bio | website | |
---|---|---|
location | ||
age | 25 | |
visits | member for | 5 years, 9 months |
seen | 15 hours ago | |
stats | profile views | 849 |
Third-year graduate student at Stanford University.
Interests: Differential geometry, special holonomy, gauge theory, calibrated geometry.
For now, I plan on being far more active on math.stackexchange.com
Aug
14 |
awarded | Good Answer |
Mar
15 |
awarded | Necromancer |
Nov
18 |
awarded | Famous Question |
Feb
17 |
awarded | Nice Question |
Dec
28 |
comment |
When is a Riemannian metric equivalent to the flat metric on $\mathbb R^n$?
Deane: "I don't believe I've ever seen this result used for anything." If you're referencing Cartan's Theorem (the local version of Cartan-Ambrose-Hicks), then I believe it can be used to prove that any Riemannian manifold with $\nabla R = 0$ is locally isometric to a symmetric space. |
Sep
30 |
awarded | Caucus |
Feb
24 |
comment |
Awfully sophisticated proof for simple facts
And here I was thinking the standard proof was just the Integral Test for series convergence. |
Jan
22 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
Jan
12 |
comment |
How to respond to “I was never much good at maths at school.”
It's interesting. Pretty much everyone I know would agree that it's not a good thing when elementary school teachers tell their students that they didn't like math, either. And yet I can think of more than a handful of those same people (grad students and professors) who would have no problem telling their calculus classes that they don't like calculus, or that it's not "real" math somehow... |
Dec
12 |
comment |
“Softness” vs “rigidity” in Geometry
Funny, I would've said that when doing geometry, you either fall into algebra or analysis. In fact, it seems to me that the more "rigid" your geometry is, the more likely you are to fall into one of the sides. By contrast, "softer" geometries can rely on topology. |
Nov
28 |
comment |
Fundamental motivation for several complex variables
That's fair. In truth, I'm still rather ignorant about harmonic functions and their properties. I don't mean to suggest that reason (1) is the only reason one would care about them, but simply that it's a primary reason that I do (again, given my ignorance). |
Nov
28 |
answered | Fundamental motivation for several complex variables |
Nov
26 |
awarded | Civic Duty |
Oct
11 |
comment |
How to escape the inclination to be a universalist or: How to learn to stop worrying and do some research.
"Maybe the bred desire that you mention is (or is related to) the emphasis on 'theory building'. Yes, theory building is great, but I personally see it through the lens of problem solving." Okay, but what if one is far more interested in theory building than problem solving, or if theory-building IS the lens by which one views things? |
Mar
22 |
awarded | Popular Question |
Jun
29 |
comment |
How to respond to “I was never much good at maths at school.”
"What makes some of you think the 'math' people learned in school is 'not real'?" Just for that one line I would upvote your comment ten times if I could. For me it is extremely refreshing to hear a professional mathematician question that line. Thank you for that. |
May
2 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
Apr
5 |
comment |
How should one present curl and divergence in an undergraduate multivariable calculus class?
To be pedantic, I think technically it's $\text{curl} = \sharp \circ \ast \circ d \circ \flat$, but no matter. |
Apr
4 |
awarded | Necromancer |
Mar
25 |
awarded | Notable Question |