Reputation
284
Next privilege 500 Rep.
Access review queues
Badges
3 9
Impact
~4k people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 0 helpful flags
  • 24 votes cast
Jan
7
awarded  Favorite Question
Dec
20
awarded  Caucus
Jul
2
awarded  Curious
Aug
12
awarded  Commentator
Aug
12
comment How are sets “trees with no symmetries”
Oh! The unique rigid tree thing just clicked. Thanks, that clarified the picture for me :-)
Aug
12
accepted How are sets “trees with no symmetries”
Aug
12
comment How are sets “trees with no symmetries”
Fantastic answer, thanks! Just the right level, enough hints for me to investigate further.
Aug
12
comment How are sets “trees with no symmetries”
@ZhenLin, yeah, I get that visual. I'm more interested in the "no symmetries" part.
Aug
12
asked How are sets “trees with no symmetries”
Mar
28
accepted Subcategory of Isomorphisms
Mar
28
comment Subcategory of Isomorphisms
@user67848, In nature? I have seen it often (wearing another mask) when I am writing Haskell code.
Mar
28
asked Subcategory of Isomorphisms
Feb
15
asked Examples of non-constructive results
Feb
13
awarded  Popular Question
Jan
29
comment Better Tensor Notation
@Thomas, thank you. Penrose notation looks like what I had in mind, but it would be great to see some of these used in practice. I'll check out that book.
Jan
29
comment Better Tensor Notation
@RahulNarain, thanks! Those links are a huge help.
Jan
29
asked Better Tensor Notation
Nov
25
awarded  Yearling
Nov
17
comment Resources for a curious beginner mathematician
I certainly object to the belief that mathematics is a hierarchy. The "calculus way of thinking" can certainly be learned without a firm grasp of the technicalities of algebra. The dissonance is that many authors assume a background in this or that (rightfully so -- you have to know where you are to know which direction to go), which gives the illusion that a subject is a prerequisite for another subject, rather than a presentation thereof.
Nov
17
awarded  Good Question