>>12918118I can't visualise this 7D tautology, but it sounds quite awful. Was it as horrible as it sounds?
>>12918410>WordswordswordswordwordsIt's a book aimed at teaching stuff, not just a sequence mathematical symbols. If it is your first algebra class, then the following won't do much good:
.
>Abstract nonsense from page 1A bad choice if true.
>better do your linear algebra again before we let you see any cool stuffWhere do you not do linear algebra before abstract?
>ten years of number theory as a prerequisiteI doubt such books exist, but if they do, then it's a bad choice again.
>>12918990Aye [ ]
Nay [x[
Empty [ ]
Away [ ]
>>12919122Do not bully the anon for he's mistake.
>>12919076Do you mean like as a space? One way is to turn it into a simplicial complex by using its vertices as 0-simplices and edges as 1-simplices, and then taking its geometric realisation. Alternatively, if it is directed, then you can say if there is an arrow , and then define a topology with basis sets , with trivial arrows for every vertex in your graph. However, the latter will only topologise your vertex set, but it works for at least finite graphs without non-trivial loops, probably infinite ones too.
