/sci/ - Science & Math

A little meta-observation, please discuss:
(My ultimate goal is TCS, but I'm studying math.)
Certainly, math is work. It's not (just) about fun, it's mostly hard work and research-wise a lot of frustration, but anyway, I see two main end goals in going to study mathematics:
1. To learn enough to be able to participate in the creative art that is pure math and enjoy the ultimate intellectual esthetic.
2. To learn the craft for applied maths, i.e. understand e.g. PDEs and numerical maths so well you can really shine in physics research or such (or even engineering, finance, you name it).

That said, most courses I take have a flaw in these regards: they mostly make you learn theorem-proof, theorem-proof, theorem-proof ad nauseam + the additional drill of solving written-test exercises by hand. I can't help but look at my schoolmates and just see how most of them are mechanical theorem-monkeys. They are quite good at applying the admirable stack of theorems they have memorized for "theoretical applications", but there is no deeper understanding and frankly, no real skill. It's just being a nerd who does his job right. You can just tell they aren't gonna be the next Hilbert.
Anyway, it just seems like the logical conclusion of the way the courses are taught. For the first end-goal I stated, we are too focused on the definition-theorem-proof carousel that the bird-eye view of the theory is lost and mathematical creativity is stumped to the ground. For the second one, we get lost again, because how do we react when we are presented a real-life model? Will we remember Theorem #378546 along with Lemma #648364 can be applied? I doubt it.

My question is, do universities generally develop their math courses in this way as well, or is any one of you lucky enough to study in a way that gives you more than the (memorize a lot)->(pass exam)->(probably forget in five years) brainslaughter?

>inb4 I'm dumb CS brainlet getting filtered
I've got perfect marks so far.

YLYL brainiac edition

>>9945012
>2 months
better start learning then!

Hey /sci/ I need to look smart in a presentation.
Give me some really complicated and fancy looking math algorithms I can reference in my slides.

>no one has posted the geometric proof yet

[math] 0.999...=9/10+9/100+9/1000+... [/math]
[math] 0.999...=9/10(1+1/10+1/100+... [/math]
[math] 0.999...=(1-x)(1+x+x^2+x^3+...x^n) [/math]
[math] 0.999...=1-x+x-x^2+x^2-x^3+x^3-... [/math]
[math] 0.999...=1 [/math]

bump

>>8752390

ITT: interesting science facts

Did you know that the British drink a lot of tea because it's easier to boil water in Europe, where the boiling point of water is 100 degrees compared to 212 in America?

>>8175485
conway's game of life

fun to implement

http://www.math.cornell.edu/~lipa/mec/lesson6.html

>>8135250
contribute or gtfo then?

What's your favorite number /sci/?

[math]4\cdot14_5\cdot23_5[/math]

>>8021704
Who the fuck cares about free will if the future is uncertain anyway?

Any choice you make is insignificant in the grand scheme of things anyway; we've known this for millennia.

I've thought a lot about how to designed scripting and programming languages and I always run into the same problem: Control flow.

No matter how I look at it, in order to write programs, every programming language needs some way for the programmer to change the "shape" (execution path) of the algorithm. This is how the programmer imbues a program with logic to separate it from an empty state graph.

My problem is that I only know this intuitively; I have no idea how to prove it. If it's true I ought to be able to prove it, right? So how do I go about doing that? When I contemplate making a language without if/then/switch gateways am I basically asking how to do logic without logic?

>>7947493

>pretty pictures

if you dont understand whats happening lurk more or research for yourself, it's not magic just a program you ignorant fgt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codd's_cellular_automaton

>>7768322

Is it more likely that 3d spacetime arose out of 2d space (Flatland) or was created "downward" as a sort of computer simulation in higher dimensional Bulk space not to different from Conway's Game of Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life)) but using 3d elements inswad of 2d like Conway's GoL?

And, if the latter, is Conway's GoL a real life version of Flatland?