Today, this video tutorial led me to the application verifier, which is pure awesome, as explained here in part. I had never heard of this thing before, and I am having the time of my life with it. If you like Windows hax, check this out.

*everywhere*on $R$, which has infinite size, but $f$ is not the zero polynomial. The statement is of course true if $R$ is a commutative integral domain.

`anc`

at the root of the submission package.
If you are a novice to uploading files to the arXiv, like me, this might be confusing. What is the *submission package*? I only ever submitted a single $\KaTeX$ file! Well, let me put it straight for you.
- In the directory with your `.tex`

file(s), make a directory called `anc`

.
- Place all your source code and stuff in that directory.
- Make a zip file containing all your LaTeX sources and the folder `anc`

.
- Upload that zip file to the arXiv.
Trust me - everything will be fine.
*is*a blog after all, so I thought I'd let the 8 people who read it know that for the next six weeks, I will be attending a special semester on Algorithms and Complexity in Algebraic Geometry at the Simons Institute for the Theory of Computing in Berkeley. So. If you happen to be in the bay area, give me a shout.

*uninstall*the amazon app store. Other android users also hate the amazon app store because it is an obnoxious app which is mean and does not let you use apps which you

*paid*for with

*money*after you get rid of the data-leaking abomination it is. Do not use it. I simply bought ownCloud on the humble, trustworthy google play store again. I have no time to deal with amazon over those 79 cents. But I have time to write this scornful post.

**obviously**of transcendence degree $1$ over $\Bbbk$ because $f(x,y)=0$ is a new relation between $x$ and $y$. The prerequisites to this text are basic undergraduate knowledge of algebra and topology. The question was about the obviousness of the above statement. We came up with a proof that only really requires some linear algebra. I found it rather cute. Do you want to see it?

*because*it is different and personally, it gave me a better

*feeling*for why the two notions coincide.

**then**, that I realized

**why**Sudoku is so horribly boring, and chess is not. It was the fact that I could code a Sudoku solver and solve the Sudoku he was puzzling about, and I would be able to do it faster than it would take him to solve the entire thing by hand. This does not apply to chess, evidently. Of course, I confidently explained this to him.

*»Prove it.«*, he said. So I did. Do you want to know more?

*Rabinowitch*Trick2 (check it out, that has got to be the shortest paper ever). But who

*is*that awesome guy Rabinowitsch? I found out today, and the answer is basically in in this MO post: > Rainich was giving a lecture in which he made use of a clever trick which he had discovered. Someone in the audience indignantly interrupted him pointing out that this was the famous

*Rabinowitsch*trick and berating Rainich for claiming to have discovered it. Without a word Rainich turned to the blackboard, picked up the chalk, and wrote

**RABINOWITSCH**. He then put down the chalk, picked up an eraser and began erasing letters. When he was done what remained was

**RABINOWITSCH**. He then went on with his lecture. Apparently, George Yuri Rainich is the mysterious stranger that went by the name of Rabinowitsch, which was his birthname34. I even updated the wikipedia page. Oh right, the reason this even caught my attention: Daniel R. Grayson has a really sweet, short proof of the Nullstellensatz, also using the Rainich Trick.

- Oscar Zariski.
*A new proof of Hilbert's Nullstellensatz*, Bulletin of the Ameican Mathematical Society Volume 53, Number 4 (1947), 362-368. [↩] - J. L. Rabinowitsch,
*Zum Hilbertschen Nullstellensatz*, Mathematische Annalen Volume 102, No. 1 (1929), 520. [↩] - Bruce P. Palka,
*Editor's Endnotes (May 2004)*, The American Mathematical Monthly 111 (5): 456–460 [↩] - Bruce P. Palka,
*Editor's Endnotes (December 2004)*. The American Mathematical Monthly 111 (10): 927–929 [↩]