the-heart-of-light - Tumblr blog

[the-heart-of-light]

[the-heart-of-light]

in an interesting case of linguistic convergent evolution, the english words scale, scale, and scale are all false cognates of each other

[the-heart-of-light]

Umberto Eco was right about pinball machines being an erotic microcosm

[the-heart-of-light]

Huge disapproval on my part.

[the-heart-of-light]

[the-heart-of-light]

don’t!!! fake!!!! your!!!! interests!!!! to!!!! make!!!! someone!!!! like!!!!! you!!!!

[the-heart-of-light]

everytime im driving on a main road and i see someone turn onto a side street im like okay wow. youre literally a poser. you're not a real fan of this road. you just like it for the clout. unlike us REAL this road heads

[the-heart-of-light]

“he would not fucking say that!” then put him in a situation that makes him say it, we wanna see him squirm

[the-heart-of-light]

Trivialize my fundamental group daddy

[the-heart-of-light]

be honest does my dog look like javert

[the-heart-of-light]

Such a broad question wow.

@galois-groupie gave a good answer, my personal input is this: IMHO it's best to just pick up something, anything, knowing that you'll most likely not really get things at first. Exposure is what's really important at this stage.

What are you in for? I see essentially 3 ways of looking at schemes:

A way to overcome some limitations that varieties have -> you now have generic points built in, and regular sections are no longer functions (but you pretend they are)

A way to "globalise" commutative algebra -> just like differential varieties are copies of R^n glued together, you want to glue together commutative rings. First you have to make it geometric, so you stumble into the spectrum of a ring. As a bonus, you find out that locally ringed spaces are a better way to talk about global objects than charts and atlases (atlantes?)

Once you're comfortable with the previous outlooks, you can safely step out of geometry once again (but pretend things are still geometric), and know that you can recover a scheme X by knowing all possible morphisms Y->X towards it, as Y varies. This is the functorial point of view, and it's the easiest way to go beyond schemes: sometimes you have an object X that is not a scheme, but you know "what the morphisms Y->X would look like if X were a scheme".

Commutative ring theory? Oh, surely you mean affine scheme theory?

Group theory? Oh, you mean the study of discrete group schemes over a separably closed field?

Galois theory? I think the expression you're looking for is "integral 0-dimensional schemes and their étale fundamental group."

[the-heart-of-light]

Me living amongst humans as part of a series of experiments. A serial experiment, if you will

So many beautiful unique interesting people in this world and you have to figure out how to interact with them like you’re a human being and not a little naked gray alien sent to live amongst humans as an experiment

[the-heart-of-light]

there should be a flat-earth-like conspiracy theory for every 2-manifold. show me the real projective plane earthers

[the-heart-of-light]

[the-heart-of-light]

Filipino madohomu lesbianism!!!!!

[the-heart-of-light]

lol apparently I taught my parrot that "are you okay?" "yeah, thanks" is a call-and-response phrase and now if you answer with anything other than "yeah, thanks" he gets upset and keeps asking it an attempt to get you to say the "right" answer.

[the-heart-of-light]