I think I speak for most people when I say that I’m a good representative of the general population.
I have to imagine their lawyers aggressively made sure no one who has recently owned a playstation made it to the jury.
It’s really depressing. Every year I get more nostalgic for the internet of twenty years ago.
I recently played through Slice of Sea, which is an adventure game, a bit similar in spirit to the old LucasArts games. I could give a lot of criticism on the gameplay, but it was so artistically captivating that I’d call it worth my time regardless.
I got through it in about nine hours without a guide, but I think trying to play it in a couple sittings would be miserable. If you get stuck put it down and come back a couple days later.
Maybe this implies I’m one of the weirdos, but my experience has been wildly different. My experience has been mathematicians are just people, what they have in common is a passion for math. Sometimes they’re weird, but that’s because they’re people and not because they do math. I never got the impression I was talking with a schizophrenic or a Kaczynski type. They exist, but non-mathatician schizophrenics do too.
There are multiple mathematicians in the modern era who are well regarded, technically homeless and just showed up at people’s houses to collaborate on some math.
I don’t think heard of this and I’m skeptical. Give me a couple names to jostle my memory?
One, who coined the phrase “another roof, another proof”, was a staunch proponent of mixing amphetamines, coffee, and 70’s antidepressants.
I don’t know this quote but I’d give it a 90% chance it’s Erdös.
Scary Wheels and Super Shrubs is an example of a good title and not-transparent description.
Come on man, this isn’t weird. It’s representation theory, there literally isn’t a transparent description. It’s weird to think having fun with a title isn’t a normal impulse from time-to-time.
7, blue, and cat are all equally real or not real, and we don’t need a simulation as the equation defining structure is sufficient to give rise to what we experience, and requiring it to be written or executed is just an odd affectation.
This reads as partially random to me, what is “the equation defining structure”?
You clearly weren’t saying they all are, but what I’m saying is that my impression is that the bar for weirdness isn’t higher at all. There will always be examples of mathematicians behaving weirdly, because there will always be examples of people behaving weirdly. Spending a lot of time thinking about abstract nonsense definitely improves your proficiency at thinking about abstract nonsense, but I can’t see how it could affect the way you process other things any more than frequent practice with sudoku or chess would.
The mental process in math is no more special than any other intellectual hobby. If you invest decades into chess I’m sure you’ll think about chess in a very different way than a beginner, but in my opinion seeing chess differently should have minimal impact on how someone thinks about things unrelated to chess.