/sci/ - Science & Math

That's like saying that French is objectively harder than any other language because if you walk up to some random dude and start speaking in French, he probably won't understand you.

>>2631483
Your strawman is poorly formed.
Try again. This time with some REAL intelligence.

- What's a function ?

- Oh, just a filter, you put someting in it, and it spits out something different from it. Like your stomach.

- What's hysteresis?

- A phenomenon that still exists although its direct cause vanished. Like your parents being dead and you still being alive.

>>2631495
Wait, so you use a strawman argument then yell at someone else for pointing out that you're using a strawman argument by saying that HE'S using one?

Oh wow

>>2631455

objectively? harder?
nope.jpg

Let me fix your statement for you:

Human brains are not wired for math. Considering the processing power of our brain we have an extremely difficult time with fairly simple math problems. We cant even really comprehend extremely large numbers and due to our wiring some mathematical concepts are inherently extremely difficult to grasp for the average human. barring savants and geniuses, for most people, math is the most difficult subject

>>2631503

a function is not an advanced mathematical idea. That's like calling words an advanced idea in language. Maths IS functions.

>Maths is objectively harder than any other subject.

It's more boring, not harder. You don't have any physical evidence of your work so no one wants to do it. Most of it has no practical application.

It's like saying "Steam engines are the best type of engines because they're hard to use and no one bothers to understand them"

Maybe physicists are just better than mathematicians at explaining stuff?

>>2631524

For people on the street, it kinda is.
Doesn't change the fact tht maths can be explained to a layman.

Something Leibniz excelled at.

>>2631514

Advanced math is not about computing large numbers. It's about logical deduction and finding patterns and structure.

>>2631539

Therefore philosophy is harder than maths.

>>2631539

i wouldnt know im a biofag. i just know we're inherently bad at it. or maybe thats just a little lie we in the bio department tell ourselves so we feel better

>>2631529

Higher math is abstract and can't be explained in terms of real concrete things. We regularly work in more than 3 dimensions when we have no experience of more than 3 dimensions. The most basic object of math is an abstract set which is not even defined except that there is one.

>>2631543

philosophy is easymode because after

'i am'
everything else is based on assumption and you can go fuckwild crazy and justify pretty much anything

>>2631514
Subtlety, relativity and subjectivity is harder to comprehend than math.

Everyone thinks they're an expert, failing gruesomely all the while.

>>2631551

Maths has axioms too, after which it's only assumptions.

>>2631550
All I'm hearing is "blah blah blah I can't explain stuff properly"...

>>2631543

philosophy hasn't kept up with scientific advancement. They have no idea what they're talking about any more.

>>2631556

The axioms form a set of rules of how things behave within that structure. Everything else is rigorously derived from the axioms. There are no assumptions at all.

People just aren't interested in a subject that doesn't have obvious practical uses. The average person doesn't give a shit about manifolds or tensors because it doesn't matter to them. You can't explain it to them because they don't care to know what you're talking about.

>>2631561

i agree. Neuroscience will soon take over psychology, then sociology, and then seriously alter philosophy/economics

I think of math as just another form of abstract thought, like god or dead parents. People perceive math as difficult because they literally don't spend enough time doing it. ANYONE can do well in math, its just a function of how much time you put into it. Math isn't as "attractive" as the softer science because it seems more intuitively foreign to our brain, but its not. It's the general bias(one that seems to be pretty general) that math is "hard". So therefore, when someone doesn't understand a math concept, they automaticly dismiss it as too hard for them. That's at least my observations of individuals who didnt pursue education after highschool for whatever reason. There is a completely different perspective of math in a college campus. I have a feeling that college students are far more confident in their learning abilities. I open a new textbook, it looks challenging. A few years ago, i would have said "fuck that shit, it looks too hard". But i have spent a lot of my time learning how to learn math. And i can look at a text book and think " wow, this is going to be fun".

>>2631582

Agreed. It sure is gonna suck for those Physiology majors we seem to be churning out in record pace.

I agree

I admired the delicate architecture of math since basically forever.

I just dont have the brains for it though so I study Law. If I could grasp it i'd become a physicist without fucking fail.

Nope. Mathematics is just a bunch of truisms. Dealing with applying them to the real world is much harder than just proving them.

Maths is useless without other sciences, other sciences can't do without maths.

> ITT: whether watered down and oversimplified concepts relating to a subject can make a layman feel like they've learned something, is an objective measure for how "hard" the subject is.

So you're saying the quality/value of something is based on how hard it is to understand? Alrighty then...

Enjoy your false elitism
I'm a math major

>>2631683
Isn't that the most sincere form of elitism possible? No one puts special value on the ability to walk, but running a marathon is a significant feat.

because mathematicians do the proving, so physicists can apply those proven axioms to phenomena in the real world.

no of course physics is easier to conceptualize because its a physical thing
math on the other hand is abstract if you don't know maths you can't understand maths
however physics isn't about understanding the rough idea behind certain things now is it
its hard because first principles are good but you can't find everything without experiment
math on the other hand can all be derived from first principles at least to the current extent of knowledge

bottom line your talking bullshit and the fact that you made this thread says you're a failed scientist turned mathematician or that you are a mathematician and regret it

>Enjoy your false elitism

enjoy your redundancy

>>2631455
Maths is not harder than theoretical computer science.

OP, mathematics can be explained to laymen just as well as any science. If you don't know the material well enough, then you will have trouble doing so, that's all.

So try transferring out of your shitty little state university and going to a real school where they teach real math. When you learn it, you'll see how easy it is to explain it.

Philosophy is harder than math. Yes, I studied both.

>>2632280

Philosophy is harder to be good at.

>>2632263
>implying theoretical computer science isn't basically math

oh u

>>2631455
This post is true and anybody studying physical sciences should be well aware of this.

Anybody studying physical sciences who thinks this isn't true should go to the a top-ten or top 5 university and see if there still isn't a huge gap in intelligence and ability between the maths students and other science students.

Or better yet just go to the international maths olympiad and see what the best young mathematical minds in the world look like, and then go to the biology/chemistry/physics olympiad and again see the discrepancy.

I'm a chemistry student at a university that's ranked top 5 in the world in every university ranking I've ever come across and the maths students here are superhumans. Every single one of them would have be able to do well at the physics course, by contrast I'd estimate probably about one in ten of the physics students would be able to do well in the mathematics course (and I guess a little less for compsci students), and barely any of the biological or chemistry students.

The reason is that there is simply a a way greater variance in mathematical ability than any other subject, such that if you were to scoop up just that top 1% or smaller you'd get more people with a far higher level of ability than if you were to do the corresponding thing in say chemistry, or even physics.

If you disagree with me, you've probably never seen much that top fraction of a percent of ability in action. Just go find some IMO gold medallists or something, or failing that, watch a documentary about them.

>implying it doesn't depend on the individual

I have friends who are geniuses at mathematics without even trying yet have to spend hours upon hours to be able to pass English lit.

>>2632352

>I'm a chemistry student at a university that's ranked top 5 in the world in every university ranking I've ever come across

Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge and UCL don't have particularly amazing chemistry programs, so I'm going to assume you're full of shit.

>>2631503

He said functor, idiot.

>>2631582
Indeed. Heck, even computer scientists working AI models and simulations of neural networks will probably make more significant contributions towards understanding thought and the human brain than psychologists.

They're just walking anachronisms who're trying to understand how the brain works without any grounding in biology. It's only thanks to the subject being tarted up in popular culture (lol let's make a "psychological profile" of the suspect olololool) that anybody bothers taking it at all.

>>2632368
My best friend is like this. I'm a biotechnology student and he panics and begs me to help him with writing basic essays. Meanwhile he will be graduating with a master's next year at the age of 20.

>>2632368
shit sux in a cupcake.

>>2632288
Philosophy may be harder than math. But it's a whole lot less useful.

>>2632387
>Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge and UCL don't have particularly amazing chemistry programs,

Hahahah, okay.

>>2632352
That is because proficiency in easy math translates well into proficiency in higher mathematics. So those students start to identify with math from an early stage and have a clear pipe to follow.

Other subjects does not have that kind of a pipe. They first tell you that F=ma and then they teach you circuits. Few kids find that all that fascinating so they are more likely to stick to math if they are mathematically talented. If they are not mathematically talented then they are just useless in physics.

So when a brilliant person chooses to study mathematics he is in fact just being lazy and staying in his comfort zone. Stop stealing all the people math.

>>2632427

They don't.

>>2632427
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-science-schools/chemistr
y-rankings

Harvard is alright. The rest? Nope.jpg

>>2632387

UCL? Not an amazing chemistry program?

What are you on?

>>2632462

It's not in the top 5 in the world.

>The other sciences are even worse.

>implying math is a natural science

>>2632278
>mathematics can be explained to laymen just as well as any science.

"The Pythagorean theorem simply states that there is a relationship in a right triangle with sides a, b, and hypotenuse c such that c^2 = a^2 + b^2.

These diagrams I have carefully drawn should help.

I'll provide you a geometric proof along with a few examples to get you started."


"So, like, is that a function?"

mfw I'm dealing with a High School graduate.

I agree with OP. Math can get pretty fucking complicated.

you fucking faggots argue about the dumb shit. you call this a science board? fuck this

>>2632440
Who are you trying to convince here?

>>2632481

>4chan

/o/ knows more about engineering than this lot.

>>2632447

The last 3 don't even feature on the list BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT US SCHOOLS.

>>2632478

In real countries, this theorem is taught to 12 year olds, not graduates.

>>2632472

He meant ICL.

That DOES have a top chemistry program.

>>2632491

Have you ever been to Oxford or Cambridge?

The only sciences they enjoy there are traditional maths and physics. Anything else is for lower class scum. They're quite happy to sit around all day, learning Greek and Russian, safe in the knowledge they're set for life.

>>2632501

ICL does, but ICL is the MIT of Great Britain.

>>2632505
Oxford is kind of meh in the sciences. It's mainly for lawyers, businessmen, and future politicians, as well as the occasional writer/journalist.

>>2632505

I'm currently studying maths there, so I know exactly what it's like. You obviously haven't as you still have this misconception that we're all arrogant arseholes. In fact, most of those get turned away because they come across as such at interview.

>>2632516

Exactly, it doesn't need science.

It survives on historical reputation. A classical education from Oxford>>>>a scientific education from anywhere else.

>>2632523

there = Cambridge

>>2632481
Math elitism on this board is a meme. Lurk moar.

>>2632514

Still can't quite compare to Oxbridge though.

In Europe, there are 2 kinds of schools for science

ENS of Paris, and the rest.

Don't even try, Anglofags.

>>2632527
Sure, but most of us are actually trying to do science here, not reap the rewards of a degree from a prestigious university. Reputation < Results.

>>2632527

Maths education from Cambridge >>>> Classical education from Oxford

>Maths is objectively more abstract than any other subject.

Fifix'd

>>2632505
>science students at Oxford adn Camrbidge sit around all day learning French and Russian

lol it's funny what plebs come up with because they're so jelly.

>>2632545

>Reputation < Results.

Yeah, no. They have that reputation because of their results. It wasn't granted to them for fun.

>>2632478
this
>>2632492
I'm sory but that person was seriously retardedor graduated from some ghetto tier high school. Sucks to be them.

>>2632561

Didn't say that.

There really isn't a point in doing a science at Oxbridge.

>>2632387
What does how good their chemistry programs are have anything to do with the quality of their maths students and courses?

>>2632541

>ENS

It isn't anywhere near as good as ICL. And it's in France.

>>2632564
>It wasn't granted to them for fun.
I was under the impression it was granted to them by the name-value of their institution, not individual achievement. Unless you expect me to believe that just getting into a good university entitles you to such a status, I stand by what I said.

>>2632576

Oxford is for the Arts + Humanities.
Cambridge is for the Sciences + Maths.

How hard is this to understand?

>>2632591

It's the best school of Science in Europe, derp.

>>2632596

According to what? It's not on any of the rankings.

Cambridge>ICL>ETH>ENS

>>2632593

They get the best undergraduates, have the best facilities and have the most money. They can't lose.

>>2632603

Sigh. Don't look at the rankings, they hardly mean anything.

Just ask any scientist in Europe. The work produced is of the best quality, and the most innovative.

>>2632576
No actually I think you'll find you said
>They[science students]'re quite happy to sit around all day, learning Greek and Russian, safe in the knowledge they're set for life.

Could you be any more jelly? What's the matter? Failed STEP? Couldn't answer questions intelligently at interview?
I applied to Oxbridge (Cambridge specifically as it happens, though it matters little) because I knew it was the hardest to get into. Enjoy your university full of weaklings who were good enough to get into Oxbridge, or who didn't bother applying because they knew they'd never get in anyway.

IDEA =
ICL
TU Delft
ETHZ
RWTH Aachen

oxbridge is too old to play

If you think math is hard your a fucking moron.

>>2632610
Sorry, but that's hard for an American like me to believe. Maybe it's because we see idiots get into top universities through connections and legacies here.

I sometimes wonder if adopting something like the A-levels would yield better results, but I have no doubt someone would find a way to screw that system too.

>>2632619

And that's why they don't get anywhere near as much of their research considered world-leading?

Don't make me laugh.

>>2632619
>I have absolutely no metric or evidence on which to base my claims but believe me, I'm right.

>>2632634

> your

>>2632644

So rankings are evidence of a given institution's performance?

Lol.

>>2632637

You can't worm your way in like you can over there. They don't know anything about your financial background, connections etc. because they're not allowed to ask, so they wouldn't be able to tell. They don't care who's rich/famous, they care about who'll give them the best results.

>>2632651
So rankings aren't evidence of a given institution's performance?

Lol.

OP, I'm disappointed that you didn't shoop "shitting" into "shifting".

>>2632651

I'm sorry, what are rankings for again?

Stop advocating your own damn institution because you're jelly that France isn't the fucking best.

>>2632671

Rankings are for marketing purposes.

http://www.arwu.org/FieldENG2010.jsp

Oh, look ! University of Maryland pwns Cambridge.

I'm probably the only actual scientist on this thread, and I'm not advocating any institution. I work at a lab.

>>2632658
Yeah, our best schools are obscenely expensive, and the best public schools are usually overcrowded. Thankfully, most students are in business programs or the liberal arts, so science and engineering are ok.

Can someone tell me if European schools have pre-med programs, or if you can study medicine from year 1?

>>2632683
>ARWU
Joke rankings. Look at the methodology.

>>2632686

Year one.
In some countries, passing from year 1 to year 2 is obscenely hard though.

>>2632686
There is no 1st year (anywhere?) in Europe.

>>2632683

Engineering is a natural science, is it?

>>2632693

Yet they are the most respected rankings.
The others are even more full of shit.

>>2632700

Engineering = mechanics = machines.

Maybe that's why they did this typology. No idea.

>>2632703
They aren't respected by anyone

>>2632697
I wish we had that. It would spare us all from the living cancer that is the pre-med student.

>>2632705

They made it separate from the natural science rankings. It's pretty obvious even they understand they're not the same thing.

>>2632708

What planet do you live on, kid?

The Shanghai rankings is the only internationally respected University ranking, and despite that it sucks.

>>2632683
Cambridge has more nobel prizes than the whole of France.

You jelly as hell.

>>2632686

Year 1. However, they're usually 5 or 6 year degrees (remember we start at the equivalent of your year 2) that require a ridiculous level of endurance.

>>2632720

Exactly. It sucks. It's the most respected but it's still shit.

It's like boasting that you have the cleanest shit.

>>2632727

Meh. University of Edinburgh made a bigger impact than Cambridge in science overall, methinks.

Also ENS had more Fields medals.

>>2632727

Meh, Nobel prizes aren't a great judge of an institution's prowess, only its reputation.

(I'm the guy actually at Cambridge btw)

>>2632731

I'm not the one who started using rankings.
Thanks for proving my point, dipshit.

>>2632735
>Also ENS had more Fields medals.
OH, SNAP!

WHERE'S YOUR PRECIOUS TRIPOS NOW!? WHERE ARE YOUR GRAND WRANGLERS?!

>>2632735

In medicine definitely. Not in science overall by any means.

Newton
Rutherford
Watson and Crick
etc.

>>2632739

I wasn't the guy you were arguing with, dipshit.

>>2632741

Like I said before. The number of awards won by people at an institution aren't a great measure of its prowess.

What's with all the dick waving? Does any of this shit really matter? Is there a law that says the problems of the universe can only be solved at five schools?

Calm down and do your science.

>>2632767
If all the jelly-haters would just admit that maths students at top universities will be stronger than math students at low-ranked universities then we can continue with the topic at hand.

>>2632735