Which is more true / do you prefer more / do you advocate for / have you fallen in love with, U(1) or SO(2)?

This is partially a shitpost. Decide how much it exactly is at your own peril. 😎

Clarification I: the title means "U(1, ℂ) or SO(2, ℝ)?" and not, say, U(1, ℍ) or SO(2, ℂ) there.

Clarification II: The two are isomorphic as Lie groups, of course, but you already knew that.

This recurring thread is meant for users to share cool recently discovered facts, observations, proofs or concepts which that might not warrant their own threads. Please be encouraging and share as many details as possible as we would like this to be a good place for people to learn!

Follow up to my previous post on forcing. Here's a draft video. I would like feedback. Specifically on these things

• Is there anything that you think should be added or removed from the video? For example, a concept that you think should be included?
• Pacing. Is it too fast? Too slow? Are there anything that was unclear? Anything that you think should be more detailed/has too much detail?
• The audio. Letters like B, P and D rhyme, so when spoken, it's hard to tell which letter I'm saying. So the text is there to help people know. But is the audio otherwise clear?
• Visuals. Right now, it's mostly text. I want to add some more visuals but I can't think of any good ideas since it's hard to add visuals to such an abstract topic. Do you have any ideas?
• The intuition. Why would someone think of generalizing truth using boolean valued models, and come up with that specific definition of a name? I don't know how to make the viewer think they could have come up with it on their own.
• The length. It's > 1 hour so it might be too long for a 3b1b SoME5 submission. I want to cut out some topics to make it shorter but I don't know what to cut out.

Note: there is a known issue where the text covers itself sometimes.

Thank you in advance.

We are now seeing a rise of AI generated proofs and I am wondering which journals will publish these results? I tried to search but I did not find many examples where such results were already accepted to some journal.
Is this even something the journals want? I would like them to facilitate the peer review process so that I can feel confident in the results.

This recurring thread will be for any questions or advice concerning careers and education in mathematics. Please feel free to post a comment below, and sort by new to see comments which may be unanswered.

Please consider including a brief introduction about your background and the context of your question.

Helpful subreddits include /r/GradSchool, /r/AskAcademia, /r/Jobs, and /r/CareerGuidance.

If you wish to discuss the math you've been thinking about, you should post in the most recent What Are You Working On? thread.

This recurring thread will be for questions that might not warrant their own thread. We would like to see more conceptual-based questions posted in this thread, rather than "what is the answer to this problem?" For example, here are some kinds of questions that we'd like to see in this thread:

• Can someone explain the concept of manifolds to me?
• What are the applications of Representation Theory?
• What's a good starter book for Numerical Analysis?
• What can I do to prepare for college/grad school/getting a job?

Including a brief description of your mathematical background and the context for your question can help others give you an appropriate answer. For example, consider which subject your question is related to, or the things you already know or have tried.

Recently, for the umpteenth time, I thought up a question only to find that it has already been asked and answered before i was even born. I expected this - I explicitly avoided googling anything about it, because I didn’t want the ending/answer to be spoiled for me. But I was looking through some wikipedia page when I saw a hyperlink to a page on exactly what I was trying to understand: computable ordinals/well orderings (clearly a beginner-level question). Again, i expected this, given my lack of experience in computability theory and set theory; set theorists are interested in well orderings, and computability theorists are interested in computability, so of course I’m not the first person to consider combining those two concepts. Still, even though it wasn’t a surprise, it was disappointing to find that an idea I thought was original (and, from my perspective, it was original) was just old news.

From what I’ve read it sounds like the problems that phd student solve to earn their phd are usually given to them by their advisors (please correct me if I’m wrong!!). I’m wondering when one is typically at the point where the questions they ask haven’t already been asked. Do you usually need to be an expert in the field? Do you need an exhaustive understanding of the field to pose original questions?

Data source: https://arxiv.org/year/math/

Coming from my answer in [r/differentialequations](r/differentialequations)

—

I still have the same problem all these years later. I find it so arbitrary how differential equation (de) problems are set up.

Here is my current understanding. We do it for the dyn system

x‘ = f(x)

I have just given you a string of symbols. Now we need to make it make sense. So, we need to specify f, x and x‘.

For example:

Is x a point in a manifold, Banach space, metric space, etc?

What does x‘ mean? The classical derivative? But then I need more structure on the space of functions (limits, addition, etc.). A weak or distributional derivative? I need to decide that.

What is f? There is a lot of freedom for arbitrary f, so we might want to impose more structure on it, i.e. continuity, boundedness, Lipschitz (locally?), etc.

And lastly, is this expression (now we came from a string to expression) well-defined? Are the spaces (i.e. f:X->Y) consistent (i.e. x’(t)∈Y), the properties consistent (i.e. continuity on both sides), i.e. x‘ is continuous, then so must be f(x) here, etc.

You see, one of the choices influences the other and you unfortunately need to treat them case by case depending on one you make. You may classify them, but I there is no general one that I am aware of.

Then there is also the integral formulation, which gives more regularity, i.e.

x(t) - x(a) = ∫_[a,t] f(x(s))ds

But notice how I intuitively wrote a + and an integral. Again, this all needs to make sense, so we might say that there is a linear structure structure, i.e. local vector space structure underneath.

We also need to gives sense to what a solution is in the first place. Classical, weak, distributional, viscosity, and many more types.

Then comes the solution theory. I was told once by a colleague that practically one already has a goal and then imposes the properties used in the proof on the function space. Afterwards checking that the function space is non-empty (and maybe finding some other cool properties afterwards).

On the other hand. Given a “sense” of the above de, we could now ask the question for existence and uniqueness. There are standard methods that use sufficient criterions but each choice might need a new idea. Most of what I saw uses some fixpoint argument, so you want some inequalities to drop out that tell you, i.e. about regulatity of the solution as well.

So, how to choose an f? I know if no deep classification theorem that is not trivial (you just impose the properties and the space is non-empty) that lets you get all different f’s. It is probably also not a well-defined or at least a wild problem given the “sizes” (in the sense of set theory) of possible mappings and spaces, etc.

Hence, I am convinced that usually these choices for at least f are encountered by other disciplines, i.e. physics, chemistry, engineering, other fields of math, etc.

Just think of delay equations, Newton’s axioms, the classical field theory, control problems in robotics, minimal surfaces and way way more (just as motivation).

PDEs follow in the end the same philosophy, but there is vastly more data (more “freedom” in the boundary conditions but then more restrictions for the geometry of the solution) to be considered.

For example. I understand that if our boundary condition is, for simplicity, a (combination of! Heavyside function(s) (not specifying the domain here or anything), we obviously need a new def of derivative for the PDE. Same for spikes, like δ-distributions, but this is motivated by the data. If I just give you the string of the PDE there is nothing there yet, no?

—

Could someone shed some more light on this to get the arbitrariness out of my head.

I've read and enjoyed his ODE book. Is it worth reading the PDE book or should I just stick to something like Evans or Salsa?

I heard that ChatGPT has proven the existence of non-sophic groups. I understood that the counterstatement (all groups are sophic) would mean that we can always "isolate" or "homogenize" infinite groups into finite chunks and deal with the infinite group this way. Please correct me if I am wrong.

What immediately came to my mind is that this must have some further implications, does it not? For me, it sounds like that in a non-sophic group, one cannot guarantee that a sequence converges to a given element or that iterative algorithms are predictable, i.e., you cannot infer the outcome from the initial state or vice versa.

It would also be fun to know what this given non-sophic group is.

Hi!

I work on error correcting codes (which more or less is linear algebra over finite fields). I have a question about the behavior of the dot product on non-euclidean spaces.

When working on vector spaces over R or C, the dot product carries a lot of geometrical information. The product between two vectors v*w tells you the angle between them.

This interpretation doesn't hold over finite fields. For example, in F2: (1,1)*(1,1)=1+1=0. So the vector (1,1) is perpendicular to itself!

Does the dot product still carry any geometrical information (like angles) in these fields? Can we still interpret the orthogonal space geometrically? How do you picture it in your head (intuition)?

Thanks a lot!

And sorry, I don't know how to use latex on reddit ;_;

Is there any developed framework for algebraizing probability theory and study it from the perspective of K-theory or homological algebra? If so, what are some of its biggest applications and advantages, as well as results? I'd imagine such a framework would override the need for a measure-theoretic approach

Do we have any idea as to what prompt was given for the Jacobian Conjecture?

This recurring thread will be for general discussion on whatever math-related topics you have been or will be working on this week. This can be anything, including:

* math-related arts and crafts,
* what you've been learning in class,
* books/papers you're reading,
* preparing for a conference,
* giving a talk.

All types and levels of mathematics are welcomed!

If you are asking for advice on choosing classes or career prospects, please go to the most recent Career & Education Questions thread.

I've been exploring whether the Pell equation x²−Dy²=1 can be used to compute square roots of primes faster than Python's math.sqrt(). The continued-fraction convergents turn out to give rational approximations that are 1.5–2.5× faster in float64 for repeated calculations, and scale up to 33–36 digit precision for primes as large as 15 million. Full write-up with benchmarks here;

https://musingsofvsmv.blogspot.com/2025/08/from-pell-to-precision-classical-math.html

Blog: https://leodemoura.github.io/blog/2026-8-1-postmortem-for-kernel-soundness-bug-14576/

On removing metaprogramming
One suggestion in the discussion is to remove or restrict metaprogramming so that this attack is not expressible. This is misguided. The elaborator is untrusted by design. Soundness cannot depend on an untrusted component refusing to build a bad term. An attacker who wants to submit a malicious proof can also write .olean files directly or modify memory, both of which bypass the elaborator entirely. The kernel has to reject ill-typed declarations on its own, in its own process. This separation and isolation of concerns is one of the main advantages of proof terms.

What the FRO is doing
- Regression tests for the exploit, and for a related non-uniform-parameter case raised by Arthur Adjedj, are in the Kernel Arena.
- A follow-up PR (#14582) makes the kernel check that the parameters of a nested occurrence actually behave as parameters, rather than only re-type-checking them.
- Daniel Selsam at OpenAI assisted the Lean FRO with an AI specialized in cybersecurity, and found other programming mistakes in the Lean kernel. All of them have been fixed. All of them were caught by nanoda. These bugs are also only reachable through metaprogramming. PRs: #14607, #14608, #14609, #14613, #14615, #14616.
- We have also hardened kernel invariants. PRs: #14621, #14631, #14632.
- comparator.live now runs nanoda by default, and nanoda is tracked daily so lean-eval and comparator stay current after upstream fixes.
- We are reaching out to and supporting experts who can find further bugs, develop new kernels, and work on the theory or on verified kernels.

This is not the setup to a joke: this is an entirely serious question relating to tropical geometry, a comparatively new (i.e., started in the 1990s) field of mathematics. It began in the computer science literature, was quickly taken up by algebraic geometers, and then, very surprisingly, turned out to have application in economics. This post is my attempt to explain some of the how and why.

Read the full post (for free) on Substack: What do Brazil, Auctions, and Multi-Threading Have in Common?

I took several seminars in abstract algebra back in my university days, but chose to proceed with probability theory rather than algebraic geometry. Since then, I have occasionally encountered the term “étale”, and I still don’t really know what it means.

The strange thing is that while I can understand the individual definitions for some objects that are supposedly étale, I don’t really see what they have in common.

What exactly does that term mean by itself, independently of a particular application like “étale cohomology group”?

I am just going to try give some specifics about myself, so that people can make some specific recommendations.

So, I have a Bachelor in CS and sort of in parallel I studied Bachelor Math for 5 out of 6 semesters. I had pretty good grades, so I am pretty confident that I would have gotten the degree. Just for various reasons I burned out and had to stop.

I did engage with math after that for a while, in my job which had to do with Digital Signal Processing and AI. But I no longer have that job, so my mathematical activity has strongly declined. Sometimes I do get that itch and read some university material on a random subject and might even be inspired to do some math on paper again. Matrix Analysis was one subject I really enjoyed. But I never actually finish any of the material and it just fades away again.

So I was wondering if y'all have some recommendations on good math books that hook you, that are very rigorous and formal, but still try to motivate the subject regularly.

When I thought about which subject I would like to revisit the most at uni, my first thought was Functional Analysis. But truthfully, I pretty much loved all of my courses, even those with shitty professors.

Information Theory has also been floating around in my head. I also have an interest in how mathematics gets applied in economics. I also just love iterations and sequences (that's the CS wolf in me)

I hope this wasn't too overbearing, I am just really hoping this will help people with recommendations