Never was much for the format of “how reddit works” – and I’m always nervous about getting “too deep” in whatever my nerdy pursuit is of the day. Each pursuit is a universe in itself, populated with people way smarter than me about it who live and breath the topic and know all sorts of stuff. Every one of these little universe has their own politics, their own loves and hates, ‘we love this one but hate that one’ groups. [politics].
So I try to stay to ‘the general areas’ like FB. Whenever i *do* go deep, all of the sudden 2 years goes by and I’m like “wait – what happened?”
[lke right now, I’m *this close* to diving deep into Hopf fibrations again.. and have to say “no no.. no.. no no.. stop… make coffee.. do something else or you’ll spend a month in topology again]
Oh they’re on Reddit. If I want to find them, that’s where I’d go. They’re scattered on FB but concentrated on Reddit.
I found you here. This is what keeps me on FB: finding the scattered.
You’re not my guru But you’re mentally ‘kin’ of a kind.
Great… you mentioned Cobordism theory and now I’ve ended up in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incidence_algebra *which* is going to lead me back to rings (eventually)…. it hasn’t even been 15 minutes yet. this is how it starts
I’m going to get to the core and go back to moments of inertia. I was trying to find an amazing chemical engineer who stuck a lifetime’s worth of practical work in understanding the behavior of chemicals and boundaries and surfaces… but ended up finding this in my history instead….
[I have to shoot past physics when I start getting into math and get myself to chemistry otherwise I end up lost in the mental space of theoretical physics and things like knot theory reside… and I can get lost in there a long time.
To try to keep my head level (as I’m seeking general education and don’t have a specific purpose/goal in mind beyond that) – I try to keep in mind systems. That helps me a lot as I have a tendency to “go deep’ into a single field and stay there if I’m not careful.
That’s not generic advice though. I do the same with TV shows for while I enjoy getting pulled into someone’s universe ,I don’t like when it ‘takes me over’. Of course if I had a purpose: a project that needed me to dive deep and stay there for a long time, then it’s great.
Like right now, I felt the ‘pull” of theoretical physics grabbing me again. So what I did is take a step back and put myself into chemical physics and found a textbook from 1967: “Rotational Spectra and Molecular Structure: Physical Chemistry”, just prior to when physics started asking the uncertainty stuff again.
If I start looking at algebraic structure again (yes I peeked – it has a nice outlay of the major things-to-know) – I’m pretty sure I’ll end up back at set theory, the axiom of choice and alternatives, and to the fundamental paradox of set theory and THEN try to see how category theory can work without set theory… and… well, I tend to go down these roads sometimes
oh! I forgot about the ladder I was gonna draw. It was going to be an ugly ladder with concept A and concept B leading up to metaphor on top, dotted lines across where the way across is difficult or unlikely (levels where the two concepts don’t work) with one of the levels having a straight line where they DO connect, and other levels where they don’t… and a battery on one side, a ground on the other, and the connection level a telegraph switch, with the metaphor as a lightbulb on top.
Then I realized it wouldn’t look that great.
i guess i was gonna draw a circuit, not a ladder. interesting… didn’t realize it ’til I wrote it out ]
hehe I agree with your rant completely. One fantastic example is this one:
It gets away with it by doing the same thing REALLY quickly from different angles, a line at a time over and over and then combining it together both mechanically and statistically. This gets around the wonkiness of some of the theoretical physics questions because they’re not trying to “do it all at the same moment”.
I love book embedding because if I remember right, you only need a few pages to complete even the most complicated of connection possibilities.. in theory. I don’t remember how they proved it. It’s related to the four color theorem but it’s been a while since I looked at it.