Nice blog holeinmyheart, where can I subscribe?
Reader: You may not know this, but I'm a hole of many talents. One of my many
talents is doing impressions. And let's say, my skills are very refined. Yes: even
more refined than all the brilliant talk show hosts that peddled Trump
impressions for the past 4 years. Nay, nay, I don't mean to brag. In fact, if I may,
if only for 10 seconds, kneel for the comedy genius, Stephen Colbert, and his
mindblowing, breathtaking Trump impression. My. God. I just... I don't even
know how to describe it. Every time Stephen Colbert, the comedy G-d, whipped
out his Trump impression on the show, I was just... at a loss for words at the skill
and artistry. It's so uncanny I sometimes even mistook it for Donald Trump
himself. My only complaint is that he didn't use it enough. I know this is a
hot take, but I honestly think over the past 4 years, Stephen Colbert
should have utilized his Trump impression more often. That is merely my
humble opinion. But I guess there is value in the ephemerality of great
things, right? The sublime is often fleeting. Sometimes, something like
Stephen Colbert's uncanny Trump impression may only appear once in
a blue moon, if that blue moon perhaps shined every weeknight for 4
years straight multiple times in a single show. Actually, I'd like to take
this opportunity to make a prayer. Guys: I know I'm usually a super
funny, comical guy, but sometimes I have to get serious. Even the funniest
men cry sometimes, just like Colbert himself did when Trump denied the
election results. Now it's my turn to cry. I'd like to take a moment to
cry, and pray. And I'd like you to join me. Indeed: I'd like to dedicate
this prayer in praise of the YHWH of comedy, Stephen Colbert, and his
sublime Trump accent. Let us have moment of silence for the next 20 dots.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
But anyway, my impressions are even better than the talk show kings of
comedy. However, I have to preface this by saying that I have, let's say, a
different style. And by that I mean, I do impressions in writing. Yes: I'm an
expert at textual impressions. My voice irl is very sexy and dynamic, but
alas, this blog is not voiced, and thus I must focus my efforts at mastery
within the written form. But boy, do I have it mastered. I can do an
impression like no other. And, here, in this post, I'll give you an exclusive
example. I, holeinmyheart, present to you my impression of none other than...
holeinmyheart. Yes: I will do an impression of myself over the course of section 4:
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. IF THE FUTURE IS UNCERTAIN
MY BRAIN CANT HANDLE IT WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA I CAN'T
MAKE BASIC LIFE DECISIONS WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. I CAN'T
MAKE BIG BOI DECISIONS LIKE MOVING SO I'M GOING TO WHINE
ABOUT IT ON MY BLOG THATS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT MATH
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA I'M A LOSER.
I'M A BIG FAT LOSER. ACTUALLY I'M SHORT AND UNDERWEIGHT, BUT
EITHER WAY I'M A LOSER WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
PLEASE PITY ME WHEN I MAKE SELF-DEPRECATING JOKES
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. I LIKE TO SKIP EXERCISES
AND DELAY UPLOADS WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. I DONT
WANNA LEARN ABOUT FIELD EXTENSIONS WAAAAAAAAAAAAA. I'M
SCWARED OF THE FBI WAAAAAAAAAAAA. I DONT WANNA TAKE
THE VACKSEEN EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NO RATIONAL REASON
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. I LET MY OWN STRAWMEN WIN
ARGUMENTS AGAINST ME CAUSE I'M THAT BAD AT ARGUING
WAAAAAAAAAAAAA. PWEASE UNDERSTAND ME EVEN THOUGH I'M A
PSYCHOPATH WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Thank you, thank you. *bows*. Ahahaha, yes, yes, it's quite a good impression.
Told you. How did I get so good? I don't know. It must be my
overflowing
sense of empathy. Indeed: The reason I'm skipping 4.8 and 4.9 is because I want to procrastinate
on learning about field extensions as long as possible, so we've already
arrived at the end of this section. LE SEASON BINALE =DDDDDDD
I basically already did this exercise back in
4.4b . Remember, letting t,u be
coordinates for P1 and letting t≠0 (i.e. t = 1), I got the union of two varieties in
A3:
The former is the "exceptional curve" and the latter is "strict transform" I guess.
They obviously only meet when u = 0, so at the point (0, 0, 0) in A3 or the
point (0, 0, 1, 0) in A2 × P1. And this strict transform, as I said in
4.4b, is just the twisted cubic curve, which, again, is isomorphic to A1.
Well, I'm pretty sure that's the intention here. The exercise is "done". But I still
have a fuckload of questions.
First of all, to obtain the exceptional curve and strict transform, I'm only
following the process outlined in example 4.9.1, but, uhhh.................. What the
fuck is even going on.
WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON.
WHY IS THIS SO FUCKING UNCLEAR.
Look: First thing that's super sus (bro......... I can NEVER take breaking bad
seriously after hank called walt a sussy baka.......... omg the internet is
like totally INSANE. breaking bad? more like BREAKING MY MIND.
i just cant believe that celebrities would cringily attach themselves to
popular memes in 2021 this has NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE this is jsut
IMPOSSIBLE guys) is that the example refers to the "strict transform" of the
x axis and the "strict transform" of the y axis, whereas this exercise
asks us to consider the "strict transform" of just Y as a whole. So..........
what the fucking fuck????? that wasn't defined, you sussy baka?????????
Now I resolved this by looking online and realizing that the "strict transform" is
basically "the part of the inverse image of a variety that isn't the exceptional
curve." So in the example, that Ỹ is the strict transform of Y , which confirms
that my work is correct.
but this is STILL fucking confusing. Aren't we missing some points? Remember:
We're only considering the part where t≠0 (t = 1). And yet this gives us the
entirety of Ỹ = (ϕ-1(Y - O))? What about the points corresponding to
t = 0? Do they go in the exceptional curve or the strict transform? Because
for the case of y2 = x3 (i.e. this exercise) I admittedly get only one
point: (0, 0, 0, 1). But where does this point go????? Is it not a part of
Ỹ = (ϕ-1(Y - O))? Why not? If instead of t≠0 we did u≠0, we appear to get
something different. Is that also Ỹ = (ϕ-1(Y - O)) somehow? And what about
the point "left out" in that case?
I'm explaining my confusion very badly. my head is FUCKING BREAKING
(BREAKIND BAD LOLOOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOL). I'll try to think
this over before moving onto the next section. I think it's valuable to spend at
least some time "freely exploring" math instead of just trying to solve exercises.
In any case, seeya in the next section