Nostr notes by Jakob

Can anyone recommend a privacy friendly alternative to google ...

2026-10-13T20:34:10Z

Can anyone recommend a privacy friendly alternative to google forms?

I feel like it's important to emphasize that this is not ...

2026-10-07T10:44:55Z

I feel like it's important to emphasize that this is not about math. These people are on their way to destroy everything you love and care about, within but mostly outside of mathematics. Even if you might have a permanent position which might secure you financially for your future, you will have friends and family depending on their labour, depending on public infrastructure etc. These people want to steel all human capital from the working class, privatize all public knowledge and skills, destroy trust and joy and humanness. They are your enemies and you should have this in mind at all times while engaging with their latest mathematical stunts. Mathematics is just a very minor battle field in this even if you feel personally very attached to it and might feel like there is something exciting or positive in this.

I don't know if they are more active elsewhere, but at least ...

2026-09-10T10:55:16Z

In reply to nevent1q…8lk7
_________________________

I don't know if they are more active elsewhere, but at least Timothy Gowers (npub1tuz…3hxk) littmath (npub13hc…qw66) and [@gro_tsen_test](https://mastodon.sdf.org/@gro_tsen_test ) all have registered accounts on mastodon

I'm realizing more and more how important decentralization ...

2026-05-27T20:48:12Z

I'm realizing more and more how important decentralization really is. Thinking of Wikipedia of course, but also of Signal for example. Every community FLOSS project and perhaps every progressive project whatsoever should think about decentralization from the very beginning, especially with the growing authoritarianism we are facing right now. It's just so much easier to kill a centralized project than a decentralized one.

I worked years on bringing everyone to Signal and now telling everyone to move on to e.g. Delta Chat (npub17gp…nrxn) won't be easy. But I guess it's better to start now than when it's too late…

You don't have to link to y**tube, he's on ...

2026-04-14T04:53:35Z

In reply to nevent1q…nftk
_________________________

You don't have to link to y**tube, he's on PeerTube (npub17gp…7p4g):

Anders Puck Nielsen – on PeerTube (npub152l…zxw2)

I think then you need local rings, not just fields. Ingo ...

2026-02-05T16:30:45Z

In reply to nevent1q…wsn2
_________________________

I think then you need local rings, not just fields. Ingo Blechschmidt's thesis is the canonical reference for this, unfortunately the link to the pdf seems to be down right now https://www.ingo-blechschmidt.eu/

I mean this is not true. Hom(R, -) restricted to the category of ...

2026-02-05T16:16:29Z

In reply to nevent1q…hr29
_________________________

I mean this is not true. Hom(R, -) restricted to the category of fields is not enough to recover the ring (for example Z/4 and Z/2 have the same homomorphisms to fields), much less if you take the colimit of this functor.

If you want to make do with fields, you need the additional info of the topology and the structure sheaf. The nice thing of the functorial view is that you don't need to worry about these things if you allow yourself to plug arbitrary rings in your functor.

The "character" point of view, i.e. looking at ...

2026-02-05T16:06:56Z

In reply to nevent1q…zz7d
_________________________

The "character" point of view, i.e. looking at equivalence classes of homomorphisms to fields ("characters" on R) is relatively common in Berkovich geometry.

There you don't consider rings R but Banach rings (rings with a complete norm) and you don't look at homomorphisms to abstract discrete fields, but to fields with a complete absolute value. If you take the analogous colimit you arrive at the Berkovich spectrum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkovich_space of the Banach ring.

Similarly as in algebraic geometry, every character has a unique smallest representative (the completed residue field) which in turn is completely determined by the pullback of its absolute value which gives you a multiplicative seminorm on R (rather than the pullback of the zero element in the algebraic geometry case, which gives you a prime ideal).

Note given f ∈ R and p ∈ Spec(R) (an equivalence class of ...

2026-02-05T16:01:01Z

In reply to nevent1q…947u
_________________________

Note given f ∈ R and p ∈ Spec(R) (an equivalence class of homomorphisms to a field), while f(p) is not well-defined, the question whether f(p) = 0 (i.e. whether f is mapped to the zero element of a field) *is* well-defined (the map from the colimit to the classical spectrum which maps a homomorphism to a field to its kernel is well-defined because it is compatible with the morphisms of the index category).

In fact, this map to the classical spectrum is bijective, the map in the inverse direction maps a prime ideal to κ(p). Another way look at this is, that the equivalence class in the colimit of some homomorphism χ : R → k has a canonical "smallest" representative - the residue field of its kernel. (The universal property of the quotient R / Ker(χ) and then of its Fraction field is exactly what shows that χ factors over the residue field.

So this shows that we don't need to consider homomorphisms to arbitrary fields, it is enough to consider homomorphisms to residue fields of prime ideals, or equivalently just prime ideals.

But I often find it more natural to allow arbitrary fields here.
Often times it is even more natural to not take the colimit and instead look at the functor Hom(R, -) : Field -> Set, or even more natural to look at the functor Hom(R, -) : Ring -> Set on the full category of rings - this is the "functorial view" of algebraic geometry

Sorry for hijacking your thread again, but I think you might like ...

2026-02-05T15:51:46Z

In reply to nevent1q…4rkd
_________________________

Sorry for hijacking your thread again, but I think you might like the following way of coming up with the spectrum (and the residue fields). Say you know the theory of manifolds. There, if you have a function f ∈ R = C^∞(X) and a point p ∈ X, you can evaluate f(p) and this is a morphism R → ℝ .

Now let's say someone told us of this idea of Grothendieck that one can regard elements f ∈ R of an arbitrary ring as functions on some space, and we are supposed to make this idea work. We don't know yet what the points of our space should be, but given a point p, there should be a way to evaluate f(p) and this should be a homomorphism to some field (but we don't have a canonical candidate field like ℝ available).

So let's just *define* a point to be a pair (k, χ) where k is a field and χ is a ring homomorphism R → k. Then we can certainly evaluate a function f at our point and get and element of some field - just plug f into χ . But we must be a little bit careful - if we have two homomorphisms χ : 𝑅→𝑘 and χ' : 𝑅→𝑘', they should be considered to describe the same point if there exists a common field extension k'' of both k and k' such that both ways of getting from R to k'' are the same (whether we interpret f(p) to be χ(f) or χ'(f), they are the same field element in some bigger field).

So let's quotient by this equivalence relation. Formally, we take the colimit Spec(R) := colim_(k ∈ Field) Hom(R, k). (Note that the index category of fields is directed except for the fact that it falls into disjoint parts corresponding to the characteristic of the fields. If we work in fixed characteristic (for example over some fixed ground field), then we have a directed index category.)

Yes, the English -> German translations are: B -> H B flat ...

2025-12-25T15:48:49Z

In reply to nevent1q…xc0t
_________________________

Yes, the English -> German translations are:
B -> H
B flat -> B
B sharp -> His (on a well-tempered piano this is the same as C)

It's also interesting that while (except for H, the flat version of which is B) the flat version of a note is indicated with the -es ending (C flat -> Ces), the flat sign ♭ itself is called b in German 😅 I guess the sign ♭ is also a stylized b. So for example you would say that the B-major scale has two b, namely (B (B flat in English) and Es (E flat in English)). https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_%28Notenschrift%29?wprov=sfla1

So the name B for the English H-flat makes a little bit of sense, because it is somehow the most canonical flat note (the first one in the circle of quints, appearing already in the F-major scale).

I hope this wasn't too confusing 😅 I don't know about the history unfortunately.

And a minor (pun intended) nitpick: It's not H-moll but ...

2025-12-25T15:33:11Z

In reply to nevent1q…t754
_________________________

And a minor (pun intended) nitpick: It's not H-moll but h-Moll 😅 In H-Dur the H is capitalzed.

And then we Germans say Cis/Ces for C-sharp/C-flat etc. And if we ...

2025-12-25T15:21:21Z

In reply to nevent1q…t754
_________________________

And then we Germans say Cis/Ces for C-sharp/C-flat etc. And if we put two sharp-signs in front of C we say Cis-is (I'm not sure how that's called in English).

And then in German we refer to the note called B in English by ...

2025-12-24T19:04:20Z

In reply to nevent1q…unyy
_________________________

And then in German we refer to the note called *B* in English by the letter *H* 🥲

I’ve known about this plan for a while, but I never really ...

2025-09-14T17:29:25Z

In reply to nevent1q…hvqe
_________________________

I’ve known about this plan for a while, but I never really understood what the expected benefits are. Is this written up somewhere?