https://youtube.com/watch?v=wD4xrnzKN1Y
A full 2 hour cover of Ted's Ph.D dissertation if any of you are curious with the first half an hour covering all the prerequisites to understanding.
I will admit even though I've taken 2 semesters of measure theory once it reaches ~1:15:00 I have no fricking idea what he is talking about.
Cool video though
.webp?h=8 "Merry Fistmas!")
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Snapshots:
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
This is the bomb!
I took no measure theory in uni but I'm going to rawdog this shit until I understand wtf he's talking about
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
um Ill have to reread his thesis and give this a watch, and Thank ya kindly, and
One my analysis 
profs claims to have collaborated with him back in the day on some super 
specific and pathological counter-example to some boundary condition problem
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Do you agree with Ted's assessment that anything beyond rudimentary math is largely a waste of time?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yes and no: For most real world application Calc 1-4 and entry level Linear Algebra is necessary and the mathematics beyond that is really only applicable to niches of science, do I think that it's a waste of time? Eh It's akin to saying is philosophy a waste of time which I would argue no but if you are purely focused on utility then most would be inclined to say yes. Ted particularly was extra cynical of math since he knew any of the application side of mathematics which is far less abstract would be contributing to the industrial society that he loathed so much. If you don't like math or philosophy then any formal mathematics is a waste of your time but if you are looking to describe an observable phenomenon mathematics should be your first tool.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
I have only the most rudimentary understanding of measure theory, much of it probably under the guise of other fields (I.e. my understanding of the concept of almost everywhere). I think the only direct study of it I've done is related to the Vitali set.
Do I have the slightest hope of understanding this, and if not, what book should I read at work in the bathroom and/or loader?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
eh I mean you could try to but even though he tries his best to make it as presentable as possible it is very technical and the proofs will be lost on you (I know once the video passes the hour mark the proof is basically lost on me too) If you'd like to read some more on measure theory there there is an alright textbook that I used: Measure, Integral and Probability, by Marek Capinski and Ekkehard Kopp
(It assumes knowledge of real analysis but other than that its mostly entry level)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It just so happens that I would. I think my real analysis is decently strong - at least good enough for Baby Rudin. That good enough?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yeah definitely, if you did Baby Rudin then this book is supposed to be the next step after.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yo ty boss I'll bring it with me to work
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context