« first day (2728 days earlier)      last day (2198 days later) » 
01:00 - 16:0016:00 - 00:00

4:00 PM
or actually, the physical situation might change as a whole (because we don't have a perfectly flat sheet), so never mind I guess
 
cant understand how did he find that 88=u
i get why max velo is 120mph
and i get why he uses only rotational accelaration formula
but how did he found the angular velocity in order to find u
 
I retract my last conclusion; we can still argue that the field points in the same direction, because if we just get extremely close to the surface, then the biggest contribution will be due to our small (flat) patch itself, so we are really dealing with a symmetrical situation if we flip everything @PrathyushPoduval I don't know if you agree, but for me it all sounds solid now! So I'm satisfied
 
4:16 PM
@ManolisLyviakis it's simply the equation for centripetal acceleration in circular motion:
$$ a = \frac{v^2}{r} $$
where $v$ is the velocity of the outsdie of the wheel and $r$ is the radius of the wheel.
 
ye i get that
the number 88 where it came from
u=88
u=angular velo * Radius
radius=2feet
i dont get how he found angular velocity? i know the truck moves in 60mph so 1 mile min so 1/60 miles per sec
and the circum of the wheel is 4π feet
 
60 mph is 88 feet per second
 
so i was on the right track
 
In the rest frame of the truck the outside of the tyre is moving at 60 mph/88 fps
 
ohh so in rotational accelaration
i use the translational speed?
 
4:25 PM
You use the tangential speed at the distance $r$
Or you can write $a = \omega^2 r$ if you prefer to use angular velocity. Since $v = r \omega$ the two equations are the same.
How come you are doing questions where you have to calculate things in feet per second? You're in Greece aren't you?
 
how do i find the tangential speed im given only the tanslational speed
yes im in greece
its just the book i follow xD
 
@ManolisLyviakis suppose you're in the rest frame of the truck so the centre of the wheel is stationary. now the ground is flashing past you at 60 mph. Yes?
 
And the edge of the tyre is in contact with the ground, and it isn't skidding, so the tangential velocity at the edge of the tyre must also be 60 mph - the same as the speed of the ground.
 
hm..
not zero?
 
4:32 PM
3 mins ago, by John Rennie
@ManolisLyviakis suppose you're in the rest frame of the truck so the centre of the wheel is stationary. now the ground is flashing past you at 60 mph. Yes?
 
yea i understand it had to do with the frame of refenrencce
so im on the track
 
So in the rest frame of the truck the tangential velocity of the tyre is 60 mph
 
i see the ground moving
truck*
and the wheel rotating
and the point where is contact
it must seem to me
like stationari
stationary ?
so they have the same veloc?
thannks ill give it some time of thinking
@JohnRennie so he ddnt calculate ω ? just to be clear .
 
No, the solution doesn't involve calculating the angular velocity
 
and how do i know the tang velo is constant ( i know im asking stupid questions).
cause f the wheel was accelrating so would the truck
:P
 
4:47 PM
The wheel and truck aren't accelerating
Any object moving in a circle about a central axis has a centripetal acceleration.
A centripetal force (from Latin centrum, "center" and petere, "to seek") is a force that makes a body follow a curved path. Its direction is always orthogonal to the motion of the body and towards the fixed point of the instantaneous center of curvature of the path. Isaac Newton described it as "a force by which bodies are drawn or impelled, or in any way tend, towards a point as to a centre". In Newtonian mechanics, gravity provides the centripetal force responsible for astronomical orbits. One common example involving centripetal force is the case in which a body moves with uniform speed along...
 
tangential velocity isnt the rotational velocity?
 
@Semiclassical you around?
the Riemann surface for graphene is killing me
I tried doing just a single Dirac cone and it's still killing me
but on the other hand
 
the velocity of a point in the wheel in its circumf. is not constant. is the translational velocity+the rotational velocity and depends on the angle between them . Now we consider that we move with the track. So we dont care about the translational part.So when asked about the magnitude acceleration is it on a specific point? ??
 
^ why didn't they say that from the get-go?
 
does it mean the accelaration on a specific point? or for all points?
 
5:12 PM
@EmilioPisanty b/c russians? idfk
 
@Semiclassical that's.... not an unreasonable guess, actually
 
@EmilioPisanty well, for a dirac cone in 1D I think you'd get a riemann surface with a singular point
i've yet to find a source for that stuff which didn't make me feel like they were overcomplicating it
 
@Semiclassical actually gapped graphene =P
 
so eigenvalues $E(\mathbf k) = \pm \sqrt{\Delta^2 + \mathbf k^2}$
 
5:14 PM
yeah
 
I can kinda sorta maybe begin to see the structure
 
if you take that in 1D, it's not bad since then you've just got a branch cut
 
but it's going to be an absolute nightmare to pop this back into the full hexagonal band thing
 
the real problem is in 2D
 
@Semiclassical well, it's still kind of like a single branch cut?
 
5:15 PM
eh, in $|\mathbf{k}|$ perhaps
 
at least, if everything is rotationally symmetric then you can pretend that only one of the dimensions is complex
 
man, $\mathbb C^2$ is a bleeding nightmare to work with
 
I don't have a lot of intuition in that setting
eh. C^3 is worse, is the problem.
 
I've been fighting it since 2014, I think
 
5:16 PM
if you think of it as just being $y^2=1+x^2$ then the riemann surface is just a sphere
 
@Semiclassical wait, what?
 
you have two copies of the riemann sphere, with a branch cut on each
and when you glue those together along the cuts you just get a sphere again
So $y^2=1+x^2$ is genus 0.
At an intuitive level, you can note that you have $(y-x)(y+x)=1$
and $y=\pm x\implies y/x=\pm 1$ would just be two copies of the Riemann sphere
so it's as though you took the equation (y-x)(y+x)=0 and perturbed it, therefore gluing the two spheres together
back later
 
@Semiclassical what? how does that say "two copies of the sphere glued along a branch cut"?
 
@BernardoMeurer So you exposed it to the web without a firewall?!?
 
@EmilioPisanty suppose you start at a point not on the branch cut, and analytically continue across the cut.
then for the function value to change smoothly you need the function definition to go from +sqrt to -sqrt
so crossing the branch cut moves you from one complex plane to another copy of it
if you then analytically continue by winding around the branch point, you'll end up back on the first sheet
so you can build that up by taking two copies of the complex plane, cutting them along the branch cut, and gluing them together.
 
5:27 PM
@BernardoMeurer Now put a gpu on it! Except no, it's a RPi... But still!
 
to get the sphere, just take each complex plane and compactify into spheres
you'll get two spheres connected by a handle
which is topologically just a sphere again
 
This sounds like the math room
I don’t like it
 
@0celo7 You're the culprit for that most often! :P
2
@Lozansky If you define your stuff correctly, then there are no example as otherwise it would be QM.
 
Is Coloumb's Law medium dependent? Explanation please
 
vzn
@G.Bergeron semiclassical seemed to have some good examples, hadnt heard them before, would like to see the math in more detail and/ or refs.
 
5:38 PM
@tatan Yes, you just modify the permittivity.
@tatan And no, it always has the same form... depends what you mean!
 
If yes, how do we reflect the change in the coloumbs law equation?by changing the value of K? @G.Bergeron
 
@0celo7 Irrespective of what you think about warming, shut up and say you agree! Those goals often come with the benefits you want!
 
@G.Bergeron Uh...e.g. rotations don't commute classically, either, and there's certainly classical non-Abelian gauge theories
 
@ACuriousMind I said if you define your stuff correctly
@tatan yes
 
Well, if you define everything that doesn't commute as not-an-operator, I certainly agree :P
 
5:42 PM
@G.Bergeron But, in CGS, K is always =1... how does the change reflect in CGS units then?
 
@ACuriousMind What I meant is that if you see operator as being related to measurements as in QM, then no.
@tatan In vacuum it is
Also, I hate CGS
 
@G.Bergeron In CGS, k !=1 for non-vaccum?
 
@tatan Well unless CGS prescribe modifying length and time scale according to medium, then yes, it has to
 
@G.Bergeron I thought that that's what you meant, but classically it is not even clear what sort of "operators" you would associate to measurements unless you're already doing Koopman-von Neumann mechanics.
 
@ACuriousMind Ring of functions on phase space :)
 
5:44 PM
@G.Bergeron And they operate on what?
 
@G.Bergeron Electrodynamics is probably the place where CGS and SI literally take on each other... things can completely change by change of units ;-)
 
@ACuriousMind Uhm... Phase space? But really I mean, how would you conceive of rotation as an operator in CM anyway?
 
@G.Bergeron I dispute that I ever pollute this room with algebra
 
@0celo7 Yeah, not algebra, that would be me (and others)
 
I don’t think I ever talk about math here
 
5:46 PM
@0celo7 And all that homology last few days? ;)
 
That’s physics
 
@0celo7 -_-
Unless all math is physics...
@tatan My last comment was meant to be ironical.
 
@G.Bergeron good math isn’t.
 
@G.Bergeron But how do they act on phase space? And what is the correct product for them? One might argue that the correct notion of "product" is a non-commutative Moyal product, or at least that the proper analogue to the commutator is the Poisson bracket, since $\{f,-\}$ tells you how other functions transform under the transformation generated by $f$ (e.g. $\{L_i,g\} = 0$ for all i means $g$ is invariant under rotations).
And that there is exactly how one conceives of rotation as an operator: Infinitesimal rotations are given by $\{L_i,-\}$.
 
@ACuriousMind The product is the pointwise product. But yeah, they don't really act, except maybe as you said and then they are non-commutative. I'm following the line of operators as providing duals to the states.
 
5:52 PM
@G.Bergeron Operators are certainly not duals to states, unless you have some non-standard meaning of "dual"!
 
vzn
@G.Bergeron think thats kind of a zen question. math operators seem to be similar to "actions" eg wrt rotations hence the name. think some rethinking is needed here. bet would make a nice essay. in line with semiclassical examples, maybe/ probably lots of classical "actions" can be regarded as operators...
 
If you want non-commutativity to mean anything with respect to QM, it has to refer to the non-commutativity of the phase space. You capture that by having non-abelian operators in QM, the equivalent, in this case are functions on phase space with the pointwise products. Otherwise non-commutativity doesn't really mean anything special.
@ACuriousMind Yes, you have to rig the game a little to make it fit in that definition
 
vzn
@G.Bergeron understood that noncommutativity is considered a distinct/ unique aspect/ property/ characteristic of QM apart from CM but again think that needs (serious) rethinking.
 
@G.Bergeron I'm not saying that non-commutativity is not the hallmark of QM, but I am saying that the question of what the corresponding classical objects of the operators are is not so simple.
 
@vzn The fact that he asked for examples in CM, made me thought it was more about non-commutativity as the hallmark of QM.,
 
vzn
5:57 PM
@G.Bergeron the question is ~½ thought out by a QM n00b but think its unexpectedly deep causing even perplexity among experts. aka beginners mind™ (have maybe wondered something close/ similar.)
 
@ACuriousMind I'd say the ring of functions, forming a Lie algebra with the Poisson bracket. This is very close to the universal enveloping algebra one really works within in QM.
 
The easiest way to answer this is to speak at an operational level: The process of measurement does not commute: An ideal classical measurement does not disturb the state, so it does not matter if you measure $A$ first and then $B$, but it does matter in QM.
 
vzn
@ACuriousMind there are probably lots of classical measurements that disturb state.
 
@vzn I said "ideal".
 
@ACuriousMind Exactly, and this is reflected by functions on phase space vs operators in a Lie algebra
@vzn I agree with you, but the way we formalize it, they don't.
 
vzn
6:00 PM
@ACuriousMind noted but "ideal" could possibly only be defined strictly as "doesnt disturb state"... (hence a near tautology)
 
@G.Bergeron Yes, it is, but the functions are not commutative as operators on anything. The point is that the observables (neither classically nor quantumly) are not the operators that map the input state to the state after measurement, so their (non-)commutativity does not directly correspond to my operational statement there
 
@ACuriousMind The reason why is that the product representing repeated measurements is not the Lie bracket it's the pointwise product in CM or the tensor product (in the universal enveloping algebra) in QM.
 
vzn
suspects/ conjectures/ hypothesizes there exists a classical system that has exactly the same quantum (math) formalism
 
@ACuriousMind Now why people insist on that non-commutativity is because in QM the Lie bracket (in the enveloping algebra) is realized as xy-yx, while this is definitely NOT the case in CM.
 
Even quantumly, that "measurements do not commute" is the same as "the observables don't commute" is the statement that non-commuting operators do not have a common eigenbasis, but this already presupposes all the axioms about states being vectors in a Hilbert space and the observables operators upon them, so it does not work classically.
@G.Bergeron I don't understand what you mean by that.
In particular, I do not know what enveloping algebra or what Lie bracket you are talking about. Classical mechanics has a Lie bracket in the Poisson bracket of phase space functions, quantum mechanics has a Lie bracket in the commutator of operators on Hilbert space.
 
6:06 PM
@ACuriousMind The product of observables in CM is abelian while non-abelian in QM. The fact the action they induce is non-commutative in both case is expected, but is only related to the product of observables in QM as we realize the Lie bracket $[x,y]=xy-yx$.
@ACuriousMind Exactly, they both have (possibly non-abelian) Lie structure, but only in QM will that Lie structure be related to the product.
 
@G.Bergeron But why would the pointwise product of functions be the product of observables we choose here? Why not e.g. $f \bullet g = \partial_q f \partial_p g$?
I do not see any particular significance of the pointwise product in classical mechanics, but a lot of significance in what I wrote there since its commutator is the Poisson bracket.
 
@ACuriousMind Because the pointwise product is the one that comes from the ring of functions being dual to phase space.
 
"dual"???
Phase space is not a vector space, what does "dual" even mean here?
 
@ACuriousMind reverse arrows.
 
@ACuriousMind Yes, as @0celo7 said.
 
6:13 PM
Uh...which arrows are we reversing here?
 
lmao
@ACuriousMind $f:X\to Y$, $f^*:Y\to X$
 
@0celo7 Thank you, now everything is clear :P
 
LOL
 
Also, you didn't reverse the arrow, you reversed everything else! That's cheating
 
use parity invariance, smartass
 
6:15 PM
@ACuriousMind For what I meant by the duality between states and operators, see: ncatlab.org/nlab/show/state+on+a+star-algebra
@ACuriousMind It's the dual in category theoretic sense.
 
ACM is an expert on this, if he doesn't understand, you're not explaining well
 
@G.Bergeron What's the category? Also, the nlab page contains zero mention of the word "dual", and I am familiar with the $C^\ast$-algebra formalism.
 
@ACuriousMind And for phase space, along the line of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringed_space
@ACuriousMind Dual, as in linear functionnal.
@0celo7 I have no claim in being a good explainer...
 
Can you write down exactly what you're talking about
 
@G.Bergeron So, to be clear, you're claiming that the functions on phase space are linear functionals on said space, which does not even carry a vector space structure? :P
 
6:19 PM
@0celo7 Well, yes, but I wanted to wrap it up quickly as I have to go attend a seminar, but apparently that was dreaming...
 
@ACuriousMind maybe he means dual on $C^0$ in the Radon sense.
 
@0celo7 :44194420 Will you tolerate me continuing this a bit later?
 
as long as there's no god damn sheaves, yes
 
@G.Bergeron Sure, chat is an asynchronous communication protocol ;)
 
[citation needed]
 
6:21 PM
Good! Sorry to have launched a topic only to leave midway... :(
 
he's not very authoritative
@ACuriousMind I've starting reading the german paper on skin surgery
the guy is clearly insane
he calls these surfaces wrinkly skins because they have singularities and it needs to be fixed with surgery
one should call the smoothing a "collagen treatment"
 
7:11 PM
not to be confused with a "Botox treatment" :P
 
Clearly he mostly wanted to do the paper for puns
 
Puns make things easy for me to remember.
at the beginning, at least
easy easier
 
7:28 PM
@ShaVuklia that is a certainly valid deduction. But I was just pointing out it’s not required, since the directions are all hidden in the signs
 
bah, humbug
1
Q: Hydrogen atom, what's the wave equation for the atom's nucleus?

J CI learnt from the class about the equation for hydrogen atom's electron where textbook assumed that the center/nuclei of hydrogen atom was fixed at origin. However, since every particle was a wave, the nuclei of the hydrogen atom (say only contain one proton) could be seen a wave as well. My qu...

scooped by a simple simple simple answer
 
7:46 PM
@Emilio Well, Ben's answer is probably the one the OP was looking for, yours merely deals with the messy details that are necessary to actually understand what is going on there.
I saw that question and was mulling over how I could give an answer like the former but hooking into the latter. Alas, I didn't see a way forward that I had time for.
 
@dmckee well, there's also the fact that you somehow need to account for a moving atom
 
Which factors naturally during the canonical transformation to CoM coordinates. Yes. That's on reason why I don't like to go as simple as Ben's answer.
 
 
2 hours later…
9:42 PM
@JohnRennie Thanks for the birthday gift!
 
10:33 PM
I didn't even know stack exchange had merchandise
 
10:46 PM
@ACuriousMind, @0celo7 The duality I was referring to is this one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
@ACuriousMind The linearity part is only when you consider generators of this algebra of function. That is, when you go to the tangent space of a point.
@0celo7 Yes sheaves can be involved if one wants it! :P Then you get to use the word: ''sheafification''! But this is getting beyond my familiar territory, to be honest.
 
Happy birthday @BernardoMeurer
 
@s.patroller It's on Monday, April 30th :)
 
@ACuriousMind, @0celo7: The general philosophy I'm following here is introduced here: ems-ph.org/books/109/9783037191286_intro.pdf Some part of that, I can't discuss rigorously as I haven't studied all facets of this (obviously!), but this is general settings in which most of my professional work places itself.
@BernardoMeurer So, that firewall?
 
@G.Bergeron What about it?
 
@BernardoMeurer Is it burning now?
 
10:54 PM
@G.Bergeron Yeah, it has ever since I put it online
 
@BernardoMeurer Also, how did you get that!?!
 
@G.Bergeron It's John's 250K gift that he didn't want, so he gave it to me
 
@BernardoMeurer I'm always afraid mine isn't set up properly... I'm using a separate box meant for that, but yeah. With all those port-forwarding/exceptions/rules for cryptocurrencies full wallets, I'm never sure...
@BernardoMeurer Plus it feels like those wallets act as a big neon arrow towards my server.
I did some basic penetration testing, but I'm no 1337 hackzorz!
@BernardoMeurer Nice
But my server is mostly used to crunch numbers on gpu, so security is not the top priority.
 
@G.Bergeron You should really not be hosting wallets in a server that is poorly configured fwiw
also
 
@Semiclassical ''exhibit several features previously thought to be exclusive to the microscopic, quantum realm'' and what are these, might I ask?
@BernardoMeurer To my knowledge, it is properly configured, but it becomes a rabbit hole quite quickly
 
11:01 PM
Try using ufw if you don't want the trouble of learning all of iptables's nucks and crannies
 
I mean professional security guys get their shit broken all the time, so yeah...
 
I'm running an nmap scan on my server to double check
 
just did a 1:40 talk
 
theoretically only 39901 and 3636 should be open to the outside world
 
@BernardoMeurer Yeah but I do a lot more than just firewall stuff on my network box.
@BernardoMeurer Oh this, I tested of course. Only the ports that should be opened are visible.
@0celo7 Isn't that a tad too long for the audience?
@BernardoMeurer Have you noticed the amount of bots that hammer any kind of IP address?
 
11:06 PM
@G.Bergeron Not yet
 
@G.Bergeron research seminar
people know what horrible fate awaits them
 
@0celo7 My seminar was delayed because of a fire alarm (you know, exam weeks for undergrads... -_-) But it was about CP^n sigma model and I pretty much did not get anything he was saying.
He started out by saying ''So everyone in the room is familiar with these models so I'll just...''
@BernardoMeurer Did you ever regret putting your pic up in your profile?
 
@G.Bergeron Nope, never
Except that time @KaumudiH said I wasn't cute
that hurt
 
LOL
@BernardoMeurer It's not like my pic isn't already on the web...
 
@G.Bergeron yep
 
11:17 PM
@BernardoMeurer Actually, if you type just G. Bergeron, I don't see it :p
 
@G.Bergeron No, but if you search with montreal and uni stuff you probably can find it
To me it's mostly that I've never cared to hide my online persona
 
@BernardoMeurer Nope only my uncle or my father show up with montreal, math or physics
@BernardoMeurer Me neither, honestly, it just seem very little people seem to do that here.
 
some people are extremely paranoid they will be discovered
@BernardoMeurer my thesis is 183 pages
not even close to being done lmao
I'm gonna add in some more major theorems
because why not at this point
 
@BernardoMeurer LOL, I tried any sensible keyword with G. Bergeron, but as long as you don't expend the first name, it doesn't show. :p If you do put it though, then its like the first result...
@0celo7 Why not by article?
 
@G.Bergeron what
 
11:24 PM
@G.Bergeron Does your dad work in construction?
Also, is Gabrielle Bergeron related to you?
@0celo7 Jesus
I want a copy
 
@BernardoMeurer No and no
 
@0celo7 We have the option of a thesis by articles where you just string something like three papers you published with a global introduction/conclusion and in between texts.
 
undergrad thesis
expository
 
@0celo7 I did that for my msc memoir with 1 article.
 
11:28 PM
it would have been done 130 pages ago
I keep finding things to add
 
@0celo7 Oh ok, but then.... WTF 183 pages!!!! Undergrad thesis!!!! 0_o
You know it's not your magnum opus, right?
 
I estimate 230 in the end
@G.Bergeron probably gonna publish it as a book with a professor
 
It may end up being read by like 3-5 people in the end.
Ah ok, ok, makes sense.
 
@G.Bergeron definitely not, it's going to be used for lecture notes
 
@0celo7 What's the book about?
 
11:30 PM
OSX is such a fuck my god
why doesn't the search give me the file path
 
nah
 
I know what the file is called
where the hell is it????????
 
left-click
show in finder
 
left click what
 
But yeah the late ''appification'' of osx pisses me off a little.
like the search result
 
11:31 PM
do you mean right click
 
yeah, oops
 
I have a 59 page document that I can add to the thesis
...why not lol
 
@0celo7 230 pages of mathematical reasoning of why Apple is not-so-great by 0celo7 :P (more seriously: nice work on working whatever it is into a book!)
 
@Mithrandir24601 Well I'm not sure if this will be a book, there's a guy in the field writing a book so maybe I can put some of this in there
 
Nice! My friend just texted me crypto-currencies are getting crazy again! 8D
 
11:33 PM
at this point I'm fixing some stuff in some big papers that needs fixing
 
That's my favourite video game: day-trading crypto stuff!
It's like a global casino with a positive gain expected value...
 
@G.Bergeron Scalar curvature geometry
 
@G.Bergeron Trade my bitcoins
 
@0celo7 Cool
 
Are you using blackbird, btw?
 
11:36 PM
@BernardoMeurer TBH the best strategy seems to be holding out now, day-trading is just for fun... But me and my DL friends are working on coding some bots... :)
@BernardoMeurer Nah it already exists, hence, its already used... One needs to run original algorithm to have an odd at success.
Plus it's way more fun to roll-up your own stuff!
 
chapters 5 and 6 are under heavy construction
 
I like the ''Loose definitions'' followed by ''Precise definitions'', this former part is often lacking in texts.
@BernardoMeurer Also, no way I'm giving out my API keys to third party software...
 
@G.Bergeron In this case, the latter is lacking in the original text :P
I have 3 versions of the precise definitions, and am currently trying to figure out which one to use
 
@G.Bergeron Yeah, hodl
@G.Bergeron blackbird is OSS though, fwiw
@G.Bergeron Hook me up with them bots tho :P
 
@BernardoMeurer Yeah, but I'm not gonna go review the entirety of someone else's code myself...
 
11:44 PM
I think I'm gonna add another chapter
god help me
I'm addicted
 
@BernardoMeurer They're not live now, I'll let you know if we get anything.
@0celo7 I can see that :p
 
@G.Bergeron Awesome, thanks :)
 
I should prove the Nash theorem
 
@0celo7 Prove the existence of cod
 
easy
go to Scandinavia
they eat that there
 
11:46 PM
@BernardoMeurer But then you'll be the one trusting third party... We can have proof of fund, but it's no guarantee.
@0celo7 It's everywhere: Atlantic cod, pacific cod, we can eat that here, although there is a ban on atlantic cod.
 
wow these notes I wrote were pretty good, I should include them
new projected length: 280
 
You know longer != better, right?
 
I've actually been asked for these notes by some researchers
 
I'm not saying they aren't good, I'm just praising conciseness... I hate to start reading a paper that winds on an on until my interest slowly fades away.
 
This is not really a paper, I think it's going to be an introduction to geometric analysis. I can cut it down if need be
It's supposed to explain some very deep and hard results in the field
 
11:51 PM
I feel like sometimes, math books try too fit as much as possible in the tersest way possible and I'm not sure it's always the best approach. I'm not saying its the case here, just commenting on the general picture.
 
and it's an accurate general picture
 
Like that ''A guide to quantum groups'' by Chari & Pressley which starts ok only to slowly get more and more sheafified into heaven...
P.S.: Sheaves are not really a topic of the book, I just like the word sheafification.
 
01:00 - 16:0016:00 - 00:00

« first day (2728 days earlier)      last day (2198 days later) »