No, you're being a pompous ass, @Balarka. Adams is one of the great teachers/expositors. He's not Atiyah, but he makes hard math understandable and interesting.
There is no homology in that book. And, Balarka, I suggest you put out a hit-list for all the people who've read A Brief History of Time but don't know QFT or can't prove the formula for the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole.
$\large{\text{MEGA ANNOUNCEMENT}}$: Today, June 27, 2015, I finished calculating elementarily the whole cases presented by Flajolet and Salvy in their celebre paper about Euler sums.
@SohamChowdhury I really don't see what this has to do with what Mike said. We had no run-in, what he said was perfectly true -- I should be more respectful towards branches of math I am not familiar with.
@Balarka, I see no point in continuing this conversation. But I've often seen you be condescending toward "incremental understanding" of any topic. It's perfectly okay to get a "flavour" of a topic, but you apparently disagree. Let's leave it at that.
e.g. when I said that braid groups are cool, and you replied saying I know nothing about them (which is true, in a way).
learn it, it's in Munkres. it's not about pasting topological spaces, it's about extending continuity of functions from open covers of the space to the whole space.
i always get inspired by the sea when resolving math problems, i see em similar, because sea depth is so mysterious and endless and not discovered all of it. besides, it can be pleasant and enticing,in other hand it can be e=mc² :D
@Chris'ssistheartist Seems somewhat paranoid, but I guess if it can be done without making any serious changes to how you can work with the files yourself, it does not change much
@TobiasKildetoft Paranoid? I think you never worked in a large company and see there they ask you to change all your passwords every single month. I was neglecting this aspect of protection too much.
@Agawa001 @Hippalectryon I didn't use any protection till today. There is much stuff to protect. I simply wanna be safe until I publish my book, to have a good sleep at night.
Is there a standard term for the relation between two point sets $A$ and $B$ that holds if the two sets have equal interiors and equal closures? For example, the relation holds between an open and a closed disc with the same center and radius, or between any set and its own interior and its own closure.
@TedShifrin Si on regarde $a=a_0+a_1 X+\cdots+a_nX_n$ et $b=b_0+b_1 X+\cdots+b_nX_n$, on a bien $\overline{A+B}(x)=\overline{A}(x)+\overline{B}x$ de même pour le produit.
To add to that: every field is an integral domain (that is, contains no zero divisors). This is because every non-zero element of a field is invertible, and zero divisors are not invertible. $\Bbb Z / 6\Bbb Z$, however, is not a field, and $\overline{2} \cdot \overline{3} = \overline{0}$.
(Sorry, I've been doing a lot of ring theory. It's fresh. ^_^)
I'm doing an introductory exercise from Axler's Linear Algebra. It asks whether the set R together with the elements inf and -inf forms a vector space over R. I think it does, can someone please confirm?
