Dear #fediverse. I work as an #architect and design buildings that harm the planet. I am looking for a practicing #engineer who can teach me building energy modelling using #opensource tools. I have a background in software dev, run #gentoo #linux and am willing to learn down to the details.

I do not have a background in heat transfer or thermodynamics, which is why I am asking for a tutor.

I promise to use this to design better buildings.

For a group G, consider the set of $\text{Aut}(G)$ of isomorphisms from G to G. This is of course itself a group under composition, so we can iterate this operation to consider $\text{Aut}^n(G)$. For some types of groups (abelian simple and some dihedral, I think?) this procedure "stabilizes", which means there is an n for which $\text{Aut}^n(G)$ is a fixed point of Aut. Does anyone know if this is true for all groups G? Or all finite groups?

Book link recommendation, mathematics, algebraic number theory:

jmilne.org/math/CourseNotes/in

This is a crucial moment for those in the EU to stop #Article13 and #Article11—votes in the coming weeks will determine whether huge swaths of online expression will be subject to mass, arbitrary control.

Here's what you can do today to help: eff.org/deeplinks/2019/01/inte

I originally posted this on because somehow I assumed people on Mastodon would know…

Stanford has published on Youtube 111_{10}¹ lectures by Donald Knuth:

__
¹ given the subject I thought specifying the base was relevant.

@amiloradovsky My early experiments agree with your formula. So now the question is:

Why is the answer on so many pages on the internet different?

This page, for example, claims that with the one-half-twist Moebius Strip one gets only 2 half twists in the result:

brilliant.org/wiki/mobius-stri

Turns out I like a lot of this person's stuff.

Commutative diagrams, Stokes's Theorem, and making money on stocks:
thenewflesh.net/2018/04/17/fin

Theory is abstract practice.
Practice is concrete theory.

Latest experimental release of Climaxima. If any maths-oriented people would like to provide criticism, I would be very grateful.

github.com/lokedhs/docker-maxi

I still feel kinda strange about caring about logic but not proper mathematics. It kinda feels like I'm arguing about the rules I of a game I hold no stake in.

I seem to be the only one who posts in "" hashtag, out of 1.8M+ accounts… WFT, Fediverse?

Verification — declare a property that supposedly holds for all inputs and outputs of a function; then have no rest until you've formally proved or disproved it. The varying quantity is time & efforts.

Testing — declare a property that supposedly holds for all inputs and outputs of a function; then mechanically check it for a lot of randomly-generated inputs. The varying quantity is assurance.

Idea:
Conjectures-testing facility for #Coq.
How to generate random inhabitants of inductive types?

Choose a polynomial's coefficients randomly and independently from your favorite nontrivial distribution. Then it should be irreducible with high probability for polynomials of high enough degree. This was previously conjectured for the uniform distribution on $\{0,1\}$ by Odlyzko and Poonen; now Breuillard and Varjú have proven that it follows from a form of the Riemann hypothesis. See:
quantamagazine.org/in-the-univ (preprint at arxiv.org/abs/1810.13360)

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.