/sci/ - Science & Math

>mfw I fell for the stats meme
I'm comfortably employed but this post is stressing me out

>>11350414
I know: Group theory gets used in quantum mechanics and elsewhere in physics, but the group theory used is trivial. E.g., never hear of Sylow's theorem, the Jordan-Holder theorem, the Feit and Thompson work on simple groups, etc. For group representations,you need to know very little about group theory to do group representations (I wrote my undergrad honors paper in it). Heck, I wrote a paper on multidimensional, distribution-free hypothesis tests based on groups of measure-preserving transformations, and the group theory needed was trivial. Similarly for the use of group theory in ergodic theory, ODE, and integer linear programming. Groups are nice, but really need to know only about 10 pages of the basics and can pick it up in an hour whenever need it. Or, you want group theory to attack Rubik's cube?

Yes, Hamming used some finite field theory in error correcting codes: Now that work and a dime won't cover a 10 cent cup of coffee. Instead, coding theory has moved on. Yes, yes, I know, from A. Wiles we finally have a proof of Fermat's last theorem; other than Wiles, who made any money with that?

Algebraic geometry is building expensive houses on-spec that stand empty too long. There's just no significant promise of return on investment there, or elsewhere in abstract algebra. E.g., the US NSA pushed hard on finite field theory for years before RSA showed that they had been wasting their time.

US mathematics' long, disastrous, self-destructive love affair with algebra, algebraic geometry, algebraic topology, algebraic number theory has been a major contributor to shrinking Federal research grants to mathematics, shrinking departments, mathematicians who'd swap their Ph.D. for an electrician's license, and the technology world putting mathematics on the back burner if not in the trash. Can cover nearly all abstract algebra in 1 word: Useless.

>>10822419

I know: Group theory gets used in quantum mechanics and elsewhere in physics, but the group theory used is trivial. E.g., never hear of Sylow's theorem, the Jordan-Holder theorem, the Feit and Thompson work on simple groups, etc. For group representations,you need to know very little about group theory to do group representations (I wrote my undergrad honors paper in it). Heck, I wrote a paper on multidimensional, distribution-free hypothesis tests based on groups of measure-preserving transformations, and the group theory needed was trivial. Similarly for the use of group theory in ergodic theory, ODE, and integer linear programming. Groups are nice, but really need to know only about 10 pages of the basics and can pick it up in an hour whenever need it. Or, you want group theory to attack Rubik's cube?

Yes, Hamming used some finite field theory in error correcting codes: Now that work and a dime won't cover a 10 cent cup of coffee. Instead, coding theory has moved on. Yes, yes, I know, from A. Wiles we finally have a proof of Fermat's last theorem; other than Wiles, who made any money with that?

Algebraic geometry is building expensive houses on-spec that stand empty too long. There's just no significant promise of return on investment there, or elsewhere in abstract algebra. E.g., the US NSA pushed hard on finite field theory for years before RSA showed that they had been wasting their time.

US mathematics' long, disastrous, self-destructive love affair with algebra, algebraic geometry, algebraic topology, algebraic number theory has been a major contributor to shrinking Federal research grants to mathematics, shrinking departments, mathematicians who'd swap their Ph.D. for an electrician's license, and the technology world putting mathematics on the back burner if not in the trash. Can cover nearly all abstract algebra in 1 word: Useless.

>>10604318
I know: Group theory gets used in quantum mechanics and elsewhere in physics, but the group theory used is trivial. E.g., never hear of Sylow's theorem, the Jordan-Holder theorem, the Feit and Thompson work on simple groups, etc. For group representations,you need to know very little about group theory to do group representations (I wrote my undergrad honors paper in it). Heck, I wrote a paper on multidimensional, distribution-free hypothesis tests based on groups of measure-preserving transformations, and the group theory needed was trivial. Similarly for the use of group theory in ergodic theory, ODE, and integer linear programming. Groups are nice, but really need to know only about 10 pages of the basics and can pick it up in an hour whenever need it. Or, you want group theory to attack Rubik's cube?

Yes, Hamming used some finite field theory in error correcting codes: Now that work and a dime won't cover a 10 cent cup of coffee. Instead, coding theory has moved on. Yes, yes, I know, from A. Wiles we finally have a proof of Fermat's last theorem; other than Wiles, who made any money with that?

Algebraic geometry is building expensive houses on-spec that stand empty too long. There's just no significant promise of return on investment there, or elsewhere in abstract algebra. E.g., the US NSA pushed hard on finite field theory for years before RSA showed that they had been wasting their time.

US mathematics' long, disastrous, self-destructive love affair with algebra, algebraic geometry, algebraic topology, algebraic number theory has been a major contributor to shrinking Federal research grants to mathematics, shrinking departments, mathematicians who'd swap their Ph.D. for an electrician's license, and the technology world putting mathematics on the back burner if not in the trash. Can cover nearly all abstract algebra in 1 word: Useless.

>>10525609
I know: Group theory gets used in quantum mechanics and elsewhere in physics, but the group theory used is trivial. E.g., never hear of Sylow's theorem, the Jordan-Holder theorem, the Feit and Thompson work on simple groups, etc. For group representations,you need to know very little about group theory to do group representations (I wrote my undergrad honors paper in it). Heck, I wrote a paper on multidimensional, distribution-free hypothesis tests based on groups of measure-preserving transformations, and the group theory needed was trivial. Similarly for the use of group theory in ergodic theory, ODE, and integer linear programming. Groups are nice, but really need to know only about 10 pages of the basics and can pick it up in an hour whenever need it. Or, you want group theory to attack Rubik's cube?

Yes, Hamming used some finite field theory in error correcting codes: Now that work and a dime won't cover a 10 cent cup of coffee. Instead, coding theory has moved on. Yes, yes, I know, from A. Wiles we finally have a proof of Fermat's last theorem; other than Wiles, who made any money with that?

Algebraic geometry is building expensive houses on-spec that stand empty too long. There's just no significant promise of return on investment there, or elsewhere in abstract algebra. E.g., the US NSA pushed hard on finite field theory for years before RSA showed that they had been wasting their time.

US mathematics' long, disastrous, self-destructive love affair with algebra, algebraic geometry, algebraic topology, algebraic number theory has been a major contributor to shrinking Federal research grants to mathematics, shrinking departments, mathematicians who'd swap their Ph.D. for an electrician's license, and the technology world putting mathematics on the back burner if not in the trash. Can cover nearly all abstract algebra in 1 word: Useless.

Statistics

Statistician is the patrician choice.

Math Virgins no need to apply.

>>10460215
I know: Group theory gets used in quantum mechanics and elsewhere in physics, but the group theory used is trivial. E.g., never hear of Sylow's theorem, the Jordan-Holder theorem, the Feit and Thompson work on simple groups, etc. For group representations,you need to know very little about group theory to do group representations (I wrote my undergrad honors paper in it). Heck, I wrote a paper on multidimensional, distribution-free hypothesis tests based on groups of measure-preserving transformations, and the group theory needed was trivial. Similarly for the use of group theory in ergodic theory, ODE, and integer linear programming. Groups are nice, but really need to know only about 10 pages of the basics and can pick it up in an hour whenever need it. Or, you want group theory to attack Rubik's cube?

Yes, Hamming used some finite field theory in error correcting codes: Now that work and a dime won't cover a 10 cent cup of coffee. Instead, coding theory has moved on. Yes, yes, I know, from A. Wiles we finally have a proof of Fermat's last theorem; other than Wiles, who made any money with that?

Algebraic geometry is building expensive houses on-spec that stand empty too long. There's just no significant promise of return on investment there, or elsewhere in abstract algebra. E.g., the US NSA pushed hard on finite field theory for years before RSA showed that they had been wasting their time.

US mathematics' long, disastrous, self-destructive love affair with algebra, algebraic geometry, algebraic topology, algebraic number theory has been a major contributor to shrinking Federal research grants to mathematics, shrinking departments, mathematicians who'd swap their Ph.D. for an electrician's license, and the technology world putting mathematics on the back burner if not in the trash. Can cover nearly all abstract algebra in 1 word: Useless.

>>10292174
>Why are there never threads on Math for Chads™ aka Data Science and ML?

Virgin Pure Math
Chad Data Science & ML

>>10229319
Besides Research ...

Mathematicians can work in Data Science (Statistics+CompSci)

Data Science is in high demand right now, with plenty of jobs available in Industry.

I know: Group theory gets used in quantum mechanics and elsewhere in physics, but the group theory used is trivial. E.g., never hear of Sylow's theorem, the Jordan-Holder theorem, the Feit and Thompson work on simple groups, etc. For group representations,you need to know very little about group theory to do group representations (I wrote my undergrad honors paper in it). Heck, I wrote a paper on multidimensional, distribution-free hypothesis tests based on groups of measure-preserving transformations, and the group theory needed was trivial. Similarly for the use of group theory in ergodic theory, ODE, and integer linear programming. Groups are nice, but really need to know only about 10 pages of the basics and can pick it up in an hour whenever need it. Or, you want group theory to attack Rubik's cube?

Yes, Hamming used some finite field theory in error correcting codes: Now that work and a dime won't cover a 10 cent cup of coffee. Instead, coding theory has moved on. Yes, yes, I know, from A. Wiles we finally have a proof of Fermat's last theorem; other than Wiles, who made any money with that?

Algebraic geometry is building expensive houses on-spec that stand empty too long. There's just no significant promise of return on investment there, or elsewhere in abstract algebra. E.g., the US NSA pushed hard on finite field theory for years before RSA showed that they had been wasting their time.

US mathematics' long, disastrous, self-destructive love affair with algebra, algebraic geometry, algebraic topology, algebraic number theory has been a major contributor to shrinking Federal research grants to mathematics, shrinking departments, mathematicians who'd swap their Ph.D. for an electrician's license, and the technology world putting mathematics on the back burner if not in the trash. Can cover nearly all abstract algebra in 1 word: Useless.

>>9824090
>t. butt-blasted undergrad who thinks fiddling with axioms is mathematics

God tier: Statistics

>>9756205
>not reformulating your theorems in terms of fruit and posting them on facebook to leverage a massive billion-user distributed processing system

>>9737805

>>9728762
>>9728790
>>9728808
the reason is in europe and asia, middle schools, high schools, and colleges have rigorous entrance exams that automatically shut out brainlets.
america is the land of opportunity so anyone has the freedom to incur a massive debt while failing out of college.
the downside is we have some brainlets in college.
the upside is your entire life isn't plotted out for you in the 5th grade based on what middle school you get into.
our colleges are the envy of the world because maximum autism doesn't mean maximum progress.

Are groups, rings, fields in general, Galois theory, etc. useful beyond just the simplest parts of these?

I know: Group theory gets used in quantum mechanics and elsewhere in physics, but the group theory used is trivial. E.g., never hear of Sylow's theorem, the Jordan-Holder theorem, the Feit and Thompson work on simple groups, etc. For group representations,you need to know very little about group theory to do group representations (I wrote my undergrad honors paper in it). Heck, I wrote a paper on multidimensional, distribution-free hypothesis tests based on groups of measure-preserving transformations, and the group theory needed was trivial. Similarly for the use of group theory in ergodic theory, ODE, and integer linear programming. Groups are nice, but really need to know only about 10 pages of the basics and can pick it up in an hour whenever need it. Or, you want group theory to attack Rubik's cube?

Yes, Hamming used some finite field theory in error correcting codes: Now that work and a dime won't cover a 10 cent cup of coffee. Instead, coding theory has moved on. Yes, yes, I know, from A. Wiles we finally have a proof of Fermat's last theorem; other than Wiles, who made any money with that?

Algebraic geometry is building expensive houses on-spec that stand empty too long. There's just no significant promise of return on investment there, or elsewhere in abstract algebra. E.g., the US NSA pushed hard on finite field theory for years before RSA showed that they had been wasting their time.

US mathematics' long, disastrous, self-destructive love affair with algebra, algebraic geometry, algebraic topology, algebraic number theory has been a major contributor to shrinking Federal research grants to mathematics, shrinking departments, mathematicians who'd swap their Ph.D. for an electrician's license, and the technology world putting mathematics on the back burner if not in the trash. Can cover nearly all abstract algebra in 1 word: Useless.

>>9630008
No you cannot you lying nigger

> 2018
> Not writing your paper in Microsoft Word, but changing the font and margins so it looks like LaTeX

http://farmdoc.illinois.edu/irwin/research/The_Case_for_Fake_LaTeX_Body_Feb%202018.pdf

>>9579626