Comments for gingersnapsmath
https://gingersnapsmath.wordpress.com
Sat, 13 May 2017 08:23:15 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/Comment on Categories and Functors by Intra-mathematical Dependencies | Gaurish4Math
https://gingersnapsmath.wordpress.com/2016/03/20/categories-and-functors/comment-page-1/#comment-52
Sat, 13 May 2017 08:23:15 +0000http://gingersnapsmath.wordpress.com/?p=565#comment-52[…] As of now, I have an “elementary” knowledge of Set Theory, Algebra, Analysis, Topology, Geometry, Probability Theory, Combinatorics and Arithmetic. Unfortunately, in India, there are no undergraduate level courses in Mathematical Logic and Category Theory. […]

]]>Comment on Categories and Functors by Topological Data Analysis part 1 | gingersnapsmath
https://gingersnapsmath.wordpress.com/2016/03/20/categories-and-functors/comment-page-1/#comment-33
Fri, 24 Jun 2016 16:43:55 +0000http://gingersnapsmath.wordpress.com/?p=565#comment-33[…] Proof: The reader is encouraged to try to prove this using the definition of categories in Categories and Functors. […]

]]>Comment on Axioms: Sets (Russell’s Paradox) by gaurish
https://gingersnapsmath.wordpress.com/2016/05/31/axioms-sets-russells-paradox/comment-page-1/#comment-27
Thu, 02 Jun 2016 12:23:15 +0000http://gingersnapsmath.wordpress.com/?p=1371#comment-27Just try discussing this with your friends, Russell becomes more mystic!

]]>Comment on Axioms: Sets (Russell’s Paradox) by gingersnapsmath
https://gingersnapsmath.wordpress.com/2016/05/31/axioms-sets-russells-paradox/comment-page-1/#comment-26
Thu, 02 Jun 2016 12:20:49 +0000http://gingersnapsmath.wordpress.com/?p=1371#comment-26This is an excellent read. It almost seems as if he is saying that the best we can say about number is that it is a property that classes have. I wonder if the number of a father is 1. 1 would be the class of all fathers. But 1 would also be the class of all mothers. And 1 would be the class of all children. But if we consider twins, then 2 would be the class of all twins just as it is the class of all couples. This seems to line up with what he was saying that a couple is not a property of 2 rather 2 is a property shared by all couples. And all twins which is a subclass of all couples.

]]>Comment on Axioms: Sets (Russell’s Paradox) by gaurish
https://gingersnapsmath.wordpress.com/2016/05/31/axioms-sets-russells-paradox/comment-page-1/#comment-24
Wed, 01 Jun 2016 19:05:24 +0000http://gingersnapsmath.wordpress.com/?p=1371#comment-24I never fully recovered from the confusions cause by Russell’s definition of Number (http://people.umass.edu/klement/imp/imp.html#chapter2)

]]>Comment on Banach-Tarski Paradox by gingersnapsmath
https://gingersnapsmath.wordpress.com/2016/05/29/banach-tarski-paradox/comment-page-1/#comment-22
Mon, 30 May 2016 11:07:33 +0000http://gingersnapsmath.wordpress.com/?p=1135#comment-22Yes! I actually linked it in the post. It’s probably the best explanation out there right now.

]]>Comment on Banach-Tarski Paradox by gaurish
https://gingersnapsmath.wordpress.com/2016/05/29/banach-tarski-paradox/comment-page-1/#comment-21
Mon, 30 May 2016 04:34:33 +0000http://gingersnapsmath.wordpress.com/?p=1135#comment-21sorry for typo, I meant “…beautiful video about this paradox”