u/TheRedditObserver0

I have seen a lot of posts here, some very interesting. The philosophy of mathematics is naturally an interdisciplinary subject sitting at the crossroads of math and philosophy. I guess people might bring different contributions and perhaps even come to different conclusions depending on whether they're primarily philosophers or mathematicians. Hence the poll.

Feel free to give a more specific answer in the comments.

IMPORTANT NOTE: By academic background I mean some kind of degree in the subject, a published paper or at least having taken a decent chunk of undergrad. If you're only interested/curious but have no formal training, please answer NEITHER / OTHER.

View Poll

Of course this is a rhetorical question. The so called Nobel prize in economics is nothing but a tool to push neoliberalism, and as such they cannot admit the success of SWCC. China has eradicated poverty and now leads in sustainable development, but they will never receive the recognition they deserve from such "institutions".

Specifically, I have found that there is one adress in Milan which shows up in two different places on Google Maps, one of them is correct but the other is on the wrong street. I don't know how to report the mistake.

Premetto dicendo che rispetto e per certi versi ammiro il liceo classico, sicuramente è una scuola interessante. Non penso, come molti, che sia inutile o che vada abolito.

Detto ciò, non sopporto gli alumni del classico che si credono l'apoteosi della cultura (e di solito ricordano appena due espressioni comuni in latino) e che sminuiscono gli altri indirizzi: "Vi manca la cultura", "Non conoscete le vostre origini", "Non studiate quanto noi", "Vi manca la *forma mentis* rigorosa" eccetera. Fiumi e fiumi di luoghi comuni senza alcuna base reale.

Non sopporto più questa idea che solo le materie umanistiche sono cultura e che se al liceo non hai speso metà del tuo tempo a tradurre opere letterarie di 2000 anni fa sei uno zotico ignorante.

This documentary details the impact of noise from human activities, including shipping and military sonar, on the lives of whales and dolphins. These species have evolved to rely heavily on their sense of hearing for their survival, thus are particularly sensitive to sound pollution.

There really isn't any excuse for this that I can think of.

It happened to me a bunch of times in just the last few days, it wasn't nearly as frequent before. It's easily fixed by asking to repeat the answer in English, but it's still weird to me that this is happening all of a sudden.

"Dimenticatevi delle nostre politiche, votateci o vince la destra"

"Chi ci critica da sinistra in realtà è segretamente fascista e vuole far vincere la destra".

Questi frasi, o altre simili, si leggono ovunque negli ambienti mediatici vicini al csx da quando Potere al Popolo ha contestato il Campo Largo a Napoli.

Chi ha seguito un po' la politica americana negli ultimi anni sa già come andrà a finire. La sinistra vince quando fa la sinistra, quando è credibile e onesta, non quando fa la vuota "anti-destra".

Io stesso mi ero convinto, per una volta, ad arrendermi al voto utile. Il campo largo perlomeno prometteva un'identità di sinistra, per una volta, ma ora... Hanno dimostrato di non essere cambiati per niente. Come si fa a dire che Potere al Popolo è fascista? Si vede che ci considerano degli scemi. Avrebbero potuto accettare le critiche e promettere di fare meglio, invece si sono voluti dichiarare intoccabili, incriticabili. Io penso che persino gli elettori di FdI si metterebbero a ridere se gli si dicesse che Vannacci è segretamente comunista.

Non ho scritto questo post per fare campagna contro il Campo Largo, contro il voto utile. Vorrei semplicemente constatare che scegliendo ancora una volta la solita retorica ridicola e fallimentare, il centro"sinistra" ci ha condannati ad un passo ulteriore verso il fascismo.

Mathematical prose is often bashed as bad writing, sometimes legitimately, sometimes less so. Professor Serre certainly raises some good points, do you agree with him? Can writing practices among mathematicians be improved?

DISCLAIMER: this talk was already posted on this sub 11 years ago by u/godelesque , who complained about noise and bad quality. This version has the noise removed, the quality is regrettably still poor but I think it's understandable. I hope you forgive me if it's technically a repost.

Mi sembra interessante perché contrasta con ciò che ho studiato su Hegel a scuola, ma allo stesso tempo Losurdo è eloquente è molto convincente. Non essendo io uno specialista mi rimetto al vostro giudizio.

Non sono certo di riuscire a riassumere fedelmente il contenuto della lezione e per questo rimando alla visione del video, ma ci proverò lo stesso: la visione coscienzialista e reazionaria di Hegel, che lo vede come il filosofo della restaurazione, è completamente sbagliata. Hegel sarebbe invece il vero precursore di Marx, teorico di una storia guidata dalla necessità oggettiva e del diritto fondamentale dell'uomo alla vita, che sovrasta il diritto alla proprietà. Hegel è quindi un filosofo fondamentalmente rivoluzionario, pur non arrivando a stipulare la visione della rivoluzione proletaria e dell'abolizione della proprietà privata come farà poi Marx.

Suppose gravitons are discovered and gravity is really mediated by quantum particles, how would a black hole exert gravity? Wouldn't gravitons from inside the black hole ALSO be trapped inside? Is this a 'quantum particle going through an infinite potential' sort of situation?

Most of the technology we use today is based on both empirical natural sciences and rationalistic mathematics, therefore it seems to be both have to be true in their respective domain. Is there any philosophical school that is able to make sense of this is some unified framework?

My main reason is claims made by physicists on the non deterministic nature of the universe, based on experiments such as the double slit experiment. But how can an experiment detect true randomness?

Why did you choose your specific field? Was there a theorem you liked particularly, or was it to avoid some topic you disliked? Did you have a preference for your field early on or was it a delayed choice?

If you're still a student you can answer based on what you plan to do in the future.

I would naively think you can just define quantum fields on the space time manifold rather than flat space, you could even talk about integration and measure-theoretic properties as long as spacetime is orientable and has a volume form. So what doesn't work exactly? Why should gravity be quantized instead?

Is it easier to get a second PhD?

I'm planning to get a PhD in pure math (I'm currently a masters student), that is my passion, however I'm worried about job prospects. If my carreer in academia does not work out, could I get a second PhD in applied math to pivot to industry? My main questions are the following

1. How will having a PhD already change my chances at admission? Will it be an added benefit or an obstacle?

2. Will the second PhD be easier due to the experience from the first one? By how much?

3. Does this even make sense or am I crazy? Is there a clearly better path I'm just not seeing? Perhaps an internship would be better?

Thanks a lot to anyone that replies.

Regarding question 1: I know I'm not supposed to ask admissions questions but it's only part of a larger question so I hope it's ok. I also suspect it's an uncommon question so it might fall under the nuanced question exception in the rules. I sincerely apologize otherwise.

EDIT to add that I would do this in Europe.

I'm a masters' student in mathematics and I'd like to get a PhD next. How important is it for my chances of being accepted into a PhD program to apply right after I finish my masters'?