bio | website | ryancreich.info |
---|---|---|
location | Los Angeles, CA | |
age | 32 | |
visits | member for | 4 years, 8 months |
seen | Jan 26 at 17:59 | |
stats | profile views | 4,614 |
I am a postdoc at U Michigan (Ann Arbor). I was a graduate student at Harvard, where my advisor was Dennis Gaitsgory, and I graduated in the spring of 2011. In short, I do geometric representation theory, which in the case of my thesis means perverse sheaves on the affine grassmannian with some gerbes thrown in, but could also mean something much more elementary.
I'm also active on tex.stackexchange.com.
Nov 24 |
awarded | Necromancer |
Nov 16 |
comment |
Are there any books that take a 'theorems as problems' approach?
@paulgarrett If I understand you correctly: I've never understood why people like this book so much either. |
Oct 6 |
comment |
Why do roots of polynomials tend to have absolute value close to 1?
@Andrej I noticed the slight tendency of the roots to cluster near 1 and to disperse more near -1, and I'm curious if anyone can provide a statistical explanation to explain this effect. It does seem that there is a strong tendency to be nearly uniform, and this is sort of a second-order thing. |
Oct 6 |
revised |
Why do roots of polynomials tend to have absolute value close to 1?
update distinct roots stuff |
Oct 6 |
revised |
Why do roots of polynomials tend to have absolute value close to 1?
improve proof of small ball |
Oct 6 |
answered | Why do roots of polynomials tend to have absolute value close to 1? |
Oct 1 |
comment |
Why $( \infty , n)$-categories are useful for?
Seems to me that $(\infty, 1)$-categories are supposed to be considered as an enrichment of the concept of just "category"; i.e. they are not higher categories so much as they are deeper categories. Then $(\infty, n)$-categories are deeper, higher categories. Do you think that ordinary higher categories (i.e. 2-categories, 3-categories, etc.) are useful? If so, then their infinity version must be even more useful. |
Sep 30 |
awarded | Explainer |
Sep 30 |
revised |
What is the most useful non-existing object of your field?
added 24 characters in body |
Sep 30 |
comment |
What is the most useful non-existing object of your field?
Neither $-1$ nor 0 works, as they are contained in every field. |
Sep 29 |
comment |
What is the most useful non-existing object of your field?
@downvoter if you don't like the joke, it's enough just not to laugh. |
Sep 29 |
comment |
What is the most useful non-existing object of your field?
@Toby Yes, that's right. |
Sep 29 |
answered | What is the most useful non-existing object of your field? |
Sep 23 |
awarded | Good Answer |
Sep 23 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
Aug 23 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
Aug 23 |
answered | A question about “Zariski dense” arguments |
Jul 25 |
comment |
Cohomology group vs sheaf of cohomology group
This is probably the fanciest version of the "Law of universal linearity" that I've seen yet. |
Jul 19 |
comment |
Should all equations which appear in a thesis be numbered?
Doesn't this mean that the hidden numbers will cause gaps in the sequence of explicit numbers? |
Jul 2 |
awarded | Curious |