Pinned toot

trying to crowdfund grad school

Kim Reece boosted

Darn the socks, felting ahead!

Kim Reece boosted
"Basic Category Theory" by Tom Leinster is the best intro to Category Theory, IMO. On top of that, you can get it for free legally on arxiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.09375
Kim Reece boosted

#Funkwhale #podcast helpers! Our next meeting for podcast/channel development is tomorrow, December 7, at 17:00 UTC in our podcast room: matrix.to/#/#funkwhale-podcast

You don't have to wait for our meeting times if you'd like to contribute! The Matrix room is available anytime for discussion and so is our development forum: governance.funkwhale.audio/g/S

nb. I'm a digital note-taker so I'm not spending a tree on this -- although arguably the carbon footprint of an android tablet is worse. But the principle is the same.

More draft writing tricks,

\usepackage{setspace}
\doublespacing

I can't be the only one who had ream length print-outs in programming or English classes, corrected them by hand with lots of margin notes and inline scribbles with the text either double or _triple_ spaced, then typed in the corrections afterward.

If that's your edit flow, the normal dense script of LaTeX can get really annoying to annotate. So I started double spacing my drafts .. and my edit pace went up!

Does anyone have recommendations for online whiteboards? With or without collaborative features?

Or at least screen recording apps for android?

I would like to be able to stream my work on occasion, or at least create videos, or do virtual tutoring sessions. All of which is way more awesome with the right tools.

I cleaned up a lot of my writing today.

Then I spent a couple hours making another hopeful attempt at something involving generators differing by a square... All of which was grounded in yet another typo.

A typo I'd already caught days ago, and then somehow made again in a new way. Thank goodness for simple example cases. With no compiler, just pen and page, a test suite is my only hope.

Kim Reece boosted

I'm fascinated by both etymology and the encyclopaedists (or Encyclopédistes).

That toot was inspired by a pleasantly productive HN thread on information, quantity, LibGen, and past and future directions of information:

news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2

Kim Reece boosted

"Training in a circle" enkyklios paedeia.

Or as you may know it, "encyclopaedia". Or "encyclopedia", for USians.

etymonline.com/word/encycloped

Kim Reece boosted
Kim Reece boosted

me: oh, is *this* the trick to getting proof automation to do all the hard work for me?

coq, four theorems later: no, you just made a mistake in a definition that made all the previous theorems trivial

Kim Reece boosted

back in the hell that is coq MSet

please tell me some other theorem prover has a usable axiomatization of finite sets

Another attempted proof down the drain for a sign error, caught after more than a day of work.

Instead of a pleasantly applicable contradiction, I have only from it that an adjacent and likely irrelevant value is a square.

I wonder, after years of tutoring and running small groups, whether lecturing will someday be relaxing or just a different kind of stress?

At least then you get to pick the topic with a measure of fore-warning.

(Abstract algebra group that I offered to do started today.)

tricks,

\newcommand{\todo}[1][]{\marginpar[$$\to$$ #1]{}}

\todo[cleanup]

This allows me to put margin notes for future edit locations.

When writing proofs, how do you tell whether your case structure is inherent or incidental?

It's common in algebraic number theory to end up in a massive number of cases, as fields intersect or don't in myriad ways. But cases can also arise simply due to weak techniques that only mostly work, to such an extent that I had professors at my old school who considered any proof with cases suspect. So how you do you tell these situations apart in practice?

One step back, two steps forward...

I'm still not happy with 'just take a power series over the uniformizer' because it glosses over that you need to pass to the local field first to get a discrete valuation ring before you can do that. But it basically comes out in the wash.

Yesterday (and several days prior) were a computer induced frustration -- turns out sometimes PARI hands you $$-\zeta$$ for $$\zeta$$. So no longer chasing that, I was finally able to apply the technique where I meant to.

Is there a way to tell that a variable is an integer?

I like getting expansions over complex values by default but I really need to simplify this.

It's 10:20am; the eduroam network has slowed to a crawl.

Carefully, in frustration, I perform a variable substitution... replacing each variable appearing in a selection of products with a different prime. Let the computer believe I mean numbers; I can extract the factors at the end.

Except for one, which appears in sums, so cannot be scrubbed away. Bravely the computer returns $\frac{x}{(-1)^{2b}-1}$ where $$b$$ is an integer.

Apparently, if I want results, I will be doing this by hand.

trying to crowdfund grad school

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.