I don’t like social media very much. I never really subscribed to the whole Friendster, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, Google Wave, Google+, and what have you social network sort of approach that you need to have “friends” and “followers” and “follow” other people.

I always preferred to be the master of my domain. The king of my castle. But literally, not the Seinfeld euphemisms sense. In any case. I’ve been thinking about a page where I can post short thoughts about math, life and otherwise. The blog is not suitable, since I’m not going to add a post each time I have a new thought. So instead I’ve started a blurbs page. Each blurb has a number, and an anchored link that you can use in case you want to share it.

You can find the first blurb here. And it is, in fact, set theoretic in nature. It is something that I realized one time when I was talking to students on the first class of the semester in the introduction to set theory course.

Have you heard? Young Set Theory 2015 will take place in Jerusalem! How exciting is that?
Tomorrow (Monday, July 20th) is the last day for registration. This means that you have only a few hours to get yourself together and send an application!

Here are the rules of research. Feel free to add your own.

If it seems obvious, it’s probably false as stated.

If it seems obvious and true, it’s probably false without additional hypotheses.

If you think that you wrote a proof, you probably missed something obvious. See (1) and/or (2).

You missed something obvious, see (1).

When you go to see your advisor, suddenly all your thoughts align, and you find the solution.

Two hours after finally talking with your advisor, you realize that your solution is obvious, therefore (1) or (2) apply.

If you use forcing to prove the argument, then you probably missed some object being encoded generically.

If you use forcing, and you didn’t miss some crucial object, then you missed some other crucial object not being coded by the generic.

When the truth is found to be lies, and all the joy within you dies…

It’s not false if you can force it.

It’s not true if you used the axiom of choice more than three times in the proof.

It’s not cheating if you asked a visitor to the university whose visit did not span longer than two weeks from the moment you asked them.

If your question was about inner models, you may extend the above timespan to a month. Equally, if the question is about the axiom of choice, it should be shortened to a week.

It’s not considered unethical to make sacrifice in order to appease Mayan and Aztec gods. Just in case we got it wrong, and they’re in charge of the mathematical universe.

If it still seems obvious, you’re probably right. It’s still false, though.

If you need six technical lemmas, whose proof is reduced to a single line (or just one lemma with an actual proof), then it’s probably obvious. Unfortunately, see (1) and (2).

If by some chance something is obvious, but you wrote out the proof, and it checks out, then it wasn’t obvious at all.

Remember what the dormouse said: feed your head.

If you haven’t watched Futurama in a while, then you’re doing something wrong.

Whatever happens, it’s the other guy’s fault. Also, see (1).

I just work here, you know? I don’t.

Rolling a D20 die to determine the truth value of a statement is the original algorithm behind proof verification software.

When you hit the wall, and you’re about to give up and decide that whatever you’re trying to prove is false, see (4).

The only proofs that write themselves are obvious proofs. If your proof is obvious, see (2) and (3).

To be honest, it needs more cowbell.

Seriously, you’re gonna want that cowbell in your proof.