Oh boy the explanation of what the Thom-Boardman symbols are is rather complicated here. I think it's time to whip out my good ol' friend Gibson...

my notes are very sloppy in general lol you can tell they are /by/ me and /for/ me as I skip everything I remember from last year and carefully explain everything I didn't understand the first time I read it...

whatever gets into the final thesis is going to need a serious revision but I hope I can explain the concepts more clearly by then

I'm not totally into ᵣJᵏ(n,p) as notation because the ᵣ makes it hard to handwrite the symbol and the author of this book keeps getting the ᵣ everywhere else lol because of course latex assumes it's a subindex for whatever you wrote /before/, not /after/

non mathematicians: i hate math because i hate numbers

me, a mathematician: what the frick is a number

Another suggestion is g.co/kgs/fktbUb

This one seems to go deeper and (I assume) is more complete as a reference. It uses techniques from sheaf theory.

Going to make this into a thread in case someone else is interested. I found this book which seems to be an introduction to the subject written *for* a particular course. Also, CC BY-NC-SA (kudos to Jiří Lebl!)

There is a thread on mathoverflow (mathoverflow.net/questions/313) but I ask here anyway in case someone is familiar with the subject

Do you know a book on several complex variables I can use for reference? Basically to check when the rules IRⁿ can be applied to Cⁿ (e.g. Hadamard's lemma apparently holds in Cⁿ)

The proofs being complicated is not a problem as I don't think I will read them; I've been told several complex variables is a tough branch of complex analysis.

I like #blackfriday . I get emails from newsletters I almost forgot to unsubscribe from

youtu.be/48QQXpbTlVM I can feel the meme potential in this screenshot

"Preparation Theorem" is like these characters which are only mentioned in a story but never show up

There is a theorem in this book which is basically Nakayama's lemma in steroids

Computing tf and ωf in singularity theory is like computing the first few derivatives of a curve/surface in classic differential geometry: you just know they're going to be useful

Vegeta, what can you tell me about its measure?
Vegeta silently breaks the measuring device and the bald guy (sorry not really into DBZ) goes nuts

Actually can you imagine the it's over 9000 meme with a Vitali set

One day I will learn to use tikz to its full potential and my power will be unmeasurable (just like the Vitali sets)

Today's task: I'm thinking of some loophole to make this abuse of notation somehow valid

He would be like, "mathematicians must question everything they learn and ponder about everything they find out"

Tbh I think the other day I finally understood how the mind of a researcher works because I was reading about the Finite Determinacy theorem in Singularity theory and my first thought was, "is there something similar for Legendre equivalence?"

A question that is probably answered already but it was like an... Odd moment. I finally got into the mindset our Physics 101 professor talked us about years ago.

Show more

A Mastodon instance for maths people. The kind of people who make $$\pi z^2 \times a$$ jokes. Use $$ and $$ for inline LaTeX, and $ and $ for display mode.