Maths Uni Chat

Scroll to see replies

Simplicity

If I remeber Edner saying his algebraic topology class has four people doing it.

That was me (although it may be the case for Edner as well), and they were some of the best lectures I've had.

Don't get in the habit of missing lectures, it doesn't end well.

Reply 3481

ste0731

Simplicity

(there is a x on top of arrow, don't know how to latex that)

\overset{x}{\rightarrow} :cool:

\overset{x}{\rightarrow}

Reply 3482

Simplicity

majikthise

That was me (although it may be the case for Edner as well), and they were some of the best lectures I've had.

Don't get in the habit of missing lectures, it doesn't end well.

Dammit, my memory is crap.

I would go to a lecture if there was like less than 20 people, but like mass lectures its too slow and everyone talks. Its annoying.

ste0731

\overset{x}{\rightarrow}

How did you know that? can't find a decent link to a latex page.

Reply 3483

ste0731

Simplicity

Dammit, my memory is crap.

I would go to a lecture if there was like less than 20 people, but like mass lectures its too slow and everyone talks. Its annoying.

How did you know that? can't find a decent link to a latex page.

http://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php

Reply 3484

Simplicity

Lol, I finally making progress in the category theory book I have.

Although, I'm probably going to have a big burn out tomorrow as yeah, like been reading it all day and lol reading it now in at a very slow pace and back at the beginning page 21.

P.S. But, yeah how does one stop burning out?
P.P.S. I should focus more on work that I will be tested on, but lol grades aren't that improtant.

Reply 3485

My Alt

God I love Crystal Castles (II) so much.

Reply 3486

around

As much as I love Metric and Topological spaces, the notation could be better:

\displaystyle\cup_{u \in U} \{u\}

is a little confusing.

Reply 3487

Totally Tom

around

As much as I love Metric and Topological spaces, the notation could be better:

\displaystyle\cup_{u \in U} \{u\}

is a little confusing.

Failing to see how any confusion could arise.

Reply 3488

My Alt

You mean

U = \bigcup_{u\in U} \{u\}

Reply 3489

.matt

My Alt

You mean

U = \bigcup_{u\in U} \{u\}

\mathcal{U} = \left\{U = \bigcup_{u\in U} \{u\}\,|\,U \in \mathcal{U} \right\}

lolcow

.matt

\mathcal{U} = \left\{U = \bigcup_{u\in U} \{u\}\,|\,U \in \mathcal{U} \right\}

I haven't really got a clue what you guys are on about but surely this definition of a set doesn't really make sense?

Reply 3492

.matt

Swayum

I haven't really got a clue what you guys are on about but surely this definition of a set doesn't really make sense?

More of a tautology than a definition tbh...but yeah :p:

Reply 3493

My Alt

Maths is so ****** up. It's a complete lie. P(X=x)=0 for all x, yet P of the whole set is 1. Who makes this stuff up?

Reply 3494

v-zero

My Alt

Maths is so ****** up. It's a complete lie. P(X=x)=0 for all x, yet P of the whole set is 1. Who makes this stuff up?

Makes sense to me...

Reply 3495

My Alt

v-zero

Makes sense to me...

Be serious. You can't seriously think you can take lots of 0 put it together and get 1. It's a complete paradox.

Reply 3496

majikthise

My Alt

Be serious. You can't seriously think you can take lots of 0 put it together and get 1. It's a complete paradox.

And the alternative (adding a strictly positive number to itself infinitely many times and getting 1) is any less paradoxical?

It makes perfect sense to me.

Reply 3497

v-zero

My Alt

Be serious. You can't seriously think you can take lots of 0 put it together and get 1. It's a complete paradox.

It's not lots of zero. All you're saying is: 'You can't take a continuous sum, that's a paradox'. It's not a paradox, it's just another case of taking limits.

Reply 3498

Simplicity

around

As much as I love Metric and Topological spaces, the notation could be better:

\displaystyle\cup_{u \in U} \{u\}

is a little confusing.

That looks like perfectly valid notation to me, can you think of something better?

.matt

More of a tautology than a definition tbh...but yeah

That is a tautology. 174 pages tautology free then this.

P.S. Has anyone got a decent example of something being paradoxical in maths. If there where only a countably many infinite sets that might be weird, however I don't think there is or maybe there isn't even one infinite set.