/mg/ math general: 2-adic Edition

I was too impatient and looked it up after not having figured out a solution within 5 minutes. I'm such an embarrassing brainlet. How did a retard like me obtain a master degree with best grades? University education is fucked up. In a real educational system a moron like me should have no chance. I fucking hate myself and my fraudulent pseudo-intelligence.

>The “derived drift” is pretty unsatisfying and dangerous to category theory (or at least, to me)

mathoverflow.net/questions/289259/the-derived-drift-is-pretty-unsatisfying-and-dangerous-to-category-theory-or

>let mathematics develop without the guidance of physics
>it starts running around like a headless chicken

>hypotehesis

I want to go to grad school but my GPA is too low what do

Fuck. Fingers too fast.

>I fucking hate myself and my fraudulent pseudo-intelligence.
Welcome to the club.

Got around 12g of maths textbook pdfs on mega

Would I get in trouble for distributing them? (living in NZ)

Anyone willing to skim over this textbook and tell me how you'd rate it as learning material? I'm a bit more than halfway through it (Chapter 8) and wondering how long it should be taking me to work through it. I'm really keen to get a good foundation so I can hurry up and move on to higher and more interesting maths. Would I be good to move on to a calculus textbook after this? Or should I do a "pre-calc" one first? Trig? My ultimate goal here is to get the basics down.

Forgot link, sorry:
saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/SAYLOR-MA001-TEXT.pdf

>how you'd rate it as learning material
3/10; horrible. The whole textbook seems to be phoning in trivial example after trivial example, so as to teach general algorithms and heuristics by rote learning. It's the plug and chug method. Avoid it.
>wondering how long it should be taking me to work through it.
1 or 2 months if you're in middle school (5th-7th grade or so).
1 or 2 days if you've finished high school.

>My ultimate goal here is to get the basics down.
Try Serge Lang's Basic Mathematics instead.

>Serge Lang's Basic Mathematics
Lang is a meme.

No. Lang is great. His books are "memes" for a reason.

...

Anyone wants to discuss physics and dog-eating here? Is this the right thread?

>Anyone wants to discuss physics and dog-eating here? Is this the right thread?
It should be fine as long as it's mathematical discussion (i.e. the economics of the dog meat market).

Yes. We also discuss our deep physical intuitions here. Be sure to use cancerous avatars as well.

>economics
That's pretty mathematical. It should also be fine it's about applied combinatorics related to dogs.
Or maybe applied avatarfagging related to both physics and dogs? Or maybe applied black holes related to taiwan and dogs?

Sorry, I meant as review, not learning material. But yeah it still seems pretty low quality, a lot of the solutions listed in the book are incorrect, I thought I was crazy until realized I was just being gaslighted by typos.
What would you recommend instead?

What are some shit 2hu characters one could use for a disgusting avatar? I'm a physisict and I would like to shit up these threads with my avatarfagging if you don't mind.

>What would you recommend instead?
I would recommend Einstein's books on blacks holes and physics.

Come on user why are you memeing me? I'm trying to learn, please give me a real answer.

see also keep bringing up how your a physicist preferably attaching images of the same character or characters related to you're character of choice to every post you make and you should keep doing that and getting angry when your posts get deleted for some reason??

>also keep bringing up how your a physicist preferably attaching images of the same character or characters related to you're character of choice to every post you make and you should keep doing that and getting angry when your posts get deleted for some reason??
Are you okay?

How is that not a real answer? Physics is really cool and fun, so are blackholes and astrophysics.

sorry, i don't speak taiwanese. couldn't read your post. maybe you should try communicating via images? preferably the same set of recognizable images.

To what extent do you know calculus?

It's an old troll. Just ignore "his" posts. This is where "he" made "his" entry in the thread.

Read Baez's Guage Fields, Knots and Gravity.
>have an oversimplified toy model of an interaction on a small scale, but get all these interesting phenomena after re-normalizing to a larger scale. I mean, this is essentially what's happening in QFT, right?
Not really.

Is "he" a "her"?

I agree, but I'll have to add the following.
It'll give you a superficial understanding of other areas of math and all you'll be capable of doing is abstract wank that serves no purpose. For instance there's no way for anyone to extract the definition of functional germs from the categorical definition of a sheaf, and the latter isn't nearly as useful (or even usable) in the algebraic geometry of Riemannian surfaces as the former.

Never been exposed to it at all. I had a pretty shit education.

Why do you respond to all of her posts with this?

>can't understand basic quantum mechanics
>wants to study string theory

Right and wrong. Those mathematicians that dislike the supposed "lack of rigor" in physics should also reject statements proven assuming generalized RH/CH.

>attend small, non-meme university
>got memed by my parents that apparently they had no money for uni
>work hard to get scholarships
>got off with $10k debt
>got into meme tier grad school with a world-tier meme prof who offered me a meme amount of stipend of $30k/year
>turned out my parents had prepared 30k in advance to pay off my tuition
>used 20k to pay for the downpayment of a flat in downtown Vancouver
>mfw now I own property at the age of 23

I love /mg/ drama.

>20k downpayment
>downtown Vancouver
You lie.

No. Sounds like what people would gather from skimming Griffith. Go read an actual QM book like Townsend, Sakurai or Landau-Lifshitz.

Assuming anything that is not proven (except axioms lol) cannot yield a proof. Any mathematician thinking otherwise is an idiot.

any recommendations on geometry books? looking for the most rigorous a book can get.

>using incorrect intuition to understand something yields "spooky" results
Wow who would've thunk??

Where did you get the idea that I want to study string theory? I said I wanted to learn the basics of mathematics, that I want to learn the foundations.

Category theory is irrelevant to most of mathematics anyway

Sakurai - Modern Quantum Mechanics
Townsend - A Modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics

Don't listen to Wrong on almost all accounts.
>classical mechanics
Landau-Lifshitz
>electrodynamics
Jackson
>quantum mechanics
Ballentine
>quantum field theory
Weinberg

So you think you know better than someone who has formalized one of the most successful physical theories in existence in sound rigorous mathematical ground?
I'm actually howling right now

Stop it you assholes. It's the winter break. Let's all get along, ok?

Physics is the ultimate intellectual pursuit. Prove me wrong.

Protip: You can't.

these are physics books, you're telling me i can learn geometry from these books?

BUT WHERE WAS LANDAU-LIFSHITZ???
This.

...

>I can't tell if Veeky Forums is being raided by CS troll threads or carrying on as usual.
>Will someone please tell me what is going on?
I see he's a fellow Taiwanese.

Schwarz - Topology for Physicists
Atiyah - Geometry and Physics of Knots

I liked the one where Yukari and Yuyuko raped this one village boy.

So... which one of you made that mathoverflow post?

>how can I prove it?
You don't, it's obviously true by physical intuition.

thanks

Kronecker.

how do you know the name of the guy who posts hibikek pictures?

From reading Sakurai and Townsend .

Domain wall defects caused by the ferromagnetic order parameter.

Try Sakurai or Landau-Lifshitz.

Can anyone explain me why physicists are said to eat dogs?

This is discussed in the following literature:
Von Neumann - Mathematical Foudnations of Quantum Mechanics
Shankar - Principles of Quantum Mechanics

Most of mathematics is irrelevant to category theory anyway.

You're fine with buzzfeed journalists who's never taken a course in physics and not beyond highschool math should write articles on black holes and string theory? It's kind of like that.

I didn't make that post although I empathise a lot with him, to the point where I was choking on tears while reading through that thread.

>reviewing notes
>on the part where I constructed rows of exact sequences in equivariant cohomology
>have vertical morphisms between them with an s written on the arrows
>flip through notes trying to find out what these s's are
>turned out they're just tildes drawn on the arrows to denote isomorphisms
>mfw
Fuck these "exact sequences" anyway, they are abstract wank.

>I empathise a lot with him
Why?

What?

Shankar - Principles of Quantum Mechanics

is this general nothing but weebs?

sup piggots

>Fuck these "exact sequences" anyway, they are abstract wank.
They really aren't, even physicists know what exact sequences are.

Welcome to Veeky Forums.

I was attracted to cat theory for the exact same reason, as a window into "ideal"/"platonic" mathematics, a mathematics that is thoroughly elegant, free of impromptu case-by-case technicalities. I still think that this ideal is 'real' or achievable, but it is always outside my grasp.
I am a mediocrity or an abject failure (same difference really) academically, and am considering quitting maths as a consequence.
I'm at my parents' house right now, trying to forget about this sort of shit and clear my mind for a couple of days when here comes this asshole and makes a post about the same sort of existential/vocational issues.

Basically, I am a faggot and a brainlet.
Pic related.

Holy fuck this is hilarious
>waaaah I have to read a real argument mommy give me my deffies back

Fuck them. They aren't physical intuitions.

Schwarz - Quantum Field Theory and Topology

I don't really see the similarities between your post and that one.

>to prove
Don't. Use your concrete physical intuitions about totally non-fictional things (i.e. TQFT). Just read:
Taylor - Classical Mechanics
Goldstein - Classical Mechanics
Also use programming intuitions.

The cobordism hypothesis can be proved, so where are the proofs of this homotopy "hypothesis"?
Answer: there are none, because cobordism hypothesis is the cornerstone of something concrete (i.e. TQFT) while this homotopy hypothesis is the cornerstone of absolute algebraic wank.

Right and wrong. Physicists of the older generation are more likely to reject fancy mathematical constructs, but I'm sure this is about to change.
see Fujikawa - Path Integrals and Quantum Anomalies

What is your research? Quantum computing?

I'm researching the relation of Black Holes to concrete things such as TQFT. Currently reading Sakurai's book on Black Holes and their connections to number theory.

A good place to start is the Landau-Lifshitz series.
1. LL classical mechanics + Goldstein
2. LL E&M + Jackson
3. LL QM + Sakurai
I'm sure you can get through this over the summer.

Isn't this physics though?

>let mathematics develop without the guidance of physics
>it starts running around like a headless chicken

Why is the negation of [eqn]\forall \epsilon>0, \exists N\in\mathbb N :\forall n>N, |x_n-x|0, \forall N\in\mathbb N :\forall n>N, |x_n-x|\geq\epsilon[/eqn]
And not this (note the exists before the n>N): [eqn]\exists \epsilon>0, \forall N\in\mathbb N :\exists n>N, |x_n-x|\geq\epsilon[/eqn]

This is caused by the existence of black holes. You can read about it in:
Sakurai - Modern Quantum Mechanics.