Ces gens sont vraiment obstinés dans leur connerie. Tout le monde sait qu'imposer le port du masque en extérieur est inutile, ça peut même être nuisible, un juge administratif a suspendu la mesure idiote, mais ils veulent quand même persister. Mais POURQUOI???
Mais c'est surtout cette obstination dans la bêtise qui me laisse perplexe. La mesure n'est réclamée ni soutenue par personne, aucun scientifique, aucun groupe significatif, il n'y a pas de popularité à récolter à la prendre… je ne comprends vraiment pas.
Bon, ils ont repris un arrêté qui doit correspondre déjà plus ou moins aux cas (marchés, files d'attente…) qui étaient déjà visés par les arrêtés précédents (je crois — ces arrêtés sont introuvables), donc ce n'est pas trop con.
Last week I got a lot of attention because of the claim that the “color of something infinitely hot” is (148,177,255) in sRGB space, which was reproduced by John C. Baez 🔽. Some have wondered as to the exact value, let me explain this and why. 🧵⤵️ •1/37
Now for some background: first, I did this computation back around 2005, when writing a page about colors and colorimetry — madore.org/~david/misc/co… — in my usual style of trying to understand something and writing all about it so I can forget it afterwards. •2/37
So if you want some more detailed explanations about colors and CIE matching functions and what “white” and so on mean, I refer to the page mentioned in the previous tweet. For more about the blackbody spectrum and the Rayleigh-Jeans law, see J. C. Baez's explanations. •3/37
If ℳ is a nonstandard model of PA (Peano arithmetic), with ℕ identified with the standard subset of ℳ, we can define six sets of subsets of ℕ which might be called “non-standard computable in ℳ”, namely:
ⓐ those X⊆ℕ for which there is e∈ℳ such that ∀i∈ℕ. ℳ⊧(e•i)↓ and ∀i∈ℕ. (i∈X⇔ℳ⊧(e•i)=1),
ⓑ those X⊆ℕ for which there is e∈ℕ such that ∀i∈ℕ. ℳ⊧(e•i)↓ and ∀i∈ℕ. (i∈X⇔ℳ⊧(e•i)=1),
ⓒ those X⊆ℕ for which there is e∈ℳ such that ∀i∈ℳ. ℳ⊧(e•i)↓ and ∀i∈ℕ. (i∈X⇔ℳ⊧(e•i)=1),
ⓓ those X⊆ℕ for which there is e∈ℕ such that ∀i∈ℳ. ℳ⊧(e•i)↓ and ∀i∈ℕ. (i∈X⇔ℳ⊧(e•i)=1),
This leads me to ask: is there a specific name for a morphism φ:A→B of commutative rings (or maybe just an inclusion) such that 𝔪 ↦ φ^−1(𝔪) defines a bijection between maximal ideals of B and those of A (i.e., Specmax(B) → Specmax(A))?
(This is the case of the inclusion of the ring of smooth real functions inside the ring of continuous ones in the context of the tweet cited above.)
There are a number of sub-questions or variants, here:
‣ When does (pullback by) φ take a maximal ideal to a maximal ideal?
‣ When does it define a bijection on the prime ideals?
‣ Does the conjunction of the two above imply that it defines a bijection on the maximal ideals?
Let me write a thread about the steady state of the SIRS epidemiological model and what it can tell us about what endemic covid might look like (how often we will catch it and whether we have any control over this), or at least, what the parameters involved are. 🧵⤵️ •1/43
(I had written a thread 🔽 about this at the beginning of the pandemic, in a different context, concerning other endemic coronaviruses, but I think it's now time to revisit it, and rather than refer to it, I'll redo it from scratch.) •2/43
In the SIRS model, people go through three states cyclically: S = “susceptible”, i.e., NOT immune to infection; I = “infectious” (=infected); and R = “recovered”, which in this model should rather be taken to mean “currently immune”. Unlike in SIR, immunity DOES NOT last. •3/43