/sci/ - Science & Math

Who?

>>11379520
guess you don't even need to read him to feel retarded, anon

Who?

>>11379523

Who?

>>11379589
Is it more familiar if it's spelt it Arnol'd?
If not, lurk more.

>>11379608

Who?

>>11379611
>If not, lurk more.

>>11379518
>Math is a part of physics
Is this man retarded or what?

>>11379518
who?

>>11379523

Came into thread also not knowing person.jpg

Go out of thread feeling less retarded than whofag.

>brain.jpg

>>11379518
>>11379520
>>11379523
>>11379589
>>11379608
>>11379611
>>11379624
>>11379626
>>11379630
>>11379639
Well who the fuck is he then?

>>11379668
VI Arnold

>>11379670
Arnold who?

>>11379675

Whofag use brainpower!

Answer can be found in OP post

>>11379681
Arnold 1?
Sorry but google isn't giving me anything

>>11379518
Who?

>>11379520
>>11379589
>>11379611
>>11379630
>>11379675
>>11379688

>>11379686

What is written before Arnold? Arnold seems to be his surname.

>>11379698
Arnold is a first name dumbass

>>11379700
>>11379698
>>11379520
>>11379589
>>11379611
>>11379630
>>11379639
>>11379675
>>11379681
>>11379686
>>11379688
You're not funny.

>>11379520
>>11379589
>>11379611
>>11379630
>>11379639
>>11379668
>>11379675
>>11379686
>>11379688
>>11379698

the absolute state of drooling calc 1 engineer brainlets who will never know the beautify of symplectic mechanics

>>11379518
>>11379520
>>11379523
>>11379589
>>11379608
>>11379611
>>11379624
>>11379626
>>11379630
>>11379639
>>11379668
>>11379670
>>11379675
>>11379681
>>11379686
>>11379688
>>11379695
>>11379698
>>11379700
>>11379732
>>11379740
So who the fuck is he and why should I care?

>>11379700

Arnold is a common first name. But it is his surname...

Who?

>>11379518
>verything written by this man makes me feel like a complete and utter brainlet
Me too, but I really liked him on "Always Sunny in Philadelphia".

>>11379978
>Who?
His name is Vladimir Arnold, just like the filename says, but yeah, it's annoying when OP is such a pretentious faggot he pretends we all recognize a mathematician from his mugshot.
For instance, most people wouldn't know pic related is Terence Tao before he hit puberty.

>>11379991
what?

>>11380033
>what?
Which part "what"?
Check out this pic of Henri Poincaré.
See what I mean?

>>11380041
when?

>>11380043
>when?
1912, just before his death.

Here's another example. Most people wouldn't just say "Oh yeah, that's David Hilbert!"

http://www.physics.montana.edu/avorontsov/teaching/problemoftheweek/documents/Arnold-Trivium-1991.pdf
http://www.het.brown.edu/people/danieldf/literary/trivium2.pdf
>The authors of many letters from Russia reckoned that instructors could solve, on average, one-third of the problems of the trivium.
While I -do- believe standards have dropped, I doubt there was any point in time where the average physics bachelor could answer 90% of his "trivium" questions.

>>11380100
why?

Related, I posted this here the other day:
https://dsweb.siam.org/The-Magazine/All-Issues/vi-arnold-on-teaching-mathematics

>>11380139
>why?
Because most people don't know what "famous" mathematicians look like.
If you bumped into pic related on the street, would you go "wow! Alan Turing!"?
Or would he be just another face in the crowd?

name a better looking mathematician/physicist. protip: you cant

>>11380151
there?

https://dsweb.siam.org/The-Magazine/All-Issues/vi-arnold-on-teaching-mathematics

> A teacher of mathematics, who has not got to grips with at least some of the volumes of the course by Landau and Lifshitz, will then become a relict like the one nowadays who does not know the difference between an open and a closed set.

Sadly decades later and we know he's wrong lol most mathematicians nowadays dont give a shit about fundamental physics, and they still do useful and productive modern math. The trends in math that he considered useless axiomatic chatter is now more about computability/complexity on the abstract side, computing/data science on the applied side. Mathematics developed in a way that the old guard couldn't imagine.

>>11380189
>name a better looking mathematician/physicist.
Carl Friedrich Gauss

>>11380210
>computing
>data science
I can tell you're not a mathematician yourself, to say this shit. What's now being tested in the industry are algorithms from 20 years ago, and ML is statistics, not mathematics.
And mathematical development has been extremely subdued if you compare it with what was happening at his time. We haven't conjectured any interesting and mind-blowing stuff for the past decades, it's only been about masturbating trying to prove results conjectured a very long time ago. I honestly think he has a point. By the way, most of the famous problems that the community is trying to solve have a physical nature behind them.

>>11380249
Obviously none of what I listed is mathematics, but it replaces `Landau and Lifshitz` in his sentence.

A mathematician has not got to grips with at least some computability, some computing, some data science (which includes statistics, ML) become a relict like the one back then who did not know the difference between an open and a closed set.

Well they are both hyperbole, but to the same effects.

And I'm pretty sure the type of math Arnold was shitting on is the mind blowing conjecture of his time you're talking about, the axiomatic chatter, because to him it's not close enough to mechanics :))

>>11380272
That's true for anyone doing any research on anything quantitative; even biology and chemistry. You're missing the point.
His talk against the axiomatic shit is related to pedagogy, not thr validity of what's being studied.

>>11380281
Adding to this post: his mentor was Kolmogorov, the guy who axiomatized probability theory.

>>11380281

Yes, I'm talking about pedagogy. You're missing my point, I mean there's no point talking about mind blowing conjectures of his time because it has nothing to do with what he said. Arnold said people need to teach math closer to physics to future mathematicians, and less axiomatic.

Well, his future mathematicians are educated entirely differently, they are taught math close to axiomatic development, pretty much every math students have to learn how to build the real numbers from ZFC set theory, and at least several versions of axiom of choice. At the end of undergrad the pure math students know some set theory, some model theory, some computability. Even when you look at future applied mathematicians who are supposed to learn some physics, well it turns out nowadays they need statistics and computing more in order to useful applied work, not physics. Professors from MIT etc are integrating examples of neural networks into their linear algebra, analysis classes for first year. Not Landau and Lifschitz stuffs.

>>11379518
Who?