>>11004336I'd love to disagree, but I also never got warm with fuzzy math. If you look at library stacks, it's clear that there was a lot of hope around the 80's and 90's, but I suppose it's not much more than another way to look at things already treated otherwise. I'd love to be wrong on that too.
I don't know why modular arithmetic made it there. Just like BRST-Cohomology. As I said, it had a physicists bias.
>>11006614I suppose there's also no such a nice and handy formula as the Taylor expansion for products.
At one point I also found that (unless something goes very wrong I guess), you have that
That's derived in video on the channel I linked above somewhere, but the clip is not PG13.
I do think there must be a point of speaking more often in terms of the Gamma functions product representation (in terms of rationals).
There's also the Weierstrass expression with the exp upfront and I couldn't get warm with it yet.
I'd be interested to see what your building up of algebra looks like if you e.g. use
instead of
Also there's
and you get to those expression a lot in QFT.
Similarly (more exotically),
and other product integrals.
Now, to guess "why" more morally from an exotic (topos theoretic) standpoint, it's maybe worth pointing out that
