Thanks a lit, that’s a killer feature!!

Did the space expansion introduce new combinator to enable this wonderful construction? I do not recall anything like this existing before the expansion.

Counting cohomology has done to me a numbers x_x

True nathematician would never make a mistake distinguishing finite and infinite cardinality. Countability, on the other hand… (but that’s a separate issue)

If only haskell devs were writing documentations, instead of going “type sigs is all the documentation you need!”

I see. Maybe learning mathematics have screwed my writing since so much of mathematical literature is simply equations, definitions and propositions. Lots of papers, and even books, are just bad at expositions, in my experience.

It takes hours to write essays for me…

There is no good programming language, even including the ones people do not use.

I wish I were you, I struggle so much with reading books and papers

They do have antiderivatives, you just cannot elementarily compute them. Non-exact differential forms, however…

Seems like one can maybe work with complex metric. Interesting idea

I am sorry, but… to be pedantic, pythagorean theorem works on real-valued length. Complex numbers can be scalars, but one does not use it for length for some reason I forgor.

I’m sure Krafton will mess it up.

It does not let me like the work I mildly dislike, right?

I thought this was taught in high school. Curriculums differ drastically between countries, don’t they?

So I missed out on US nuclear stock? Damn

I mean the combinatorics and the imagery is nice.

Do you live in where I live, that sounds exactly like my country

Topology on steroids with K-valued logic, nice

I’d say still risky. They might perpetuate the bubble for longer, which means high risk of forced covering at loss.