#serious-discussion
1 messages · Page 519 of 1
whoops my bad
Yeah, the factories is what I meant. Was thinking about this the other day, if China invaded Taiwan, they would have control of only not only a monopoly in semiconductor factories, but also pharmaceuticals, solar panels, and the digital infrastructure - they could just invade and then shut those exports to the West off to deter them from any sanctions and reaction
maths is the language of the universe essentially so it'll help connect everything. it's a very philosophical subject and especially for applied maths you need a good imagination
Applied Math can get fairly abstract tho and ironically move very far away from the world despite being about the world
that's a beauty of it imo
Etienne Le Masson does quantum chaos on graphs if you're familiar with him
if this happened then the entire worldwide electronics supply chain would collapse, which would also affect China. Even if they seize the factories they do not have the technical know-how to operate them properly; this is one of the reason that my research team is located in the US.
guess what guys
you know the math olympiade I was supposed to participate in, in a month?
turns out, it's not in one month, it's in 2 days.
how dare you say something reasonable
no
unacceptable
so
how do I git gud in 2 days?
Do some math problems I reckon
You don't
coffee and oatmeal every time you don't feel like it anymore?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-driven_phrase_structure_grammar
this looks interesting
Head-driven phrase structure grammar (HPSG) is a highly lexicalized, constraint-based grammar
developed by Carl Pollard and Ivan Sag. It is a type of phrase structure grammar, as opposed to a dependency grammar, and it is the immediate successor to generalized phrase structure grammar. HPSG draws from other fields such as computer science (data ...

oh shit
u cant get good in 2 days
sorry
good luck
I'm learning about mechanics in uni
Mostly classical but there's Hamiltionian and Lagrangian as well
The thing is, the practice questions are mixed and there seems to be stuff from all over physics there, not just mechanics
Are they expecting me to be able to differentiate between them
I'm no physicist god damn 
Bro your job seems so cool
lets hope that NIST agrees 
lel
yeah
it's just the regionals tho, so I'm sure the test's gonna be easy
I need to worry about if I make it through to the nationals or beyond


thanks
How tf did JohnDS go through rudin in a single week? 
how is that even possible?
I'm just realizing how ridiculous that is
lol

how tf
he did it in HS too 
Can anyone give me an article which shows full working of solving a associated legendre's diff eq?
Try #odes-and-pdes and not here
thats possible for like 2 days at most for me
but not more than that
@light needle sorry for ping but I want to know if this is true.
It was
john crazy
how
are you just crazy efficient and knew all the answers to every problem at first sight or did you stay up for a week straight or smth
john wtf
I suppose I can see it if he did like 15 hours a day straight of rudin
But like if I did that I’d have only a very broad surface-level understanding
I came in with comp math experience and much higher math maturity then the avg Rubin reader, so the problems didn’t take too long
And idk I felt after I got ch 2 which really for me was the hardest thing, everything started falling in place
how much did you actually read
the entire thing?
Up to ch7
Comp math is so OP 
And about half the problem per each ch?
i thought you said you did every problem in 2 weeks
i am less impressed considering all this new information i have 
you were already very mathematically mature and didn’t do all the problems
I mean you shouldn’t do all the problems of a text unless it’s something like Ativan Macdonald smh
Lol

I'm pretty sure I would've been a far better mathematician if only my country had as much care for comp math as the US or EU
wait how many exercises does rudin have
Anyone?
30 per ch I think
Oo
Or a bit less
apostol has like, a lot of exercises
Close to 20 I think
the topology chapter had 50+
and the chapter about limits had more than 70
and most of them are not simple at all

i will do them all one day
pugh literally has like 100
per chapter?
You should do exercises until they become straightforward
i shall not
Once you know how to do them just by reading them
You should stop doing them
Even if like the details are fuzzy
If it’s not actually intellectually challenging it’s kind of a waste at that point
Unless you’re genuinely curious about the result
I wonder if I should focus more on Comp math to get god level advantage like John
god i really want to start with apostol right away

picking it up makes me want to do it so bad 😭
Comp math is a minor advantage
Bruh
Spending that same amount of time on actual math is more efficient
There’s a difference between “if I had done comp math for the past two years I’d be better at math” which is true
And “I should do comp math for two years before pure math” which is nonsense really
im terrible at comp math

i dont think u would have much problem with like an algebra problem max
but geometry might be bad
Probably not but I don’t know any of the tricks of techniques
that and mostly the time constraints
It depends on the person, I think categorically disqualifying comp math isn’t like, smart. But yeah like, you have alternatives

yeah and geometry is just about that
I mean
Marginal advantage of spending time on comp math instead of pure math
If the goal is to learn pure math
Is I think clearly worse
Idk I don’t think I would be nearly as fast at solving problems if I just did pure math out of the gate, and this has helped me out a lot over the years

I am not really sure I believe you
It seems kind of nonsensical
But obviously I can’t like
Disagree lol
Idk comp math is more than anything training you to solve problem’s quickly ig. Idk maybe I would have gained this skill if I just did pure math too but it’s hard for me to imagine being as good without comp math
i believe that if u did pure math, the start might have been harder, but in the end u would turn out as good, if not better than someone who did comp math at the start and then started with pure math

I think you just get fast at something if you do it a lot
There’s also some like
Details under the rug
You’d have to spend like the same amount of time
But maybe kids find comp math more engaging
So they might end up putting in more hours overall
Yeah I think in particular the existence of competitions around it make it compelling
I’m like
I do think there should be more options for pure math tho
I see lol
Lol
Well some races you have to win
Sadly I live alone
So
I guess I gotta move out
so true....
😭
Lol perpetually changing rooms bc of this
the primary reason why i dont like comp math is because i feel insecure and like not good enough whenever i can't solve a problem fast or even solve it at all when my friends can solve it pretty easily, but thats prob a bad mindset lol
Maybe I'll just give "the art and craft of problem solving" another dig
Especially if I pass the regionals
Some of the smartest people I know were premeds
I don’t think giving comp math a try is necessary at this stage
I refuse to believe it Max smh
(Jk I knew some smart ones too)
Some of the dumbest people I knew were math majors so…
Now you should be nice to yourself

I’m always nice to myself
No uchi math majors were all around smart
I didn’t really know dumb ones
Econ majors on the other hand
Truly unhinged
Uchi doesn’t have a business major
So ofc every like
Obnoxious business bro
Goes to econ
oof
Business majors I have met, universally annoying ppl
max u are at uchi? 
I graduated
oh, so u were a ug there?
Yeah
Noice 
Oh ur like, senior or smth right
ye
Yeah like, by the time it takes for you to get used to comp math ur yr will be over ykwim lol
lol
lmao
I will
I'll start my exams on june 12

lol
from 12th june to?
17 ig
Ah fair enough, didn't think about it that way. Obviously you know more about what could happen than me but it was just a thought I had
but I'll finish HS in a month or so
eh
i dont really have to go to school now
oh dope
my exams begin on 7th may
probably not
probably yes
I'll get them somewhere in july

I don't know why I often forget words while typing lel
happens lol
Anyone have tips on how to get faster solving problems? (And I mean the true superset of, "problems" that "math problems" are a subset of). I've kind of struggled with being slow at problem solving my whole life and it's starting to really impact my career. My previous logic was, "as long as I got enough repetitions in, the speed would come," but this is turning out to be untrue.
insert "understand, don't memorize" here
Finding easy ways to understand and justify the "rules" to yourself makes you much stronger when curveball questions come up. Repetition will never ready you for these. Perhaps these are your problem?
That being said, repetition is important.
@neat lintel
I wonder if doing some remedial work might be beneficial then. Like taking a 09X math course just to solidify my foundations. However, what's concerning is this slowness intersects nearly all parts of my life. I'm slow at interviewing for jobs, I'm slow at chess with time controls, and I'm slow at math problems/tests. I'm worried its something more systemic.
uhh... fear?
hunger?
seems like the reoccurring themes are "logic" + "time pressure"
So fear makes sense. I'm curious what you mean about hunger though!
literally don't eat until you improve
chronic rage
I don't think my doctor would approve haha
i mean it's differential steps
and you don't do it all the time
but if you have homework that's running late into the night or something
maybe you had to skip dinner
maybe if it keeps causing you to skip dinner, you'll get to the point where it delays dinner
maybe if it delays dinner you'll get better to the point where it doesn't
poof
you sound pretty smart and seem to be breaking down the problem of "I can't solve problems" in a clean analytical sort of way, it's possible you're just underestimating yourself, but I can't be sure since I don't know you and haven't seen you encounter a problem in the wild and try to solve it
I guess what I'm asking is, how do you know you're slow and not just facing the same problems everyone else faces
I think this is a common problem people face, they live in their own internal world and can't really observe what it's like from the inside of another person's brain, they can just see the exterior and that leads to things like imposter syndrome in a lot of smart people
another bit is that maybe you're just not using the right tools -- it's tempting to think you can compete with other just using pen and paper, like you were taught for the most part
maybe you're not using pen and paper as well as you should organizational tools like quad-boxes
pros and cons, hierarchical outlines
they only go so far
I think the biggest metric is that I was a Software Engineer for 8 years but haven't been able to find a new job since the industry switched to using LeetCode problems. "Par" would be to solve two problems in a 50 minute interview, but it takes me about 60m to solve one. I've been on the job hunt for exactly one year now and no luck.
Another data point is that I frequently lose to time in chess (11% of the time) while I've never won on time against an opponent, which seems like a statistical outlier. Just means I'm consistently using more time per turn than the average opponent of my skill level by a significant margin.
are you fat?
Honestly good be a healthy mix of Imposter Syndrome and being tilted by years of not being "fast" and it becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. That said, I'm considering talking to a neurologist just to make sure it's not some sort of cognitive decline being the harbinger of something worse.
Underweight, actually. 145 lbs., 6'1".
do you have good sleeping habits?
I play contact sports though, so I'm quasi-fit.
Good sleeping habits but bad eating habits now that you mention it. Often my first meal is at 1pm.
When I'm nervous about an interview/test I find it especially hard to be hungry.
well if you know how to train your body, i'm sure it's the same thing with you mind
pick your training parameter and reinforce
it sounds like you might just want to memorize a list of things
whip out your DS&A, your favorite OOP manual (idk if ltcode uses python or waht?) and start memorizing the shit
If I fit everything into a problem-space where I can use spaced repetition, I think I'm in a relatively good spot. There's always the odd chance they might ask me a problem that I don't know, but maybe I can model it after a problem I have already memorized?
try project euler
for coding challenges
those get pretty spicy
and they're not some shitty silicon valley scam bullshit surveillance program asshole anus shit
for shitheads
leetcode is also fine
better UI + active community + you can use any language you want and the problems are classified from easy to hard
there is always a trade off between speed and accuracy while playing chess
this just means that your playing style errs on accuracy over speed (I'm guilty of this too lol, falgging still feels like cheating to me tbh)
anyhow, I would claim chess abilities and problem solving prowess are almost disjoint
being good at chess has far more to do with how much experience you have/how much time you spend actively trying to improve
just as an anecdote (and take this with a grain of salt) iq score seems to remain constant even with prep whereas chess elo can obviously improve with practice
At the end of the day, I think it's all just relative
and it has far more to do with your self-perception than anything else
just like how the most attractive people can be the most insecure
and I personally think the time you spend lamenting over how slow you are compared to arbitrary standards you set for yourself can be far more productively spent elsewhere
@neat lintel
PS if you think there might be a more pathological cause to your concerns, feel free to consult a neurologist. But honestly, I seriously doubt it.
This is not really true; you certainly can prepare for an IQ test by doing similar styles of questions while understanding what they’re looking for
I would like to have a source on that
since I was under the impression that iq was designed to be roughly constant
"may"
And keep in mind that IQ is a test, nothing more nothing less
Pretty much any test can be prepared for, and with practice there’s a decent chance you’ll get better at it
I did say I was being anecdotal and he should take it with a grain of salt
I know that, I’m not saying you’re being bad or anything, just a small note of mine
anyways, I doubt practice would improve your score by much
In any case I myself put very little stock in IQ tests specifically
Incidentally, for a better source see https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/per.2410090104
Then again this is only like one or two sources; I’m not a clinical psychologist who’s spent years combing through studies of IQ tests either
Maybe there’s some good review paper of this topic that answers the question a lot better one way or the other
honestly, I don't have the energy to investigate this further myself lol
hey sorry if this is like a dumb question but does anyone know how to make a dot run through a desmos graph like the video attached below
something that does that at like a uniform pace
Depends on your definition of uniform pace but you could plot the point (a,f(a)) [after defining f(x) of course] and let desmos do the cycle thing with that new variable a you added
where did edd go
Asking here just to be sure but this is false right
yes, if i remember correctly (0.1,0.2) and (1,2) both have the cardinality of the reals
I mean this is tiktok so not surprising it’s false info lol
they do
but there are different sizes of infinity
Infinity sizes are determined based on how you can attribute one number from one infinity to another infinity right
no
welllllllllllllllll
i guess you could phrase it like that?
the size of an infinity is defined by starting with the cardinality of the integers as a base
Maybe it’s a weird phrasing
But tbh I just remember the proof of the irrationals being larger than the naturals by making a new number with the decimals of the irrationals
yeah that's called cantor's diagonalization argument
Btw last question but is there an infinity smaller than the naturals or is there no in between from a finite set to the set of the naturals
i don't think so
I'm bracing myself before somebody swoops in with some bizarro alternate foundations where there are an infinity of infinite cardinalities smaller than aleph_0
according to stack exchange there may be a smaller one if not using axiom of choice??
who really cares abt it
true
well, if there are cardinalities between the naturals and the reals is undecidable in ZFC
aleph_0 is certainly the smallest infinite cardinality in ZFC
if |S| < aleph_0, |S| is finite
but I have no idea what other fringe approaches to this could be out there
is that a definition
i think the person probably wanted a proof
That's above the naturals, though. Below, there really isn't classically
from the other definition of an infinite set as one that is in 1-1 correspondence with a proper subset
Hm, although I'm not sure there's an injection from N into every infinite set without some choice axiom
Without choice the cardinals aren't linearly ordered
Infinite set is defined as a set into which N can inject
In general, it can help too think about cardinality as taking about structure, not size.
Oh sure, if that's your definition then it's pretty trivial :)
Haha I would love to see an alternative definition
"set that has a non-injective surjection into itself" (or non-surjective injection)
p sure i saw this one somewhere
oh yeah jesyspa urs is equivalent to mine
"set with no bijection to a natural number" (this is a common definition of "non-finite")
I suppose, I guess I had grouped all these into the same definition in my mind
"set X with an injection n -> X for every n"
They're all equivalent classically with choice, but in other foundations you can find differences
cool
Is choice necessary for equivalence of definitions
It's hard to show that it is, but I suspect for some it will be
Actually perhaps not so hard: I suspect for some of these, the equivalence with your definition implies countable choice
But that's just gut feeling
(when I say "you need choice" I mean "you can't do it with plain ZF", not that you need all of choice, by the way)
Oh, another one is "admits a linear order without endpoints"
“is big”
"admits a non-discrete Hausdorff topology"? I think
Can anyone tell me, how can I analytically prove that a function is increasing/decreasing?
Assume x < y and show f(x) <= f(y)? It depends on f how that goes exactly.
@vale bridge Can you be more specific?
Multipost
Oh, how rude.
Did you mean
bijection to a subset of natural numbers?
Ah no, I was thinking of the natural numbers as sets, so n = { k in N | k < n }
A common definition in this setting is "a set is finite if it is in bijective correspondence with a natural number (i.e. a finite cardinal)"
My grandma told me my little cousin likes math
I’ll finally have someone to talk to in the family lmao
I have no one to talk with about math irl 
Oh wow. I like that way of thinking.
i have my dad, but i cant really talk much math with him coz he doesnt like me studying stuff not in my exam syllabus

Same bro
god, I hate when parents do that
Do we have a channel in this server where we have 'top problems' of week/month?
no
but I think that'd be nice
just put the Millennium Prize Problems and don't tell people they haven't been solved
What topics you are reading
currently? a mix of LA, analysis and CS
You're welcome to contact me for discussion
thank you
I appreciate the offer
but that won't be necessary since this whole server was made to make a place for people to discuss math (at least, that's what I feel)
This server was made to shitpost
@median girder I have some ideas for your question, but the thread timed out before I could type, is that question still something you'd need some help with?
One doesn't exclude the other
this is me as well
drug update day 4
bruh i literally feel depressed lmao
not cool, drugs
no increase in focus
yet
gods this sucks
lol what drugs
I’ll guess amphetamine salts
vyvanse
what dose
30
yeah
You do realize they won’t affect you the same way as you hear it does all these students abusing it, right?
No, not really
yeah so two things here is that amphetamines and stimulants affect those with ADHD very differently from neurotypicals, and also it might take a bit longer than just a few days to notice much of a difference
That’s true too
you don't necessarily get a huge amount of sharp focus, but you might notice it makes things work better in the long run in subtle ways
Especially if it’s been a day
that, or you could try a higher dose
hm
No, stop
i might stick it out for like another two or three weeks then
yeah definitely
it could just be other factors muddying it
that might average out over a longer period of time
Stick it out bro; it’ll make you more even-keeled once the plasma levels stabilize- but don’t expect the hyper focus you hear it gives some of these kids abusing it report; you don’t want that anyway. You’ll be able to focus much better, but not in that regard 👍
gods know i already have enough issues with hyperfocus lmao
also just be aware that the medication alone won't solve everything; behavioral therapy and building good habits around work and focus is just as important
a common pitfall that happens to people that take stimulants for ADHD is they will end up hyperfocusing, but on the wrong things
this usually happens when there is no other behavioral intervention that goes along with the medication
hm
thoughts on this article
i think AI is a big step of human technology
dont think anyone can stop it though
I think …no
Atleast it should take over all the menial labrous jobs that people do
Well it does potentially open up new jobs too involving AI (as the article does note)
What is the logic of the inside out product . can u explain
What's that?
The outer product is a thing
It's when you make a matrix out of two vectors (v_i) and (w_j) by setting A_ij = (v_i * w_j).
this can be written as A = vw^t
somehow it corresponds to the tensor product of v and w (up to an identification)
Why is everything about tensor products 
I finished another problem 

ryc guilt tripping me to do past papers 
me as well 
Math and situations aren't necessarily mutually exclusive
Good morning DarQ
,ti
The current time for DarQ is 02:59 PM (BST) on Sun, 24/04/2022.
Ah and once again, you are burdening us with your bad takes
Good morning
Math and shitposting may not be mutually exclusive
My takes aren't bad

I bad

No

Unga bunga?
Ooga booga.



Good morning shyshy
The current time for Samsyet is 07:34 PM (IST) on Sun, 24/04/2022.
Good morning shyshy.
Good morning slurpy.


No, I meant "slurpy"
The current time for DarQ is 03:06 PM (BST) on Sun, 24/04/2022.
Slurp is 2 hours ahead, at 05:06 PM (IDT) on Sun, 24/04/2022.
Good morning DarQ
Oonga bonga
Why
I am the one and only
Yeah, but that's not pronounced slurpy, it's pronounced slurpy
Ahh okay
There's a difference
Who on earth knows set theory?
what are the basics
You are…. HAHA GOTTEM
Nah but like just simple operations on sets
Specifically symmetric difference
I know how to go about $\bigcup \bigcap \mathcal{A}$
texaspb
I wanna know what your notation for it is
Ah
$A \Delta B$
texaspb
Vellemen used Delta
$A \oplus B$
texaspb
Ive seen both
Dis-fucking-gusting
Ive never seen symmetric difference since
You are all irredeemable
Yeah it randomly popped up in my probability hw cuz they’re * quirky *
$A\triangle B$
Zanarcane
$A \oplus B = (A \cup B) \setminus (A \cap B)$ is this the def btw?
texaspb
I never said I use it 
$A\mathbin{\vcenter{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{$\triangle$}}}}B$
All other notation is wrong
I am sick of seeing ugly sym diff notation
$A\mathbin\Delta B$ is ugly
The latex tho 
Define a preamble
$A\mathbin\triangle B$ is ugly
It’s part of one of mine
$A\oplus B$ I’ve never seen. Tbh it’s understandable. I accept
@worthy yoke Sorry to bother, to give one final clarification which I should have included earlier, the reason why I could just call a term dependent on z a constant is specifically because the question tells us we should take constant z amplitide and the term I called k was just a power of this constant amplitude, so would not influence the angles of the solution and would not give rise to solutions that have the same angle but different amplitudes. In general, absorbing terms of the equation which contain the variable into constants needs to be done carefully and with justification, my justification at the time is now I feel insufficient, so this is the real reason. But in all honesty, the method you used first is probably the easiest since after obtaining the 4 possible angles, each subsequent equation of the form z^L = re^ix where x is one of the four angles will have L solutions since it is a polynomial equation of degree n. The r is the amplitude we can take as fixed. We know that for this particular type of equation there will not be any repeated roots so there are 4L solutions all of which definitely have angles between -pi and pi as this is the full range of angles in an argand diagram, so no need for any of the algebra. Sorry for the long message, just felt I should address this.
It should be a Delta not a triangle, to signify "difference"
I understand why it’s a delta obviously
But I object to the delta’s ugliness
Based slurp
Thank you deary
Delta doesn't look symmetric
Why
That's one of the worst things in naive set theory
Direct sum 🤨
Yeah there’s a certain symmetry to it (no pun intended)
btw, linear algebra > naive set theory

axiomatic is based
Linear algebra is fuckin ZASED
O

Ye that’s above my pay grade
oh
Even though my math level is still below the "acceptable" level, I know how to work with the Chin Cheng Hanji theorem
Or as u call it, the chinese remainder theorem
Affine geo is first year material?
No, 2nd year
But I'm studying it rn
And at the same time I'm learning linear algebra

Let's call it a "challenge"
You do calc/anal yet?
Haven't you done anal yet?

No, I haven't
I used to like integration a lot
Before studying linear algebra
Anal feels very good too
They told me that the day I start studying abstract algebra or contemporary algebra or whatever you call it here that starts with group theory, I'll like that a lot
Yeah, it seems that real anal is very funny, as it has very hard proofs
btw, I prefer complex anal
if u take a linear algebra course, are you expected to be able to make these massive computations?
bc my memory is shit
Yes and no
Anal didn't feel good for me 
I won't remember the determinants and cross products and matrix multiplications and all that
It was so rough and dry
That's why I like it
The harder, the more I like it
this whole conversation is a sully
Well, I'm using "anal" refering to "analysis", but I know that you guys can't avoid thinking about other things
🤨
smh
Let me explain
At least in my degree
coming from "math simp"
We have a first course where they teach you until linear maps
Well, I'm honest
lol
alright
So they also teach u there the classic exercise about proving the Vandermone determinant using induction
Other things? 🤨

My lord
What other things?
Ask Google
Anal has always been analysis, what are you talking about?
,w anal
A linear algebra course should contain the following topics:
- Matrices and determinants.
- Vector spaces (should be taught before matrices or at the same time)
- Linear maps.
- Dual space.
- Endomorphism diagonalization.
- Bilineal and quadratic forms.
- Jordan "things"
Anal is a language? 
I see
A troll trying to troll another troll while knowing that the other troll already knows it's trolling.
Interesting
No
You will, don’t worry. Very easy way of remembering them
They also tell you: "never try this in ur job, use computers for massive computations"
Diagonalization with 16x16 matrices 
What's the best way to diagonalize a matrix numerically?
lol alright
GV method is my personal favorite
I haven't got to that part in numerical analysis, btw, I have Burden's, let me search some random algorithm in chapter 9 and I tell ya
Because QR, even with reduction to Hessenberg matrix, feels really slow
GV?
Guess + verify
Lol
Yeah
Idk if this is useful for what you are asking
I thought about that too
My course never discussed the numerical aspects of SVD though
In numerical linear algebra, the Jacobi eigenvalue algorithm is an iterative method for the calculation of the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of a real symmetric matrix (a process known as diagonalization). It is named after Carl Gustav Jacob Jacobi, who first proposed the method in 1846, but only became widely used in the 1950s with the advent of...
Also found this
Yeah, I know about that too
But I'm rather interested in whether those algorithms are actually used in practice
Or maybe my own implementations are all considerably more inefficient than the usual libraries
It's about eigenvalues of large matrices
wym, governments are trying to regulate it lmao
yeah exactly
I don't like philosophy
This looks good
yeah but then it would need retraining
I'd like to learn logic
But I don't have much time
I know the open logic text
But it looks as something very very fast that won't teach u much... well, that means I'm searching something slower
Ya I think that’s better tbh
anyone help me with an easy maths question?
@surreal sapphire 

what's the difference between this channel and #discussion
this one has a 2
this channel is for discussion of the number 2
omg i did not realize
The server is too large for just one channel
doubt
So you can discuss here as well, it's simple
based
what is this
looks good
based
alien ship vibe
The white spots are probably desmos not being able to graph it because of too much oscillations
Did you try zooming in on them
yep
The difference between this channel and #discussion is the same as the difference between the channels #discussion and #serious-discussion
I see
You must take this as an stupidity
Because that's f obvious

btw, if we change the objects there and we are studying logic
Things get a lot more difficult
Mathematician juggles with trivial things
Yes
But then you find a lot of beauty in trivial things
I used to think a lot about the word "useful"
That's a cool curve
Some people say that maths are either "useful" or not "useful". After thinking a lot about this question, I concluded that it is a stupid question
Because it doesn't matter if math is useful or not. It is used worldwide everyday, so it's impossible to say that it isn't useful
And about those branches that may seem useless
Like topology
They have computational applications always
btw, I don't want to make you think I'm saying math is useful (while I'm saying that exact thing), because my point is far from the question
My point is that it's useless to ask if math is either useful or not, because we shouldn't care about usefulness
Sure thing
Not my way of judgement anyway
If we care too much about "useful", then we will have some difficulties trying to learn abstract math
If you don't care about if what you are studying is useful or not, you avoid those silly questions that make you waste a lot of time, and you go straight to the point of understanding concepts
For example, the dual space
If you want applications of the dual space as a premise in order to understand what is the "dual space" then you will walk a very long way
But if you don't care a little bit about applications
You just see that we define the vector space of linear applications that go from any vector space to a field
And in your mind, this is what you see
$f: E \to \mathbb{K}$
math simp
And then you are able to understand easily the dual basis, dual applications, bidual, and other things
But, if for understanding this you immediately need examples, that will be very very difficult to understand, and the point of pure maths is not to understand things, it isn't enough, you have to interiorize them
btw, I think that even inside the world of mathematicians, this POV isn't supported, so
I said everything, bye
could this pattern be useful?
it looks like something that could be applicable to somewhere
I think you wouldn't very likely stumble upon "cos(x)^y = cos(y)", but yeah, maybe
love you too

ok
$x^\frac{2}{3}+0.9sin(50x\pi)\sqrt{3.3-x^2}$
Wa3Wa
$x^\frac{2}{3}+0.9\sin{50x\pi}\sqrt{3.3-x^2}$
Wa3Wa
np homie
those are the two i know
oh
and
$r=a(1-\sin{\theta})$
Wa3Wa
Wa3Wa
this is also a good one
@zenith tinsel
you can actually adjust the functions by adding parameters
like replace every "x" with "ax"
then vary a
thoughts on this article
im conflicted
idk if it should or should not be regulated
the problem isn't AI but the lack of social security for most workers
the idea of automating all tedious tasks sounds great and should be a goal of humanity, but not if a huge portion of society is left impoverished in the process
regulating AI rather than tackling the actual social issue at hand would just stagnate innovation
(no need to post on multiple channels btw)
Ideally those out of jobs could be shifted into new ones involving say development or maintenance of the automated system
Ofc that’s not really feasible right now
Ah yes,Capitalism ruining innovation
How to solve the recursion relation a_n−1= 2_an + 4^n ; a_1 = 3, n⩾ 0. with generating function?
Idk
what a helpful response
drug update day five (i think?)
didn't take em today
bc i took them after like twelve yesterday
and didnt go to sleep until four today 
i feel literally no difference
which is either good or bad
not sure
do you have an appointment with a doctor for sometime soon?
really?
damn
and what does me claiming AI being a huge step of human technology
has anything to do with governments trying to regulate it lmao?
funnily enough i just read an article about current challenges of AI
?
hm?
whats funny about it
nothing, its just odd that AI came up here (again) while i was just reading this thing
coincidence
How's that capitalism
You know, It's weird how economists use graphs for literally everything
I don't think I would use an isocost line over the corresponding isocost function
Graphs are hard and confusing to read for me compared to a lookup table
bad take
Why,does it get bad with a large number of inputs?
Ok,fair if you don't have a readymade function,you need to use graphs
you don't put spaces after your commas?

yeah, what up with?
better than not putting a space after a comma
I would love to see your code, blue bye
I bet you use
func()
{
}
instead of
func() {
}
smh
smh
what do you mean
the best indentation is
func()
{
}
i bet you don't use tabs either
why tf would I click 4 times as many click to do the same thing?
tabs are just superior
that's why i meant
Omfggg that was cooooolllddd
You didn’t have to go so hard DarQ
OMG this isn't Python
I missed the Collatz talk
What is a hydra map?
I remember the last time I tried to dive into p-adic theory... I learned it was similar to ergodic theory, I found an online textbook somehow, and then I struggled to understand anything in that textbook. I'm honestly intimidated by a lot of the higher level math concepts because Calculus 3 prepares you for absolutely nothing if you want to get into the good stuff.
Here's what I mean:
Is this typically taught in an intro to liner algebra class?
@violet spade i want to thank you for the Rec last night to Roman
In finding Artin very good too; it just seems very natural to me to present AA and LA intertwined
Huh, interesting. I don't recall learning about spectral theorem or inner product in my intro to Linear Algebra class. Maybe I got the Com Sci lite version or something.
Oh, I know what dot product is
Oh, okay.
Diagonalizable rings a bell, but I don't remember what that means.
I'm curious how this relates to the Collatz map. What is the advantage to having a diagonal matrix or knowing any given matrix can be diagonalized?
Is this paper related?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.13670.pdf
Is the goal to create a formula or algorithm that can predict the future of the Collatz trajectory more or less? If say 7 has a diagonal matrix, the hope is a scaled version of 7 also has this behavior?
I'm sorry, what does i represent? Is that the position of the matrix like an index or does it represent something else?
Oh, okay
I just realized matrices have two indices per spot in the matrix and I'm confused again
I'm looking at working out the M2 matrix. In the first spot (1,1), The first spot is a one so that's given. When I move onto (1,2), I have two parts: the first part and the second part. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to look at both parts or just one of them
oooohhhh It's just the first part
I'll probably come back to noob post more about this paper another time, I may need a break for now.
In the n/2 method, that's going to hide a lot of the growth behavior until you actually get to that number. Also, calculating the determinant for some of these matrices sounds like hell. Also, I'm not sure how this says anything about the two-one cycle being the only one, but I think I have a lot more reading and understanding I need to do. Once I understand what's going on I'm going to throw 3x+5 at it and see if it actually holds up
Mochizuki's at it again with a new paper: https://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/Essential Logical Structure of Inter-universal Teichmuller Theory.pdf
lolz
Nice picture. Of course you also watch Young Justice
The GLAS animation style was not very flattering to him
yeah lol
Ultra told me this is 2 years old
it literally says April 2022 so idk what they're talking about
And apparently it's "very based"
ultrazuki
It's basically him spending an entire huge paper condescendingly teaching basic logic to scholze
You mean, this is 2 years old
it literally says April 2022 so idk what they're talking about
true
why isn't this a sticker https://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/2012-03-30-mochizuki-shinichi.jpg
that would be good
It could be an emote, we do have

integration and differentiation on - i.e., so to speak, the "differential geometry" of - the real line
it should exist as something people of the server can use
zorn what are u doing
I think namington is the one who wastes his time cropping and adding mathematician faces
true he made the last few stickers that were being discussed haha
oh so the joke is that mochizuki bolds parts of the sentences?
lol
Oh god, this is terrible. "Section 1: Summary of non-mathematical aspects for non-specialists. Why the fuck would you include that in a math paper?
new mochi diss track dropped
I mean I just directly quoted something from his paper, so yeah

what is this
why do you guys roast this mochi guy
Because he's hilarious
he's himself a meme
He's a distinguished math professor from Japan who made numerous contributions to anabelian geometry. Then he turned to crankery and invented IUT
The one and only
interesting
ok so this paper isn't a meme too
it's an actual thing
It's both

Various multiple copies of certain mathematical objects in inter-universal Teichmuller theory are redundant and hence may be identified with one another. On the other hand, once one makes such identifications, one obtains an immediate contradiction.
this paper is so weird
everything is weird
but I get it maybe I just don't understand the concepts
so RCS = Scholze and Stix right?
I think so, but also "One fundamental reason for the use of this term "RCS" in the present paper, as opposed to the names of mathematicians, is to emphasize the importance of concentrating on mathematical content, as opposed to non-mathematical - i.e., such as social, political, or psychological - aspects or interpretations of the situation."



