u/sakattack
Haha have any of you guys read this? It's pretty funny to me, this super poppy white girl band saying stuff like "I fucking love Trinidad James! He is so fucking dope." is pretty awesome to me. I didn't know that they were on LVL, but they were a pretty big part of Red Eye obviously.
Fuzzy set theory and fuzzy logic are systems in which we don't have a black and white, true or false scenario. For example, in most universes, if X is your set, A is a subset of X, then if x is some element of X, x is either in A or x is not in A. What these fuzzy systems do is give a probability, i.e. a number from [0,1], to how much "x belongs in A." This is a crude description, but generally the idea.
My question for you all is, have any of you dealt with these types of systems? If so, how did you use them? What'd you think? I have never heard of class using them, but they are really interesting
Sup r/math, I'm starting to apply to REUs and it seems most of them are applied math and graph theory, maybe a few with algebra. Have any of you done one in analysis? I understand that 99.9% of undergrads don't have the knowledge to really tackle a pure mathematical research problem, thus the lean towards applied stuff, but I feel like there's gotta be something out there! Also, how many did you apply to? I was reading the previous REU posts and people were saying apply for a ton. My plan was to apply for honestly as many as I can that interest me, so it might even be 20+. That sounds crazy though. Reassure me! No really, I'd love to hear your advice and experiences with applying for REUs,
So r/math, what has been your guys' favorite math class so far? Mine was my intro topology course I took last year. We definitely went above and beyond intro topology, especially for a quarter-long course. My professor was known to go crazy fast, and it was awesome. We did a lot of intro functional analysis stuff, like prove the unit ball is closedcompact in the weak-* topology, Tychnoff's theorem, etc. It was fucking awesome. I have never had a harder class in my life, but I learned so much in 10 weeks.
What about you all?
*Edit: compact, not closed, as that isn't nearly as hard :)
*Edit 2: The more explanation you can give, the better! Let's talk about some advanced concepts and se
Let [;(X, \mathfrak{M});] be a measurable space, [;A,B \subset X ;]. Does [;A,A \cap B \in \mathfrak{M} ;] imply that [;B \in \mathfrak{M} ;]? I'm having a tough time with this. My intuition is telling me this isn't true in general, but I can't think of a counterexample. If anyone has any advice, whether it be the answer, a counterexample, or a hint, all is welcome!
On October 16, 2010, we lost Michael "Eyedea" Larsen. He was 1/2 of Eyedea and Abilities, an awesome hip-hop group out of Minneapolis. He was highly influential in the growing of the Twin Cities hip-hop scene, along with Atmosphere and Brother Ali. They paved the way for groups like Doomtree (P.O.S., Dessa, etc.) to be so popular today. Eyedea was also a FANTASTIC freestyler, easily the best I have ever seen live. Eyedea and Abilities were the group that got me into hip-hop almost 10 years ago and they still rank among the best in my opinion in the genre. Here is Rhymesayers' page made in commemoration for Eyedea.
For those of you who do not know who Eyedea
How does r/math go about teaching yourselves higher level maths? I am a huge proponent for classroom teaching but at some point, I know it needs to become more personal and investigational (not a word, I don't think). I know there are many of you with advanced math degrees, so how did you guys/gals go about leaving the classroom environment and start to self-teach? Do you have suggestions? Any difficulties? I'll post my experience with self-teaching to start.
Recently, I began to teach myself measure theory on my way to working on measure theoretic probability. I asked a few of my professors for book recommendations and I got the classics on PDFs (Rudin, Folland, Royden). What I have been
Hey guys, so I've recently started teaching myself measure theory and Lebesgue integration, and I came across a really cool (in my opinion) metric space. It is problem 12, chapter 1 in Folland. I'll set it up for y'all.
Let (X,M,m) be a finite measure space. We define the equivalence relation ~ as follows: For E,F in M, if m(E[;\Delta;]F)=0, then E~F. E[;\Delta;]F is the symmetric
Hey guys, I'm tripping up over a pretty basic measure proposition. Given a measure space (X,M,m), if m is semifinite, then every subset of infinite measure contains subsets of artbitrarily large finite measure. Rewritten, it is if m is semifinite and m(E) = infinity, then for all c>0, there exists a measure subset F in E such that c<m(F)<infinity.
This seems to be a pretty famous result, so googling came up with a lot of similar solutions, such as this one: http://web.boun.edu.tr/fatih.ecevit/Fall09Math531HW2Soln.pdf
However, I'm having trouble understanding how it claims to prove the result. So they show that this supremum equals infinity, but how does that solve the problem? Als
You've reached the end of this feed.