30,452 reputation
3102170
bio website topologicalmusings.wordpress.…
location
age
visits member for 5 years, 5 months
seen 28 mins ago

2h
comment Does an existence of large cardinals have implications in number theory or combinatorics?
A recent short article: math.sciences.univ-nantes.fr/~lebed/Lebed_ATS14.pdf
5h
comment Texts about Dwork's work
I'm not clear on what you're asking. You want papers that refer to Dwork's work? That expound upon Dwork's work? What does "probable existing" mean here?
16h
comment Are there any Algebraic Geometry Theorems that were proved using Combinatorics?
Somewhat along the lines of Turbo's comment (in fact, all the comments before this), it's a little hard to know what combinatorics is exactly, or how one should define its scope. For example, matroids from one point of view is combinatorics. From another, it's more or less what model theorists call a "geometry" or "pre-geometry".
17h
comment Uninteresting questions with interesting answers
@GerryMyerson I see. Thanks for clarifying. Still, I'm voting by my conscience that this is not a good question for MO. It's also not clear to me that upvotes really reflect both interest in the answer and disinterest in the question; maybe people just think the answers are cool. Little can be deduced, I'm afraid, except maybe from comments from a few users.
19h
comment Injecting premises into two implicational premises connected by a tensor (multiplicative conjunction) in linear logic
Right, evaluation maps are universal. That has a technical meaning in category theory which essentially says $A \otimes -$ is left adjoint to $A \multimap -$, as mediated by "modus ponens" or evaluation $A \otimes (A \multimap B) \to B$. I would however draw a (not quite pedantic) distinction between internal composition $A \multimap B, B \multimap C \vdash A \multimap C$ and the cut rule which allows you to deduce, given $A \vdash B$ and $B \vdash C$, the conclusion $A \vdash C$.
21h
comment Dissolution of Tensors
Zerkezhi, I suggest you focus on Emil's comment instead. The answer I gave to your other question suggests that his interpretation is the relevant one. I think what Damiano is saying is that $A \otimes B \vdash A, B$ is not valid in linear logic, and that's true, but that's because a list of formulas to the right of the entailment symbol is to be interpreted as a linear disjunction, not conjunction. But I suspect that observation is not relevant here.
21h
answered Injecting premises into two implicational premises connected by a tensor (multiplicative conjunction) in linear logic
1d
comment Your favorite surprising connections in Mathematics
Weak homotopy type.
1d
comment Uninteresting questions with interesting answers
@GerryMyerson I don't understand. I am acting as an ordinary voter (i.e., I'm not exercising any moderator powers; I waited until four votes were cast), and I join four others to vote to close this as "primarily opinion-based". If you disagree, I invite you to post at meta.
1d
comment Uninteresting questions with interesting answers
I agree with Eric that this question is too subjective, as people often can't seem to agree on which questions are "uninteresting". I'm casting the fifth vote to close.
1d
comment Uninteresting questions with interesting answers
@BillJohnson I'd say Machin's formula (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machin-like_formula) gets you there pretty quickly, with a hand-held calculator. We have $\pi = 16\arctan(1/5) - 4\arctan(1/239)$ where three terms of $16\arctan(1/5)$ minus two terms of $4\arctan(1/239)$ gets you comfortably between $\pi$ and $22/7$.
1d
revised Notation: Categories of measur(abl)e spaces
deleted 102 characters in body
1d
comment Differentiability of a function
No problem. In the event that no one responds, I'd guess that a bit more context might help, and perhaps an indication of why it's hard. It can take new MO users some time to gauge what type and level of question is generally considered appropriate for this site. Why don't you try at math.stackexchange, explaining what attacks you've tried yourself, and see what response you get (there are professionals there too). If they suggest coming back here, you could hone and fine-tune your question to indicate why it's "MO-worthy". Anyway, don't take the closure too much to heart.
1d
comment finite cyclic group have subgroup of prime index
Unfortunately this is far below the level of questions that are appropriate for this site. This site is only for questions at the level of professional math researchers and their graduate students. Questions from an undergraduate or first-year graduate course in abstract algebra should be asked instead at math.stackexchange.
2d
comment Relationship between coherent toposes/coherent logic and coherent sheaves
@user74230 Okay, thanks for your explanations. I'm not claiming expertise myself and I don't have Johnstone's Elephant to hand. I trust that SGA4 is the original source of "coherent topos", but since then categorical logicians have fleshed out the notion of "coherent logic" which is a restriction of geometric logic, and this I suspect is where the OP's concerns actually lie. In any case, I do think it's premature just to say point-blank "the claim is wrong and there is no connection" -- there is more to the story than has been reported thus far.
2d
comment Differentiability of a function
Anyone is free to downvote if he/she feels the question was not clear, or poorly researched, or of a quality not suitable for this site. You can always request an explanation for a downvote, but it is best is to do so politely and not cast aspersions on the abilities of downvoters.
2d
comment Relationship between coherent toposes/coherent logic and coherent sheaves
@user74230 I think you misunderstood my comment. The claim of the first paragraph of the OP has essentially to do with etymology, and it was the category theorists / categorical logicians who adapted the terminology, to the best of my knowledge. You are of course absolutely correct about the last question of the OP, but I think he really wants to know what is the terminological connection, and this is what Zhen Lin is addressing.
2d
comment Relationship between coherent toposes/coherent logic and coherent sheaves
@ZhenLin Would you consider adding your comment as an answer? I think it reflects the true situation far more accurately than the comment before yours.
2d
comment Interesting Calculus Questions/Exercises
I suppose most people are aware of this under the rubric en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equidistribution_theorem (which names a stronger result).
2d
comment series of numbers
This site is narrow in scope: it is for professional mathematicians and mathematics graduate students to ask and answer research questions at a professional level. Your observations are not at this level and outside of this scope. Instead of re-asking, please understand the reason it was closed and that it has to do with the narrow focus. You might get a better reception at Mathematics.StackExchange, which is for mathematics at any level, so I am voting to migrate it there.