basic income was instituted
amazon workers still wouldn't own the factories they work at
sure this entails some amount of state control over means of production especially as resources are redistributed
where one ends and the other begins isn't always clear
certainly there are gradations to this
even in socialism, or communism, i the individual, really dont control anything or own anything do i?
maybe they'd have livable wages and reasonable working conditions with the right laws
but they wouldn't own the factories
right
in any case
their surplus value would still be taken by the capitalists
right
"socialism" is kind of a dirty word in US politics
so how the fuck is that not capitalism
its hard to trace back exactly where this comes from, but almost certainly cold war policy
mccarthyism and whatnot
so in this case I wouldn't describe this kind of state overreach into the market as essentially socialist if the means of production are still individually owned
tfw americans think liberalism is socialism and anyone in american politics is close to being socialistic 
even if this is closer in spirit than pure anarcho capitalism would be
like I am legitimately confused
when people on the left say they hate capitalism
and then point to issues that could easily be fixed while still maintaining a capitalist system by basically every definition of the term I've heard
I mean I would think these people are largely being critical of the negative consequences that come from a poorly regulated capitalist market
and then those fixes are somehow labeled as socialist by the Right
so why not say that????
yea I think both are ideologically confused is the issue
i mean
you cant not have exploitation under capitalism in a marxist sense
well right and this is one place where Marxism is kind of silly in its economic analysis
there's a grain of truth to it sure
eh
who the fuck is being exploited if workers are being paid a very good minimum wage and regulations are in place to prevent them from working in unethical conditions
and they don't have to pay for insurance or college
I mean there are certain central assumptions to a Marxist analysis of economy that are just flat out wrong
so
some socialists believe that those systems are still unjust because the "top brass" in the company benefits a lot more from labour than the employees do
thats not what exploitation in marxism means lol
I mean the argument, to do it justice, is that even if the worker is adequately compensated they are being robbed of the fruits of their labor if they do not own the means of their labor
as the profit leaves the hands of the worker and is given to the person who owns the means of production
you can argue this is exploitative in some broad sense
to what extent this is actually important is less clear
reaching across the universe
like the later economic justifications for Marxist socialism then go on to use certain fallacies that try to justify why this kind of "exploitation" necessitates an eventual revolution and so on
that analysis falls apart in the breeze so to speak
those are
opinions, yes 

sure let's hear your justification for the labor theory of value and the tendency for rate of profit to fall as sound economic analysis
these are incredibly flimsy arguments in my mind
sure just give me uhhhhhhhhhhh a few hours till i finish reading all 3 volumes of capital 
labor theory of value sounds silly
I mean you should be able to argue for these if you're trying to defend Marxist socialist economic prescriptions
there is definitely a shorter way to say that
theory of values
there is a subsection for philosophy for that
m*thematicians doing 🅱️olitigs
labor theory of value is like, totally absurd
are you thinking of utilitarianism? thats not really the same thing
tendency for rate of profit to fall is less absurd but it just doesn't hold up to historical scrutiny
no one things goods should be priced according to their utility
maybe in a perfect world
axiology
but holy hell labor theory of value is like
I cannot believe that anyone would put this idea forth unironically
but that has to do with philosophy behind valuing things as humans
what is idea of lyv
lbthryval
ltv
labor theory of value suggests that the economic value of a good is entirely determined by the total amount of labor (or to be specific, "socially necessary labor") that is necessary to produce it
there's a few issues with this
well yes that's a big one
that should be enough
another big one is it ignores the fact that value to the consumer is subjective based on desire for a good
thats just scarcity
not really
its under same umbrella
i wont buy a picasso
it's related but sure
obviously if you try to apply this idea to less socially necessary goods the idea is completely useless
although this is what the stipulation "socially necessary labor" is here for
it makes sense on a smaller level
at best you can try to apply this to like
its like a good idea if you think about interactions between friends
base goods and services that are necessary for a functioning state
the main issue still remains that like
how does one determine "socially necessary labor" for which to fix the value of goods in the first place?
the judgment of what labor is socially necessary in the first place is just as subjective as the demand for the goods it produces
nothing is wrong with it being subjective though
right, this is more in line with capitalist ideas about value
so at best you can come full circle and arrive at a totally vacuous instantiation of labor theory of value
thats... what the LTV talks about though
commodities
you cant analyse art under LTV e.g.
right I agree
okay i see
I think the criticisms of LTV applied to much more subjective goods like art just misses the point
its not meant to apply to those things
like obviously the theory can't be applied to things like this, it completely falls apart here
i dont see anything terribly wrong with ltv besides scarcity issues which can be fixed by choosing regulations on socially necessary carefully
regulators
you very quickly run into a central planning problem if thats your aim
whats wrong with that though?
well my family owns a business and I decide the labor!
okay and then you will inevitably arrive at inefficient pricing for certain goods and services
based on this
wtf is central planning problem
tl;dr its basically impossible for a central authority to price things fairly
theres too much information to handle
I mean the main problem with central planning is like
i think its fixable with correct regulation
it's really not
the fed cant even set interest rates correctly all the time
how tf are they supposed to set the price of everything correctly
computers?
^
sure, if you come out with a computer program that can do this
imagining regulators are omnipotent beings
then we can talk
it isnt too far fetched
i can't imagine that ever going wrong
well, regulators are not currently omnipotent beings.
big data is already used a lot in markets
yea but neither is no one
it is. hedge funds still make mistakes.
its not crazy to let technology handle planning
do u guys know discrete math
also, pricing stocks is a lot different from pricing every single good
surely there are ethical reasonings
it kinda is, at least where we are currently
yea because arbitrage
the reality is that there is currently no system that can do this to a satisfactory degree
its one of few things where pricing is handled automatically by computers super quick
yes big data is used by hedge funds and whatnot
but guess what? they screw up a lot
it is true we are far from it
they "on average" do better than worse
but we're managing an entire fucking market
we can't do "on average" better than worse
we need to be near-perfect
the tech just isnt there yet
good argument
if it ever will be.
ltv isnt totally wacko though assuming regulators are godlike
and assuming no ethical issues
with regulators and people who cant regulate
if you just have a system meant for production it would be ideal me thinks
so like, during the war on the German front, one issue with central planning was like, how do you decide how to distribute resources between the different divisions and so on
one way to try to do this in a centrally planned economy is to send out surveys to all the divisions, get them to report their supplies and needs for supplies, send these back, let the state tabulate these results, then distribute resources based on this
this is clearly like
at the time
completely absurd
and not an efficient solution
(this is what they did, too, and it clearly didn't work)
ya
alternatively they could have judged resource distribution based on what divisions would have been willing to pay for certain resources, the prices would have reflected the relative need for goods and services, and the distribution works itself out based on that
the difference being, in the first case there's just too much information to deal with to do this efficiently
in the latter case the information is distributed
a combination of both central and individual planning isnt terrible
it is in theory possible to do this sort of price computation centrally with enough computing power, ignoring whether or not this is efficient
it cant be
historically this was obviously not possible
when i was younger i really really wanted to create a perfect world government, dont think i will see it on earth, maybe what they come up w on mars will be better?
I don't know if it's possible now
it may be possible at some point but then it just like
Slavery will probably make a comeback on Mars
kinda blurs the line between the price computations done subjectively in a capitalist system versus those done centrally in a socialist system (assuming the latter can be mapped accurately onto the former given enough information processed in the right way)
like if you have some system which is able to perfectly reproduce the same price computations that one would come to subjectively and things are mapped perfectly onto this
then okay what's the difference so to speak
i don't think humans are ever gonna live on mars tbh. it's always seemed like a weird idea to me. it's a huge investment with no real gains
there's no point to it
one less thing to think about for those who are subjectively pricing
the point is being epic
going to mars, sure
also line between subjective and objective becomes blurred
yea
ignoring the fact that it's like, kind of an immense waste of computational resources to try to reproduce this centrally
and imo im not sure there is a big problem with subjective pricing for now or until end of time
honestly i dont think their would be central computing in a perfect system
Eh, if they manage to terraform Mars it could be viable, but it will take at the very least decades, if not one or two centuries or more
there can be some problems, there is some amount of market inefficiency brought by "bad" subjective decisions in the same way that there is market inefficiency brought by bad central planning
it's just historically the latter is like
much more of a mess
But yeah it takes too much resources to be worth it in the short term
this is why market socialist systems tend to work better with this issue
rather than pure central planning alone
i mean once humanity extends to further planets central government becomes less meaningful too
doubtful
it becomes way more important if anything
since extending to further planets involves thousands of more logistical issues
but eventually there could be no single 1 humanity government
trading today already has plenty
what's the point even in the long term?
what does mars have that we want?
extending that to planets makes it worse by extension
lol assuming people get independence in the future
I couldnt imagine a scenario where planets become independent lol
It has a way for the ultrarich to get away from the plebs 
yea I mean obviously the arguments about the viability of central planning become quite different in some kind of fantasy future world
much like the original economic arguments of Marx were possibly relevant at the time of writing and then became historically irrelevant as material conditions changed
lol
its crazh how advent of internet is overlooked
its probably most important part of human history
not a stretch at all imo
yea agreed
The main appeal of Mars is that it would allow for civilization to go on if it goes extinct on Earth. But this is very gloom and honestly I don't think civilization will ever completely disappear, even in the event of mass extinction. Mars is just too far away to use it as a way to get resources on another planet imo so there's not much point
assuming civilization can self sustain on mars
alright I am heading to bed but I enjoyed blabbing about economics lol
which is unlikely imo
i just wanted to know about partitions of unity
and got pulled in
all you need to know is that they only work in the smooth category and that they take local things and turn them into global things
you can black box their construction
there's basically nothing more to say
:^)
analytic manifolds don't have bump functions
Tbh in the veeeerrry long term (like a thousand years) having another planet with a viable ecosystem could be beneficial maybe

would also be cool for scientific purposes
that too
oh
bump function is like f*f_i where f is function on manifold and f_i is compactly supported set of functions that sum up to 1
is smooth category a thing lol
if it is then category theory is impressive
oh its just manifold category
a bump function on a smooth manifold is a smooth function with compact support (and maybe identically 1 near some point)
wtf analytic manifold
transition maps are analytic
differential topology textbooks and papers
seems like they r important
Most complex geometry texts cover complex analytic manifolds
Idk of many good sources for real analytic manifolds
i wonder the applications
A lot of differential geometry texts will cover manifolds with extra structure
so i just need to keep innit ig
A lot of this kind of structure is subsumed by the whole reduction of structure group formalism
topologists and geometers got bored and decided smooth wasn't enough
analytic manifolds show up in lie groups, although to what extent i will not clarify
Well complex analytic manifolds are pretty natural
Since they’re just spaces where locally you can do complex analysis
So that’s fine and good
Real analytic manifolds are kinda funny and show up less in applications from my experience
how do yall stumble upon learning applications
i dont wanna go outta my way and learn physics tbh
Read papers and so on
maybe i might have to
Physics is nice yea
ik papers ig
physicsnis mysterious to me
why LHC big circle
why tacomak a torus
why heating towers sloped
wtf a faraday cage
It can be kinda irritating to learn because physics literature is written very differently from math literature and the overlap is kinda small sometimes
yeah its just like reading books
and learning experiment set ups
is what id imagine
Depends on what you’re doing
but you need to learn experiments
Not necessarily
I mean you should maybe learn how these things manifest in the world but you don’t have to care about experimental design unless you’re doing it
experiments illuminate
oh sure ig
but experiments are fun part of physics
no point in doing physics without experiments
Like you can perfectly well learn about the standard model from a purely mathematical perspective without worrying how people experimentally verified this stuff
might ad wrll study math
Oh sure
I just mean that there’s also plenty of interest in physics from the purely mathematical perspective
Maybe if you want to come up with new physics you should uhh
sure but thats fun in a math perspective
ive never been in a lab 
fun part of math are big theorems illumidating strange relationships imo
like theroems that are completely not obvious
hopefully once i can get to college physically ill be able to
so if you enjoying physics like this you are probably doing math
There’s plenty of really interesting math to do even in stuff like the standard model
u need experiments imo
in terms of?
equation algebra stuff?
There is still no good rigorous justification for the path integral in the standard model/GR
There’s very little reason to actually believe that the two can’t be unified without major modification people just haven’t done the work
what is that supposed to mean? Idea of evaluating path integrals for something??? isnt justified?
So the path integral expression in quantum field theory is like
Some sort of really awful highly oscillatory integral in infinite dimension
There are ways to evaluate it with a lot of tricks like perturbation theory and Wick rotation and so on
People haven’t really done the work to actually work with it without relying on loads of tricks
Outside of some extremely simplified situations
tbh i was considering learning stats deeper instead
What I mean by not justified is there really isn’t a good formalism for even making sense of these infinite dimensional phase integrals rigorously, a lot of path integral expressions are sort of “suggestions” with some bag of tricks you can use to evaluate them and get physically reasonable answers
But there’s still just no good formalism

one thing i found is to write them a lot, and use them in questions
it helps better in remembering
just seeing the formulae again and again helps a little
how do you guys stay up to date with news about mathematics
if you're memorizing trig identities use eulers formula
i am subscribed to a journal and a mathematics magazine, sometimes i read arxiv
mm which one 👀
"notices of the german mathematical society" is a magazine and the german mathematical society also publishes a journal
which consists mostly of exposition of more or less current research mathematics
(also historical notes and new research in pedagogy of mathematics)
why wouldn't she want you to memorize them?
how else do you remember them?
unless they also taught you eulers formula
it's there so i can pass my exams what do you mean?
the reason students should memorise trig identities is so I can pull them out of my ass during class and I don't have to prove them for them
we cant memorize the identities
wait 15 mins and then tag helpers
Its been 25 minutes i tagged helpers
i just took a picture of myself and it flipped and i look so ugly is that how people actually see me
it
s because you are used to seeing yourself one way
if you only looked at flipped pictures of yourself for a while you'd get used to it
and then if you went back to normal it'd look off again
because you're used to the asymmetry of your face
the way people see you is the way you see yourself in the mirror
inverse mirror where you raise your right hand and it shows your left or a regular mirror where you raise your right hand and it shows your right hand
regular mirror
Guys, is there a field of mathematical epistemology? Basically formalizing something like... you have a set of agent and a family of collections of truths, and then yu can talk about things like "If A knows that B knows T then B knows T", something in this direction.
This might seem like stuff philosophers care about and with no real meaning, but when studying cryptosystems from an abstract view isn't this... necessary?
Sometimes Computer Scientists (i think) prove that a certain kind of cryptographic protocoll can't exist
Yes I checked out information theory
but that seems to be more about static information, data
so
you have some data
how much information does it cointain? how much can you compress it?
Less about agents knowing information that others dont and sharing it
Id say it still falls under info theory, i can send some random links
Secret sharing (also called secret splitting) refers to methods for distributing a secret among a group of participants, each of whom is allocated a share of the secret. The secret can be reconstructed only when a sufficient number, of possibly different types, of shares are combined; individual shares are of no use on their own.
In one type of ...
BB84 is a quantum key distribution scheme developed by Charles Bennett and Gilles Brassard in 1984. It is the first quantum cryptography protocol. The protocol is provably secure, relying on two conditions: (1) the quantum property that information gain is only possible at the expense of disturbing the signal if the two states one is trying to d...
I dont really know why im sending these actually
Thats cool, and that would be complexity theory i guess
yea that seems already closer
Wait... Whats it called? I might b using wrong name lol
yea that is compleity theory I think
but yea, like, if I am talking about RSA cryptography, sure I can prove things
that maybe a protocal with certain specififcations doesnt exist
By complexity theory i meant study of complexity classes like P, NP, blahblah
but there must be some way to talk abstractly about these things, right...?
for exampe
In my head, i call that information theory lol
Hypothesis: A cryptocurrency without a public ledger is impossible
kind of
this coukd be provable
if you have a formaliztationü
Or cryptography i guess
that wouldnt really be considered a part of mathematics
but if you give things formal definitions
then sure, maybe
Why not a part of math?
but the applicable techniques wouldnt necessarily be obvious until you formalize it.
because "cryptocurrency" is not formally defined
if you give it a formal definition, then you can start to reason about it, but the form that reasoning takes will depend on the definition
its like if i asked "how do i cook lunch" but never told you what kinda lunch i wanted to cook
as an example of how you might set up such a formalization
look at how the proof of Arrows impossibility theorem transforms the idea of "democratic voting system" into a collection of game theoretic properties.
i hear that some bankers and investors say that crypto is a scam? can someone elaborate on why they thing this way
it's just valueless and purely speculative
And proof of work is cringe
so your saying people only value you it based on demand/ others opinions
like band wagoning?
I'm don't know anything about alternatives like proof of stake, but I know bitcoin uses proof of work and it's fucking awful for the environment
proof of work?
what’s the good reason?
Which makes the currency kinda inherently flawed because it takes so much energy to maintain, and the amount of energy only goes up with the more transactions being made
cause if people are band wagoning on something, the people who bandwagon first actually do make money
but that’s usually the people who have a platform
Bitcoin could literally never replace regular currency due to the energy demands
and the people who jump on late lose money, but that's what always happens
but it's still stupid
Meaning the entire thing is literally a pyramid scheme
At least at this point. Like I had a friend who made some money mining it back when you could profitably do so, and then riding it up to like 10k
i never understood the mining thing what are they mining exactly that makes money
cause if it cost more energy then it does making money it wouldn’t be profitable right??? unless there using a cities electricity illegally? or some other source
oh?
let me rephrase
the energy costs are not higher than the profits
at least not right now
it still uses a fuckton of power for no good reason.
Right but the second they are, the entire system collapses
Once mining stops being profitable, bitcoin just dies
At least that's how I understand it
Since mining is required to authorize and to an extent authenticate transactions
my friends are really into bitcoin and all but i was skeptical about it and tended towards real estate and electrical cars
Longest ledger wins in a conflict, right? So if mining stops being profitable then people will stop mining and if enough people stop mining that someone can hold 50% of the power in the network then they can just authorize whatever the hell transactions they want and take everyone's bitcoin
Right? Am I understanding that correctly?
thats not likely to happen any time soon, but yes
what about the demand?
wait am i understanding this clearly 😭
cause i really don’t know much about mining
Well yes, but bitcoin is also not used as an actual currency
sure, im not defending crypto and especially not bitcoin
I'm just adding on that while this bitcoin doomsday scenario won't happen for a while at the pace we're currently going at, but if bitcoin became a mainstream alternative currency that pace would greatly accelerate so it would destroy itself
At least if my understanding is correct
And the idea that btc could eventually catch on as a mainstream currency is the only thing that makes it anything more than a pyramid scheme
that aint how languages work
great website
@surreal sapphire I emailed Regensburg today and heard back from them
I still feel (3) is blurry
But the internship bit makes me feel if I could get into any REU sort of program, that should help
- yes
what is 2)
I asked if English is the medium of instruction
ah ok
Since they were kinda unclear on their website
ye well, your classmates might hate you
its english by default and german if nobody cares

at least here
most professors are german
It was the same over there
(some arent and with those its english obviously)
Makes sense
So if I'm the sole non-German speaker, the classes would have to be in English?
yes
i had a class that was sometimes english, sometimes german
depending on if foreign students were present
eh, dont worry about it
Elaborate 
the rules clearly state that the language of instruction is english or german
yes, i was going to
so there is a set of rules called the Studienordnung
it outlines everything from how grades are generated, which types of exams are legal etc
it also states who gets admitted to the degree
it basically states anyone with an above average bachelor degree or equivalent
so some committee will have to judge this
my guess is they will not care much, unless its a particularily strong year (in terms of numbers of students)
Aah
so the more "extra" stuff you have, the easier it will be for them to pick you in case that happens
which i already doubt, considering its a math degree
"mathematical competencies" might be outlined more
That's fair
like at least x classes from the field of y
I asked Bonn specifically about my curriculum, I might get a fair assessment of the program itself that way
and then some stuff like "z additional classes from the field of mathematics, computer science, physics, philosophy or mathematics adjacent"
(that was the case for me)
Hmmmmmmmm
do you write some kind of thesis?
Alright, I'll look more into this. How much German should I know to get by?
My uni has no provision for Bachelors thesis, so no. I could try to write stuff up on my own if that counts at all.
that would be the only thing that might be problematic
if the uni does not require german, you don't need german
i know people who don't speak any german and live here
their social circle is almost 100% people working in their department though
Sounds good to me 
and there will be other foreign students, including other indians
if just for one or two semesters

Why not for all
How many international students show up for math programs anyway
i guess its easier to be an exchange student
my advisor put out a lot of ads to draw in more foreign students
spent much of his own money even
then corona
and nobody came 
but if you already know what exactly you want to do as a researcher (and that you want to be one) you might go to a different uni for a semester because they have a really cool related seminar or something

Aah, that makes sense
Also Regensburg has 3 focus areas in math 
the only important one is arithmetic geometry
by the time you finish your degree you have a better idea of the direction you want to take
then it might make sense to consider that more
also nothing stops you from applying everywhere i guess
and then make a choice from whatever unis accept you
Oh, that makes sense
this guy wrote a book about a subject from the notes of him teaching it for the very first time with 0 experience about it
that is impressive

Oh
ah yes
god I am so tired
Ok I am once again asking
Under what conditions is Hatcher a good intro alg top text
It’s fine in most cases imo
Like I've heard it's good for some people but not others, but if that's the case, who are the people it's good for
Hatcher relies a lot on geometric intuition that you have before reading the book (I don't think his explanations do a great job at giving you said intuition)
^
It's like, not great in later parts where the geometric intuition is on more complicated objects that I feel don't really allow for much geometric intuition
I've taken courses from such people
Let me tell you it's not very fun
It's not great in every part imo
Esp if you don't already know a bit of algtop
Or have intuition for it
I think the exercises are good
But it definitely lacks rigor that you won't know how to fill in if you don't already know stuff about algebraic topology
I've only done chapters 0 and 1
SO take what I say with a grain of salt, but it seems to be written in the style that Low Dim'l topology papers are often written in
But if you try to read something in knots, 3 manifolds, or 4 manifolds
It has a similar flavor of more geometric intuition and less complete rigor

Can anyone please go take a look on Section Question 7
Do chairs exist?
case in point
or is a chair just atoms shaped into something we define eas a chair?
Anyone here can I talk to






