Post math/math culture that pisses you off:
>overusing the adjective "Galois"
>naming literally EVERYTHING that involves a symmetry group "the (adjective/additional structure)-Galois group of (Object)"
Galois covering space? Differential Galois theory? Fuck you, not everything that involves an automorphism group needs to have his name on it
Pic related, it's a mathematician that is 10 times as significant as Galois that we never hear about
>delta """"""""""""function""""""""""""
here we go again...
"Now, this isn't technically correct, but I'm just going to fudge the rules a bit and treat dy/dx as a fraction. Never do this, ever. It works out all right though."
>Emil Artin
>unheard of
But that can be made rigorous with differential forms
It's literally perfectly fine
>Fuck you, not everything that involves an automorphism group needs to have his name on it
stupid brainlet, they're called galois because there's a galois connection between two posets
>it's a mathematician that is 10 times as significant as Galois that we never hear about
>Artin
confirmed for uneducated undergrad
>they're called galois because there's a galois connection between two posets
>giving another example of the overuse of "galois" as an adjective to justify the overuse of galois.
And I'm the brainlet?
let me guess, you think 'continuous' is overused when applied to topological maps?
You can't divide by a differential form.
>sub-objects of A correspond to extension objects of B!
>let's name it after Galois again!
nah
What word would you prefer?
We already have words for it, it's called an inclusion reversing correspondence or an anti-equivalence. Or should the Nulstellensatz correspondence between radical ideals and affine varieties be named a Galois-connection as well?
>Pic related, it's a mathematician that is 10 times as significant as Galois that we never hear about
That is because Artin's work is high up there in algebraic geometry. It is unlikely that anyone not working in algebraic geometry will need to know what something like an Artin stack is.
Contravariant correspondence, maybe.
The fashion of naming structures after people pisses me off in general.
Theorems I can understand but you're just tacking on more completely useless jargon to an already highly technical language by replacing all your adjectives with the name of the guy who first described the object
>You can't divide by a differential form.
Why not?
Can't you define a division like you do for every other function?
Like:
[math]\mbox{d}(a)x=x[/math]
[math]\mbox{d}f(a)=f'(a)\mbox{d}x=f'(a)x[/math]
[math]\mbox{d}f(a)/\mbox{d}x=f'(a)[/math]
...
Lol. Nice.
I sort of agree, with an exception in the case of Jacques Tits, e.g. I sat through a talk on Tits Buildings. My inner 4 year old was delighted.
But generally Mathematics needs a major vocabularic overhaul that of course will never happen. Speaking of Bruhat-Tits theory...I mean ...the structures are called "Buildings" and have sub-objects called "Apartments"? That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard.
>the proof is an exercise/obvious/omitted
>_____ theory
>convince yourself that...
Also papers being not easily readable
People bragging about intelligence/proofs
The brown nosing
Have you not seen illustrations of the buildings, apartments and walls? It all makes sense
It makes sense but it also makes me sound like a real estate agent.
That's not the point though. Hearing the same "don't do this kids, btw we're gonna do it anyway lol" bullshit with no explanation a million times can get pretty frustrating.