Recent content by zooxanthellae

Suitsupply in NYC has reasonably good reviews from the people over at Styleforum, and their stuff is around $500 before tax. I would spend a little time at a place like Styleforum before you buy a suit since, yeah, the reputation for Men's Wearhouse's quality is terrible. (I'm not a member at...

I love analogies and as a result algebra holds a very special place in my heart.

@micromass: Looks like we disagree here, then. At the very least most introductory proof-based courses start with a bit on logic and set theory, which Velleman has (and Spivak doesn't, if I remember correctly - I no longer own a copy). And I certainly don't feel like I had to unlearn anything...

If you have not seen proofs before I strongly recommend Daniel Velleman's "How to Prove It". Spivak is a great book for bridging calculus and analysis but it would not be my first recommendation for learning about proofs (that would be Velleman).

Yup. In fact its due date was yesterday. On the other hand someone upthread mentioned receiving an acceptance in late February, so I'm a bit anxious. Ah, waiting.

Anyone heard from the Berkeley Geometry, Topology, Algebras program?

What, roughly, does it mean when a program says you're on a "short list"? That you've got a slightly higher chance of ultimately being accepted? And in that case, what's the point of programs telling people this if they may still ultimately reject them? (A program told me I'm on a short list...

I can't think of any working mathematicians today who seem all that keen to be in the public eye. Physics has Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene (who's no slouch mathematically, but never really talks about it in his documentaries), Stephen Hawking, etc. I do feel like really interesting...

Your Total: 3 Narcissistic Trait Authority: 0.00 Self-Sufficiency: 2.00 Superiority: 0.00 Exhibitionism: 0.00 Exploitativeness: 0.00 Vanity: 0.00 Entitlement: 1.00 Oh dear.

Since the thread is going that way: nah, this is a good dunk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOzo4pHTZ-M

I'm not sure how anyone here can evaluate how difficult your courseload is based solely on the titles of the courses. For all we know "Atomic & Nuclear Physics" is taught by an emeritus professor who's super laid-back and the class only requires a few hours a week, while "Intermediate...

I know Gowers led something that sounds very similar a few years ago (and I believe that project is in some sense ongoing, or has new iterations). As to the original question in this thread, what you're describing sounds like a lot like Stackexchange, which isn't really encyclopedic (you can go...

This is of course very late and I'm not sure how resurrecting old threads is viewed on PF. But at any rate I was looking through my old posts and was surprised to see I didn't thank theorem4.5.9 for this (even though I used the help). So, thanks for a thoughtful response.

I'll try for an intuitive idea of why these theorems are true. It's helpful that they're actually very, very similar ideas (if I am interpreting your statements correctly). As is often true with theorems, it's helpful to understand why they're stated the why they are. Deleting hypotheses often...

Actually, it seems that I am wrong and i is more like dx^dy, j is dz^dx, k is dy^z?