kandel

Who are you? Your account is 13 hours old. Do you work with one of aggravated parties or are you a concerned bystander?

Im just an anonymous person on the internet but even I can see that this can really hurt your reputation. That start of the article painting you by using a random game you had with Zuckerberg is very low. I think the previous commentor's suggestion to talk to a professional has merit.

They are effectively accusing you of destroying a multi-million company through libel... If this happened in court you'd be getting a lawyer, no? Maybe i'm being dramatic and the best way to go through this is just to ignore it and let it calm out but it's probably not a bad idea to talk to someone with a cool head and experience.

My pet philosophy is that math is real because the objects have persistent effects, like with the "if a tree falls in the forest..." riddle. Something that isn't real would be a story, because things do not have effects in it.

If a function is one-to-one, it has a (right? left? keep forgetting which one)-inverse. But if Moshe the imaginary forgot the milk, his wife may or may not shout at him, whichever way the story teller decides to take the story... So a function being one-to-one is real, but Moshe the imaginary forgetting the milk isn't.

I like this view when I'm being befuddled by a result, especially some ad absurdum argument. I tell myself: this thing is true, so if it wasn't we'd just need to look hard enough to find somewhere where two effects clash.

Well most of your examples are about failure to act based on reasoning rather than failure to reason, except the mathematics one which is unfair as research mathematics is a very hard task - either subtle errors, reasoning in new fields, or extremely long chains of reasoning.

Well for me the Hessian is the second order derivative in the special case where the co-domain is of dim 1. It's just very easy to work with...

I mean, it's a technical piece of code (ETH, that is), and every new piece gets a new name. It's not a more complicated terminology than you'd get for compilers or protocols - TCP wikipedia has "TCP provides reliable, ordered, and error-checked delivery of a stream of octets " which has 6 (or 5, depending how you'd count it), technical terms. They're not very abstract, sure, but it's just TCP, and we think that's completely normal.

A logic class will suddenly try to teach you "eqvuilance relations", "Equivalence class", "Quotient set", "Projection", "Kernel" (Specifically in the Eqvuilance relation meaning), "partition", and that's only the terms I found in wikipedia. The class I help along has one more under this subject, and this is a first semester topic that is taught in a few weeks. All of those are technical, and all of those build on some other technical terms such as relations, functions, sets...

I concede that crypto has a bad naming scheme. It all sounds silly.

Why? It's easy to do it as a varied cost.

On the other hand, a passive student will let you go through an entire proof only to raise his hand when you finish and ask something that implies he did not understand the proof from the start.

Why didn't you say so? You wasted both of our time... I even turned around a few times and asked if everyone was following!

I know it's hard to understand when you don't understand. But I don't know how to deal with this problem and the senior lecturers don't seem to know how to, either...

t. just started lecturing

One could say he is dominating an opportunity reserved for small-time artists by deceit.

I commented this earlier as well. Relating brings a lot of energy to a conversation, but it's also trickier. I wish I had a better solution

When I was at Amaravati the head monk constantly brought up stories from his life, sometimes endlessly, and it was always nice to sit next to him since it was so energetic.

Here, I related something, and it brings a new thing to talk about, a few new edges.

How is it? It's a direct help.

A lot of times I use what I think you term as unclean language to inject some energy into the conversation. Without it I feel like the conversation dies, so I relate with my own story, or pass a half-judgement, do something to fire them up. I don't know, it doesn't feel like the best solution, but it's the one I use, any thoughts?

Hop on the mathematics discord and ask in their book channel. It's the big server with a picture of a torus as the icon. There are some very knowledgeable people there

If I could

"Computer, look through the youtube suggestions on _topic_ and return one that is half hour long and from a respected, but not too popular channel"

I would be very happy

It looks like math blog posts. They are written for other mathematicians but not experts in the fields, and a layman will find them unreadable.

For sure there is a value for the giver. It's good for you to be charitable, so why not win-win?

The rock star thing is a bit creepy. I'd like to be good at my job but not have the job turn into my entire life. Why does the conversation around tech imply that software jobs are either grey prisons or stress balls? Methinks reality is a bit more complex, but i'm just an undergrad.

Same thing with math academy honestly.

Ah interesting! I thought you were saying we can express all the other analytical functions with 1,2^x.

so you express x (the simple polynomial) as ln(2^(x/ln2)? or as an infinite series expansion?

but the first half of wall-e is the good one!

Mind explaining how to express some simple functions? Im interested

I can see where he's coming from. Geometric intuition is an useful tool but in this semester's linear 2 class I developed more because I stopped using it. It's too strong of a tool and blots out "dryer" intuition and methods, and also as you progress you find more and more places where it's not useful. What's the geometrical intuition for whether two circles intersect in Q^2? who knows?

Maybe it's the shallowness of pop math? I sometimes find pop math even insulting. Not a grown up response, sure, but how many times can you hear "WaOw there are Bigger infinities???" sure it's nice that they find it cool but when I start to talk about the things that are more interesting I can see the shift in them as they quickly get bored. Perhaps it's the quick realization that no one outside of math actually cares that is insulting, after all those times they hyped us up.

Yeah, if you count teetotaling as anything which substance which causes you happiness you will have to look at ascetics. A few would fit this. I was thinking of any intoxicating substance which quite a few religions fit.

sobriety is more radical than drugs. Being a teetotaler is far more strange socially these days than being a user.

That's new for me. Which country? Here it's "Look out!" or "Let me pass!"

Yeah but it is the situation. I remember a roommate saying "I love math!". When I talked with her a bit I understood she likes doing solutions of easy integrals\derivatives because they are simple, relaxing, and rewarding for her - her math classes were easy and she could get accolades by just doing those simple excersizes. Ofcourse the distance between that and a proper field of math is vast. But that was math for her.

Devil's advocate: they liked the little bits of math they were exposed to.

I don't know if there's a field i like. But there's something intoxicating in math. Sometimes it's very strong. I listened to a CS lecture now and normally I find CS a bit boring but as he kept describing aspects of the problem he was facing (finding points in intersecting disks) and as the problem got more complicated I got the itch lol. Sitting in a logic class is more exciting than a roller coaster. It's a bit scary because I don't understand why.

mathematicians: Humanities are stressful because you don't know what's the right answer!

why not just flick your high-lights? I guess that's a night's solution.