johncarlosbaez

"I can not really imagine knowing what to say but not knowing how to write it."

I guess you're monolingual and have never tried operating in a new language.

Adelson-Velsky and Evgenii Landis were not the ones who named their tree the "AVL tree".

In my "crackpot index", item 20 says:

20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)

Yes - by cooling it. See the problem?

You need to go more slowly and do lots of examples. Maybe start with

* Karen E. Smith, Lauri Kahanpää, Pekka Kekäläinen and William Traves, An Invitation to Algebraic Geometry, Springer, Berlin, 2004.

and then this:

* Igor R. Shafarevich, Basic Algebraic Geometry, two volumes, third edition, Springer, 2013.

This claimed proof is a bunch of baloney:

* First, it's written in the typical style of AI slop.

* Second, a mathematician I know and trust writes "I went straight to the technical part (Sect. 3) and randomly checked one of the results (Theorem 3.14), finding that it is obviously false. (The category Comp mentioned in the theorem is formally introduced and makes sense per se, but it is certainly not additive with the proposed definition, as claimed in the statement of the theorem)."

* Third, another mathematician I know and trust writes "I spent almost an hour poking through here carefully to see where the more central claims begin to fall apart. Theorems 3.24 and 4.1 brazenly contradict each other, proving respectively that problems in P are homologically trivial and that all NP-complete problems are homologically isomorphic to all problems in NP. Even more to the point, the proof of 3.24 really shows the lie where it says "The detailed argument uses the functoriality of the computational homology construction and the fact that homology isomorphisms preserve the 'computational topology' of problems." The last claim is, naturally, not mathematically defined. The computational chain complex also appears not to be genuinely defined, as far as I can tell. I haven't compared to see what the author chucked into the formalized definition."

Or if you believe the simulation hypothesis, the second-largest.

"Whatever the reason, the resistance to AC technology is making Europe a more impoverished civilization. It’s a major reason why Europe now feels shabbier and more hardscrabble than America..."

It feels shabbier and more hardscabble than America now? That's news to me.

It's a little late for a "wakeup call", no? More like "wake up, your house is on fire and behind your bedroom door it's a raging inferno out there".

> The economics profession should reflect on the fact that DOGE is proceeding without the input of economists because economists have downplayed the persistence and extent of government policy failures.

No, that's not the main reason why they're proceeding without the input of economists.

Fixed - thanks.