"We belong dead"?

@barrycarter the moral high ground isn't always a comfortable place to be, but my experience is that it's always worth staying there.

But look, I'm not telling you or anyone else how to vote and nor am I criticising.

I've just trying to say why it isn't always productive to downvote.

@JohnRennie I've never been anywhere near high moral ground :) In this specific case, I feel downvoting was justified.

@JohnRennie Not that it's relevant to a purely theoretical discussion, but are you familiar with the posts in question?

`when the car is not moving why turning the steering wheel is tough than moving?

@hubot all through my schooldays I thought teachers were being unfair to me and occasionally I was correct. The only solution is to move on. If like me you absolutely love physics it won't make any difference in the long run.

@JohnRennie You don't feel defilers of physics should be punished?

@JohnRennie Re: "wimp when it comes to downvoting": With half as many down- as upvotes, you're actually using your downvotes pretty often compared to the average voter.

@barrycarter Assuming you mean WillO's question in the Meta, I glanced at the questions Will linked but didn't go through them in any great detail. I imagine neither of us care enough to make it worth me going back to read them thoroughly.

@JohnRennie Well, actually, I do care. I believe that, at least in this instance, you will agree that downvotes were justified.

I'm in Physics and Measurement in Resnick Halliday.

@JohnRennie I believe WillO's answers were based on a fundamentally incorrect understanding of the Theory of Relativity.

Incidentally I speak as one who has himself just been personally attacked in the Meta. And unlike you I got mentioned by name :-)

@JohnRennie I did too, but a mod edited it out.

I must take the Flaming Sword of Physics Truth and slay all blashphemers.... damn, this sucker's heavy.

What is level of exercises in Resnick & Halliday book?

@ACuriousMind I downvote a lot of questions because a lot of questions are homework. I downvote very few answers.

Ah, I see. That part of the voting statistic is not publicly accessible

At least not in a place I can see. We get the up/down and the Q/A vote split, but not how many of the downvotes and upvotes were on questions and answers, respectively

@hubot are you preparing for physics oylmpiads?

@ACuriousMind Doesn't "all activity" show it?

@DeNiSkA Not yet

@ACuriousMind The Physics SE is like an organism, and most parts of it work harmoniously to keep it in good health. However like all organisms it has its parasites and since I can't kill them I downvote them instead.

@barrycarter What do you mean? There's an "activity" tab and within that, an "all actions" tab, but nowhere can I see how many downvotes were on questions resp. answer, I can only see how many of the total votes were on which type of post.

@DeNiSkA What's your opinion about Physics Jay Orear book?

I'm actually reading Resnick & Halliday's book.

@ACuriousMind OK, so each up/downvote doesn't show up as an "action" in all actions? (I'm actually asking, I've never actually checked).

@barrycarter No. There's a "votes" tab where it does, but every user can only access their own "votes" tab

@ACuriousMind And, in the question itself, it doesn't indicate the source of the downvote either?

No, voting is completely anonymous unless you are an SE developer

Anonymous and unaccountable

@hubot do you want really tough problems in physics (clas. mechanics, optics, electricity and mag.)?

@ACuriousMind And the insane megadumps that SE releases every few months don't have this information either?

@barrycarter Nope

@JohnRennie It sounds like you're asking for voting reform?

@ACuriousMind I find this distressing for some reason.

@DeNiSkA Yes.

@barrycarter actually no, if voting weren't anonymous we'd get childish outburst of revenge downvotes

@JohnRennie So you feel the current system is poor, and should be abolished entirely?

@hubot then Russians are the beast !! see pdf of ss krotov physics

@barrycarter Well, SE has the information somewhere, to run serial voting detection scripts and such on that data, they just don't release it. I don't find that distressing, as it's reasonable. People get petty when they know who downvoted them.

Would you give me link to this?

@barrycarter actually no (again) because I thing there is no perfect way to do it and the way the SE does it is probably the best of all the ways it could be done.

@hubot wait!

@ACuriousMind Yes, but it contrasts with the general philosophy of openness.

@JohnRennie OK, so you think voting is anonymous and unaccountable, but you don't feel there's a solution.

@JohnRennie Apart from the HNQ list. That's the single most distorting factor influcencing voting currently. Although I like seeing the questions from other sites, there should be a way to connect the network without singling out some questions for a rapid influx of upvotes.

@barrycarter Well, "openness" means to me that the way the system works is transparent and well-documented, not that every single information has to be publicly available. (Of course, if there's no reason some information should be private, it should be public, but there's good reason not to make the info public in this case)

@ACuriousMind agreed. My highest ever upvoted answer is about a frakking chair for farks sake. Thanks HNQ.

@DavidZ Perhaps we can chat about this question?

@ACuriousMind I see your point. Even in an open system, people want to hide password and so on. I guess I just feel the voting system isn't doing well and that having accountability might help.

I only have a few minutes at the moment, but did you have something quick?

@DavidZ I just wanted to avoid excessive commenting on the question. I thought that settling factual arguments would be a correct function of physics.SE?

@hubot acizif.com/e-learning/pregatire_olimpiada/IX/Krotov.pdf

Hello

@barrycarter Not really.

this book is by russian

@DavidZ So if I see an example of what I consider "bad physics", I shouldn't ask about it on physics.SE?

@JohnRennie boohoo

@barrycarter post your own response and let us vote it as we see fit

The main functions are (1) creating a repository of knowledge about physics (but not all knowledge about physics) and (2) allowing people to find high-quality answers to their physics questions (but not all physics questions)

@DavidZ But wouldn't debunking false claims qualify as (1)?

@barrycarter this is a question and answer site not forum

Hey folks

@barrycarter If you want us to debunk something, we will likely close it as either non-mainstream or unclear what you're asking. No one here really wants to spend their time taking apart all the crackpot theories that are out there.

@DeNiSkA: How much time are you solving Feynman exercises?

@Slereah when I get my brainzap Chrome addon finished there are going to be a lot of sorry people hereabouts!

If you want to debunk something there's a skeptic Stack Exchange

@barrycarter depends on how you ask. If you just ask "[claim] Is this right?" that's bad. If you ask "[claim] I don't think this is right because [reason], but I'm not sure because [reason]. I guess I don't understand [key issue]. How does that really work?" it's a lot better

So instead of asking "Is this reasoning about X correct?", just ask "What happens in case X?" You'll get your physics answer either way.

@DavidZ OK, I was under the impression that, in the question we're discussing, that is exactly what I did.

That's not what you did.

@DavidZ OK, I see that this is not the case.

@DavidZ You are correct.

@DavidZ I had just come out of chat with the other person and imagined that the entire chat was somehow in the question.

@hubot solving speed is less than Resnick and halliday, i mean resnick and halliday i solve more fast

@DavidZ I will post a link to the chat and quote relevant sections that led to this diagram.

Sure, that would be a good start.

Though do keep in mind that sometimes (dare I say often?) summarizing or rewording is better than quoting. It's not often necessary to reproduce exact words.

@DavidZ I'm glad you said that. I hate cutting and pasting.

@DeNiSkA Are you solve Resnick and Halliday exercises about 20 mins or how much time average?

@barrycarter yeah, in my experience people often overuse quotes when tempers get heated. Quoting has its place, sure, but I doubt much of it will be necessary in this case.

To be clear, anything you do copy exactly must be quoted and attributed, but you probably don't need much exact copying.

@DavidZ I will also add a statement to the effect "I believe the incorrectness of this user's argument has led him to mis-answer the following questions; by resolving this argument, it will also resolve whether the answers to these questions is correct". I think that might help the motivation for why I asked the question in the first place.

Eh... well, if you think it helps. But also try to avoid making the question too broad. Make it clear that you're asking one thing, and leave out anything that doesn't contribute to that one thing you want to ask.

@barrycarter Nobody cares about your secret or not-so-secret motivations to ask questions. I always find it distracting when a question here has such things in it that are not really relevant to answering the question

Yeah, pretty much that ^^

@ACuriousMind Even if the motivation has a direct impact on SE itself?

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but yes

Hmmm, I sense I'm being overly flowery here in an effort to be polite.

@hubot depended on chapter

@barrycarter say what you mean (just don't swear!) we're all big boys here

@barrycarter Could be. It probably wouldn't hurt to be less flowery.

@barrycarter As long as it has nothing to do with the physics in the question, it's not relevant. I don't edit out such "fluff" when it's the only thing irking me about a question, but whenever I'm editing for some other reason, I always remove anything like that

And for the record, you can go through multiple rounds of edits (hopefully not too many - 3 or 4 should be okay though). So you can get suggestions on editing from people in chat, collect everything together, write a candidate new version of the question (don't make a new post, just edit), and then get more feedback.

@DeNiSkA I remember that teachers have screamed on me because I talk to friends about physics. Do you have problems with communications eg. you talk a lot about physics?

Wow what a douche

<3

@hubot friends tease me on doing physics only(like they steal my glasses)!! but i don't put a shit!

(preparing venomous but honest message...)

X is an idiot. This chat and this diagram prove he's an idiot. His idiot misunderstanding of the subject (as shown by this diagram) has led him to give bad answers to several questions. Let's review his answers, correct his mistakes, and then kill him.

@DeNiSkA What is type of your school? I'm going to boarding school and you?

@barrycarter were you planning to post that as a question on the main site?

@JohnRennie That's what I thought I posted in the first place.

@barrycarter as one of your comments?

@JohnRennie No, as physics.stackexchange.com/questions/243822

@barrycarter ah, OK. Yes, WillO's answer is wrong.

@JohnRennie The goal I'm trying to achieve is stated rudely above, but I believe it's a valid goal overall.

@JohnRennie know anything about this?

@barrycarter no that sort of post isn't appropriate here. There are more nutcases out there than you can shake a stick at and it's not our role to try and expose them all.

@0celo7 No. Next question?

@JohnRennie OK, but what about the "this guy misunderstands relativity and has given bad answers that should be reviewed" part?

@JohnRennie you're supposed to be the GR guy

@0celo7 Shush

@barrycarter you won't make friends and influence people by attacking other site members. If you see a bad answer post a better answer then move on.

@0celo7 I'm having an off day

@JohnRennie Well that's why I made a polite post, not a rude one (I was unflowering my language for that one post). I would like to give better answers, but isn't it important to at least say "this answer is wrong" if it is?

@hubot education system in india is humilating! but some exams are really cool, well i am a day scholar

@barrycarter We have a few of those here. The only solution is to downvote the wrong answers as you encounter them, public shaming will only lead to drama, and wrong answers will not be deleted in any case just for being wrong, so there's nothing to accomplish by "reviewing" wrong answers.

@barrycarter we're not idiots, and we can tell when you're personally attacking another member even when you're sugaring your words.

@DeNiSkA Where are you from, properly?

@JohnRennie Speak for yourself :p

@JohnRennie So you see my post as a personal attack?

When I first saw the post it was obviously a personal attack but I didn't realise it was WillO you were attacking.

@ACuriousMind True, but they may be downvoted further so people will be aware of their poor quality.

@JohnRennie Yes, I tried to keep the name out of it so it wasn't viewed as a personal attack.

@barrycarter Yeah, but targeted downvoting is a reason for suspension regardless of the reason for the targeting, so...be very careful with implying anything of this sort.

@ACuriousMind So, if someone misunderstands a subject and you recommend that other posts he's made with the same misunderstanding should be downvoted, that's a reason for suspension?

@barrycarter If you explicitly say "this user should be downvoted" and not "this and this and this post are wrong and should be downvoted", that's targeting the user, not the content, and can lead to suspension, yes.

@ACuriousMind OK, but I'm only referring to specific posts made by that one user.

And in any case, where would you post this "call to action" anyway? Meta posts are not supposed to be about specific users, and it surely doesn't belong in a question or answer on the site

Well, it would be part of my "this guy is wrong" post.

I went through WillO's posts: there were some good ones, some where I didn't understand the subject enough, and a couple of bad ones where he makes the same mistake.

@barrycarter Well, but what kind of post will that be? If you post a "that guy is wrong" post as a question or answer, I'd close it as "off-topic because it is not a question", and if it's an answer, I'd delete it as "not an answer"

This all started from a chat based on one of his answers to a question.

@ACuriousMind "is this guy wrong because he says 'this'"

He uses the exact same reasoning to answer X, Y, and Z, so resolving this issue will resolve the correctness of his answers to X, Y, and Z.

@barrycarter Yep, but that doesn't belong in the question. Just present the reasoning and ask about it (but if you already know it's wrong, I'm not sure what you will ask for)

@hubot german for 11.5 years and India for 3.9 years!

@hubot my internet connection had a problem

@ACuriousMind A confirmation that it's wrong by users with higher reputation than I.

Are we talking about JD?

I'm hoping to show WillO that he's wrong by showing the consensus disagrees with him (argument ad populum or argument ad expertum I think)

Oh, apparently not.

@barrycarter most of the high rep users will see it as a childish personal attack and won't get involved

Just let it go

@JohnRennie I am defending the honor of physics :)

@hubot do you know mechanics(classical)?

@barrycarter no you're not. Physics doesn't give a shit what you (or I) think of WillO.

@barrycarter Don't take this too seriously, there are quite a few deeply wrong users on this site who answer question after question with their wrong ideas, and all we can do is downvote them. If asking about the correctness of an answer as a new question would be the right thing to do, that would lead to potentially infinte chains of questions where each of the opposing viewpoints asks leading questions to prove the other wrong

And I would find that even more annoying than the flood of homework questions :P

I know basic principles as Newton laws, F=dp/dt, vectors etc.

@barrycarter That's the biggest bullshit I've heard in a while. And I'm in the middle of a national coup d'etat

@JohnRennie If you truly love physics, you must kill those who blaspheme her!

I know some special theory of relativity.

@ACuriousMind So, even if the user is giving the same incorrect answers for the same incorrect reasons, don't create a question that settles the issue once and for all?

@barrycarter Ever heard of freedom of speech? It's the idea people cna say whatever even if you disagree or dislike it

@BernardMeurer You don't believe in the honor of physics?

I know Lorentz transformation, \sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}, gamma, dilatation of time, aether theory etc.

@BernardMeurer Freedom of speech doesn't apply to SE.

@barrycarter No, JD shattered that belief long ago.

Special theory of relativity isn't hard.

@barrycarter No, and if there was a hypotetical someone that could define 'honor of physics' it wouldn't be you (or me)

@barrycarter It won't settle the issue. No one limits the amount of answers to a question. If you dislike the answers the user gave to other questions, why would providing them with a new question where to post their wrong reasoning solve anything?

It would probably be @Qmechanic

@barrycarter there's no such thing a the honour of physics. Physicists are a variegated bunch and include crackpots, conmen and probably serial killers amongst them.

Only an omniscient robot AI could do that

@BernardMeurer How about the truth of physics?

Defending the truth of mainstream physics, then.

@barrycarter Just because somethign isn't truth (whatever truth is to you) it doesn't mean people shouldn't have the right to say it

@barrycarter We're defending that by downvoting the wrong answers. That's it.

@ACuriousMind The hope is that the wrong answerer sees the light (so to speak) and corrects his answers or at least acknowledges their wrongness.

@BernardMeurer Er, people don't have a right to express non-mainstream physics opinions here. Those questions get closed pretty quickly.

people have the inherent right to defend their views, even if you believe them to be wrong

@barrycarter you do that by posting clear, concise an eloquent answers to people's questions. That will make friends and influence people. Making personal attacks will just make everyone think you're an arse and start ignoring you. So it will actually achieve the opposite of what you want.

@barrycarter Ah, but why would the not see the light when reading one of the many correct answers we have here about relativity? Making a post specifically designed to stick it to one user won't accomplish anything except people thinking you're carrying a petty grudge

@ACuriousMind So, no defending physics by pointing out a repeated error someone makes?

@BernardMeurer Yes, but none of that applies to sE.

@barrycarter They don't have the right to displace their non-mainstream views as mainstream (what you call truth), which is not the same as just expressing

@JohnRennie Answering questions is way harder that pointing out mistakes. But pointing out mistakes IS useful, in my opinion.

@barrycarter Yes it bloody does, it applies to anywhere people who aren't idiots populate

@barrycarter Not if you try to do it by asking a question that's essentially the same as questions already asked. If we don't have a question addressing the specific concept this user is wrong about, then ask a question about that without mentioning the user at all

@ACuriousMind Because he has his own idea of how things work. To show someone the right path, you sometimes need to debunk the wrong path.

@barrycarter We're not a social network, posts should not refer to users at all if avoidable, and our goal is not to correct the "wrongness" of specific users.

@BernardMeurer I'm pretty sure SE has a policy about what you can and can't post. This is not a free speech site.

@ACuriousMind My original question actually didn't mention WillO by name at all.

I didn't read your original post, or if I did, I forgot it already. I'm merely reacting to the things you say here in chat

@DeNiSkA My friends also tease me because I'm only doing physics and always it reflects on me and they are innocents.

@barrycarter I feel I'm not getting thorough. If you start making personal attacks on other site members we will all think you are an arse. There are already people on the site who have managed this feat. Do you really want to join their company?

@ACuriousMind Well, yes, but that's an explanation, not an attack. The original goal was simple: ask if an explanation is incorrect. Once it's confirmed incorrect, let WillO know and see what happens.

@JohnRennie And that applies to anonymous personal attacks as well?

Well, if you ask whether an explanation is incorrect, we've come full circle to:

@DeNiSkA I made a deal with teacher that I won't continue physics. Should I continue this dealing?

@barrycarter remember, we aren't idiots.

@hubot ...what kind of "deal" is that?!?!

@ACuriousMind I see the keyword there as "all". WillO's theory has the problem that it looks like real physics. It's crackpot but it doesn't look crackpot.

@ACuriousMind Verbal on classes with pedagogue

@JohnRennie So you're saying that if I see a constantly repeated conceptual misunderstanding leading to bad answers, I should do nothing?

@barrycarter No crackpot looks like crackpot to the crackpot, and the "good" crackpots don't even look like crackpots to anyone but the experts.

@ACuriousMind OK, but instead of debunking all crackpots, surely we need to debunk ones that are quasi-believable?

@barrycarter Post a better answer then move on

@barrycarter Whatever you do, DON'T post a main site question calling the guy out and asking for clarification and sources on 8 different points

@barrycarter No. We need to provide the correct answer, and that's all. Debunking any specific wrongness is a waste of time, unless it is so widespread that it qualifies as a "misconception".

The mods apparently don't like that

@JohnRennie OK, how about a community wiki answer re "why isn't this diagram accurate"?

@0celo7 I didn't. I asked anonymously, though @JohnRennie believes it was an obvious personal attack.

@barrycarter are you asking me to post a better answer?

@JohnRennie I meant me, but sure :)

@ACuriousMind I think that's what this is: a misconception on how to draw Minkowski diagrams: one that's wrong, but not obviously wrong.

@barrycarter No, I mean "misconception" as in "common misconception": Pop-sci books say this, documentaries say this, school teachers might say this. Those are the wrong concepts I see value in debunking. A misconception that's held by a single user so far is not worth the trouble

@barrycarter I think the treatment of accelerated frames in SR is a fascinating area with all sorts of cool physics, and if an interesting question came along I'd certainly get stuck in. But your question isn't an interesting one.

@ACuriousMind Even if he's spreading this misconception to others on SE?

@JohnRennie Well, I'm sorry to hear that.

@barrycarter we've been telling you that for the last hour

@barrycarter Yes. Again, the way to stop wrong answers is to downvote them, and that's it.

@JohnRennie Sigh.

@ACuriousMind Well, I'm still not happy about this. I think this is a common mistake made by student physicists and it should be corrected.

When everyone is telling you that you're wrong you might consider listening to them. Otherwise you're guilty of exactly the same behaviour that you find objectionable in others.

@JohnRennie Except that, I feel he's wrong because of mathematical and physical reasons, not because everyone thinks he's wrong. I'm just hoping to prove it to him by showing him everyone thinks he's wrong.

@JohnRennie Additionally, we're discussing more of a moral issue here than a factual one.

Everyone is telling you that you're wrong

@JohnRennie Morals are not a majority issue

@JohnRennie But it's a moral issue, so I can still disagree :)

@0celo7 Ooh, philosophy :-) Now there's a discussion to keep us going for several hours :-)

::eye twitch::

GR book using mostly minus

WHY

@0celo7 there have always been two communities, one using -+++ and one using +---. Traditionally one was mostly cosmologists and the other mostly quantum field theorists.

@JohnRennie maybe we can discuss exponential maps or Cauchy surfaces

@JohnRennie Yes, I know

Why on Earth wold a GR book use +-...- though

@hubot well you must ask this to some experienced like johnrennie, dmckee, ACuriosMind

@Slereah Let's get Penrose.

I already got it

(legally)

@ACuriousMind Am i still on your block list?

:(

@DeNiSkA Have you had problems that you banned on some forums?

I've banned on some polish forums.

@ACuriousMind Allow me a retarded question: is a hyperplane in $\mathbb{R}^n$ compact? I know it's not, by Heine-Borel.

@hubot oh! no bans so far!

What's mean on hold in question on SE?

@ACuriousMind Ignore that above comment.

Any thoughts on the uses of fractional calculus?

Nope.

I once learned the basic constructions.

Never cared much beyond that.

Visually it's like a way to shrink a graph or something

Does anyone here know any fast way to do the dimension analysis

@ChrisWhite You around?

Hmmmm...is Skeptics not aware we don't take non-mainstream questions here?

@ACuriousMind Ah, we've obviously just seen the same question. And I'm all out of close votes. Oh well.

@0celo7 Apparently nobody wants to give an actual answer to your question

They just want to dilly dally

Really I'm not even sure how to do it for Minkowski space

I guess it's not too difficult, since it's translation symmetric?

Just need to do it for one point and a few classes of points

Well...the thing with the curves would be an answer, if it didn't weasel out with "evidently". And Timaeus' answer is mostly missing the question as usual :P

Well yes but that's like saying that the way to prove a system is consistent is to check if there are any contradiction

True but maybe you're a bogus man

VTC cap... Happy now @KyleKanos and @ACuriousMind? ;)

@Danu Yay! (sort of)

Isn't it true, though, that the VTC queue is slightly emptier than ~1 month ago?

Uh...I don't have that impression, but I have no data either way

@ACuriousMind yeah

@ACuriousMind I think Timaeus just cranks out the first thing that comes to mind when he reads questions

his stuff never seems "thought-out" to me

"Take, for example, the Minkowski (or de Sitter, or FRW) space. The surface t=0 (in the standard coordinates) is evidently met once by any non-extendible curve. So, this surface is a Cauchy surface and the spacetime is globally hyperbolic."

>evidently

That guy could write math books

bwahahaha

it's funny because I like Trump

I think for Minkowski space it should be doable without too much problems because the Cauchy development is basically just a cone?

Proof?

Well it's a cone for like

A disk of the Cauchy surface

Just gotta draw all the null geodesics at the boundaries

So the Cauchy development can reach arbitrarily far and envelop the whole spacetime

Not a v. rigorous proof but it's a sketch I guess

how do you do that for Schwarzschild

Well fuck a doodle doo I don't know

Not even quite sure what the development looks like in Schwarzschild

And obviously it's gonna depend on the position so not quite so good either

>obviously

>no translation symmetry

>proof

>that's kind of how it's defined

>what

Schwarzschild is a vacuum spacetime with rotational Killing vectors

so?

If you want to prove that it also doesn't have the radial one just use the Killing vector formula?

Check that it's $\neq 0$

I can't be holding your wang to pee y'know

Ok I'll believe you

Also if it was translation symmetric it would be Minkowski space

proof?

Translation symmetric in all coordinates -> maximally symmetric

proof?

$T = 0 \rightarrow R = 0$ -> Minkowski space

what?

(It's empty)

There's only three maximally symmetric spaces

huh?

Minkowski, AdS and dS

Determined by the sign of the curvature

proof?

Carroll has one

do you own carroll

I do

It's the second GR book I bought, I think

Well, serious GR book

proof?

is Shouten any good?

@0celo7 I think that, in fact, proofs consist entirely and solely of making statements "obviously true", so your wording is problematic there.

No

@Danu Pretty bad proof I'd say

@Slereah what does he cover

@Danu What?

It's a Riemannian geometry book

@Slereah Of course the answer is bad. The wordingin ocelot's comment is wrong, not the message.

I bought it because some torsion paper kept referencing it

@Danu I disagree.

@Danu They don't. Marking things as "obviously true" is done because we don't want to prove those things over and over again, or assume them as given for a certain matter, but a proof needs to be logically sound, not "obviously true".

Well I'm not saying you need to prove all the steps of a demonstration

But maybe this one could use more than one step of saying "It's obviously true"

The phrase "obviously" or "evidently" is a shortcut that is acceptable when everyone agrees that it is true, but it must be in principle possible to produce an actual proof of the stated "obvious" fact.

The full proof of Metamath for 2+2 = 4 is about 22.000 steps long

@Slereah Well, starting from cleverly chosen axioms somewhere in the middle it becomes less. It's allowed to start somewhere else than at the ZFC axioms ;)

Well sure if you use Peano it's like 8 steps long :p

@Slereah why is it bad

@0celo7 Odd terminology

just use the field axioms ffs

@Slereah Exactly, but that's not less of a proof. It's just a proof from a different premise.

wtf is a Mathieu function and why does it have a whole book

It's a non-hypergeometric function that is the solution of a fancy equation

It also happens to be the solution for a scalar field in a wormhole background

Proof?

dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19940612/Mathieu.pdf

Why would you write that up

Why not

@Slereah I guess you're a nerd.