/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12540217

>>7955669
You must be the dumbest scammer on the internet, thinking people actually can read that liquid ass shit.

>>7716388
You've taken shitposting far beyond its limits

>>7574667
Yes

>off by one

>>7488897
>implying the lecturer wouldn't be arrested
http://aswcpps.org/triggers/

>>7488910
I'm sorry my GET isn't good enough for you

>>7449767
I checked your account, but saw no dubs, sonny boy.

Is doing a maths degree harder than other degrees, or does it force you to be smarter?

For Cambridge, where you need perfect A levels to get in to any subject (except you do extra tests to get in to maths), I've read that if you do badly at maths, they make you switch to physics or CS.

Obviously most of the pure autists pick maths, and the fact that an autist picks physics instead of maths doesn't make him dumber. But does doing maths give you such intellectual anal devastation that other subjects become easier by comparison?

Also, on an unrelated note, I read that there was this guy from Pakistan who got something ridiculous like 20 something A levels, went to cambridge to do CS, and then switched to politics after getting a 2.2 in his first year.

Also should I feel intellectually inferior to people who do maths (I do chemeng)? What about if they do applied maths and it's a few years after uni? Did they learn random shit that they won't care about after exams, or did they learn the secrets of the universe?

I mean there's a lecturer in my uni (mid tier) that did maths at oxford (got a first), got an applied maths phd somewhere else, and is doing fluid dynamics here. I just look at my own curriculum and think wtf can I do that he can't? What's the point of this chemeng shit?

In the end everything boils down to problem solving and stamp collecting, and it sure as hell would have been better to build the tools (maths degree) rather than collect the stamps.

>>6195055
>Sounds like speculation to me
They all have strong supporting evidences actually.

Infinity also dosent man what you think it does

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
One new cyclic model is a brane cosmology model of the creation of the universe, derived from the earlier ekpyrotic model. It was proposed in 2001 by Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok of Cambridge University. The theory describes a universe exploding into existence not just once, but repeatedly over time.[5][6] The theory could potentially explain why a mysterious, repulsive form of energy known as the cosmological constant, which is accelerating the expansion of the universe, is several orders of magnitude smaller than predicted by the standard Big Bang model.

>calculation
still wrong,
-Nobody knows what the most primitive cells looked like. All the cells around today are the product of billions of years of evolution. The earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today; self-replicating molecules need not be all that complex and protein-building systems can also be simple


The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.

(you need to read this again.)

-The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life

-The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.

I know stars can die and explode, how about galaxy? Obviously, galaxy has some sort of rotation and center, it seems to be that a galaxy will contract to the center and become one blackhole, is it true?

Recently i can't stop wasting time thinking about the philosophy of math and how to keep liberal arts liberal.

My primary concern is that math becomes the new hot and i feel deeply worried about whether it can be exploited and how to decipher math into good math and junk math, and if junk math does exist at all in practice.

On junk science, i am sure it makes /sci/ puke a lot, so not much comments here, I think there will be a lot more to discuss, so it is very board, anything is welcome.

>>5777779
>implying his 500 page paper isn't a trainwreck
Nigger detected.

In a game of Russian Roulette, is it more advantageous to go first or second? Or would it make no difference?

>>5753755
What are your proof to say that i dont know anything about psychology?
There are high rank psychologyst who say the same, even the APA ex-president said that.

Im not implying that all psychology is pseudoscience per se, but it allows some pseudoscience in some of his branches, making it pseudoscience by osmosis.

Is like physics allowing astrology to be one of his branches, hence physics is not a science anymore, because it allows pseudoscience.

>>5745985
>>5745979
You are saying that im uneducated, you are the one who is blind, maybe because you are a psychologyst, or maybe because you like too much that discipline and dont want to know that there is a lot of pseudoscience in it.

Dr. Ronald F. Levant APA President, was dismised when he tried to make psychology base all his theories in evidence, so is not like some psychologyst are using pseudoscience, if the ex-president of the APA, says there are a lot of pseudoscience in psychology, then he must be delusional, because you are right, psychology is a science, based in scientifically theories based in evidence, right?

>>5741950
>Linear algebra C
>Statistical Methods C

Why so plebeyan?

Who cares if people respect your major or not, do what you want to do you beta faggot

How consistent is the concept "consistency"?

>>5380274

The laughter of retards.

>>5301773

>>4929087
0.999.../10 for making me respond

>>4880000

>come to science/math board for higher education
>see basic arithmetic thread
>mfc

>>4767224
you gotta be kidding me

>This thread
>Thinking that theory is useless and the only thing you need to learn is welding/machining
mfw
Protip - if you think theoretical things are useless you won't use them in future, because you'll land a simple workman-tier job.