//
sign in
Profile
by @danabra.mov
Profile
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
Profile
by @jimpick.com
AviHandle
by @danabra.mov
AviHandle
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
AviHandle
by @katherine.computer
EventsList
by @katherine.computer
ProfileHeader
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileHeader
by @danabra.mov
ProfileMedia
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePlays
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileReplies
by @danabra.mov
Record
by @atsui.org
Skircle
by @danabra.mov
StreamPlacePlaylist
by @katherine.computer
+ new component
Profile
Loading...
Lecturer in Maths & Stats at Bristol. Interested in probabilistic + numerical computation, statistical modelling + inference. (he / him). Homepage: https://sites.google.com/view/sp-monte-carlo Seminar: https://sites.google.com/view/monte-carlo-semina
Sam Power






Loading...
I should say, this is more at the level of pursuing new projects than it is about shoehorning a proof technique into a result that doesn't want or need it.
always nice to be recognised
fiddling with the stochastic heat equation (during a talk which is partially about this)
More 'maths in the wild'
The closest I'm getting to home today (stuck at Schiphol on the journey back from Zurich!):
(Made it home eventually! Time for a chill weekend.)
Something which I've realised is very true about my approach to mathematics research is that I'll occasionally see a proof technique ( / assumption / theoretical framework / ... ) so good that I will go out of my way to find a reason to use it for myself. Not sure how prevalent it is (maybe quite?).