/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2749809

>If what is moral is based on the arbitrary commandment of god,

Nope.jpg.

The topic/concept of high morality / virtue was a poignant topic amongst Greek philosophers and many agreed that there was an inherent dichotomy between what was considered Good and Bad. Aristotle outlines this in Nicomachean Ethics and Cicero's De Amicitia makes the implication that the man who is Good is of utmost character and is, of course, an unwavering friend above all else.

It was only until later that virtue became intermingled with God. Before Christianity as we know it came along, virtue was a topic discussed by men of yesteryear.

>>2749779

What're you going to do about it, faggot? Besides, although the words were relatively long, they weren't out of place. Sorry you had to sound out more syllables in your head, asshole.

But really, what that guy(or you) said was/is idiotic. Also, you MUST be fucking new here if you're jumping on my ass for being a tripfag. Go pester aether or EK; both of those tripfags are far worse than I.

Well .. EK's kind of cool, but she's a bitch sometimes. aether's just downright awkward.

>>2749617

Yes, because fuck Laplace, d'Alembert, Lagrange and, last but not least, Galois.

I mean, fuck; what did that faggot ever do? Just help establish a new form of mathematics? A form we still utilize today?

The denizens of you /sci/borgs are fucking idiotic, man. I don't even know why I peruse the threads here every now and again. Every time I decide to read a sentence from one of you cretins, I feel as if an abomination is occurring before my very eyes and infectious stupidity has seeped into my frontal lobe.

Holy fucking Christ.

>>2720050

Honestly depends on culture. I've heard from my Asian friends that memorization is highly influential in those schools and that you're required(at home) to study for 5+ hrs a day. In Brazil, Mathematics is actually taught in a similar pattern to English; however, they're a bit more .. assignment-based, I guess? I say this as someone who has had two Brazilian professors. They like giving students assignments alongside HW problems for some reason. It wasn't a bother to me, but it kind of weirded me out a bit.

In certain European countries, it's just brutal. My first Calc professor was Russian and wow, she completely annihilated me psychologically. She actually hardened me mentally to withstand put-downs, insults about my intelligence, etc. they don't play around.

>>2719980

Definitely. The thing with Mathematics is that it is an extremely difficult field to grasp later on simply because you're literally working with ideas alone. This is relatively difficult for us, as human beings, to do since when we articulate our thoughts, we materialize actual objects. If I think about traveling, for example, I think about a train, a bus, a car, etc. If I think about a woman, I think about her physique, mind, etc. If I think about a group(abstract algebra), I have to remember all of this concepts that can't be created instantaneously.

For the record, I've always attempted to analyze mathematics from a graphical perspective. It's why I love Geometry and chose to focus myself in that field, because it's so flexible and not as abstract as other fields.

Of all of the mathematical fields which exist, I think number theory is the most abstract.

>>2719954

This too. Mathematics Education here in the US is horrendous. I'm a Mathematics tutor and, though many professors out-qualify me, I can see that they've no talent in teaching the subject in which they specialize.

I think people often confuse specialty in a specific subject with the ability to actually TEACH. I have yet to see an English professor actually -teach- something interesting in an English class; all I've ever done is write papers and analyze poems/literature. I know some of the professors are amazingly good at writing too, but they can't -teach- the field.

Same goes for Math, apparently.

>Is this a societal thing? Do people grow hearing about how hard math is on TV, or perhaps from their parents, thus building up an early intolerance to math so that even if a person could be good at math, they detest it?

Primarily this.

Mathematics is usually associated with the 'geniuses' of our society and, early on, we are taught to give an automatic aversion to it since the majority of us aren't 'geniuses.' People are like sheep most of the time, so they simply go along with what they are told/taught(exception to kids, though). When I was in the first grade, a voluminous amount of children actually enjoyed Mathematics to a small degree. Even if some didn't 'enjoy' it, they didn't look upon it with disdain; they just did the work and went home.

Those same people, years later, would complain endlessly about mathematics. I've no doubt that adults and society guided their aversion to Mathematics.

As for it being a 'genetic thing,' that's very rare. Dyscalculia does exist, but it can be treated and people can do well in the field. There is no genetic aversion to mathematics strictly, either; if someone has down syndrome, for example, they're going to be deficient in all subjects including Mathematics.

>>2719054

You won't understand Spivak until you master Calculus and standard proof methods. You can read it, comprehend it somewhat easily, but you'll be lost once you hit the problems.

That text is for the serious Pure Math student primarily. You will have people on /sci/ who will say, 'hurr durr, start with spivak cuz i did,' but most of them are lying/had training in proof methods before Spivak.

That book is literally heralded as the absolute BEST Calculus book, ever. The Mathematics contained within it is ridiculously "pure" and isn't muddled by anything less. It's strictly for the semi advanced/advanced mathematician. PhD Grad students use that book for review on Calculus. Stewart, however, is extremely good and provides an excellent base for beginning Calculus students. The reading is comprehensible, the problems range from easy-medium-hard-very difficult and it gives you a uniform solidarity on the subject. It's a superb book; can't say anything bad about it.

>>2719041

Wasn't U of T one of the top premier schools for Mathematics, though? That's probably the reason why.

Those schools usually have integrated courses for certain programs because of popularity. MIT's course system is very rigorous and integrated as well.

>>2719027

Don't listen to the anon who said Gilbert Strang for everything.

Maybe Linear Algebra by Gilbert Strang, but nothing else. use Thomas' Calculus and then move onto Spivak once you feel confident.

>>2719000

That's .. that's usually how it is in most Universities.

Calc I focuses on differentiating and derivatives; Calc II focuses on integration, converging/diverging sums and some other interesting area concepts; Calc III focuses on vectors, partial derivatives and geometric principles in 3D.

In Calc III, one is introduced to Green's Theorem, Stoke's Theorem and(if the professor is really good and time permits) a very rough intro to ODE.

Are you a troll or what? How do your semesters look?

f(x,y,z) = x^3 * e^(3y^2 + xz)

k.

product rule:

x^3 * e^(3y^2 + xz)

f(x) = x^3
f'(x) = 3x^2
g(x) = e^(3y^2 + xz)
g'(x) = z e^(3y^2 + xz)

f(x)g'(x) + g(x)f'(x)
=>

x^3 *e(3y^2 + xz) *z + e^(3y^2 + xz)*3x^2.

=> 3x^2 e^(3y^2 + xz) + zx^3 e^(3y^2 + xz)
=> e^(3y^2 + xz) ( 3x^2 + zx^3).

>>2676621

You're being unnecessarily cruel. Stop it.

The guy is wrong, but you've no right to verbally abuse him. I'm sorry bad shit is happening in your life, but chill the fuck out. I get what you're saying and I agree completely, but fix the fucking attitude.

>>2676699

>Please read about evolution. Then we can talk.

Has nothing to do with the subject. Despite reading about evolution, I'm still in awe of the fact that the cell is relatively complex.

I'm not a proponent of intelligent design, but even from an evolutionary standpoint, you have to see the beauty in that. It's pretty amazing how we were once star dust and now we're just .. living, breathing human beings with such unique biological processes. Kind of awesome, don't you think?

>And zero, divided by any number is zero. (0 ÷ 4 = 0)

Ok. Guess so.

>So then any number, divided by zero, is 0. And not undifined.

How're you coming to this conclusion?

>>2623231

As for a pet peeve, I'd say I get pissed when certain proofs MUST be done a CERTAIN way and NO OTHER WAY.

Mathematics is such a flexible language; I really don't know why you MUST always rewrite the same proof over and over. I'd really like another slight revamp of Mathematics, or a completely different subfield which showcases a variety of proofs in different fashions.

>>2623174

I'm a tutor. I see that shit all the time. It doesn't bother me, though.

I'd rather inform them than allow them to run along without enough knowledge. The problem today in mathematics is that many professors/teachers are instructing students to become mechanical in how they approach the subject. The conceptual comprehension isn't given pertinence at all. I can't count how many professors teach the m(x - x1) = (y - y1) equation and just say, 'plug it in.' I was a teaching assistant last semester with a professor and he utilized that equation. After he asked me to chime in, I proceeded to prove how it derives from the delta-y/delta-x law, how slope is related, etc. I also graphically proved that the line perpendicular to L has a slope of -1/m.

I was told later on that practically every student in that class passed the 'slope of the line' and graphing sections on the test. Seriously, Mathematics != Mechanical.

This is just degenerating into a "LET'S ALL HATE RELIGUN TGETHA xD" thread.

Datass to calm niggas down. Also, peace.

>>2615485
>>2615485

>one could only wonder what such a mind would have achiever without the burden of an invisible heavenly dictatorship.

There's that IF again, but concealed. You're asserting a possibility which you don't know exists at all. For Ramanujan, he could've been better .. or he could've been worse. You're making the assertion that his belief(s) held him down when, in fact, it could've pushed him higher. You can't see that because you're an atheist and a bigot. A bigot = prejudiced against other opinions, people, et cetera.

Your bigotry is so ingrained that you literally can't see it enshrouding your rational thought process.

>>2615458

>who the fucks knows what else he could have done if

See that word? That "if?"

You don't know shit at all; you don't know what the fuck he could have or could not have done. For all you know, religion was probably the guiding force behind his creation; it could've completely motivated him or it could've held him back. We don't know the answers to those questions and it's idiotic for me, or you, to assume otherwise. Same with the other if's you provided.

>And lastly, the famous hitchens argument, can people be smart without religion? Yes. Does religion dumb people up? Obviously yes.

Yes. Ramanujan was stupefied a bit because of his religious choice, despite soaring high above all other mathematicians in his era.

Thank you, based God.

>>2615437

Ramanujan:
>Extremely spiritual, religious and adhered to a very strict diet/eating plan which coincided with his beliefs. Despite being exposed to Mathematics, the western world and collaborating with a westerner(G.H. Hardy) who was a die-hard atheist, he kept his beliefs.

>He also happened to be one of the greatest minds whoever lived.

You:
>I find out that they have any type of religious belief, all of a sudden I simply can't take ANYTHING they say seriously.

Guess Ramanujan wouldn't be taken seriously by you.

>>2615415

>who have done exceedingly well ..

God, my typing has become ferociously horrible lately.

>>2615396

Yep, you're a bigot. You'd also take Ramanujan as a clown, despite his several contributions to Mathematics as a whole. You're also shitting on other religious/spiritual people who have exceedingly well in the sciences/mathematics.

I'm done. Good luck.

>>2615388

Also, what about Srinvasa Ramanujan? He was EXTREMELY religious himself and even believed that a God blessed him with knowledge. It just ~*SO HAPPENED*~ to be that he was one of the greatest mathematicians ever.