mathposting
I'm hip-deep in what's turning out to be a three-dimensional commutative diagram, someone save me from myself
mathposting
anyway what I'm saying is, crystal aunties into """sacred geometry""" ain't got *shit* on me
mathposting, foxposting
like just fuckin LOOK at this, how am I supposed to get my teeth into it
mathposting, foxposting
"does this even mean anything?
y͟e͟s͟."
mathposting, foxposting
I am at a point where I have to invent my own notation and I am *not* doing a good job of it, let me tell you.
mathposting, foxposting
my notation is a godsdamned trashfire, but it's *my* trashfire.
I'll post the diagram I'm working on when I'm done so you can all stare at it and go glassy-eyed!
mathposting, foxposting
Guess which fox finally finished this gigantic diagram that hopefully points the way to the math prey
(me. it's me. I am a very tired fox now and I'm going to go lie down for a bit.)
re: mathposting, foxposting
@lorxus I don't know what i'm looking at but it's quite impressive and you did a good job!
-F
re: mathposting, foxposting
@Felthry Basically, it's me going through a construction process from another paper, except with an added layer on top of it, checking all the way through that the extra layer doesn't mess anything up.
Think of it like this: I'm a chemistry PhD, and I read a paper where the author(s) synthesized some weird new chemical that's simpler than but pretty similar to a chemical that *I* want to synthesize. So I repeat the process they did, except I added in some additional desirable (but unstable) functional group from the start, and I'm checking that the reactions still work all the way through.
Does that help?
