## Posts

## Comments

**Andrew Quinn (andrew-quinn-1)**on The 3 Books Technique for Learning a New Skilll · 2019-01-09T22:46:06.335Z · LW · GW

I quite like this approach. :) I’ll see if I can apply it to electrical engineering and pure mathematics soon, as those are the subjects I am studying in school. Linear algebra will be my first stop.

**Andrew Quinn (andrew-quinn-1)**on Book Review: Naive Set Theory (MIRI research guide) · 2018-06-23T05:31:40.099Z · LW · GW

The inverses Halmos defines here are more general than the inverse functions described on wikipedia. Halmos' inverses work even when the functions are not bijective.

I believe that what you are speaking of here is Halmos's discourse on what are called these days "images and preimages" or "inverse images". I found the subtle difference between these and inverse functions proper annoying when I was learning proof writing, so let me illustrate the concept, so that we have a *caveat emptor* for the budding mathematician.

Take the sets A = {0, 1} and B = {2}, and define a function f: A -> B as f(x) = 2 for whatever x in A you throw in there.

Then,

- f(0) = 2, of course.
- f(1) = 2, as well.
- f(A) = {2}, which is the
*image*of the whole*set*A "under" the function f. - f^{-1}(B) = {0, 1}, which is the
*pre-image*of the whole*set*of B under f. Meaning, "anything I can throw into f, from A, to get something in B". - f^{-1}(2) , however, is
**meaningless,**at least as far as functions go. Functions can only return one thing, so how would you decide whether f^{-1}(2) should give you back 0 or 1?

If you say f^{-1}(2) should give back both, well, now you're not dealing with an inverse *function* any more, you're dealing with the inverse *relation*. You can in fact deal with that, with some other tools in the book

These are more general, which is nice, but I've found that in a rigorous environment it won't do to describe them with the same language you use with functions. You really want to toy with these gently, if you can.

**Andrew Quinn (andrew-quinn-1)**on Book Review: Naïve Set Theory (MIRI course list) · 2018-06-23T05:11:09.095Z · LW · GW

I used your axiom list and Zorn's lemma proof sketch to make Mnemosyne cards. Thanks a bunch!

**Andrew Quinn (andrew-quinn-1)**on Two prescriptions for fixing a procedural/declarative knowledge mismatch. · 2018-06-23T04:57:43.065Z · LW · GW

Thanks, habryka. I added a short explanation and linked this in the post. I thought it would be more common knowledge than it is around these parts.

**Andrew Quinn (andrew-quinn-1)**on [Math] Towards Proof Writing as a Skill In Itself · 2018-06-17T03:55:28.610Z · LW · GW

Nice dude!

I don't think this refutes my essential point, but it does add a caveat to it that might help exceptions realize when such a course wouldn't actually help them much. I've never taken a course in logic, and have in fact only recently cracked open a book on FOL proper.