an assortment of things
(1) My talk went very very well indeed! :D I did screw up the bit I was worried about a liiiittle, but the actual important bits were fine, the talk lasted pretty much exactly one hour, people laughed in the places I wanted them to etc. etc. etc. yaaay!
An odd realisation for me has been that actually? I sort of like giving talks. I'm still nervous as hell before them but actually giving one is this feeling of intense focus that's amazing and if it went well afterwards I experience a rush similar to the one I get after concerts (read: I am bouncing off the walls and laughing.) As a teenager I had the more usual "AUGH PUBLIC SPEAKING" reaction, but I think I also figured that anyone with a speech disorder can't possibly enjoy lecturing. Nyah! Not so!
(2) whoever decided to make people call me from my telephone/broadband company on Saturday evening to tell me that I should ttly get TV from them too when I am disabled and cannot watch TV about 99% of the time? Screw you. Really.
(3) I usually find mathematical cranks sort of amusing - yeeaaah, tell me *all* about why Cantor's diagonalisation is wrong or 0.999... is actually not equal to 1, baby - but am finding myself getting angry at one right now. It's this, this incredible self-important hubris they have of deciding they know all there is to know about maths and that *their* theories and definitions are 100% correct and who cares what anyone else has to say. Like, you know, if a guy goes on and on about how the field axioms are inconsistent!!! - dude, my entire subject area vanishes in an explosion of you-can-prove-anything-from-a-contradiction if the field axioms are inconsistent. Like, everything I have done for the past two years, every single paper I have read, if not all then a large chunk of my supervisor's work, GONE. Fwump. And this is a very small chunk of the maths that relies on fields!
As it so happens I don't have to worry about this because the field axioms aren't inconsistent, you self-centred bastard who was apparently referring to something different altogether because for you apparently there are no fields other than the real numbers so axioms for each can be interchanged. (Not that I believe he's showed any of those axioms are inconsistent because you know crank! but at least he's not attacking me where I live if he's talking about the reals.)
Not sure why this has upset me quite so much, really. :/ Probably just the frustration of seeing people claiming to be mathematicians cavalierly toss around things that if true would destroy fundamental building blocks of mathematics, and discover that it's not just that they're using corkscrew logic to get their "results" but that they can't even be bothered to use the standard definitions everyone else does.
An odd realisation for me has been that actually? I sort of like giving talks. I'm still nervous as hell before them but actually giving one is this feeling of intense focus that's amazing and if it went well afterwards I experience a rush similar to the one I get after concerts (read: I am bouncing off the walls and laughing.) As a teenager I had the more usual "AUGH PUBLIC SPEAKING" reaction, but I think I also figured that anyone with a speech disorder can't possibly enjoy lecturing. Nyah! Not so!
(2) whoever decided to make people call me from my telephone/broadband company on Saturday evening to tell me that I should ttly get TV from them too when I am disabled and cannot watch TV about 99% of the time? Screw you. Really.
(3) I usually find mathematical cranks sort of amusing - yeeaaah, tell me *all* about why Cantor's diagonalisation is wrong or 0.999... is actually not equal to 1, baby - but am finding myself getting angry at one right now. It's this, this incredible self-important hubris they have of deciding they know all there is to know about maths and that *their* theories and definitions are 100% correct and who cares what anyone else has to say. Like, you know, if a guy goes on and on about how the field axioms are inconsistent!!! - dude, my entire subject area vanishes in an explosion of you-can-prove-anything-from-a-contradiction if the field axioms are inconsistent. Like, everything I have done for the past two years, every single paper I have read, if not all then a large chunk of my supervisor's work, GONE. Fwump. And this is a very small chunk of the maths that relies on fields!
As it so happens I don't have to worry about this because the field axioms aren't inconsistent, you self-centred bastard who was apparently referring to something different altogether because for you apparently there are no fields other than the real numbers so axioms for each can be interchanged. (Not that I believe he's showed any of those axioms are inconsistent because you know crank! but at least he's not attacking me where I live if he's talking about the reals.)
Not sure why this has upset me quite so much, really. :/ Probably just the frustration of seeing people claiming to be mathematicians cavalierly toss around things that if true would destroy fundamental building blocks of mathematics, and discover that it's not just that they're using corkscrew logic to get their "results" but that they can't even be bothered to use the standard definitions everyone else does.