@CihanPostsThms

Posting some theorems, and occasionally other stuff. By @bahran_cihan

Joined July 2022
  • Tweets2.4K
  • Following6
  • Followers31K
An r/mathematics comment by kieransquared1: Only 16 citations, half of which aren't even from this century. There's only one citation from this *decade*. They don't cite *any* of works on blowup for 3D Euler, like Elgindi, Chen-Hou, Cordoba-Martinez-Zoroa, etc. At best, this is terrible citation practice and at worst it's blatant plagiarism.

ALT An r/mathematics comment by kieransquared1: Only 16 citations, half of which aren't even from this century. There's only one citation from this *decade*. They don't cite *any* of works on blowup for 3D Euler, like Elgindi, Chen-Hou, Cordoba-Martinez-Zoroa, etc. At best, this is terrible citation practice and at worst it's blatant plagiarism.

4
179
2
3,862
57,928
I asked Claude to generate a word cloud image based on the first names appearing in the list here (weighted by number of papers): annals.math.princeton.edu/au…
11
1,381
Replying to @littmath @ultima_shifl @SebastienBubeck @Jacob_Tsimerman
I find the "human capital" term rather problematic. It objectifies/commodifies human beings. Reminds me of this icky quote
A photo of Sam Altman with the quote "We see a future where intelligence is a utilitu, like electricity or water, and people buy it from us on a meter" — Sam Altman, Open AI CEO.

ALT A photo of Sam Altman with the quote "We see a future where intelligence is a utilitu, like electricity or water, and people buy it from us on a meter" — Sam Altman, Open AI CEO.

1
2
230
Implications involved in Lam's treatment (specifically Theorem 4.10 in his noncommutative rings book) of the Hopkins–Levitzki theorem.

ALT Implications involved in Lam's treatment (specifically Theorem 4.10 in his noncommutative rings book) of the Hopkins–Levitzki theorem.

1
34
2,705
[Bui–Heath-Brown 2013]. If RH holds, then at least 19/27 of the zeros of the Riemann zeta-function are simple.
2
10
88
7,686
Source: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2312.02799

ALT Source: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2312.02799

5
32
3
413
18,667
From the introduction of https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.04011v1

ALT From the introduction of https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.04011v1

1
7
1
97
7,772
Replying to @IsomorphicPhi
@IsomorphicPhi
4
265
Replying to @DiracDeltaFunk
BG looking at EG:
1
7
736
This position with white to move is impossible to reach within the current laws of chess. Source: anselan.com/tutorial.html
Black king at a8, white king at c6. No other pieces.

ALT Black king at a8, white king at c6. No other pieces.

16
30
7
391
36,676
Replying to @RussellWolfey @martinmbauer
Cauchy's 1821 understanding of limits is itself debatable. There he "proved" the infinite sum of functions each continuous in a neighbourhood of a point is also continuous there (which is false). This is his argument:
From page 90 of "Cauchy’s Cours d’analyse An Annotated Translation"

ALT From page 90 of "Cauchy’s Cours d’analyse An Annotated Translation"

1
22
741
A short proof of Cantor–Bernstein–Schröder: chiasme.wordpress.com/2013/1…
6
44
7
291
23,476
Screenshot from an nlab page: ncatlab.org differential equation Contents 1. Idea 2. As sub-∞-groupoids of tangent and jet bundle 3. In terms of synthetic differential geometry ....First order homogenous ODEs as extension problems in a smooth topos

ALT Screenshot from an nlab page: ncatlab.org differential equation Contents 1. Idea 2. As sub-∞-groupoids of tangent and jet bundle 3. In terms of synthetic differential geometry ....First order homogenous ODEs as extension problems in a smooth topos

5
24
3
343
19,928
Replying to @Gabrielambda @csaez_math
@Gabrielambda @csaez_math
Screenshot from the wikipedia page "Field with one element": In mathematics, the field with one element is a suggestive name for an object that should behave similarly to a finite field with a single element, if such a field could exist. This object is denoted F1, or, in a French–English pun, Fun.[1] The name "field with one element" and the notation F1 are only suggestive, as there is no field with one element in classical abstract algebra.

ALT Screenshot from the wikipedia page "Field with one element": In mathematics, the field with one element is a suggestive name for an object that should behave similarly to a finite field with a single element, if such a field could exist. This object is denoted F1, or, in a French–English pun, Fun.[1] The name "field with one element" and the notation F1 are only suggestive, as there is no field with one element in classical abstract algebra.

111
Definition, Theorem 1, Theorem 2 from the monthly article "Principal Ideal Domains are Almost Euclidean" by John Greene, 1997.

ALT Definition, Theorem 1, Theorem 2 from the monthly article "Principal Ideal Domains are Almost Euclidean" by John Greene, 1997.

7
23
1
268
19,200
Lol
Link with transcript: http://docmadhattan.fieldofscience.com/2019/12/carl-ludwig-siegel-number-thoery-pig.html?m=1

ALT Link with transcript: http://docmadhattan.fieldofscience.com/2019/12/carl-ludwig-siegel-number-thoery-pig.html?m=1

2
2
2
21
4,712
Replying to @gro_tsen
@gro_tsen
2
30
164
5,733
Replying to @mattecapu
@mattecapu

This media is unavailable

3
36
4
210
10,500
A note from the American Mathatical Monthly, 1956: THE IRRATIONALITY OF √2 ROBERT GAUNTT, Purdue University, and GUSTAvE RABSON, Antioch College (The following proof was invented by Robert James Gauntt, in 1952, while he was a freshman at Purdue. I was unable to induce him to write up his proof. G. R.) a² = 2b² cannot have a non-zero solution in integers because the last non-zero digit of a square, written in the base three, must be 1, whereas the last non-zero digit of twice a square is 2.

ALT A note from the American Mathatical Monthly, 1956: THE IRRATIONALITY OF √2 ROBERT GAUNTT, Purdue University, and GUSTAvE RABSON, Antioch College (The following proof was invented by Robert James Gauntt, in 1952, while he was a freshman at Purdue. I was unable to induce him to write up his proof. G. R.) a² = 2b² cannot have a non-zero solution in integers because the last non-zero digit of a square, written in the base three, must be 1, whereas the last non-zero digit of twice a square is 2.

8
60
9
454
26,576
Load more