@puellavulnerata @RachelHaywire Well, the approach certainly works, but it's Rube Goldbergy. Lots of technical weirdness we learn to ignore.
-
-
Replying to @St_Rev
@puellavulnerata In some sense starting with points seems like wrong move. Yeah you can reformulate w/o points but even clunkier then.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@puellavulnerata Reality is under no obligation to be non-clunky, of course, but points, neighborhoods etc. feels to me like...2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable
-
Replying to @puellavulnerata
@puellavulnerata Very possible. I used a lot of topological methods in my work but I'm an algebraist at heart.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@puellavulnerata I guess I just have the sense that continuity should be more or less atomic, not something to sneak up on w/infinities.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
Replying to @puellavulnerata
@puellavulnerata Finitists have lots of deep and valid criticisms of pretty much every step of that process. Lousy alternatives, ofc.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@puellavulnerata But yeah, we only ever have access to finite amounts of information about bounded chunks of spacetime. That's the context>3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@puellavulnerata >in which we see connectedness/continuity, whatever that is. Invoking inaccessible constructions...¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.