« first day (1614 days earlier)      last day (1789 days later) » 

06:33
@CharlesRezk which one is that? The X(n) one or the other one?
Ah NVM that's the Northwestern one.
 
2 hours later…
08:51
@TylerLawson Thanks. I'm trying to get a conceptual understanding of Bruner's result constructing H_oo structures on the "adams filtration tower" (purposely ambigous terminology because I'm not sure what object exactly he constructs the structure on). Phil Hackney's work seems relevant.
 
3 hours later…
11:33
Hm. An "H_oo structure on a filtered object" in the sense of bruner is not actually the same thing as an H_oo monoid in the symmetric monoidal oo-category of filtered objects... I think.
12:31
@CharlesRezk It should be in your inbox.
 
5 hours later…
17:38
gave my first talk ever today, did not go very well tbh
What went wrong?
I had a hard time writing while speaking
also, there was an unproven statement in the thing I was presenting, and I gave an incorrect proof
I didn't realize that homotopy orbits and homotopy fixed points aren't finite limits/colimits
even when G is finite
whatever, I think I passed
18:34
Giving talks is hard. It'll get better with time (at least I hope: my talks still tend to be crap)
19:20
thanks =)
Yeah I've made so many public mistakes.
Sometimes they're caught sometimes they aren't, but I always know what they were.
19:42
After I wrote my notes up, I decided to try to start at the end and fill in the details, and then when I did that, the organizer wanted me to start from the beginning after all
by that point my notes were all in the wrong order
idk, it was a mess
also I think I swore a few times
next time I give a talk I'm going to practice it the big seminar room when it's empty
anyway doing homework, thanks guys!
20:30
When I first started giving talks I practiced them multiple times in front of mathematicians that I knew, and usually ended up with lots of feedback and making big changes. Now I can usually get away with one practice run-through by myself, but if I do zero practices the talk is usually a disaster.
 
1 hour later…
21:38
giving talks is really hard. the people who do a good job and who make it look easy put loads of work into each one and have loads of experience. tbh that's also often true of people who nonetheless give poor talks—it's just really really hard
presentation is also a really fun problem to think about & learn the nooks and crannies of, imo
My biggest issue is usually that there are secretly things in my talk that I've taken "for granted" and haven't thought about in a while. And these seem to regularly be the things that my audience picks to ask specific questions about, haha.
in this seminar, half of the questions are something like "why does that diagram commute" and the commutativity is often taken for granted in the book
so I prepared and got all the diagrams commuting in my notes but blew it on the presentation part haha
21:53
heh
Yeah... those are rough questions...
I was thinking about that answer to that homotopy type theory question, and it really is true, you really do have to exhibit homotopies basically constructively
Heh. I've learned that the hard way recently doing honest 2-category theory.
I wonder if any pseudotheorems have been 'proven' but actually aren't true because some diagram fails to commute
I found a fatal error in a paper by a pretty good French mathematician that was like that, but that was just really sloppy
Well, there's the famous source of the Kervaire invariant issue, which was thought to be resolved until someone realized a certain map wasn't in fact a group homomorphism.
the overall end state of the game, the thing he wanted to prove was actually true, but the real proof is a 50 page paper by Cisinski and Maltsiniotis
there were also all those papers by Moerdijk and his collaborators about the tensor product of dendroidal sets where they forgot to check the additoinal conditions on Day's theorem and it ended up being false
bottom of page 30, looking
That's weird though that pontryagin ended up finding and correcting the error, but people were still confused by the original statement 50 years later?
I dunno, I have to read the paper I guess

« first day (1614 days earlier)      last day (1789 days later) »