What is the usual interpretation of [math]\mathcal{O}^2[/math],

>>8298673
what are you talking about

>>8298680
>what are you talking about
ah, something to have with frice

>>8298673
Yeah, that's very ambiguous.

>>8298699
and in relation to affine geo?

>>8298714
I don't know, but its interpretation is necessarily contextual. I assume you've tried narrowing down the possible interpretations by thinking of which makes sense in the context of the paper. If that fails, you should probably drink yourself into a stupor and give up on life.

>>8298718
im dead

>>8298728
omg, I figured out, it was too ez: [math] \mathcal{O} \times \mathcal{O} [/math]

>>8298744
Fuck off with your emojis and tell us what it is.

>>8298744
Well that's the obvious interpretation yes, but in what category? Category of division rings does not even have direct products, so category of rings? I thought that was what you were confused about.

>>8298771
I thought that [math]\mathbf A(\mathcal O^2)[/math] meant set of all affine subspaces of [math]\mathcal A[/math] over [math]\mathcal O^2[/math], but I was wrong. [math]\mathbf A(\mathcal O^2)[/math] is set of all affine subspaces of [math]\mathcal O^2[/math] itself. I am retarded.

You guys are all fags it's dioxygen. And I majored in computer science, no wonder you math nerds can't get anything done.

>>8298876
I bet all of your IEEE 754 programs are so numerically unstable that I can do [math] 10^16 [/math] times better with my calculator.

>>8298901
[math]10^{16}[/math]