For a long time I felt like I didn't really understand the Yoneda Lemma. I knew some things that people said about it ('we can understand objects by the maps into them' and 'the Yoneda embedding is full and faithful') but the statement 'Hom(Hom(A, -), F) = F(A)' itself was something I could only use as a symbolic manipulation without understanding.
On the other hand, I did separately know facts like 'In the category of quivers there are objects which look like • and •→•, such that the maps out of them tell you exactly the vertices and edges in your quiver' and 'In the category of simplicial sets there are objects which are just an n-simplex; maps out of them are the n-simplices of the object you are mapping into'.
Somehow I only recently realised that these examples are precisely the Yoneda Lemma. These objects are precisely presheaves of the form Hom(A, -), and the Yoneda Lemma tells you what you get when you map out of them.
In particular I think it would be useful to give the quiver example to students when they learn the Yoneda Lemma.
@OscarCunningham do students learn the two things in the right order, though?
I moved from maths to computing before I got to either category theory or quivers, but I did see a summary of an introductory lecture course on quivers, and it listed category theory as a prerequisite.
Here I tried to prove the Existence Theorem for Laplace Transforms. I don't know what the/a "conventional proof" looks like, but this is what I came up with.
@mina Pero eso se parece a cuando una vez lei una "demostración" matemática que aseguraba que "2 = 1".
Resulta que en algún punto del razonamiento habían introducido un cálculo erróneo o sin sentido difícil de descubrir que daba como resultado final que 2 era lo mismo que 1 pese a no serlo.
Here's something I just learned: the lucky numbers of Euler.
Euler's "lucky" numbers are positive integers n such that for all integers k with 1 ≤ k < n, the polynomial k² − k + n produces a prime number.
Leonhard Euler published the polynomial k² − k + 41 which produces prime numbers for all integer values of k from 1 to 40.
Only 6 lucky numbers of Euler exist, namely 2, 3, 5, 11, 17 and 41 (sequence A014556 in the OEIS).
The Heegner numbers 7, 11, 19, 43, 67, 163, yield prime generating functions of Euler's form for 2, 3, 5, 11, 17, 41; these latter numbers are called lucky numbers of Euler by F. Le Lionnais.
h/t John Carlos Baez
(@johncarlosbaez) for pointing this out.
🐍 aprxc — A #Python#CLI tool to approximate the number of distinct values in a file/iterable using the Chakraborty/Vinodchandran/Meel’s (‘coin flip’) #algorithm¹.
The fascinating Heegner numbers [1] are so named for the amateur mathematician who proved Gauss' conjecture that the numbers {-1, -2, -3, -7, -11, -19, -43, -67,-163} are the only values of -d for which imaginary quadratic fields Q[√-d] are uniquely factorable into factors of the form a + b√-d (for a, b ∈ ℤ) (i.e., the field "splits" [2]). Today it is known that there are only nine Heegner numbers: -1, -2, -3, -7, -11, -19, -43, -67, and -163 [3].
Interestingly, the number 163 turns up in all kinds of surprising places, including the irrational constant e^{π√163} ≈ 262537412640768743.99999999999925... (≈ 2.6253741264×10^{17}), which is known as the Ramanujan Constant [4].
College Precalculus – Full Course with Python Code by Ed Pratowski and freeCodeCamp focus on the foundation of calculus with Python implementation. This 12 hours course covers the following topics:
✅ Core trigonometry
✅ Matrix operation
✅ Working with complex numbers
✅ Probability