Classic anecdote of the missing proof for Shizuo Kakutani’s lemma.
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Old joke.
Professor writes a formula on the blackboard. He says "Obviously, this is..." Then he stops, looks at the formula and rushes out of the room.
The next day class resumes. the professor walks in with a big smile on his face.
"I was correct. It is obvious!"
Mathematicians frequently use phrases like It’s obvious or It’s easy to see, which can be profoundly discouraging for a student who does not immediately find a concept simple. In math, grappling with extremely difficult problems is part of the learning process. “A challenging experience,” Ardila told me, “can easily become an alienating one.” It’s especially important to make sure that students are not discouraged during early challenges—what’s hard to see now may become easier in time. He struck this typically demoralizing math language from his teaching.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2021/09/bias-math-sexism-racism/620207/
Most things are hard until you get them. But that's especially true in Maths. From elementary school to university until the necessary neurons in your head connect every problem seems daunting at first. But once you see what the actual problem is, once you see what tricks can be used they become trivial to solve.
Chemistry was worse than math for me. Somehow they expected you to remember a variation of a formula from way far back, and understand that you could now use a different notation system to derive another, third formula from a new formula that you had just learned... but didn't explain that and just threw that new third formula (with entirely different units/inputs) at you and it always was a slog to go track down how it all went together because the mental concepts just didn't flow. I don't even remember the name of the textbook or the professor of the class, but I still remember those stupid blue boxes in the textbook where mental mindfuck took place.
I've tutored calculus, and probably the biggest example I've seen of this is the difference quotient. The formula is exceedingly obvious once you understand it, but it takes a lot of people some time for it to "click".
Sometimes you just need it explained like you are five or something that was explained earlier in the "concepts" section of the textbook needs to be explained explicitly during the problem demonstration sections. And on top of that repeated explanation of the same concept is another key factor in solidifying concepts but I've found math and physics books to be so lacking in this that it's as if they are trying to hit the absolute minimum number of word count a textbook can have. Was very frustrating during college.
This is something I've been thinking about recently, I'll see something that is way too complex for me, and think "well this person is just smarter I could never do that." After 3 months of doing simpler stuff, it now seems challenging but doable, and I even see flaws in the way they did it. Just doing something for long enough, even pretty complex things become second nature.
Ah favorite words of professors everywhere
"obviously"
"simply"
"trivially"
I had a linear algebra professor who did that all the time. Never did figure out what an eigenvector is not why I would want 14 ways of finding one. Brilliant man, terrible teacher.
When you multiply a matrix and a vector, you get a new vector. An eigenvector of a matrix means the output and input vectors are pointing in the same direction.
These are important for various real-world applications, but more explanation would probably have to be context specific.
So... Like to find the optimal impact angle to send an object towards a target?
The largest eigenvector would be the most probable direction and velocity of the struck object after impact?
Usually it is something like the eigenvectors represent stable states of the system, and other states will tend to be unstable until and decay into one of those stable states.
For example, the eigenvectors of the moment of inertia tensor represent “principle axes” of rotation, and these represent the possible stable axes of rotation (usually only one or two axes is actually stable, it depends on the object).
By analyzing principle axes of inertia, you can explain why a frisbee’s rotation is very stable around one axis but unstable around all other axes. And you can predict this kind of behavior for other objects.
Another example is in quantum mechanics, eigenvectors correspond to states that result after “measurement collapse” of the wavefunction, and are useful in various quantum mechanics problems, such as predicting the behavior of atoms, molecules, or semiconductors.
The largest eigenvector would be the most probable direction and velocity of the struck object after impact?
The size of the eigenvector doesn’t really matter, because if a vector is an eigenvector, scaling it (changing its length without changing the direction) will also result in an eigenvector. It’s the direction of the eigenvector that matters.
However, the eigenvalue does matter and often has real world implications, for example, it can help you determine which of the principle axes of rotation will result in a stable rotation .
An eigenvector doesn’t change direction when it is multiplied by the matrix, but it might change its length. The amount that length changes is the eigenvalue. vM=ev where M is a matrix, v is an eigenvector of M, and e is the corresponding eigen value.
An eigenvector is just kind of the direction the matrix is pointing
Well duh, obviously.
The problem is that the eigenvector is the thing that satisfies the equation he showed you. That's what it is.
Mathematics is full of completely unsatisfying answers, and only when apply it you get any meaningful idea why those things exist. But those are not their definition.
The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.
It's so blatant!
If you have to tell someone something, it means the something is not obvious.
obviusly
From the same type of motherfucker who somehow both understands concepts like the scientific method and interpreting data, but will look at a 15% pass rate in their entry level classes and blame it on the students
I'm too stupid for this
Obviously....
that's how athletes talk in interviews to avoid saying anything
That one is "evidently". It wasn't obvious until you tried.
… obviously /s
the strangest yet most profound things find me while im on shrooms. or maybe that's only when i start noticing them...
this post makes so much sense, yet the more i think about it the less sense it makes.
im gonna go touch grass and look at the electeic spiders and the strange webs they weave now
holy shit i solved it.
THE PURPOSE OF LIFE IS TO DO SOMETHING
well, i guess to do absolutely nothing and die is still something to do 🤷😅😂