Does anybody here do actual math, i.e. anything other than Category

>Category Diarrhea
>actual math

What's your definition of actual math OP.

>>8912097
Category theory penetrates pretty much all Algebra, Algebraic Topology, and Algebraic Geometry. So fuck off.

>>8912132
It doesn't "penetrate" anything, you suppressed homosexual. It encapsulates them by providing a nice, clean, but ultimately trivial framework for constructing objects/spaces and what have you.

>>8912249
>encapsulates them
>so all of Algebra is Category theory
any word you use can be interpreted to be wrong if you're a retarded asshole. so stop being an autist.

>>8912255
"penetrate" implies a result in category diarrtheory can actually say something of particular interest to say Geometry. It can't, because by design, it's just a framework. Good mathematics is framework/foundations invariant.

I can encode any mathematical statement into a question of whether some series converges or not, that doesn't mean real analysis=all of mathematics.

>>8912264
>want to study modules over PIDs
>oh shit thanks to category theory I know this sequence splits, even though I didn't work with my particular case!
>suddenly you know it's torsion + free
>thanks category theory!
I don't think you disagree with this, though so...

>"penetrate" implies ...
penetrate is a really ambiguous word that doesn't mean shit unless you want to give it a specific meaning. anon didn't elaborate so a reasonable person would take it as a weak meaning along the lines of
>if you're doing pretty much any of Algebra, Algebraic Topology, and Algebraic Geometry, you're going to use category theory
>because it has penetrated into these disciplines
>IT IS INSIDE THEM

>>8912277
How are you proving the sequence splits without appealing properties of your modules, i.e. the mathematical content/work. However you want to frame it, (projective objects, what have you) is secondary to the content.

>>8912312
you just happened to look at the properties of your module, and you remembered a result from category theory that looks like those properties. so you try to dig out the exact properties, write it in that format, and voila, it works

not because you decided to frame your modules as category theory, but because you knew category theory and were studying modules

File: IMG_20170304_002123.jpg (1MB, 3001x1836px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3001x1836px

That escalated quickly

Yes I guess I do math, play around with field theory, stochastics concepta I learn and so on.
But on /sci/, and even on StackExchange or whatnot, you'll not be getting into a nice conversation about anything fringe and almost everything which isn't basic textbook stuff is fringe.

With CT, it just so happened that there were half a dozen of people interested in it at the same time, resulting in some nice threads.

>>8912344
>spooka dooka looma chooka

File: 1474948828370.jpg (78KB, 600x649px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 600x649px

>mfw Riemann hypothesis is still unsolved
are mathematicians these days just lazy?

>>8912249
Category theory is just an autistic halfbreed of pure logic with math.

>>8913342
you say that like it's a bad thing

>>8912264
>can actually say something of particular interest to say Geometry. It can't, because by design, it's just a framework.


You clearly haven't seen modern work in algebraic geometry.

>>8912097
I love how braunlets are butthurts about higher more noble maths.

File: based_Keyes.jpg (15KB, 220x228px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 220x228px

Find a conformal map from the unit disk to the puncture unit disk, i.e. D(0,1) -> D(0,1)-{0}

Will show if any one asks

>>8912249
>Ultimately trivial
Looks like babby just read cats work and thinks he knows category theory

>>8912097
>tfw a handful of attentionwhores shat up this board so hard that they caused a backlash against an entire field of math

Me. I want to get to Artin Reciprocity so fucking bad. Im stuck at Eisenstein reciprocity baka. I've recently been studying units in integer rings via the regulator of number fields by variants of the kronecker limit formula. Other than that I'm basically a donkey at math.
How does one become algebra lord like you OP?

>>8913342
TOP. KEK.

>>8913352
do you have an example? genuine interest

>>8913352
Seriously though, with shit like Derived Geometry we can see new geometric properties that are uniquely categorical.

i.e. We are not just classifying geometric objects in categories, or even just modeling a geometric space over a category. But have "new" geometric properties that are encoded within certain types of categories.

>>8913438
shrink + translate

>>8913568
>>8913563

>>8913571
no. also that's not even explicit

>>8913438
Doesn't any Mobius transformation with d=0 work? Sorry if I'm off, it's been a while since I did geometry.

>>8912097
YES we are sitting next to an asian girl who is actuallly impressed by our math work, aye.

>>8913735
no since some point in D(0,1) would still be mapped to 0, which is not in D(0,1)-{0}

File: ignoring framesets.jpg (341KB, 624x543px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 624x543px

>>8912264
>Good mathematics is framework/foundations invariant.

>>8913735
>>8914846
also this is a complex analysis problem more than it is a geometry one

>>8912097
>insults category theory
>posts class field theory whose natural generalization of Langlands uses categories up the ass
Like pottery

>>8912097
Yes, I teach math and am close to solving P = NP. Spoiler: it isn't.

>>8915798
>class field theory whose natural generalization of Langlands uses categories up the ass
how so?

>>8915798
I work in automorphic forms, and I've read all of EGA 1, parts of EGA IV and SGA 3 (group schemes), and my (classical analysis) friends think I'm weird for using categories clean up functional analysis. I'm perfectly happy to use categorical language. I just like shitting on the category autists on /sci/ who couch their trivial constructions in (pi,infinity)-category left-anti-isomorphically derived asshole functors to make them sound deep.

>>8915803
It's not. He's confusing geometric Langlands with the classical Langlands conjectures which, despite the fact that one seeks "functoriality", does not "use categories up the ass" except in the usual, trivial way of just being a fucking language.

>>8915851
>He's confusing geometric Langlands with the classical Langlands conjectures which, despite the fact that one seeks "functoriality", does not "use categories up the ass" except in the usual, trivial way of just being a fucking language.
that's what i was assuming, but i was hoping to hear what he could have possibly meant by it

>>8915848
Nice, I want to read sga 3, how much of ega does it actually use?

>>8915862
Actually not that much. The basics of course, for example in EGA 1 or Hartshorne + some geometry (ega IV): smoothness, dimension theory, tangent space, etc... stuff you probably known from Commutative Algebra, and some other topics like Galois descent, which you can pick up as you need them.

You can just read it and use Stacks or Brian Conrads Reductive groups notes as side references.

>>8915889
Thanks, I'll see if I can read some of that on vacation. The geometry in ega IV seems to be the thing that might trip me, I know some scattered pieces and a bunch of half-remembered commutative algebra. I'll see if that's enough.

>>8915802
what would P = NP imply?

>>8916106
that HoTT is the ultimate maths

>>8913502
This tbqh

>>8912264

>I can encode any mathematical statement into a question of whether some series converges or not

Can we find a counterexample to this? I'm scared that he's right.

I mean technically me concluding that 1+3=4 is actual math so. . .

>>8915848
>their trivial constructions in (pi,infinity)-category left-anti-isomorphically derived asshole functors to make them sound deep

It is deep. Derived geometry is loaded in formalism, but the subject is still in its infancy.

>>8917867
If f is differentiable and has n zeros, prove f' had at most n-1 zeros.

how would this end up having to figure out wether a series converges?