/sci/ - Science & Math

Mainly curiosity. Why would you have "patience" to read and think about tons of stuff you have no interest in?

Disclaimer: I am a math postdoc.

>>10220993
Don't you have people to serve and tables to attend to?

>>10220993
Is there even anything left at this point that an actual brainlet could still contribute to math? I don't think just being interested is enough.

Asking for a friend

>Can anyone become a mathematician with enough patience?
No. Some people are innately unable to understand logic or think abstractly, or they may struggle unnaturally with making a formal argument.

>If not, what separates people who are good at math and those that are not?
Memory, intelligence, problem solving ability, and autism. The best are those who are able to think abstractly easier with better intuition. If things get easier to understand when they get further away from real-world shit, then you have great potential. Of course, most people aren't like that and any somewhat intelligent individual can learn mathematics by studying normally.

>>10220868
Yes. Though not everyone is interested in mathematics so I also agree with this anon >>10220993 .

>>10221001
No, burger king doesn't serve tables. We just give the food out at the front counter/drive thru.

>>10221035
>If things get easier to understand when they get further away from real-world shit
I'm terrible at physics because using common sense to apply math to the real world feels extremely counter-intuitive, and I seem to grasp more abstract subjects like set theory and algebra pretty easily. Is that a good sign?
Generally speaking I'm really bad at practical thinking and application, though. I prefer autistic rigor.

>>10221055
Sure, try taking some analysis classes, you may find them easy and fun. It becomes interesting after you've gotten into it a bit.

>>10221075
Analysis can be hit or miss, some things I understand intuitively, others require much more time and effort.
Also I suck at ODEs for some reason. I just don't get it.

>>10221102
Sometimes you just have a weak spot somewhere, or maybe the material wasn't presented well in your lecture notes or textbook. But you can try studying other parts of analysis if you haven't yet (sorry I have been assuming you're an undergrad looking for motivation). Try topology, measure theory, operator theory, these stuff are great for autistic rigor types.

that painting is like some spastic retard trying to do a mixture of dali and magritte

>>10220868
>what separates people who are good at math and those that are not?
Work and effort

>>10221246
>t. brainlet who has never set foot in university
Your pinko blank slate delusions will dwindle away the moment you interact with people who put in "work and effort" to understand the most simple arguments in mathematics. Then again, you´re probably one of those people, and will thus never have the cognitive capacity needed for introspection and intellectual honesty.

>>10220868
No
Imprinting during childhood.

>>10222775
>implying brain isn't plastic

>>10222804
It's plastic only during your first few years of life, then you can't learn anything new deeply and permanently. You always have to rely on your consciousness which is much less efficient than your early "deep learning" opportunity during the critical period.

>>10222806
>It's plastic only during your first few years of life, then you can't learn anything new deeply and permanently.
That's just patently wrong, and is 20 years behind the current psychology/neuroscience knowledge.

>>10222809
Remember that chess player that started during adulthood? Me neither lmao
You can learn new things, but it is seriously capped. Check out research on language learning, chess learning, and biographies of the greats in maths, and hopefully you'll start noticing a pattern unless you're absolutely as thick as your posts suggest

>>10222824
>Remember that chess player that started during adulthood? Me neither lmao
using your ignorance as an argument nice. go back to studying dumb crab

>>10221035
I have an A in undergrad real analysis but got a B- in lin alg (also had group theory)

Am I doomed to be a brainlet?

>>10222824
Barbara Oakley (not chess, but a woman) always been bad at math, now a professor. Why? Just because she decided to learn it (out of interest).

Truth is most people (with decent intelligence) who are bad at math are simply not interested enough to learn and not because they’re not on your level (lul)

>>10222824
>Remember that chess player that started during adulthood? Me neither lmao
This is not evidence of neuroplasticity fading, it's just evidence of the simple fact that it's very difficult to be competitive with somebody who has 17 years more experience than you do at the game.

>>10224354
Akiba Rubinstein started playing it when he was 16. He became a grandmaster

>>10220868
Yes. Will somebody with a higher IQ have a much easier time? Also yes

>>10224350
>Barbara Oakley (not chess, but a woman) always been bad at math
Intelligent people downplay their abilities and achievements to deflect claims of megalomania, narcissism and self-righteousness brought forward by brainlets like yourself.
>Why? Just because she decided to learn it (out of interest).
Some people have the option to "decide to learn", others do not. A person with down´s syndrome may have an interest in mathematical symbols, but he/she will never be able to learn it past the elementary school level, no matter how great an effort he/she puts into it.

A remarkable intelligent person, on the other hand, is able to learn things out of interest. This Barbara Oakley sounds like a spiteful cunt, though, since (I´m assuming you´re telling the truth) she seems to deliberately mislead brainlets about the nature of mathematical study, which does require a high aptitude for abstract reasoning.

>Truth is most people (with decent intelligence) who are bad at math are simply not interested enough to learn
Most people with an IQ above 115 or so (above the 85th percentile) can "learn" to use many of the tools given by mathematics, but real mathematics requires an understanding of proofs and ability to construct novel proofs using only one´s own reason.

>>10224460
As far as I know, the "anyone can learn mathematics" does not extend as far as PhD or even Master's territory. It's more to combat the "hurr durr im bat at math lolol" meme people spout to excuse their laziness.
You can learn mathematics with decent intelligence, but I would argue that the title of mathematician requires some form of innovation by the title-holder or the ability to solve real-world problems using high-level mathematics.

>>10224460
Why do you keep shifting the goalposts?

>>10220868
This is a pointless question, because it assumes the person has something that no person has, in this case unlimited freedom.

You do not have freedom to choose, in this case, unlimited time and money to study mathematics.
You do not have the optimal communications at your disposal to learn anything you want, in this case, professors, peer-review, subordinates, customers, and employers.
You do not have the optimal materials to do anything you want, in this case, mathematics books, articles, and handbooks.
You do not have the optimal mental qualities to do what you want, in this case, interest in mathematics, discipline to do what seems to be unrational, control to allocate your resources as planned.

What you have is a mixture of something, that can be used for something. Maybe it can be used to develop you into a mathematician of some level. Maybe it should be used to develop you into a plumberman or accountant or president instead. What you probably have is an open internet access, some rudimentary interest in mathematics, some minor negative aspects in life that you think mathematics might be able to solve, and possibly some trivial sense of achieving recognition and greatness in life and you think you might achieve it through mathematics.

>>10224482
I´m not shifting the goalposts. You, however, are deliberately misquoting mathematicians, or attributing truth to their insincere advice.

>>10220868
>what separates people who are good at math and those that are not?
Those that had good math instructors growing up to form a solid foundation, in addition to those that were genuinely interested in it enough to not become bored by it.

>>10224483
Shut up shut up SHUT UP NOW

>>10224350
>Truth is most people (with decent intelligence) who are bad at math are simply not interested enough to learn and not because they’re not on your level (lul)

when did I pretend to be one of the greats? My point was nobody who starts late is going to contribute anything of significance to mathematics because lack of plasticity is not conducive towards truly novel reasoning. I'm not talking of graduating with a first or being a PhD holder, faggot, this doesn't count as real mathematics. If that's what you mean by being good at maths then yeah retarded cunt, everyone with the opportunity to study can get a Bsc, Msc and even PhD in maths, happy now? That's still very different than becoming a mathematician you nigg

>>10224477
The OP is talking about becoming a mathematician though, not getting some useless degree you stupid undergrads wank over

>>10224350
>Barbara Oakley
also, this hoe you mention isn't close to being a mathematician, she's a fucking engineer who got recognition solely on the basis of her gender. Leftist cucks truly ruined everything the West used to stand for. This is shameful

>>10224790
Hahahah

>>10224483
wow you described me perfectly

>>10225833
kys faggot