/sci/ - Science & Math

heh heh heh heh

Not really...

>>2998621
Yet in actuality this is equivalent to moving down trophic levels.

100% intellect for math
10% physics
1% chem
0.1% biology
etc. etc.

Also, I would consider biology more respected than chemistry personally.

>>2998632
ON the other hand, economists use lots of math. And some physics in some bullshit models. It kind of skips over chemistry and biology, but continues using psychology and onwards.

The notion that economics is based on sociology I find really entertaining.

As if, sociology is based on anything, and anything could reliably base itself off sociology.

lrn2venn

>>2998680
>econ
>barely touching math

OH SHIT NIGGER WHAT ARE YOU DOING

>>2998683

I agree.

>mfw when I agree

>>2998683

because math is such a huge field that very little of math overlaps econ.

that must be why our economy is fucked because no one can ever understand all these shit and anyone who calls himself a economist is a complete retard

Do you still want to hold on to your premise?

>>2998621
econ ftw

>>2998638
actually traditional economics completely ignores psychology, instead viewing individuals as hyper-rational decision makers who are free from human biases.

which is why so much of it is retarded.

ITT: sociologists trying to mix up their pseudo-science with actual sciences

>>2998693
it also ignores the emergent properties that occur in complex systems.

which is why the Federal Reserve can have all the best econmists in the world and they still cant fix shit.

>>2998693
>>2998690

>mfw when I become Ralph Nader

>>2998689
But math occupies a huge portion of economics

>>2998693
See: Behavioural economics

>>2998699
Not really. Most economic problems have to do more with politics that actual theory and knowledge

>>2998693
No, it doesn't. That's a strawman constructed by people who hate economics.

>>2998690
>Op's point is that you need to know everything to be an economist
>No one knows everything, therefore no one can be a good economist
>That's why our economy is fucked up the butt

My goodness you're right

>>2998693

and traditional chemistry thought phogiston existed and physics thought the aether existed

what's your point? Behavioral economics is accounting for irrational behavior now

>>2998711

I would disagree with the notion that economic problems mostly have to do with politics

>>2998717

I think a lot of economic ideas rest on the unrealistic ideas of how people behave. But I believe that is fine, and easily compensated by expecting human beings to act more human-ly.

>>2998683
Lol econ in Poland is math and statistics all time long, best course I could've chosen!

>>2998638
>>2998638
WTF? What economic models use physic models?

Mr economist, how much physics, chemistry, biology, or psychology do you know? I bet you haven't even taken a physics, chem, or bio course in college bro.

>>2998724
>I would disagree with the notion that economic problems mostly have to do with politics

You're right, I meant to say "problems in applying solutions to economic problems". E.g. boosting government expenditure, price-level targeting, neither of these are being carried out because of politics.

>>2998739
Crazy bullshit financial models. Basically after the cold war, smart physicists went to wall street.

>>2998739
yes, google, black scholes equation
you can use it to solve the heat equation in physics

or use it to price stocks...u mad?

>>2998742

Okay, well, Ill sort of agree.

Sort of. Any group or individual can utilize economic ideas.

Remember, Economics is a lot about forming analogies, and then mathematisizing the hell out of them. That's why it can borrow effectively (or not?) from a broad range of disciplines.

>>2998748
WTF, I know Black Scholes yet never heard about the connection to the heat equation.
I shat brix.

I prefer risk free probabilities any day.

>>2998748
BSM is used to price options faget

To study physics, you need to know a lot of math.
To study chemistry, you need to know a minimal amount of physics.
To study biology, you need to know some chemistry.
To study psychology, you need to know hardly any biology.
To study sociology, you need to know what the word "psychology" means.
To study economics, you need to have taken an intro to sociology course.

o hi i fixt it 4 u

>>2998780
Well, with a few substitutions you could show this.

fuck my internet

>>2998815
econ major here, never touched sociology at all

>>2998815
Economics has nothing to do with sociology, by the way.

>>2998688
So how much math do you know?

>>2998862

An amount.

>>2998862
I think he's doing intermediate microecon, so differential eqs

>>2998880

The highest math Ive taken was 2 semesters of calculus. And my intermediate micro class rests heavily on what I learned in calculus.

I also had to take a statistics class, but I dont know if thats considered above calculus or not.

>>2998885
I'm not sure either, much of my studies in math not being in English.

>>2998904

I remember in high school you took stats after calculus. So I always thought stats was like the holy grail of being smart at math. But all the kids in it said it was easier than anything else.

econ majors are bros and alpha as fuck. they are not nerdy forever alone swine.

>>2998910
Wait... I think I did regression lines during calc. Stats is just an application of calculus.

>>2998910
>>2998926
Depends on the stats, business major shit tier stat is probably the same as AP which is an absolute joke, basically AP TI-84 use, advanced probability and statistics is serious fucking math though.

>>2998885
So basically, about the same as any of the other social scientists take... which isn't that much.

>>2998940
Yeah. Econometrics in particular focuses on regression analysis and stuff, more rigorous stats

Mathematical Economics is some of the most fascinating math out their.

Hilariously the people who are in it are pretty much the same people that I have in all my math and science fields. Almost no business students.

True, if "study" means advanced courses and "know" means "have a basic grounding in". I doubt psychologists, or even most biologists, care about quantum mechanics.

>>2998958
From the wikipedia page, it seems that most of the concepts are covered in econometrics and microeconomics.

I take economics at a business school.

I would prefer my education in economies to be tied to other majors, like accounting and finance. I think its better for me as a student when my education is connected to something practical. But I know there is a negative connotation to business school. For whatever its worth there is no "business" major at my school. I hear some people major in business, or entrepreneurship. What do you study in those majors?

You spend too much time in liberal arts and your only career options are studying and teaching.

>>2998958

>Mathematical Economics is some of the most fascinating math out their.
>the most fascinating math out their
>out their

faggot. it's a shame you, with your dumbed-down math degree, will make more money than me with my pure math degree. mine requires loads more intelligence and, frankly, talent. any ape can solve a differential equation and apply a model.

>>2999006
too bad for you society doesn't value what is harder, only what accomplishes the most for society. And since a pure mathematics degree is pretty much just intellectual masturbation, you're left high and dry.

You mad purefags?

>>2999006
>solve a differential equation and apply a model
>implying that that's the only application of mathematics in economics
>implying that you have to apply a model after solving the problem

>>2998988
Where are you even studying

sounds like a shit economics degree without math

>>2999271

Arizona State University WP Carey school of business.

I do do math. Why dont you think I do math? I do math all the time.

>>2999309
>I do do
Not on the carpet again?

>>2999006
>doing math
>caring about money

Why don't you either accept that you studied math because you like it....

or go become an actuary.

>>2999316

What? What did I do wrong? There is nothing wrong with two "do"s?

Why does everyone make fun of me? ;_;

>>2998988
You know, if you were actually interested in any meaningful quantitative economics, you would understand the importance of math and maybe considering combining a math degree with an economics degree and focusing on economic theory and modeling rather than balance sheets and leadership games.

>>2999332

What? Are you implying I worry only about "qualitative" economics? What could that even mean?

How could I study economics and not use math?

What makes you think I look at balance sheets? Whats a "leadership game"?

>>2999341
You're doing super basic economic modeling involving basic calculus, dealing with serious financial models involves advanced calculus and probability that you aren't even going to touch on, it's not that you're doing qualitative work you're doing business work which is pretty much just going to prepare you to be a corporate economist, not go into banking or finance or academic economics and setting you behind if you ever want a PhD, you're not doing the same level of stuff, and you're pretty slow if you really didn't get the disparaging remarks about other business classes.

>>2999419

Well I dont want to be in banking or finance, or academic economics. Nor do I want a PhD. Is that a big shocker for you?

>>2999419
Wouldn't a corporate economist also require a stronger academic background? I mean, isn't it ultimately also a research/analysis job?

>>2999435
I mean, if all you want is the same corporate economist job it's fine, it's just not anywhere near as strong or useful a program as a more theoretical one combined with additional math.

>>2999442

How do you define useful?

I need to go to bed.

I dont have any problem with academic economics. I enjoy all economics very much. But I think if you are going to claim that working in research and theories is better, more useful or "stronger" than you need to reconcile why it is they ended up working in research to begin with, and didnt end up working for a company that would have been able to utilize their usefulness.

>>2998621
By the property that doesn't hold in the algebra given you've made a conclusion.

That's why you economists are so stupid.

>>2998683
Its barely touching mathematics because economy barely touches mathematics... It employs an infinitesimal amount of all mathematics. If you think otherwise you know nothing of mathematics.

>>2999517
>But math occupies a huge portion of economics

>>2999548
Then the problem isn't that it barely touches mathematics, the problem is that economy is given too large of a bubble relative to mathematics.

>>2999567
The problem is that Econ is only slightly overlapping math, when over half of Econ should be overlapped by math.

Hence the original complain that
>econ
>barely touching math

>Math, physics, chemistry, biology
>'Making life better sure is great'

>Sociology and psychology
>'Making coffee sure is great'

>Economics
>'Making the jews richer sure is great.'

>>2999583
>'Making the jews, politicians and yourself richer sure is great.'

More or less

>>2999582
You seem to fail to understand. If it were more than 'barely' touching mathematics as it is it would suggest that econ involves a large portion of all mathematics. Thus econ should be smaller so that it can 'barely touch' maths while still having more than half of its total area overlapping mathematics. It doesn't need moving so much as it needs shrinking.

>>2999659
Actually I just got you

Most of the reasoning in economics makes perfect sense. I don't buy into that Nash crap, since everything he says basically was an extension of Adams.

It has always been just an issue of how well you understand the theories. The politicians reasonable for our government do not understand them at all.

Obama is the worse. Any time big business can fail is awesome for the long run. Big business does not encourage innovative though, economic efficiency etc. It does this in a really bad way - they hire stupid people that just suck up, creating more success stories for people like that, and less for super efficient millionaires.

Human beings tend to get cushy and forget all the ideas that made things work to begin with. Then they start removing things based on those ideas, and forget how to deal with problems. That's why businesses have to constantly fail and be replaced. Tesla should be the new GM right now.... but no thx to Obama.

Higher education is not privatized... learning will never occur at faster rates. This is major economic failure. Plenty of artificial barriers to health care efficiency. These are done in the name of guaranteeing quality, but there are better ways to do that.

An actual useful economist really should know all of those things.