What the title says: is there a clear, unambiguous, systematic way of writing diagram chasing arguments? What I generally do is use different colours for arrows on different paths but I’m not entirely satisfied with this. There’s also the issue of denoting when an element is being mapped to from another vs when it is being lifted from another etc
Hi, I don’t know a lot about headphones but need recommendations from the following I’ve shortlisted.
JLab JBuds Lux ANC
realme TechLife Studio H1
There’s also
Audio-Technica ATH-S220BT
OneOdio A70
I’m getting both for the same price. I’m nowhere close to an audiophile (I used boat till this year) so my priorities are battery life and durability.
I spend way too much time worrying about PhD applications nowadays. The problem of course is that so much of the advice scattered around the internet is specific to the lab sciences which operate really differently from math. It’s summer so every one of these threads is telling me to cold-email potential supervisors immediately. I assume there must be some merit to this since even many university websites recommend I get in touch with supervisors before applying.
The general advice is to read some of the person's papers and email them asking if there is an opening. I am not sure how well this translates to math. We seem to be uniquely disadvantaged by the amount of background reading required to understand modern research. I am a masters student so my interests are actually fairly well-defined and I do know who I would contact if I had to but I am still in no position to just pick up a paper and start reading before going through weeks (usually months!) worth of prerequisites.
I was thinking it might be a good workaround to ask professors what they would prefer a prospective student to have read? That not only helps me hit the ground running if I do get in but also gives me something to structure my masters thesis around. I am not sure if this might be seen as too presumptuous.
Just to broaden the question a bit and potentially help people who come across this in the future, are there other bits of common advice that don't really translate well to the math context?
PS: This mostly pertains to admissions in UK+Europe but some points probably overlap with the US process as well
Two might be pushing it in fact. The first one covers nearly all of them: you start with an object in the centre of the playing field and a team's job is to take it to some specified end. Football, hockey, basketball, rugby (I think?), polo, hell even quidditch
Then you have two (as best I can tell) outliers: cricket and baseball where you have to send an object away from the centre of the field and the other team's job is to stop you and I guess you can call those their own thing.
And that's it. As humans, we have been uncharacteristically uncreative about team sports. The only exception I can think of that is played somewhat professionally is kabaddi, which isn't really a thing outside India. I don't think there is a fourth type?
I’m part of a summer programme for high schoolers and we are giving some of them a copy of this book for winning some routine competitions. Obviously the book is fantastic but since it’s written for a general audience, I was wondering if there were details in the math that are either glossed over or misleading. There are quite a lot of vague “what exactly does that mean?” statements which I have always been curious about so I thought I should take the opportunity to ask about it.
(I have seen a fair amount of algebraic number theory but like most people, nowhere close to even understanding an outline of the proof)