Master Control Program

ok now i might have some kind of super memory??

a week ago i played chess with bf and we didn't finish, so now i arranged the board as i remembered it and i got 13 out of 14 pieces correctly

i mean wow i didn't know i am capable of something like this

might be autism i suspect i might have

anyway now i want to know everything about human memory and take advantage of that

omg that sounds so cool

one of my friends found radiooooo which is a site that streams music from any country from any decade (well, most countries/decade combos work) and we’ve been digging going on a quest to find what is rad

so far the following is good

50s/60s/70s/80s russia

70s cambodia

20s japan

80s ethiopia

80s india

in my country having a diagnosis is highly confidential, too. there is no such thing as "the government knowing about your diagnoses" unless you get evaluated for disability documentation (I have no idea how to translate this to english), which is your choice. besides, who knows when the diagnosis will be useful? waiting for a diagnostic appointment takes several months and is very expensive, so taking an opportunity to sort this thing out when it's possible is good. depending on where someone lives, it can be very harmful to say that having a diagnosis somehow creates disadvantages

at my university the support program for people with asd has been introduced two years ago. it took me almost a year to get everything done, a year of unnecessary suffering. treatment for depression with or wihout adhd can be completely different and having it on paper that in your personal circumstances ssri might not work can save so much time. when someone suspects adhd and the situation calls for introducing medication, it's nice to be able to try right away, not wait several months for a diagnosis. those are just some practical examples of how you never know when diagnosis might be useful

and the validation reason, yeah, that too, it's beneficial to have someone work with you through that stuff. moreover, with professional support there comes someone suggesting solutions and forms of help that one might not even thought of. there are shitty doctors, but there are good ones too, and I think we should talk more about how to find the right ones instead of demonizing getting help

By the way. Before you rush to get a professional diagnosis for a Brain Thing you should really weigh your options. Like do you just want to "prove it" or will this actually give you access to treatment you can't have otherwise? Are the treatment options available worth having the government know you're neurodivergent? Because sometimes it's better to keep things off the record because unfortunately we still live in a very deeply ableist society and you might not want to have more real material oppression stacked against you than you have to

uhh probably the worst math feeling is when you're so excited about proving something and you talk about it to someone who does math with you and they say oh but it's trivial

abstract algebra things that are good:

groups. i love taking inverses

fields. i LOVE taking inverse

banach algebras. i love having a notion of distance, and also being a complete space

lie groups. i dont know anything about them yet. but they seem so cool. technically groups

abstact algebra things that are bad:

rings. god i hate rings so much. theres like a thousand different kinds of rings, some of which are subsets of each other, and some of which have different names but are actually the same.

sn

So the exponential function is given by

which evaluated at a real number x gives you the value eˣ, hence the name. There are various ways of extending the above definition, such as to complex numbers, or matrices, or really any structure in which you have multiplication, summation, and division by the values of the factorial function at whatever your standin for the natural numbers is.

For a set A we can do some of these quite naturally. The product of two sets is their Cartesian product, the sum of two sets is their disjoint union. Division and factorial get a little tricky, but in this case they happen to coexist naturally. Given a natural number n, a set that has n! elements may be given by Sym(n), the symmetric group on n points. This is the set of all permutations of {1,...,n}, i.e. invertible functions from {1,...,n} to itself. How do we divide Aⁿ, the set of all n-tuples of elements of A, by Sym(n) in a natural way?

Often when a division-like thing with sets is written like A/E, it is the case that E is an equivalence relation on A. The set of equivalence classes of A under E is then denoted A/E, and called the quotient set of A by E. Another common occurence is when G is a group that acts on A. In this case A/G denotes the set of orbits of elements of A under G. This is a special case of the earlier one, where the equivalence relation is given by 'having the same orbit'. It just so happens that the group Sym(n) acts on naturally on any Aⁿ.

An element of Aⁿ looks like (a[1],a[2],...,a[n]), and a permutation σ: {1,...,n} -> {1,...,n} acts on this tuple by mapping it onto (a[σ(1)],a[σ(2)],...,a[σ(n)]). That is, it changes the order of the entries according to σ. An orbit of such a tuple under the action of Sym(n) is therefore the set of all tuples that have the same elements with multiplicity. We can identify this with the multiset of those elements.

We find that Aⁿ/Sym(n) is the set of all multisubsets of A with exactly n elements with multiplicity. So,

is the set of all finite multisubsets of A. Interestingly, some of the identities that the exponential function satisfies in other contexts still hold. For example, exp ∅ is the set of all finite multisubsets of ∅, so it's {∅}. This is because ∅⁰ has an element, but ∅ⁿ does not for any n > 0. In other words, exp 0 = 1 for sets. Additionally, consider exp(A ⊕ B). Any finite multisubset of A ⊕ B can be uniquely identified with an ordered pair consisting of a multisubset of A and a multisubset of B. So, exp(A + B) = exp(A) ⨯ exp(B) holds as well.

For A = {∗} being any one point set, the set Aⁿ will always have one element: the n-tuple (∗,...,∗). Sym(n) acts trivially on this, so exp({∗}) = {∅} ⊕ {{∗}} ⊕ {{∗∗}} ⊕ {{∗∗∗}} ⊕ ... may be naturally identified with the set of natural numbers. This is the set equivalent of the real number e.

Mathematics: What do grad students in math do all day?

Mathematics: What do grad students in math do all day? - gist:4158578

“A lot of math grad school is reading books and papers and trying to understand what’s going on. The difficulty is that reading math is not like reading a mystery thriller, and it’s not even like reading a history book or a New York Times article.

The main issue is that, by the time you get to the frontiers of math, the words to describe the concepts don’t really exist yet. Communicating these ideas is a bit like trying to explain a vacuum cleaner to someone who has never seen one, except you’re only allowed to use words that are four letters long or shorter.

What can you say?

“It is a tool that does suck up dust to make what you walk on in a home tidy.”

That’s certainly better than nothing, but it doesn’t tell you everything you might want to know about a vacuum cleaner. Can you use a vacuum cleaner to clean bookshelves? Can you use a vacuum cleaner to clean a cat? Can you use a vacuum cleaner to clean the outdoors?

The authors of the papers and books are trying to communicate what they’ve understood as best they can under these restrictions, and it’s certainly better than nothing, but if you’re going to have to work with vacuum cleaners, you need to know much more.

Fortunately, math has an incredibly powerful tool that helps bridge the gap. Namely, when we come up with concepts, we also come up with very explicit symbols and notation, along with logical rules for manipulating them. It’s a bit like being handed the technical specifications and diagrams for building a vacuum cleaner out of parts.

The upside is that now you (in theory) can know 100% unambiguously what a vacuum cleaner can or cannot do. The downside is that you still have no clue what the pieces are for or why they are arranged the way they are, except for the cryptic sentence, “It is a tool that does suck up dust to make what you walk on in a home tidy.”

OK, so now you’re a grad student, and your advisor gives you an important paper in the field to read: “A Tool that does Suck Dust.” The introduction tells you that “It is a tool that does suck up dust to make what you walk on in a home tidy,” and a bunch of other reasonable but vague things. The bulk of the paper is technical diagrams and descriptions of a vacuum cleaner. Then there are some references: “How to use air flow to suck up dust.” “How to use many a coil of wire to make a fan spin very fast.” “What you get from the hole in the wall that has wire in it.”

So, what do you do? Technically, you sit at your desk and think. But it’s not that simple. First, you’re like, lol, that title almost sounds like it could be sexual innuendo. Then you read the introduction, which pleasantly tells you what things are generally about, but is completely vague about the important details.

Then you get to the technical diagrams and are totally confused, but you work through them piece by piece. You redo many of the calculations on your own just to double check that you’ve really understood what’s going on. Sometimes, the calculations that you redo come up with something stupid, and then you have to figure out what you’ve understood incorrectly, and then reread that part of the technical manual to figure things out. Except sometimes there was a typo in the paper, so that’s what screwed things up for you.

After a while, things finally click, and you finally understand what a vacuum cleaner is. In fact, you actually know much more: You’ve now become one of the experts on vacuum cleaners, or at least on this particular kind of vacuum cleaner, and you know a good fraction of the details on how it works. You’re feeling pretty proud of yourself, even though you’re still a far shot from your advisor: They understand all sorts of other kinds of vacuum cleaners, even Roombas, and, in addition to their work on vacuum cleaners, they’re also working on a related but completely different project about air conditioning systems.

You are filled with joy that you can finally talk on par with your advisor, at least on this topic, but there is a looming dark cloud on the horizon: You still need to write a thesis.

So, you think about new things that you can do with vacuum cleaners. So, first, you’re like: I can use a vacuum cleaner to clean bookshelves! That’d be super-useful! But then you do a Google Scholar search and it turns out that someone else did that like ten years ago.

OK, your next idea: I can use a vacuum cleaner to clean cats! That’d also be super-useful. But, alas, a bit more searching in the literature reveals that someone tried that, too, but they didn’t get good results. You’re a confident young grad student, so you decide that, armed with some additional techniques that you happen to know, you might fix the problems that the other researcher had and get vacuuming cats to work. You spend several months on it, but, alas, it doesn’t get you any further.

OK, so then, after more thinking and doing some research on extension cords, you think it would be feasible to use a vacuum cleaner to clean the outdoors. You look in the literature, and it turns out that nobody’s ever thought of doing that! You proudly tell this idea to your advisor, but they do some back of the envelope calculations that you don’t really understand and tell you that vacuuming the outdoors is unlikely to be very useful. Something about how a vacuum cleaner is too small to handle the outdoors and that we already know about other tools that are much better equipped for cleaning streets and such.

This goes on for several years, and finally you write a thesis about how if you turn a vacuum cleaner upside-down and submerge the top end in water, you can make bubbles!

Your thesis committee is unsure of how this could ever be useful, but it seems pretty cool and bubbles are pretty, so they think that maybe something useful could come out of it eventually. Maybe.

And, indeed, you are lucky! After a hundred years or so, your idea (along with a bunch of other ideas) leads to the development of aquarium air pumps, an essential tool in the rapidly growing field of research on artificial goldfish habitats. Yay!”

for the sake of an updates to this, I didn't get 100% on that topology test. I got 85%, which was the third best score. I finally scored the highest possible final grade on that subject, so I'm satisfied. fuck I love algebraic topology so much and I think she loves me

oh and I scored fucking 54% on the analysis test. I think I had a mental orgasm when I found out about that lmao it felt so good. I finished the course with a grade of 4 (idk if it's universal, so 2=the lowest, failed, 5=the highest) which is the best I ever got in the analysis course

28 V 2022

topology and analysis tests are over, both went I think alright

if I don't get 100% from topo I'm going to be very frustrated, because I studied hard and acquired deep understanding of the material – so far as to be able to hold a lecture for my classmate about any topic

analysis ughhh if I get ≥40% I will be overjoyed. but that's just the specifics of this subject, you study super hard and seem to be entirely ready, you solve all of the problems in prep and then best you can do is 40%. my best score so far was 42%, so anything more than that will be my lifetime record lmao, I want this so bad. I solved two problems entirely I think, which should give 40% already, and some pieces from two more, chances are I get 50%, which would be absolutely amazing

here are some pictures from me transforming math into an art project

stokes theorem

topology

I was thinking about how annoying I find what people say to me when I tell them that I'm not happy with how I'm doing at math. their first idea is to tell me how great I am and how all I do is good enough and shit like that. it doesn't help, it just feels like I am not being taken seriously. when I barely pass anything, am I really supposed to believe that everything is actually good? it feels like they skip getting to know my situation and just tell me what they would tell anyone, automatic

when I try to calm myself down and think something that will keep me going I don't try to force myself to be happy, fuck that, not being content with one's achievements is very fine, I believe not being happy all the time is fully natural and all that positivity feels so fake

instead what seems to work is asking myself where the rational threshold of being ok with how I'm doing is. the thing is I will never be satisfied, whatever I have, I always want more. but I can set the limits in advance and that stops me from falling into self-loathing loops

although what has really changed the game for me was getting a few good grades, finally I am achieving something, anything. people tell me that I should learn to be alright without this external reliance on achievements but how am I supposed to do that when the source of my low moods is precisely getting less than I want? I don't understand why I should brainwash myself into thinking that this is actually not what I want. the trick here is to separate the goal-orientedness from the sense of self-worth. the groundbreaking realization of mine was figuring out that I believe I deserve more than I get, that's why I am unhappy. so now that I am getting what I think what I deserve I obviously feel much better

I know one person who started phd without master's but that's in computer science and he already had a research startup running independently. he had a med degree already and his research is about using ML in medicine, so he was granted a "special permission" to start a phd. the guy is a very hard-working genius

now when it comes to math, one of my friends claimed that it is possible to start phd after bsc if someone graduates magna cum laude or something. I never heard of that before and it sounds insane, so I asked my advisor about it and he never heard of that either lol moreover he said that it's a stupid idea unless someone already has a few publications

afaik in the US the undergraduate degree takes 4 years and phd takes 5, it's like a mix of masters and the actual phd, so I guess it evens itself out

okay this might sound stupid to a lot of you but I thought you need a masters degree before you can do a PhD. so weird to me seeing 22 year olds doing a PhD after a bachelors degree. I don't know where I got this idea but I'm having a hard time rearranging my world view around this, even though this is so inconsequential thing to be wrong about xd