37,870 reputation
446106
bio website sites.google.com/site/…
location Fiji
age 37
visits member for 2 years, 3 months
seen 4 hours ago

I'm a lecturer of mathematics at the University of the South Pacific. My research interests are in algebraic topology and metric geometry.


Aug
12
comment Every closed (not-necessarily symmetric) monoidal category is canonically self-enriched, right?
no need for symmetry at all.
Aug
12
answered Understanding the proof of: If $|A| = \kappa$, then $|\mathcal{P}(A)|=2^{\kappa}$.
Aug
10
answered Is there any efficient algorithm for finding subgroups of a given finite group?
Aug
8
comment What happen to composite of infinite number of continuous functions?
for this question to make sense you will have to first clarify what is the infinite composition of functions.
Aug
6
comment The nature of infinities
Next time I'm in your neighborhood... the beer is on me ;)
Aug
5
comment The nature of infinities
A mathematical proof, just like a prediction from a physics theory, is deductive reasoning. But mathematics, just like physics, is not only about proving things. It's also about building theories, choosing axioms, judging how useful a theorem is, and, most importantly perhaps, rejecting a theory because its theorems/prediction are (while proven) not correct.
Aug
5
comment The nature of infinities
Just one comment. While mathematical proofs are very different from physical experiments, the scientific process guiding mathematics and physics is very similar (if not identical). The mathematical axioms, just like theories in physics, are trying to capture something. If the theorems/predictions of the theory disagree with our intuition then we may adjust our intuition but if the disagreement is too much to handle we change the axioms.
Aug
5
answered The nature of infinities
Aug
1
comment Conjugation in a groupoid
thanks @PatrickDaSilva
Aug
1
revised Conjugation in a groupoid
edited body
Aug
1
answered Conjugation in a groupoid
Jul
30
comment $\ell^p$ spaces' inclusion
so all of the inclusions above are just set-theoretic trivialities.
Jul
30
comment $\ell^p$ spaces' inclusion
what did you try? do you know how to show that $\ell ^p \subsetneq \ell ^q$ for $p < q$? That already gives you some of the steps you need to take.
Jul
30
comment Is there a name for a property defined in terms of open sets?
a topological property/invariant.
Jul
26
answered Combinatorial Proof to $\sum_{k=0}^n (-1)^k {{n}\choose{k}} = 0$
Jul
24
comment What problems arise when using infinitesimals in calculus?
the reason mathematicians considered infinitesimals as absurd was for a very different reason than initial objections to negative or complex numbers. For the latter there was no problem in presenting formal systems with such numbers, but these new numbers went against the intuition of mathematicians, born by prejudice perhaps. With infinitesimals it is quite the other way around. The intuition was there since Newton, and perhaps earlier. However, until Robinson, no one was able to present a formal system with infinitesimals. The prejudice was in favour of infinitesimals, but rigor won.
Jul
23
answered Is there a group-theoretic proof of the Riemann rearrangement theorem?
Jul
23
answered Convergence in a metric space
Jul
23
answered If $H$ and $K$ are subgroups of G then $H \times K$ is a subgroup of $G \times G$
Jul
22
awarded  Good Answer