13-16 VIII 2021

The beautiful modernism of Oliver Byrne’s, The First Six Books of the Elements of Euclid, 1847

http://proof.ucalgaryblogs.ca/

This is the best resource for studying math that I've found in a while! It's 300+ pages of flawed/incorrect proofs on topics including logic, analysis, and linear algebra. Each flawed proof is followed by a classification of its errors, and a corrected version.

I have a bunch of followers and mutuals that I never even talked to and I know some of you guys are very into math too, so let's get to know each other, shall we?

if you feel like you'd enjoy talking to me then go ahead, write me a message! I just realized I never said something like this and I would really love to have conversations with like-minded people

if this feels familiar, you can reblog this post to invite people to talk to you

Right. So. A Tarot sequence of three cards, A -> B -> C is exact if everything you take from A as part of B is all that you leave behind when you interpret B as part of C.

For example let's look at a relationship spread:

Self -> Other -> Dynamic

Start with the Self, then identify the self with aspects of the Other; those aspects are precisely the parts of the Other that you ignore when interpreting the Other in the Dynamic. With me so far?

Let's add another link to the sequence:

Self -> Other -> Dynamic -> void

"void" has no card. It has no interpretation, consumes all, and yields nothing. All aspects of the Dynamic are consumed by the void, but when we know this sequence to be exact this tells us much:

The aspects of the Self that we see in the Other are those parts we leave behind when we see the Other in the Dynamic. The aspects of the Other that we see in the Dynamic are those parts we leave behind in the void (which is everything). So for this sequence to be exact we know that the Dynamic is fully explored by those parts of the Other than we cannot identify with the Self.

did that to me

We need books that affect us like a disaster, that grieve us deeply, like being banished into forests far from everyone. A book must be the axe for the frozen sea within us. That is my belief.

Franz Kafka

chaotic good

Pro-tip: You can use paper twice if you take your notes in pencil first and then write over it in pen. 

@shitstudyblr please validate me

7 X 2022

my first week is over. I'm tired and I can tell already that it will be a hard semester. I have already spent more than 15 hours on my complex analysis homework and I solved 1 problem out of 10, ugh

this subject is gonna give me major impostor syndrom lmao I know that these problems are putnam level difficulty but it's frustrating to have spent the whole day on something and fail. and I'm not kidding, I have a book on problem solving techinques for putnam and the exercises there are easier than those we do in class

one could say I'm bragging but it doesn't mean anything if I can complete only 1 of 10 problems which is a trivial corollary from Vieta's and took me about 4 hours to realize anyway

algebra homework was relatively easy, I discussed it with a few people who also take the course and together we completed the whole thing

for now I still have the motivation to try to look good so this week I've been pulling off dark academia aesthetic

I am afraid of my brain because it likes to give me meltdowns right when I need my cognitive performance to be reliable. I spent the whole holiday working on coping skills so I could spend less time sitting on the floor and crying

I spend most of the time with my boyfriend studying together. having a body double really helps

“Netflix and chill?”

No, PDF and cry

My favorite example of girl math is when David Hilbert and Albert Einstein couldn't solve how energy conservation worked in general relativity, so Hilbert asked Emmy Noether about it and she solved it for them.

My favourite fucked up math fact™ is the Sharkovskii theorem:

For any continuous function f: [a,b] -> [a,b], if there exists a periodic point of order 3 (i.e. f(f(f(x))) = x for some x in [a,b] and not f(x) = x or f²(x) = x), then there exists a periodic point of ANY order n.¹

Yes you read that right. If you can find a point of order 3 then you can be sure that there is a point of order 4, 5, or even 142857 in your interval. The assumption is so innocent but I cannot understate how ridiculous the result is.²

For a (relatively) self-contained proof, see this document (this downloads a pdf).

(footnotes under read more)

¹ The interval does not have to be closed, but it should be connected. (a,b), (a,b] and [a,b) all work.

² Technically the result is even stronger! The natural numbers admit a certain ordering called the Sharkovskii ordering which starts with the odd primes 3 > 5 > 7 > ... , then doubles of primes, then quadruples of primes and so forth until you get no more primes left, ending the ordering in 2³ > 2² > 2. Sharkovskii's theorem actually says that if you have a periodic point of order k, then you have periodic points of any order less than k in the Sharkovskii ordering. It is frankly ridiculous how somehow prime numbers make their way into this mess.