/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12618496
None of their proofs work without rigid and strict definitions. They're just too retarded to know that strict definitions aren't how you communicate. Newton's second law of motion is fine. F = ma. A mathematician would step in, in his full autismo stench, and say
>ACKSHUALLY
>This is only valid for a differentiable linear momentum in a faggot measure where time is nigger word well-defined in real I suck cocks

>>12618496
>Why do mathematicians obscure their work with jargon?
They don't.
>Why do they keep inventing new words for concepts that have been around for a thousand years?
Like what? Give an actual example. Higher level math concepts that require a great deal of preliminary knowledge don't count, as you need that preliminary knowledge to understand the higher concepts anyway.
>Why do they not care about making their work accessible?
It is not inaccessible, math requires you to work up from the beginning. You can't start off learning about differential geometry.
>Why are they not able to express their work straigtforwardly?
Mathematics is incredibly straightforward.
>I mean, I know why. Clearly they either don't understand it that well or they don't want it to be easy to understand for the purpose of job security.
Cope

what "non obscure" word describes a vector or plane?

>>12618496
Give one example where a mathematical concept is easier to understand without jargon.
Jargon is there to make things easier to understand, if you unpack all definitions the amount of content would get multiplied 100x and it would be impossible to read and undersatnd.

>>12618513
>>12618519
these

>>12618496
4chan pre chanology>4chan between chanology and 2016>Reddit>4chan post 2016

>>12618513
>[Name] Theorem
>[Name] Lemma
>[Name] Metric
You're full of a bunch of narcissists. You're not even creative enough to name shit without your own name. If physicists were like you, all our quarks would be garbage like Yakawa Quark, Kobita Quark, etc rather than Up, Down, Top, etc.
Face it, you guys are larpers. If you actually understood what you were talking about, you'd have better names for it.

Example: why call a group Abelian when you can just call it Commutative? Why Taylor's Theorem and not something cleverer?

We don't say garbage like Einstein's Theorem to describe the field metric tensor. We say it's a part of General Relativity. You autistic mathfags need a PR lesson.

>>12618541
Mathematicians don't name things after themselves. Other mathematicians name the theorem after the guy who did it in the past.
Physics also does this literally all the time (Hook's law, Casimir effect, and a shit load of others that we all know).
You're angry for no reason and you're a fucking faggot.

>>12618552
damn I'm glad chemists name shit after themselves all the time

>>12618552
Hooke's Law is deprecated. We call it the Spring Force now. In most of our cases, we have intuitive names for it and just use names as a nod. Casimir Effect came from you mathfags, don't pin that shit on us. Next you're gonna tell me Minkowski Metric and Hilbert Space originated from physicists.

>>12618541
>You're full of a bunch of narcissists. You're not even creative enough to name shit without your own name. If physicists were like you, all our quarks would be garbage like Yakawa Quark, Kobita Quark, etc rather than Up, Down, Top, etc.
Literally how it is lol.
Mathematics has the converse problem, where they'll have different definitions for a sheaf, a stalk, a germ, a bean, a wheat, irregular chaffs, normal fava beans, precorn, a covering over a coffee brew, brew over a tea, teaspoon equipment over a cup, ...

>>12618562
Schrodinger equation
Dirac equation
Newton's laws
Einstein's field equations
And many more
Dude you're literally arguing that mathematicians don't understand what they're talking about because of the naming convention, despite mathematics not even being unique in this regard.
Your seething makes no sense. There is no reason to dislike mathematics, especially when the entirety of the natural sciences wouldn't even be possible without it.

>>12618496
Fear i guess, you can build a general theory as an extension of a specific theory. They hate giving examples, they go straight to N-dimensional.

>>12618580
>Schrodinger equation
Also called the quantum wave equation. Because we know what we're talking about.
>Dirac equation
Also known as the relativistic wave equation. Because we know what we're talking about.
>Newton's laws
Also known as the laws of gravity... Because, well, you get the picture.
>Einstein's field tensors
Also known as the gravitational fields, because....
>And many more...
I rest my case. Give me all those intuitive names for all your stupid math shit. I'll start off simple with widely used important ones. Cauchy-Schwartz inequality. Taylor's Theorem. Rolles theorem. Go ahead, do what I just did.

>>12618609
Mathfags BTFO

>>12618609
>>12618628
You think that the brevity of the name implies that mathematicians don't know what they're talking about?
Physicists are midwit retards who were too stupid to do pure math. That's why mathematicians took over your field.
>SEE YOU COULDN'T DO IT THAT PROVES I'M RIGHT
Cope, stay seething.

in the future, all mathematicians should use proof validation software and they MUST publish the source. If they don't, they've failed to do anything useful, the work doesn't get published, and no one should bother looking at it.

>>12618648
>Cited Newton, inventor of calculus, under physicists
If you mathfags were so smart, why'd you need a physicist to invent your calculus?
>Inb4 Leibniz
No real proof he independently came up with it. He obviously just copied Newton and used a different notation.
>That's why mathematicians took over your field.
And is why we're now plagued with stupid naming conventions like Minkowski Metric, Higgs Mechanism, etc.
>See! You guys have the stupid naming thing too! Because we had to do it for you! Haha!
Wow, you got me good there.

>>12618609
>Cauchy-Schwartz inequality.
the dot product inequality
>Taylor's Theorem
the polynomial approximation theorem
>Rolles theorem
the mean value theorem

where's the problem

>>12618648
Brevity=/=sensibility

Naming a concept in a way that is sensible and consistent is the best way to communicate outside of a field. If the goal is to obscure information then jargon is the best bet.

It's not about if the mathematician knows what they are talking about, it's if the mathematician is capable of giving explanations using said concepts to people who haven't memorized the perquisite laundry list of names over the associated conceptual frameworks they are derived from.

>>12618690
>the polynomial approximation theorem
You're thinking of Weierstrass theorem.

>>12618690
>Mean value theorem
No, rolles theorem is used to prove the mean value theorem.

>>12618717
no, that would be the density of polynomials theorem

>>12618728
that's the second mean value theorem

>>12618496
>Why do mathematicians obscure their work with jargon?
Give one example where this is true. It's clear and obvious what one means by vector bundle, homotopic, measurable, [math] C^{n} [/math] , analytic, Hausdorff, etc. Do you know how tedious it would be to write out the raw definitions for these everytime?
>Why do they keep inventing new words for concepts that have been around for a thousand years?
Again, it's because when you work with these concepts a lot, giving it a shorter name is extremely useful.
>Why do they not care about making their work accessible?
All works are meant to be accessible for the intended reader. Even consider you are not the intended audience?
>Why are they not able to express their work straigtforwardly?
We express them literally as straightforward as you can get.
>I mean, I know why. Clearly they either don't understand it that well or they don't want it to be easy to understand for the purpose of job security.
Seething
>>12618541
>You're full of a bunch of narcissists. You're not even creative enough to name shit without your own name.
It's called paying homage to our ancestors. We can do that, since math doesn't stop working like physics.
>If you actually understood what you were talking about, you'd have better names for it.
We have complete understanding because we actually know what all the terms mean. Cope.
>>12618671
>in the future, all mathematicians should use proof validation software and they MUST publish the source.
Ah I get it now. You are too retarded to follow a fucking proof. Brain fried from retarded physics.

>>12618735
Ah the old Bessel function of the nth kind trick.

>>12618761
>math doesn't stop working like physics.
He doesn't know about Russell's paradox

>>12618784
>He thinks that's a real paradox
Brainlet. Physics is broken beyond repair.

>>12618784
Resolved by ZFC

>>12618541
>. If physicists were like you, all our quarks would be garbage like Yakawa Quark, Kobita Quark, etc rather than Up, Down, Top, etc.
Face it, you guys are larpers. If you actually understood what you were talking about, you'd have better names for it.
Lmao, what are Bosons, Fermions, Newtonian, Hamiltonians, Lagrangian mechanics, Dirac deltas, Schrodinger equation, Heisenberg groups, the Rydberg formula, Einsteinium, etc etc.?
Physicists do this to literally the same extent.

>>12618541
>We don't say garbage like Einstein's Theorem to describe the field metric tensor. We say it's a part of General Relativity. You autistic mathfags need a PR lesson.
lmao, more like
>We don't say differential geometry due to Reimann. We say it's a part of General Relativity by Einstein despite most of the work being done by mathematicians!
typical physishit

>>12618798
>Bosons
Composite particles
>Fermions
Elementary particles
>Hamiltonians
Energy density
>Lagrangian mechanics
Kinematics.
>Dirac Delta
Singularities, e.g. used to denote volume of a circle with center at the origin of (x,y). A = pi*r^2 * delta(z)
>Heisenberg group
That's a math thing. Don't pin that shit on us.
>Rydberg formula
Aka the spectral series of an element. Take the energy of an electron orbiting an atom. Just take the difference between two levels, tada! Rydberg formula.
>Einsteinium
That's chemistry. I let the rydberg one slide, but now you're just being silly.

>>12618839
>Kinematics
Is this a mispelling of cinematics?
>spectral series
what is a spectral series? a group of ghosts?

>>12618851
>Kinematics
Deriving from the Greek kinetikos, meaning "of motion".
>Spectral series
Spectral = light. Series = levels. Basically just grid on which electrons can exist.

>>12618609
>Also known as the laws of gravity... Because, well, you get the picture.
they are called classical mechanics, laws of motion or kinematics. gravity is just one small part of newton's laws

>>12618882
>>Kinematics
>Deriving from the Greek kinetikos, meaning "of motion".
>>Spectral series
>Spectral = light. Series = levels. Basically just grid on which electrons can exist.
Seems a bit contrived. Why would they use obscure greek jargon and neo-jargon?

>>12618732
That's indistinguishable from approximation by polynomials/polynomial approximation theorem.

>>12618517
an arrow and a bigass sheet of paper

>>12618981
Let me fix math for you.
>>>Polynomial Theory
>>First law of polynomial
>[Insert Taylor's theorem without calling it Taylor's theorem]
>>Second law of polynomial
>Density of polynomials
Etc. There, I just revolutionized your field. Novel laureate when?

>>12618978
Hi Tom. Instead of bad faith arguments on /sci/, go post on Jungian boards. They like contrived schmegegge over there.

>>12619030
this

>>12618496
1=1 is not correct, there are no two heaps exactly the same.

>>12619038
>make an argument against mathematics
>some random anon makes the same argument against me
>seethe
okay kiddo. You have to be 18+ to post here

>>12619353
>He thinks all Anons are the same
Take your meds tranny.

There's a lot of reasons for this. Among the more innocent reasons is that if you take a Frobenoid and and start calling it a Frobunkle, and you can get a single grant for doing something with Frobunkles, then Frobunkle research is on the list of the things the NSF cuts up the money for and you're the only doing research on Frobunkles.

There's some story about how quarks got named, or how the charm and strange quarks got named. The guy wanted to call them that but journals would not accept his fancy (and ridiculous) jargon words so then he went to some conferences and gave talks and his talks got published in the conference proceedings and then later he was able to cite those conference proceedings as his justification for calling the particles whatever he was calling them. It's a giant circle jerk. Once he got the Frobunkle quark into a journal, Frobunkle physics was an official topic forever after. In physics the Frobunkle quark is an actual unique particle but in math there are no particles and a Frobunkle is different from a Frobenoid if you say it is.

>>12619388
>he thinks all Anons are the same
Take your meds, you will never be a real woman

>>12619526
>There's some story about how quarks got named, or how the charm and strange quarks got named. The guy wanted to call them that but journals would not accept his fancy (and ridiculous) jargon words so then he went to some conferences and gave talks and his talks got published in the conference proceedings and then later he was able to cite those conference proceedings as his justification for calling the particles whatever he was calling them
This is actually interesting if true.
This is much better than your usual delusional posts, Tooker :)
Also, if you could concentrate your efforts on combatting the wildberger anon, id appreciate it

>>12618839
>>Bosons
>Composite particles
>>Fermions
>Elementary particles
Nice job outing yourself as a retard.

>>12618541
MATH FAGS BTFO
WILL THEY EVER RECOVER?
FIND OUT IN THE NEXT THREAD ON THIS SUBJECT!

>>12618496
what frieze group describes that image?

>>12619584
One of those pictures of Widberger is actually a cop I know Casey Baines.

>>12619893
This is Casey, not Norman.

>>12618541
There's only a finite amount of things that can be called normal/regular.

>>12618541
okay, what would YOU name Taylor's theorem? The Nth derivative factorial ratio series? The cumbucket sum?

Just because you're a brainlet doesn't make the rest of the world wrong.

>>12618496
How the fuck do they keep getting away with it?
[math]-2 = (-8)^\frac{1}{3} = (-8)^\frac{2}{6} = [(-8)^2]^\frac{1}{6} = 2[/math]

Inventing complexity is a coping mechanism, similar to mental gymnastics and cognitive dissonance.

>>12620884
64^(1/6) has 2 solutions
-2 and +2

>>12620915
that's what I wrote? Are you trolling?

The tradition of having certain theorems named after specific individuals goes back to Thales of Miletus, who, when someone asked him what he would take for a certain discovery he made in astronomy, he said, 'It will be sufficient reward for me if, when telling it to others, you will not claim it as your own discovery but will say it was mine.' There is no reason to get so upset about attributing particular discoveries to individuals who first made them explicit and clear. It's like becoming upset that a writer would dare have his name on a book he has authored, or that an artist would sign a work he has created.

>>12618839
>composite particles
>energy density
Good shitpost but holy shit.
It only takes a cursory glance and cond_mat or quant_ph on arxiv to know you’re wrong about Hamiltonians being referred to as energy density.

>>12618839
>energy density
Nobody says this. Everyone tells you how to write down an explicit Hamiltonian.
Stop being stupid

>>12618496
insecurity misunderstanding and misapplication.
basically scared dumb dumbs, dumbing everything with dumb.
it'd be nice if they followed a definition or provided one when they deviate.
just piss poor work covered by piss poor people who are disincentivized from providing decent work qualities.

>>12620884
third equality Is not true

>>12618541

get the fuck off my board physishit

>>12619584
>infinitards need to fall back on a schizo to argue against the cult of Berger
OHNONONONO

>>12618541
Based.

>>12618496
Physicists do this to filter brainlets. Maimon said so.

>>12618496
Telecoms here. Used to read a lot math althought im not real mathematician nor physicist.

I think the ones who do the papers are actually good in what they do. A a good mathematician is usually intelligent, lazy, and hates to be incorrect (the not lazy ones are good math teachers). So they tend to specify a lot of (mundane) conditions and stuff yet do not explain a fcking thing about it because, you know, it is alredy explained somewhere else.

So yeah, it sucks.

>>12618525
generally agree but there was a lot of bad shit in between chanology and 2016.

>>12621852
Tooker has the same relentless delusions and schizoenergy as the wildnigger. If you look at warosu archive, you'll see tooker has been posting RH threads consistently for YEARS.
If I can get the wildschizo to argue with the RHschizo, it would be pretty entertaining

>>12623162
Tooker completely BTFOd the wildschizo already