I.5.12d

8/26/2021

Tragedy has bestruck this blog again. 3 months following the Murray-holeinmyheart
incident, I have now had to make my second redaction. Yes, it's Redacted 2:
Electric Boogaloo. I made another cringe post. And now Neil Gaiman is joining
Bill Murray in the DEATH PILE. Bill Murray: SLAIN. Neil Gaiman: SLAIN.
Who's next? Was it worth it? Was it worth the 6 million more readers we
lost? Here we are, standing on a pile of 6+6=12 million dead readers.
Look into my eyes, holeinmyheart. Was it really worth it? All just for
revenge? Just to get the last laugh against Mr. Gaiman? Do you feel
happy? Are you happy? Look into my eyes and tell me you're happy.
No, no. Don't look into my eyes. *Picks up the body of a dead reader; a
femboy with his tongue sticking out in a sort of lifeless ahegao... the Final
Orgasm* Look into HIS eyes. Look into dead eyes and tell HIM you're happy.
Or how about this one? *Picks up the dead body of another reader–a
poor little brush rabbit, yes, cute rabbits read this blog. It's accessible
to all species* Look into HIS eyes and tell him you're happy. Can you
do it? Answer me, holeinmyheart. Can you do it? CAN YOU? WAS IT
WORTH IT? WAS IT FUCKING WORTH IT, YOU SICK BASTARD!
ARRRGGGGH *SLAP, SLAP* ARRRRRGGGGH,,, YOU KILLED MY
FAMILYYYYYYYYYY.... YOU BASTARRRRRRD.... MY WHOLE
FAMILY READS THIS BLOG AND YOU KILLED THEM WITH YOUR
CRINGY POST,,,, ARRGGGHHH *STRANGLE* ....... YOU FUCKING
BASTARDDDDDDD. YOU KILLED THEMMMM....... MY DAD, MY
MOM, MY POOR LITTLE SIS... SHE WAS ONLY 5 AND YOU KILLED
HERRRRRRRR.... HOW IS YOUR WRITING SO BAD THAT IT LITERALLY
KILLS PEOPLE... ~~It's okay they'll just get counted as covid deaths
LOLOLOLOLOL~~ I have a list here of some of the fallen readers of this
blog: Rainbow Dash, Pinkie Pie, Twilight Sparkle, Lee Goldson, TK-47,
Sakurafish (extra rip), the boymoder poster, Juan Ovus (your sacrifice will never
be forgotten. Just remember that although Ovyu wasn't your biological
brother, he still loved you), Kilim, Ronald McDonald, his sociopathic
friend... The list keeps going. And they're only some of the 6 million we
lost. Many of them are nameless anons, just like (You). Now, everyone,
kneel. ~~#KneelForNeil~~ Kneel for the lost souls.

"Ummmm, was it that bad?" Errrr, not as bad as 3.16 (that one only took an
hour to be beaten off the face of this blog), but bad enough. OK: although
redacted, I did in fact complete a,b,c (and this time I do have a copy of it, in case
I ever need to look back at the math part, LOL). So let's finish the job. Here we
are, baby: Part D.

So... the thing is, I can do this exercise. Just watch. The "Q′" they're looking for
is obviously Q′ = Z(f) (it's just f in k[x_{0},…,x_{r}] instead of k[x_{0},…x_{n}]. Now,
let's say P = (p_{0},…,p_{r}) ∈ Q and S = (s_{0},…,s_{r},s_{r+1},…,s_{n}) ∈ Z (and we
know s_{0},…,s_{r} = 0). So if I embed P^{r} in P^{n} like they describe. Then I'm
sending

(x_{0},…,x_{r}) |
(x_{0},…,x_{r}, 0, 0,…, 0) |

(so clearly P^{r} ∩ Z = ∅, as needed). So where does P get sent to? P gets
sent to (p_{0},…,p_{r}, 0, 0,…, 0), right? So we have

P | = (p_{0},…,p_{r}, 0,…, 0) | ||

S | = (0,…, 0,s_{r+1},…,s_{n})0 |

Now, we are going to connect P and S with a line. Now, if you did read
yesterday's awful post, you'll know that I don't know how to do this in projective
space. However, let's take the "common sense" route and connect them
parametrically as if they were in affine space. The "line" between the two is the
set of points L = (l_{0},…,l_{n}), where

l_{0} | = s_{0} + (p_{0} - s_{0})t | ||

l_{n} | = s_{n} + (p_{n} - s_{n})t |

Plugging in the 0s, we get

l_{0} | = p_{0}t | ||

l_{r} | = p_{r}t | ||

l_{r+1} | = s_{r+1}(1 - t) | ||

l_{n} | = s_{n}(1 - t) |

where t ∈ k is a scalar. Now keep in mind that there are no restrictions on
s_{r+1},…,s_{n} are free, which means, according to the equations above, l_{r+1},…,l_{n}
are also FREE. So I can get rid of those equations entirely. Now we are left with

l_{0} | = p_{0}t | ||

l_{r} | = p_{r}t |

But WAIT: This set of equations say that l_{0},…,l_{r} merely have the same
restrictions as p_{0},…,p_{r}. I.e. f(l_{0},…,l_{r}) = 0. I.e. f(l_{0},…,l_{n}) = 0.

The only problem is that I used the parametric representation of a line, which is
not how we defined "lines" in the context of varieties. A line in projective space is
a linear variety–the zero set of a set of linear homogenous polynomials. I still
don't know how to construct that. I know it's equivalent to the parametric
representation BUT AAAAAAAAAAAAA.