Maths Uni Chat

Scroll to see replies

It is pretty straightforward if you spend a small amount of time to learn what it does and how it works. GIGO obviously applies.

it's straightforward if you want to do straightforward things
say you want to put a picture in the bottom right hand of a page though, then LaTeX will quite happily add several lines of white space underneath which overlap onto the next page, so instead of your next page of text looking like this:

--------------------------
--------------------------
--------------------------

it looks like this

-----------
-----------
--------------------------

you can add some code to delete the white space but that results in whole new problems

Reply 7421

Slowbro93

Picards theorem, trying to get my head around it :banghead:

Reply 7422

Jake22

Original post by munn

I've never had problems with that kind of thing. Are you using wrapfig? If not, it could possibly solve your problems.

Reply 7423

munn

Original post by Jake22

I've never had problems with that kind of thing. Are you using wrapfig? If not, it could possibly solve your problems.

wrapfig is what caused my problems in the first place
it's all in the past now anyway, like i said, my report turned out beautifully, but LaTeX made it as difficult as possible in the process

Reply 7424

Oh I Really Don't Care

Original post by cpdavis

Picards theorem, trying to get my head around it :banghead:

Which one?

If you are finding remembering the steps in the proof, use flashcards with a trigger.

Reply 7425

ambience

Original post by around

go to all of them?

Original post by SimonM

It's what I've done up until now [...].

Did you do Part II PDEs then?

If so, can you help with this question I've posted on the Study Help thread? It's about a question on the first example sheet.

The terms "flow map" and "restricted flow map" seem to be used in an unusual way. Most webpages containing "restricted flow map" refer to this particular question. Someone on TSR asked the same thing I'm asking, in 2010, but got no answers! They or someone else also asked on Nrich. Again, no answers.

It'd be great to hear from someone who's done this question or who can at least unpack the terminology! :smile:

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 7426

SimonM

Original post by ambience

Did you do Part II PDEs then?

I went to 3 lectures before I realised my error. The course is awful.

Reply 7427

ambience

Original post by SimonM

I went to 3 lectures before I realised my error. The course is awful.

In what way? Did you then do it from notes and books, or stop doing it altogether?

Reply 7428

SimonM

Original post by ambience

In what way? Did you then do it from notes and books, or stop doing it altogether?

Stopped it altogether. I wasn't a fan of the lecturing, and the example sheets were dull.

Reply 7429

qgujxj39

"A cover U is finite if it is finite"

I thought this was topology, not tautology.

Reply 7430

ali0sha

Original post by tommm

I thought this was topology, not tautology.

Great topology quotes from Oxford part A so far:

"So open balls are, surprisingly enough, open"
"It turns out balls can behave in strange ways"
"So in this space every sequence converges to every space. In other words, this is a pretty stupid space"

I love this lecturer

Reply 7431

around

Choice quote from Linear Analysis:

'I'm having trouble notating my balls'

Reply 7432

ali0sha

Today's topology quote: "The closure of the closure of the set is equal to the closure of the set because the closure of a closed set is equal to that closed set."

Tell that to a non-mathematician and they'll think you're pulling their leg.

Reply 7433

My Alt

Original post by tommm

"A cover U is finite if it is finite"

I thought this was topology, not tautology.

We got a nice definition that a set is the union of it's elements which amused me.

Reply 7434

around

More useful than you think...

Reply 7435

My Alt

Original post by around

More useful than you think...

Well yeah in the same way that any ridiculously obvious property is useful.

Reply 7436

Simplicity

Original post by ali0sha

That sounds perfectly fine to me.

On stupid definitions. In Algebraic topology, the whole real number line is the same as a point, however a point isn't the same as two distinct points.

What the hell?

Reply 7437

Jake22

Original post by Simplicity

On stupid definitions. In Algebraic topology, the whole real number line is the same as a point, however a point isn't the same as two distinct points.

What the hell?

I have never heard it being given as a definition that the two are the 'same'. Of course the two objects share basic invariants thus are equivalent in various senses but meh... to me your comment is like saying "Up to the number of objects, one 30 ton piece of gold is the same as a 1kg lump of dirt."

Reply 7438

Simplicity

Original post by Jake22

Well, I don't know was just shocked in the first lecture to find a convex set up to homotopy is a point. It seems sort of stupid to me. Also, I mean't the definition of homotopy is sort of stupid if it leads to that strange property.

I suppose Axiom of choice is stupid since it implies Banach Tarski.

In the real world, this shouldn't be happening.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 7439

Jake22

Original post by Simplicity

If you follow that logic through, then the definition of number is stupid because it leads to strange properties like one diesel locamotive being the same as one monkey upto the number of each.