@tb Oh, I see...I don't like so much of noise... I'd defend I am not. :) [Yes, I know that's arrogant but can't help when OP is not making much sense too.]
I am sad about Indianisms in English... I have fallen into traps several times but not as bad as Recent Victor post on meta. I wonder why does that guy flatter himself doing stuff he has little or no idea about.
@DavidWheeler Look at the title--That's the right way of saying what he intends to say in Hindi, an Indian Language...But, it does not work that way in English...
@DavidWheeler A language error caused by the speaker/writer copying patterns from an Indian language (Indian English or native subcontinental?) which do not exist in that form in English (or whatever the target language is).
I only sincerely feel that I get corrected often by native speakers--I don't want to speak something in English that sounds horrible or hilarious to a native speaker. My accent is bad too, very few people here would already know.
@KannappanSampath Speaking of which, the meaning of the first part of that post is not clear to me. Do you mean that non-native speakers don't often correct you, or that you're insincere when you feel non-native speakers correct you?
@HenningMakholm He had a few questions that he copied more or less directly from somewhere. Those might have looked slightly better than the usual ones.
Nah, English is quite easy, @HenningMakholm. For example, in Russian we have different verb forms in past tense, depending on the gender of the object.
@HenningMakholm I've been thinking about changing it to something "easier" but I've made a similar mistake once before in choosing something I'm not interested because it allowed me to go abroad.
@DavidWheeler I believe it is rather easy to get to a certain level that enables you to communicate, because you need and hear it all the time. On the other hand, you hear and read bad English all the time -- to the point where it is difficult to tell if you get accustomed to bad habits of non-native speakers or whether it's actual English.
I've been watching too much American TV and films which heavily influenced my English skills. So now I use stupid "idioms" like 'man', 'dude', 'could care less', etc.
Yakov Naumovich Pokhis (, ; born 24 January 1951), better known as Yakov Smirnoff, is a Ukrainian-born American comedian, painter and teacher. He was popular in the 1980s for comedy performances in which he used irony and word play to contrast life under the Communist regime in his native Soviet Union with life in the United States, delivered in heavily accented English. He owns a theatre in Branson, Missouri, where he performs year-round. Smirnoff is also a professor at Missouri State University and Drury University where he teaches "The Business of Laughter."
Early life
Smirnoff was b...
@MattN it's assume that complicated challenges improve your personal growth rates. I do not know anything about your area of study/work, but you give an impression of a really smart person, so I think you'll be fine
@Daniil Once I heard my supervisor saying to his wife on the phone: Yaneznayu paka, yaneznayu paka, yaneznayu, paka paka paka and he slammed the phone down!!
@DavidWheeler A friend of mine found a completely elementary one page proof of that. Unfortunately a very similar argument was published just two years earlier.
Noise down from "angry 300-gram mosquito" to "slightly maladjusted idling Diesel engine" by taking out two of the attachment screws and making sure the power cabling leans against the fan case just so. Will have to do for now.
@Daniil Nothing definite comes to mind, sorry. I know there are such things as automata for infinite trees, but I've never sat down and studied them systematically.
@Gigili Depends on what you're trying to say; "could" is more tentative than "can". If you say "can", it implies "this may or may not happen for you but we know there are some people it happens for", whereas "could" would imply "we don't actually know whether this ever happens, but we don't know that it doesn't happen either, so better be confused".
I don't think many native speakers would pick up on the difference unprompted, though -- but you'd have to ask one of them for that.
I thought maybe one can use that $X/A$ is path-connected and then compute $\pi_1 \cong H_1$ instead of doing $H_1$ directly.
But then I realised that I've never really computed a fundamental group so I can't finish my answer. Also, I'm not quite sure whether doing $\pi_1$ is actually easier than $H_1$.
I don't think so. Genealogy doesn't know him either and if he got his Ph.D. (in maths) at an only mildly reputable uni in the past 50 years you can be pretty sure that he's in there.
@JonasTeuwen Sure, but it claims: Throughout this project when we use the word "mathematics" or "mathematician" we mean that word in a very inclusive sense. Thus, all relevant data from statistics, computer science, or operations research is welcome.
Not sure what you mean. I only mentions your two advisors. It would make sense to link to the thesis. No? That would much more interesting than someone's advisor.
@MattN Well, given that the entire purpose of the exercise is to model the student-advisor graph, your notion of "interesting" is abviously not what the project is using.
@GustavoBandeira Still looks alright. I'd have things to say about the author's pretending that the logical symbols are abbreviations for English words, but that's not your fault.
@GustavoBandeira In reality the logical symbols have the precise, well-defined meanings you can read from their truth tables. There's nothing else needed to defined how they behave, though giving a rough equivalence to English words can sometimes help the intuition. However, it is important to be aware that the English words do not always behave like the logical symbols do, when used in ordinary English speech -- the meaning of English words are fuzzy, ambiguous, sometimes context-dependent...
... and the meaning of logical symbols are not. So attempting to define logical symbols as if they were just shorthand for English invites students to think that all of the inherent fuzziness in English expressions must also be present somehow in formal logic. That is a disservice.
@GustavoBandeira forgive me if i mis-interpreted your question, but it appears as if you were being asked to define a+b, and so + shouldn't occur in your definition (circularity)
@GustavoBandeira "Symmetric difference" is the one particular Boolean function you're trying to express. This name makes more sense when you consider naive set theory instead of truth values: then { x | (x in A) XOR (x in B) } is somehow the "difference" between the sets A and B, but it is symmetric in A and B in contrast to the ordinary set difference A \ B.
the correlation between "natural" language and logical formalism really only breaks down with "or" because we use it linguistically to mean both XOR and OR
the other terms correspond fairly closely, a fact mathematicans use when writing proofs in words
It breaks down even more with "if" -- beginning textbooks in logic usually have to spend several pages telling how the English "if" does not always match how implication works.
@KannappanSampath I guess so, I don't know. I wouldn't get worked up about it, but as long as you don't have more unhelpful posts, there's certainly no need to worry :)
Mathematicians have carefully conditioned themselves only to say "if" when in fact it matches the meaning of logical implication. The rest of the English-speaking world does not care and use "if" in a variety of other meanings (as do most mathematicians when they're not intending to express a mathematical claim).
And there's nothing wrong with using "if" in this sense. It is just not the only one, and for a student who has not been carefully conditioned to the mathematical/logical "if", just giving that English translation for $\to$ is not going to help him understand it.
@DavidWheeler I find that confusing: I always have to think about what implication is meant. Especially if somebody writes $A \iff B$. necessity: blah, blah sufficiency: blah blah.
@HenningMakholm In reality it was a necessary development to keep the human race alive so it's been invented for the sole purpose of reproduction. So why abuse it to do formal logic? : )