/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2574924

OoOoOoOoOoOooh.

dat nigga just went H.A.M.

?

It's not a big deal.

>>2574842

By the way, Med School is tougher to get into more times than not. However, getting into a RESPECTABLE PhD program can be extremely difficult and is, quite possibly, the second hardest thing you could do. Again, it also depends on the school/concentration. There's also the question of funding.

NYU has an amazing Grad program, but they bullshit a voluminous amount of people each year. If they don't want you, they'll accept you but state that they're not funding your study. This is nonsensical because each semester is 30k, and that would force you to pay out of your pocket. Some universities do this to soften the blow of 'rejection' or when they just want to bleed people dry. PhD/Masters programs can accept you, but not fund you. This is, in essence, a softened form of rejection. If you're accepted into a program, get funded. Those programs are expensive.

>>2574842

Depends on the University and what you want to study/concentration. It also depends on your research experience, recommendations, GPA, etc. Concentration is extremely important, though.

Let's say I'm interested in Geometry(which I am, btw). Let's also say I've been accepted to both Princeton and UCLA. Everyone will automatically say, 'CHOOSE PRINCETON,' but the smarter choice is UCLA. Do you know why?

Princeton is filled to the brim with number theorists, but no Geometry professors. UCLA has a few prized Geometry researchers and I would acquire the best education there.

>>2574826

...

>>2574819

OP, you can choose to acquire your Masters or PhD. Some people go straight for the PhD and skip the Masters. The Masters is a separate degree in itself, and doesn't necessarily have to be associated with what you study for your PhD, although some people opt to stay within the same line of study.

Theoretically, I could acquire a Masters in Mathematics with my concentration in PDE(partial differential equations) and then obtain a PhD in Mathematics with a concentration in Number Theory. As I stated earlier, you don't need a masters to obtain the PhD.

It's nonsensical, OP.

People have varying levels of aptitude in certain subjects. In some subjects, they're absolutely amazing; in others, they're intellectual peasants at best.

I practically skipped my linear algebra class at least once a week and I was still able to score in the top 90s on exams. I could not, however, do that shit in my programming class. Despite being a "whiz" in that linear algebra class, I had to study three hours a day daily to comprehend C++. With other people, it's opposite.

This whole 'hurr durr hez a genius' shit is just that: shit. Einstein wasn't so much a genius as he was a study fanatic. Sure, he had amazing intuition and superior intellect, but he also studied like his life depended on it. Same with Bohr, and same with all the other old school scientists.

Try to actually read a biographical account of true 'geniuses.' Nash, whose life was told in the movie "A Beautiful Mind," is considered a genius by many. He was extremely studious, however, and very disciplined.

>>2574755

After you believe you've mastered Algebra and Precalculus, register for University. If you've been out of school for quite sometime, apply to a Community College. If you did exactly what I stated earlier, you should be able to pass their entrance exam relatively easily. You'll surpass the remedials and go straight into Calculus. From there, you'll take off. Biology, Chem and the rest -- there are no remedials. You'll start off in Bio I, Chem I, Physics I, et cetera. The mathematical concepts you learn now will aid you in those other courses.

ITT: Horrible advice by neckbeard armchair morons.

OP, go to Khan Academy and try out the algebra section. When/if you feel comfortable and think you have a solid grasp of the concepts, purchase an algebra textbook from a bookstore and tryout a voluminous assortment of problems. After you feel exceedingly comfortable with the subject, download/print out a few quizzes from University websites. Solve them, check your answers with their answer sheet and you can safely say that you've achieved virtuosity.

Soon thereafter, acquire a textbook on Pre-Calculus and try to stick to that book as best as possible. You want to move away from the internet and affix yourself to learning from a book; as such, Khan Academy shall only act as your secondary option. If/when you feel comfortable, download/print out quizzes and solve them.

Above all else, however, become involved. Whenever there's a discussion on Mathematics, or someone needs help with a homework problem, try to contribute. I'm not talking /sci/ here; I'm talking in general. If you believe you can help, then do so. You're actually truly tested on the subject when someone can spring a question on you and you can answer it almost instantaneously. That's true intelligence, in my opinion.

>>2573491

troll bait. do not fucking get riled up, /sci/.

>>2573286

>That's why I'm asking for textbook reccomendations so that I can read up on the topics that I need to. You don't need to completely understand a topic to solve it.

This is not fucking true. That analogy you gave with the third grader is mechanical than anything else. As a Mathematics tutor, I see people attempting to learn Mathematics in a mechanical manner and it just doesn't work. Even if that 3rd Grader could solve that specific polynomial, it doesn't mean he can solve several others which have differing properties.

In order to solve some of these problems, or even one, you need to comprehend the basic structure/foundations which underlie them. You can't just buy a shitload of books, read snippets of them and say, ''oh I comprehend this lol.''

There are people who dedicate their entire lives to these problems, and many more have died in VAIN to fucking solve them. Can you imagine living your entire life in an attempt to solve a problem, and never doing so? That's an excruciating way to die and many have felt that anguish. That original post you made is flying in the face of every Mathematician who has ever attempted solving one of those MP problems. You're getting a pissed off reaction by the denizens of /sci/ because of this. You're shitting on them tremendously. You also said, "all it takes is time." While that is true, it's not like human life is infinite. It could take the next 500 years for another solution to come about.

>>2524855

>My real-world experience tells me that every grad student or PhD girl I've ever seen is ugly and/or awkward and/or nerdy beyond redemption.

Ok, I can agree with this for the most part.

>See, people just don't wind up doing science or going to grad school if regular sex is an option in HS.

I don't think so, Tim. Troll-o-meter off the charts.

>>2524350
>>2524350

This. Thread's over.

>This can be rigorously proven, actually, though the rigorous proofs probably can't be fit into threads on 4chan very well.

If any of you are wondering what he means, he's referencing a denumerability chart. The chart allows us to see if a set(say, N) is countably infinite or uncountably infinite. The proof he's talking about showcases an issue with the diagonal aspect of the chart proof. A popular proof showcases that [0, 1] is incompatible with the natural numbers or N. As such, uncountably infinite.

>>2524134

This, pretty much.

And all those who are spouting nonsense about the incompatibility of mathematics and religion: You're a bunch of fucking downies.

Our last true and purely intuitive Mathematician was extremely religious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan

>>2522636

Oh, she was?

Damn. :( That sucks.

>captcha: For alonemen

>>2522628

And yes, I'm aware that the argument
>Then, why do I know respected female professors who aren't bitchy?

is faulty in design. It lacks substance, logic, etc. My point is that they do exist, and you don't have to be bitchy. Tough, yes. I'd want you to be tough because academia is rigorous/tough as it is, and for females it's much tougher. However, there's no need for bitchiness.

That's all I have to say on the subject, though.

>>2522595

Then, why do I know respected female professors who aren't bitchy? Also,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Randall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Randall

Etc, etc.

There's a difference between being tough and bitchy. Tough=!bitchy. Both of those aforementioned women, especially Lisa, are tough as fucking nails and could destroy a man/woman in a debate. However, they don't convey a bitchy attitude from what I've seen. Well, Lisa doesn't; I don't know about Dana.

I've met TOUGH female professors and BITCHY female professors. There is a unique difference between them. It's just knowing that fine line.

>>2522568
>>2522542

The majority of those 'good looking' people on /b/ aren't really btards. A good portion of them have healthy social lives and they simply enjoy going on 4chan to mess around.

>>2522520

While I understand that, your work should speak for yourself. At the end of the day, what's on paper will stand out more so than your bitchy attitude.

I comprehend why intellectual women are the way they are. I get the concept that this is a man's world, have to be tougher than the average man to be understood/accepted, etc. However, I've also seen several women with their degrees in their respective fields who are not bitchy, not assholeish, etc. The ones who are bitchy usually have something to prove, and well .. given how integrated this society is, what you have to prove should be on paper.

Furthermore, there's a downside to that technique. If you're bitchy, then you push away any potential mates. One thing's for sure for all men, intellectual or not: We do not like bitchy cunts. Being fiery is fine, but full blown bitchiness is just a turn-off. It's the equivalent of a Jersey Shore type of personality, tbh.

>>2522519

Probably. Good point.

>>2522402

I hate you with such a fiery passion.

>>2522368

Intelligent men aren't afraid of intelligent women. Sadly, however, the most I've seen are relatively stuck-up on themselves and they're ridiculously egotistical. I've yet to see a laid back intelligent girl who isn't trying to always usurp me, or some other smart/intelligent man, in a debate/argument or some contest. Furthermore, each female Mathematics professor I've had has been a supreme bitch. Well, there was one in my linear algebra course who was relatively nice, but the other ones have been bitchy beyond extremes.

My female Philosophy professor was awesome, though.

And no, I'm not confusing confidence with ego; they are really egotistical cunts. I can't stand it. I've seen the most laid back male Math students get aggravated by their counterparts consistently. I'm even aggravated by the majority of them.

>>2490769

NO.
NO.

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU? HE'S A NEW STUDENT WHO HAS NO UNDERSTANDING YET.

THAT SHIT IS FUCKING HARD AS HELL. THAT'S SPIVAK LEVEL.

NO.

Khan Academy, OP. After you feel confident, try out Richard Courant's "Differential and Integral Calculus" or Spivak's "Calculus." Both books are classical, legendary and exemplary in their usage of pure mathematics.

>>2352126

Don't be a bitch, EK.

OP, just take the first few days easy. Attend classes, formulate some good study habits and find the appropriate times to study.

>>2242001

rofl.

Do it after you graduate. Get your degree so you can have something to fall back on/a safety net. It'd be a smart bet for you.

>>2093149

i just wanted to post to say lol. your response is spectacular.

props, man. i laughed heartily for about 2 mins.