@Kannappan: I took a brief look at your notes and thought I should link you to this and this. Those should contain some things that are worth knowing when writing math.
@KannappanSampath They're actually quite good, but I think reading those pieces (especially the first one) might improve them a bit. You do overuse words like "obvious", "trivial", "clear", and so on. Most of the time they are unnecessary
@KannappanSampath He's quite serious about it :) Please don't get me wrong. I always recommend those two pieces to anyone starting out in mathematical exposition.
@KannappanSampath You complained about sugar-coated comments. I was saying that you can't live off criticism only, you need some nice words as well sometimes.
I was thinking of something just now and I wonder if anyone here can give me some insights. In spoken language we have many different ways to express a concept (ie, different languages: English, Mandarin, Arabic, Spanish, etc...). In software we have many ways to express a computation (ie, Assembly, LISP, Python, C++, etc...). However, as far as I understand it there's only one system of expression for mathematics. I'm not saying this is good or bad, but rather I'm curious why this is the case.
@JonasTeuwen I tried to read it too and wasn't much impressed. The preface reads like the preface of a wonderful book, but in the actual body of the text it seems that Zee thinks his reader already has a proper textbook in quantum field theory and only needs to be given some fuzzy hints about how to understand a formalism that has been presented to him elsewhere ...
Well, chapters 1 and 2 are before it went really sour for me. My goal was just to find out what it is the physicists do, not to judge whether whatever it is has a mathematical right to work.
Unfortunately, Zee is all about "here is a nice way to think about the stuffy formalism in the textbook", but doesn't bother to tell the reader clearly what the formalism actually is; except incidentally on the fringes of his intuitive handwaving.
Hah, okay, my toes were already curling when I've read his "proof" of a distributional identity. I'll try to finish the book though, physicists seem to love it!
In chapter 7, he in fact says "I will let you discover Feynman diagrams on your own" -- and then proceeds to give 20 pages of hints and vague stage directions, but never actually provides enough information to allow the reader to verify whether the thing I figured out of my own from his hits is actually the same thing physicists speak of when they say Feynman diagrams!
And then the chapter is liberally peppered with "don't worry that you find this stuff hard and confusing -- it will clear up when you think a bit more about it". I wasn't much confused before he said that, but then perhaps that fact means that there was something I had missed, which ought to have confused me if only I had noticed? But he never explains to me what it is I should be confused about, so I can never know whether I have cleared the hurdle or just didn't reach it yet...
Hi all, before posting a question I wanted to see if anyone can help me here: how do I represent the number 255.0 (real, base 10) in base 5 in the form m * 5^e, where m is mantissa and e the exponent?
@HenningMakholm Maybe that's a better order, first read Folland, then you might have an idea how physicists work and then Zee. I have both, maybe I should try Folland first. But it has a lot of representation theory which scared me away a bit.
Hm, I actually dropped out of a representation theory course back in university. Mostly because I had trouble imagining what its applications could possibly be, and without that I was unable to distinguish beteen important key results and irrelevant-but-interesting by-the-ways. Perhaps a book that applies it is just what I need.
The OP was having trouble even seeing that it was $\sum_n2^n$, so I was worried about this just being too far off for them. I felt a bit impish, but I don't want to go beyond that :-)
Shelah proved that there are models of ZFC in which the Whitehead Problem has a positive answer, and other models of ZFC in which the answer is negative.
Yeah, it is possible. Also yesterday I had like two or three times that in a few minutes rush where unrelated answers were upvoted at once. This was post cap, so I wonder if the voter noticed at all.
But really ... I think the world is out to ironically get me for saying earlier tonight that capping is better than not capping. I've had 25 upvotes thrown to the dogs since then.