« first day (1609 days earlier)      last day (3427 days later) » 

9:00 PM
@BigEndian Have you studied abstract algebra?
 
$\mathbb{Z}_p$ denotes a ring of integers of order $p$... basically the ring formed with $\{1,2,3,\ldots, p\}$
And its isomorphic friends.
 
I understand lattices and the shortest vector problem and the closest vector problem
but I don't know much about the field
Your formulas aren't rendering on my end Arkamis
 
@BigEndian Pick up something that dicusses abstract algebra. Group theory, rings and fields.
 
$\mathbb{Z}_p [x]$ denotes the ring of polynomials whose coefficients belong to $\mathbb{Z}_p$, iirc.
 
9:01 PM
To get math to render properly, please see the link over on the right that says "Chat guidelines | LaTeX in chat"
 
@BigEndian the ring at stake is a quotient ring: the base ring is $\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z[X]$ and the ideal is generated by $X^n+1$
 
I'm not sure what a ring is...
I should take Alizter's suggestion and read on abstract algebra
 
Huy
@LeGrandDODOM: Using fancy words like quotient ring and ideal will surely help him understand, after seeing he doesn't really know what rings and fields are.
2
 
I think I'm getting the hang of chatroom sarcasm now
 
Now my understanding is that a lattice is an infinite group
 
Huy
9:04 PM
@teadawg1337: Basically, you can always assume I'm serious.
 
which means that it has an infinite number of elements
 
@Huy well, at least he knows exactly what to look for
 
and defines operations on those elements
correct?
so then a finite field
will be a subset of that lattice
with a finite number of elements
And I'm getting the sense that a ring is a way of defining a finite field
 
Thank you Alizter for pointing me to abstract algebra
I wasn't sure what field of math I was in :P
I'm more of a programmer than a math person
 
Huy
9:09 PM
@BigEndian: If you're interested in cryptography, I think looking into a bit of algebra will be worth it.
 
@LeGrandDODOM It's not necessary to reply to that comment. I closed the question (5th vote) and left a comment for the OP.
 
@Behaviour What's the right strategy here? Rollback?
 
@MikeMiller No, the original question was even worse, and nobody answered the first version.
 
I guess the right answer is 'ignore it and let it die'.
 
Hi @Jasper
 
9:12 PM
Yes. I edited one of the OP's posts into shape, but he's beyond help.
 
@DonLarynx Hello.
 
Even in the comments, it's "yeah, yeah, whatever, can you answer?". Ugh.
 
Is a field a special case of a ring?
 
@BigEndian Yes it can be thought of as that.
 
Hmmm
 
9:13 PM
It's not that it can be thought of as that, @Alizter, it is that.
 
@MaryStar Yes.
 
@MikeMiller But sometimes it doesn't help. For example does it help to say that a group is a special case of a magma?
 
sure @Alizter
a group is a special case of a magma
 
Sure, it doesn't help there because nobody cares what a magma is.
2
 
9:17 PM
i'd care if it came out the volcano next door.
 
@BalarkaSen Your first sentence was correct.
 
yes, those are the lamest jokes i have
@Alizter which one?
 
door not doors
You decorrected your sentence
 
there ya go
everything is ok in chat and war @Alizter
 
@MikeMiller But yeah. I was being careful. Incase I said it was a special case of a ring and then somebody said. YES BUT ... blah.
 
9:19 PM
I am now wearing the Kofia hat.
 
So is a ring a special case of a group?
 
no @BigEndian
 
Okay so why not
 
No. A ring has more structure - a ring comes equipped with a multiplication map as well as an addition map. They're distinct concepts.
 
a group doesn't usually have two binary operations.
 
9:19 PM
sorry
I meant field
 
@BigEndian A group has 1 operation. A ring has 2.
 
Is a field a special case of a group
 
@BigEndian still no.
 
Instead of browsing wikipedia (like I suspect most people who first encounter these do), you should grab an introductory book and learn from there.
 
go read up the definitions
you're asking nonsensical questions
 
9:20 PM
I don't think these questions help you learn.
 
@Balarka: You're sounding more and more like a crabby professor (e.g., me) every day
 
@BalarkaSen A group is an algebraic structure with 1 binary operation. Clearly this conflicts with rings and fields having two binary operations.
 
@Ted You're not unpleasant.
 
Some would beg to differ, @Mike
 
Huy
@MikeMiller: Why isn't a ring a special case of a group? It has more structure but what structure of a group is missing?
 
9:21 PM
i'm unpleasant, @Mike? orly.
 
@MikeMiller I totally agree with you. Next everyone will come to you for mathematical education. I am out of business.
 
A ring is a commutative group under its addition operation, @Huy
 
I'm so confused
 
Huy
@TedShifrin: I know that.
 
@TedShifrin I hoped you said crappy professor and that there would be a fight. But alas, t'was a misread.
 
9:22 PM
They basically have the same stuff
a bunch of elements and an operation
 
no they don't
 
@Huy There can be multiple rings with the same underlying additive group. A ring is not a special case of a group in the same sense that a complex manifold is not a special case of a smooth manifold.
 
except ring has another operation
 
@Alizter: Some of my students would strongly agree with "crappy professor"
 
Huy
@TedShifrin: BigEndian was asking whether a ring was a special case of a group. Imo it's a special case, because a ring is a much stronger concept, but essentially also a group, no?
 
9:22 PM
@TedShifrin Are those the ones that are close to failing your classes?
 
@Huy It depends on how you interpret the question.
 
"a bunch of elements and an operation" @BigEndian that's a stupid way to think of it.
 
No, the interesting part of rings is the fact that there are two operations, and the interactions of those two is what makes the ring
 
Thanks Balarka
 
Huy
@TedShifrin: Well yeah, that makes it a lot stronger. But that doesn't mean it's not a group?
 
9:23 PM
the failing has already happened, @Alizter ... A new crop starts on Monday :P
 
I just learned abstract algebra was a thing five minutes ago
 
I already answered the group thing, @Huy
 
@BigEndian A ring has two operations and a group has one operation. We cannot say that the collection of rings is a subset of the collection of groups.
 
Don't think of rings and groups together until Galois Theory then.
 
@BigEndian a good way to think about these is to go through examples. let X be a set and consider all the bijective maps from X to itself.
 
9:24 PM
But I agree with @Mike: Too many people try to learn with no effort by reading the web. The web is not necessarily a good textbook.
 
Huy
I think saying a ring is not a group because rings have two operations on it is a bit very limited thinking.
 
Call the collection of these maps Map(X)
 
@BigEndian However, a ring is a group if you consider only one of its operations.
 
I never said that, @Alizter
 
@BigEndian this guy Map(X) is a group, and is a good motivation of the study of abstract groups
 
9:24 PM
@TedShifrin I never said you did?
 
prove that Map(X) is a group first
 
@TedShifrin I was careful with my wording in case you said "Nobody. And I mean nobody. Fails my classes."
 
gives up following this nonsense
 
No, it's just wrong, @Huy. A ring has an underlying additive group. But to say that 'a ring is a special case of a group' means (or should mean) that some groups are rings; but that's not true. Some groups are the underlying additive group of a ring.
 
Is someone familiar with art gallery theorems ?
 
9:25 PM
On the other hand, this is not really an argument worth having.
 
Too many people are posting at once, I can't follow all of this at te same time
 
Oh, @Alizter, I used to pride myself on motivating "weaker" students to work harder for me than they ever had in all their classes put together, and as a result they didn't fail and often excelled. But I no longer have that power.
 
@LeGrandDODOM I have heard and seen about them. Yes. I am no expert though.
 
@DonLarynx If you don't mind telling me your real first and last name, we can exchange emails and share secrets. My email is jasperloy at outlook dot com.
 
interesting question, @Mike : do all semigroup appear as multiplicative structure of rings?
 
9:26 PM
@Jasper: That could be dangerous. @Don has already tried to get me drunk :D
 
seems like tad nontrivial to me.
 
@TedShifrin Did you lose the power around the same time beating was abolished in schools?
 
Someone here gave me a pdf to the computer science book I should read and I can't find it, even with search.
 
smacks @Alizter :D
 
@TedShifrin Well, I have lost everything in life anyway, nothing to lose.
 
9:26 PM
I don't understand, what makes that collection of maps a group? What would the operation between two maps be?
 
@TedShifrin too much cheek here
 
@Ted i forgot to say hello to you
 
@BalarkaSen too bad
 
@BigEndian use your brain. think.
 
@Jasper: ..............watch Corey Wayne's videos...............
 
Huy
9:27 PM
@MikeMiller: That point makes a lot more sense than the ones before.
 
it's ok, @Balarka. My feelings aren't hurted.
 
@TedShifrin "but yours will be"
 
@Balarka: Depending on @Big Endian's background, that may not be obvious.
 
@DonLarynx So, are you going to email me? It's your decision. Let me know.
 
@Huy It's the same point, phrased differently. I admit my previous phrasings may not have been clear.
 
9:27 PM
Okay, I will think and be back
 
@Jasper I would love to share secrets but Project Euler is keeping me busy at the moment.
 
Huy
@MikeMiller: None of the previous arguments seemed equivalent to what you said, but okay.
 
takes away @Don's Coronas
 
@TedShifrin i never said it was obvious
just wanted him to think about it a bit
 
Do I Map(Map)
 
9:28 PM
@BigEndian The problem with not reading from a book and seeing it on wikipedia is that it is really easy to dismiss these things as just being part of a table. Take your time. This stuff is interesting.
 
@DonLarynx OK. I will wait till you are ready then. I only extend this invitation to people I feel a connection with.
 
You were abrupt and acted like a snippy, impatient teacher, @Balarka. Is this how you see your teachers behaving with students?
 
@TedShifrin no.
 
composition of functions, yes, @BigEndian
 
Guys, I want to make a sad announcement in this chat.
 
9:28 PM
Ok @Jasper
 
.@JasperLoy Has a connection with me, but he still has not yet shared his email.
 
No, @Jasper, please don't
 
i just developed impatience as i studied mathematics. :P
 
Huy
@TedShifrin: You mean this? "a bunch of elements and an operation" @BigEndian that's a stupid way to think of it.
 
@Huy The extra structure on a ring is not determined uniquely by the group structure, which is what I was trying to say before - a (good enough, e.g. commutative) group doesn't determine a ring. So there can be two rings that have the same underlying additive group. Is it clear why I say that rings aren't a special case of groups now?
 
9:29 PM
I've implored you to modify your rigid goals
 
@Jasper we know.
 
watches fight with @Alizter
 
So the operation is composition... and I guess that would be commutative
 
you can't study math next year
 
@Huy quote within a quote
 
9:29 PM
@BigEndian yes and no
 
$\sin(x^2) = (\sin x)^2$ ?@BigEndian
 
I wanted to start studying in 2015, but I don't think I can do it, so I will try to start studying in 2016. I am sorry. I don't mean to delay another year again, but I cannot help it.
 
the operation is indeed composition
but it's not commutative
 
Huy
@Alizter: Quotception.
 
The reason I'm being careful here is that I want to say that a $\Bbb Z$-module is the same thing as an abelian group, even though the former has more structure, because the extra structure of the former is uniquely determined by its underlying additive group.
 
9:30 PM
@JasperLoy Why?
 
Huy
@MikeMiller: It is clear, yes.
 
WAT
 
@Jasper: I know you dismiss me along with everyone else, but my LONG experience suggests you should commit to just doing a little bit, rather than this wholesale demolition of your 12 holy books.
 
@JasperLoy Will you be inductively doing that ?
2
 
Okay. Thank you for helping me make that coherent.
 
9:30 PM
@Alizter Because my mind is still too confused.
 
That's daft, life is too short @Jasper
 
@LeGrandDODOM I hope not.
 
Well
it is associative
 
@JasperLoy Listen to Ted
 
... I think...
 
9:31 PM
great now you gave another word for@BigEndian to search for @Mike. modules
 
Huy
@MikeMiller: I knew that too but I didn't think of all it and just found it rather a weak argument "this has 2 operations and this 1", but then again using the word "special case" was wrong there.
 
indeed @BigEdan.
 
.@BalarkaSen The great cynic.
 
don't ask, @Jorge
 
@BalarkaSen sea gulls
 
9:31 PM
Hello @GrigoryM Are you a professional mathematician ?
 
@Jasper What is your email? I want to send you a letter.
 
@TedShifrin Well, it's not about the demolition of the books. It's a strange obsession I have that I must start on 01 Jan, and I must be reasonably well by then. So, it's more of a part of my OCD that I cannot change.
 
@Alizter modules modules modules
 
Ah, if it's the GrigoryM I've encountered on main, yes, he is
 
i think of vector spaces as modules and i get free smacks from my prof every week.
 
9:32 PM
@MikeMiller You did not keep it? jasperloy at outlook dot com
 
idlh
 
@JasperLoy I do not keep address books.
 
Start, @Jasper, just do little bits in a day, not a wholesale 365-24-7 project.
5
 
@BalarkaSen shame. 4 is sufficient
 
coincidentally, my prof is also a geometer.
 
9:32 PM
Oops, I got my 365-7-24 out-of-order
 
i guess every geometer has this smack-ish tendency.
ducks
 
yes, @Balarka, you'd think three of us might influence you :D
 
Huy
@BalarkaSen: My old maths teacher is also a geometer, and can be very rough when he's losing to me in football.
 
does he smack you for real, @Balarka?
 
yes, @Ted
 
9:33 PM
I'm still not sure why rings are not a subset of groups
 
it hurts
 
rings have a second op
 
@BalarkaSen if he does its no longer funny
 
@BigEndian fuhget about rings
 
with the distributive property over the first
 
9:34 PM
you really must be obnoxious, then, in person ... @Kaj will tell you he's never seen me smack for real.
 
prove that Map(X) is a group
 
@BigEndian Well, you must first do some set theory. Just get an algebra book and study, period.
 
@BigEndian rather than second think of it as two. There was no first.
 
@TedShifrin well I have improved a bit.
 
yeah, @Alizter, but I take this with several grains of salt :)
 
9:34 PM
I am doing algebraic topology, see.
and not just algebra
 
Well it is easy to prove closure
 
i think i might become a hyperbolic geometer instead.
 
@TedShifrin Who checks whether a result has been found before?
 
yikes
 
you still need to learn calculus, analysis, and geometry, @Balarka
 
9:35 PM
@BalarkaSen I think you should wait till you finish undergrad to decide.
 
if you compose two bijective operations
you will have a bijective operation
 
@TedShifrin i guess i will
 
@BalarkaSen Even I cannot decide to be a banana or a mango.
 
that's closure
 
@BigEndian Could you please stop thinking aloud ?
 
9:36 PM
What do you mean, @Alizter? People active in the field tend to know the big results. If it's something of little interest, one has to do literature searches (much easier thanks to google).
 
Understood LeGrand
 
I'm glad you're considering a mango, @Jasper. And I hope you listened a little bit to me.
 
Huy
@BigEndian: That's closure.
 
yes, ok @BigEndian. and inversion?
i think having a motivation is good @Jasper
 
@BigEndian Go pick up the book amazon.com/Book-Abstract-Algebra-Edition-Mathematics/dp/…. It is very cheap and an easy read and will teach you all of these concepts rapidly and clearly.
 
9:37 PM
I've never heard of that book, @Arkamis.
 
i dunwanna set a time period after which i'd study yadda branch.
 
@TedShifrin It's a gentle introduction, but quite good, especially considering the price. Good problems for the beginner.
 
well, @Balarka, neither you nor I have to deal with OCD, etc., with which @Jasper deals.
 
@TedShifrin Can I just clarify something? It's not that I don't listen to your advice about doing a little. It's part of my OCD that I must study in a certain way. So I am forced by part of my mental illness to do things in a rigid fashion, just like some must wash their hands a certain number of times. I hope you understand more now.
 
@TedShifrin ah, true.
i hope he starts doing math though
 
9:38 PM
Me too, @Balarka
 
So, my therapist and other friends have told me to get rid of this particular rigidity, but I cannot.
 
I basically understood from the outset, @Jasper, but I hoped you could make some headway.
Why not just try starting and see what happens, then? Nothing to lose.
 
have you tried, @Jasper?
 
@TedShifrin I have always wondered this. I always imagined there was a database somewhere.
 
The difficulty is that if you do not, it may not be possible to achieve the rigidity you desire.
It's a catch-22.
 
9:39 PM
But, rest assured, I do listen to each and every one of you.
 
it must be hard but you have to do it.
 
@Alizter OMG it's the one and only math.stackexchange.com/users/237/joseph-orourke
 
It is invertible because you can go backwards on a bijective mapping. All elements map one to one. So you can map both forwards and backwards
 
@Jasper: You should definitely understand that we're very fond of you and we care.
 
@TedShifrin Yes, thank you.
 
9:40 PM
@BigEndian Good. So Map(X) is a group.
 
@Ledodo, I'm a one and only, too!!
 
We do care, @Jasper.
 
@MikeMiller Why does your email end up in my junk?
 
My email is junk.
 
@Mike is a spam sort of person.
 
Huy
9:40 PM
@MikeMiller: Did you send him another lolcat gif?
 
Wow, outlook has terrible default settings.
 
lolcat?
lol
 
Huy
@BalarkaSen: You're probably too young to have ever heard of them.
 
I was alive when WolframAlpha came out.
 
never heard of them, really.
 
Huy
9:42 PM
@BalarkaSen: They became popular in 2006, iirc.
 
I was old when Mathematica started :P
well, old by comparison with you folks.
 
@MikeMiller I will still stick to your old email address in my records.
 
I was ancient when the world was young.
 
PARI is way better than Mathematica at number theoretic jobs @Ted
 
You may feel free, but I rarely use it.
 
9:42 PM
@BalarkaSen says who?
 
lots of world famous number theorists
 
so why should I care, @Balarka?
2
 
I'll go get an abstract algebra book, maybe the one Arkamis suggests
And now, to lunch with me
 
just saying, @Ted. I know that you don't care about NT.
 
@Ted doesn't not care about NT
He just is not an expert
 
9:44 PM
geometers can't not care about NT
i know them well
:P
 
Huy
Actually, were lolcats the first real memes?
 
There are very many kinds of geometers ...
 
well, arithemtic geometers are geometers by name
 
@TedShifrin Tall. Wide. Commutative.
 
@Huy I think roflcopter is older
 
9:44 PM
they're algebraists
 
happy lunch, @BigEndian ... I see you're in one of my favorite cities. I have friends in the math department there, too.
 
Huy
@LeGrandDODOM: Is that considered to be a meme?
 
right, @Balarka, which I am not, despite having written an undergrad text
 
Off course
 
Huy
Okay, it dates back to 2004.
 
9:46 PM
@Huy cares?
 
@TedShifrin well diff geo is way way off from the discrete kind of stuff NTst like
 
Huy
But the form of picture + caption like memes, was there something before lolcats, @LeGRandDODOM?
 
What is a lolcat? Is it a cat, or is it porn?
 
Nevermind
 
@JasperLoy it is a cat with a funny caption
 
9:46 PM
But then there are lots of very analytic number theorists, too -- several in my department
 
@Alizter I see. I don't like animals.
 
i hear from secret agents that there have been recent developements on applying stuff from your kind of branch (intersection theory, hell knows what it is) to discrete objects
they call it arkelov geometry
sheesh
 
Huy
@JasperLoy: lolcats.com
 
Arakelov geometry has been around for 35+ years
 
9:47 PM
@BalarkaSen @TedShifrin To show that the angle of $30^{\circ}$ is constructible could we do it as followed??

$\cos(3 \theta)=4cos^3(\theta)-3\cos(\theta)$

For $\theta=30^{\circ}$ we have the following:

$\cos90^{\circ}=4\cos^430^{\circ}-3\cos30^{\circ} \Rightarrow 0=4\cos^330^{\circ}-3\cos30^{\circ}$

So, $\cos 30^{\circ}$ satisfies the equation $4x^3-3x=0 \Rightarrow x(4x^2-3)=0$

So, $Irr(\cos 30^{\circ}, \mathbb{Q})=4x^2-3$.

Since $\deg Irr(\cos 30^{\circ }, \mathbb{Q})=2$, $\cos 30^{\circ}$ is constructible.
 
and that's actually quite recent
 
@JasperLoy like the one above
 
One of the reasons I don't like pets is because I think there are enough humans to care about, and most of us eat animals for food, so it is kind of weird to have that kind of affection for animals.
 
Sort of silly, @MaryStar. Since you know what $\cos 30^\circ$ is ... and you should be able to explain it directly from the number.
 
Huy
@Alizter: How can you know? You were 8, too young for the internet.
 
9:48 PM
@TedShifrin analytic number theorists are all harmonic analysts in disguise. don't trust them :P
 
@Huy was I?
 
Well, we have several combinatorial analysts/number theorists who are harmonic analysts. One of the best teachers I've ever seen is one of 'em.
 
Huy
@Alizter: If your current age on your profile is correct, and my calculations, then yes.
 
I was browsing Thomas the Tank engine's website when I was 4.
 
@Jasper you are limited by your beliefs. I believed for a short period of time that I was schizophrenic, but then I realized if I didn't get off that train of thought, I may be incapable of everyday tasks. So I said....






FUCK THAT
 
9:49 PM
i have a sad tendency of labeling everyone with math branches @Ted
 
one of your many annoying tendencies, @Balarka
 
@BalarkaSen numerology
 
@DonLarynx Why is that rectangle so large?
 
LOL @Alizter
 
Because I need to get my point across, @Jasper Loy
 
9:50 PM
there was a rectangle?
 
@Ted It's claimed that if $g_{\alpha \beta}$ and $\omega_\beta$ are each (pointwise) orthogonal, then $g_{\alpha \beta}dg^{-1}_{\alpha \beta} + g_{\alpha \beta} \omega_\beta g^{-1}_{\alpha \beta}$ is again orthogonal. Is it apparent why?
 
@TedShifrin only in $\Bbb R^2$
 
@Mike: You're messing up big time.
 
I claim the author is messing up, not me.
 
$\omega_\beta$ is a connection matrix
 
9:51 PM
I agree.
 
A lot of project Euler is number theory.
 
it's $\mathfrak{so}(n)$-valued
 
Stupid.
Yes, agreed.
 
The whole thing is $\mathfrak{so}(n)$-valued.
 
Huy
@DonLarynx: Really? I don't know anything about number theory and did a lot of them some time ago.
 
9:51 PM
Yes, I understand.
 
Good. Don't make me put you on ignore :D
 
@Huy You don't need to know any number theory
 
Many of the problems can be made vastly simpler if you know some number theory.
But it is not a strict requirement.
 
The author is using $O$ for the group and $\mathcal O$ for the Lie algebra.
 
@Huy problem 26 involves knowing about the haupt-exponent regarding primitive roots, totient functions etc. I am glad I am taking number theory next semester.
 
9:52 PM
yuck ... what stupid author is that?
 
haha @Mike
 
Moore, at UCSD, has some notes about the SW equations. I'm reading the preparatory material on connections and such.
 
abuse of notation must have a limit
 
@TedShifrin So, do you mean that we have to show that the number $\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}$ is constructible??
 
haha @BalarkaSen
@MaryStar yes.
 
9:53 PM
Right, @MaryStar ... what do you know about constructible numbers?
 
Huy
@DonLarynx: I didn't know about any of those words and I'm very sure I solved it a while ago. It looks very familiar.
 
@Arkamis So what do you do with your life?
 
just construct right triangle dude
 
@MikeMiller How do you mean? As a career or...?
 
@BalarkaSen don't dude him. He is learning. dude
 
9:54 PM
You may interpret it as you like.
 
i was just giving a hint, dude @Alizter
 
I don't think this male-chauvinist room should assume every denizen is male.
 
I am a research engineer working in private industry, my background is in mathematics, specifically numerical analysis, and I am (slowly) expanding into probability theory.
 
@BalarkaSen ok dud
 
alge-bro, @Ted
 
9:54 PM
ah, very cool, @Arkamis
 
not alge-sis
 
Exciting! What sort of thing do you think about?
 
analy-sis
That doesn't sound great
 
yuck. now i see why i don't like analysis
 
(I like my friendly introductory questions to be vague. One of my favorites is: 'what do you like to think about?')
 
9:55 PM
Well, most of my math right now is for either furthering my education or for fun. I enjoy analysis, and really want to get into functional analysis
I have done quite a bit of work in the past using polynomial chaos representations for uncertainty quantification
 
Ah, so your job doesn't involve doing much?
 
@Arkamis yay, functional analysis ftw
 
That sounds fascinating.
 
@Huy: What is your friend key?
 
It depends. My work is government-funded. I work in many fields, nominally as a numerical/math specialist. Engineers don't understand real math. That's why I got hired.
 
Huy
9:56 PM
@DonLarynx: What?
 
Haha. Good point.
 
But, being as though my contracts vary, I have a diverse range of seemingly-unrelated talents that I have developed, from navigating medical device regulations, to software usability, to behavioral psychology, to writing real-time embedded code to solve control problems.
 
@Ted What was the book you recommended for Hodge (in contrast to Warner)?
 
For Project Euler, @Huy
 
Huy
@DonLarynx: Why would I have an account? I can read all the problems without one.
 
9:58 PM
I respect that, @Arkamis. It's easy to pigeonhole yourself. (Personal experience. :P)
 
That's one reason I left academia
 
@Arkamis I know another phD who left for the same reason
 
It's a relatively minor reason, but definitely on the list.
 
Most people here seem to leave academia because of the big bucks. :P
 
That reason was also on the list, although I know I could command more if I wanted to.
 

« first day (1609 days earlier)      last day (3427 days later) »