/sci/ - Science & Math

I'm totally better at applied math.
Pure math just doesn't mean anything to me. I didn't understand calculus until it was explained in terms of physics. I didn't understand 'explaining away' in stats until I was shown an example. Even now, I can see WHERE I can apply math very easily. The applications of everything from averages to integrals to Bayes networks are obvious to me. Pure math just exists out of context for me. I can arrive at an answer, but it means nothing, so I have no clue if I'm right or not. It just doesn't work for me.

That's my experience, anyway. Good topic.

>>3954391
>>3954357
Oh, as far as choosing one or the other for a career goes, I'd go with applied as there tends to be less room in any subject area for theorists than there is for people who do the 'leg work', whatever that is for the field. I'm way outside of my area, though, so take that with a grain of salt.

>>3954410

yeah but there starts to be a distinction when you get out high school

You guys are idiots. So far, I understand both and can do both equally.

>>3954410
You can obviously do neither well though.

>>3954410
This. Though I'll admit I'm not that good at math in general, for having taken as much of it as I have.

I find applied easier to get good grades in, because its easier for me to study for the test. Im not really far in either though, and the difference may lie in how the courses are taught rather than the subject matter itself. All the applied courses are full of engineers who dont really care so they let you know the kinds of questions you will be asked, at which point I can just practice practice practice. To compensate for this they make the known questions mechanically fuck tricky.

The pure stream however is orders of magnitude smaller and is just proofs essentially. They make a point of not letting you know whats coming on the exam, but the questions themselves will probably not need much practice if the core material is understood.

Yeah this is basically the difference between people who could instantly solve trig identities in high school, and people who could do algebra really really well.

>>3954568

which is pure and which is applied?

>>3954571
The pure guys here would be the guys who could solve trig identities very well or instantly.
The applied guys would be the guys who are just good at algebra.
There are some people who could not get a trig identity no matter how hard they looked at it. Some people just got them instantly.

Applied math is very difficult. The mathematics may not require the same intelligence that is required for proofs, but it requires some sort of creative thinking and intelligence applied to problems.
Optimization geniuses always amaze me.

>>3954577

Welp, I've always been pretty terrible at things like trig identities. Not bad at proofs though, so I don't know what's going on there.

what counts as applied math

Fuck your shit, mathematicians. Enjoy being more unemployable than a physicist.

...I hate myself.

>>3954608

>quantitative analysis

>>3954609
>Ph.D. in Mathematics
>Any classroom I'm assigned
>30k starting

>>3954619

>30k starving

ftfy

As an aspiring math guy these posts worry me. Will focusing on applied, stats and computation help? Like I cannot think of a way to be more useful.

>>3954628
Your best bet would be to switch to Physics, and minor in mathematics.

No. The abilities correlate. If you're good at pure maths, you're not going to suck at applied maths. You might not like it as much, but you won't be terrible at it.

>>3954628
Don't worry, I don't mean to be cliche but people saying maths students aren't employable are just jealous.

>>3954659

Yeah. It's the same with the engineers saying arts students aren't employable.

So jelly.

>>3954608

>filename

>>3954664
>Bachelor of Arts
>Any coffee ordered
>$0.30 tip starting

I was far better at applied than pure. Anyone who claims that there is no distinction for them hasn't gone far enough into the fields to see one.

>>3954628

>help

For what exactly?

For the majority of mathematics majors, they will have to do another degree in an unrelated field as a postgraduate to give themselves a chance at employment outside of the academic system.

If you show an aptitude for any applied field of mathematics then your transition would probably be easier to go to another field as pure focuses on maths for its own sake with little to no real application.

i remember once back in high school, it was senior year IB further math and wed already done BC calc so the course was basically 2 months of 3d vectors and then random ass fucking shit that was like intro-level stuff from all over real math, there was a geometry problem he gave us, i think it was making some shape out of matchsticks or something, and I managed to nigger rig it to get the right shape without doing it mathematically, and he said "Well, I guess you're thinking like an engineer not a mathematician," idk really hit home I guess, I'm a math major now but I haven't taken any upper division applied shit just number theory, lin alg and some abstract analysis, and proofs are fucking difficult for me whereas the odd applied problem on the homework is always a relief because it's easy, however I'm pretty sure that's just because the problems like that you get in a mostly proofs class are really easy and I'm not good at math.

>>3954683
That's not really true at all, it's just without a higher degree a math degree only gets you decent jobs that aren't actually in math and have fairly limited advancement potential.

>>3954686
What's the difference between IB further and HL?
I'm doing HL, haven't even heard further mentioned.

>>3954686
> proofs class are really easy and I'm not good at math.

>I'm a math major now
>I'm not good at math

>>3954628
Learning programming or double major in Comp Sci. Comp sci is very employable and gives you something to fall back on if you want to take a break (even a permanent one) from academia.

OP, it depends. Do you want to work in industry? If so, find an area you like applying math to and learn it.

Do you like doing proofs. I mean, do you really really like doing proofs? Are you very good at them? Can you see yourself doing them for the rest of your life? Learn theory.

Look at it this way: there's room for mediocre applied mathematicians in the form of... pretty much anything: statisticians, developers, engineers, quants, etc.

There is very little room for mediocre theoretical mathematicians. The pay is shitty, the competition is intense, and the spots are few. If you don't love doing it for the sake of doing it then it's not your thing.

>>3954706

Biology Parrot.

>>3954706
>>>/b/

>>3954702
What's that meme?

>>3954699
idk thats what the course is technically called in englandspeak
>>3954702
:( im thinking about switching to physics, i was fine with physics in high school and i havent been great at math since calc, i manage to get by because im all around really smart but i can tell i have to work as hard as the average student in my classes which is not the case in literally everything else i do in school

>>3954696

Learn to use punctuation and shorten your sentences. I am getting confused trying to reason your post out.

The issue isn't that you can't advance with a maths degree, the issue is that you can't get a start with a maths degree.

Maths is like humanities in the sense that you have a lot of general skills but no specific skills.

Your movements in the company past the entry level stage are determined on your performance. This is entirely independent of what your major or level of education was before you got into the company to start with.

>>3954716
You don't really know Calculus until you take Analysis. Preferably via Big Rudin and supplemented with Little Spivak for some Differential Geometry.

>>3954683 help make cash

I figure for every batch of engineers that goes through my university, with them goes sets of pdes that need solutions. How could it not be true. If engineers are in demand, people who can do useful maths and computation must also be needed to help these engineers. The general skill level of my peers also contributes to this. Most engineers learn only matlab, and poorly at that.

Awesome math skills + awesome programming skills(c + gpus) has got to be worth money right?

>>3954725

To anyone considering doing pure maths, expect lots of this.

You will never catch up to the bar, and you have to deal with the rants of purists and elitists who believe that the only people who know anything about math are people with masters or honours degrees in pure.

>>3954727
Awesome connections are better. You learn most of what you need for the job on the job anyway.

>>3954731
I'm not berating you. The "Calculus" people are taught in high school is nothing more than a fest of plugging and chugging, with little regard as to where things come from or what they mean. You don't do proofs, you plug numbers in.

>>3954736

>plug numbers in

You have to know the 'right numbers' to get a sensible answer. There is about as much of an art into plugging those numbers in then there is to proving the idea to be logically valid.

>>3954725
Yeah, I know, that's exactly what I was referencing, that high school calc is definitely not real math and the "proofs" we did were like 5 steps long watching the teacher not giving a fuck because there was no way to test us on it, I'm not good at stuff with proofs but I was good with that (also lin alg was the only post calc math class ive gotten an a in and its a 200 level class for engineering majors who dont know what proofs is)
so while i dont entirely know what applied math really is since i havent one it at the university level (except fucking hurr durr undergrad econ calculator usage) i know im not good at proofs and i was good at what math was before it became proofs

>>3954722
Nah, but it's not that heard to learn accounting and get certified, or learn actuarialism[sic] and do that, or just get on some relatively low-level programming or number crunching job (imo computers are essential to math and if you cant program by the time you graduate youre a shitty mathematician).
Just not real career paths there aside from actuary, you pretty much have to end up doing stuff other than math

I am a double major with finance and physics along with a minor in math, and I feel for the people who have trouble understanding the proofs and theorems of pure math. It's easier to imagine abstract ideas with a tangible application that yields an experiment which be observed since not everyone is Will Hunting. But rest assured if you have a solid background in math, there's a financial firm that will be glad to take you in before the average business school graduate with some bullshit management, marketing, or communications degree.

accounting is fucking retard math

>>3954785
just what i always wanted in life
a cubicle with a computer in it and a mediocre job doing something i dont care about

>>3954779

The only field where you are just going to be doing maths is academics.

There is no field outside of university where you will be given a one dimensional role like 'solve and prove' theorems or something else. It is doubtful you will see the words 'hitherto' or 'corollary' outside of university again.

>>3954798
Crypto? Software architecture? DSPs?

>>3954804
No

Assume I am a top math student.

How do I make bank? Where is the money in relation to math?

>>3954815

>make bank

Change fields to anything practical or become a teacher at a private school.

>what is the relation

Nil. Maths is like having a degree at being good at IQ tests, it means that you have a lot of general ability but no marketable skills to use it for.

Some companies might give you a shot in a graduate program with an undergraduate degree with a very high grade average, but you are looking at banks and the government here. Even then, you will be changing roles immediately after you start- so it is completely pointless to pursue such a difficult major.

>>3954815
Quantitative finance.
Masters in that or in any math/cs/stat related discipline or a PhD in those or in hard science.
$150k starting.
Extremely competitive to get into the schools and these days it's competitive to land a big money job but if you can make it that's the way to go.
However you will likely not advance past half a million or so a year unless you move to a higher position somewhere else. But you'll probably be reaching 500k after 5-10 years.

protip: people are retards

>>3954820
I have barely scraped through non-math classes, I find it really hard to study other subjects.
>>3954823
What subjects are really good for this, general advice also?

>>3954839
take the retarded intro econ classes, you dont learn anything at all but its a free A and youll at least be familiar with some terminology
other than that, stat, probability and programming are all really useful, you generally need to be proficient at C++, mathematica and some other language (usually python or haskell) for the jobs and thats part of whats covered in quant programs.
That's pretty much it, the actual finance you have to learn isn't really that much, just basically the rules of the game that youre gonna be playing, whereas the math and programming are the tools and skills you use to play.

>>3954820
You don't know what you're talking about.

>>3954815
Get your Ph.D. then move towards quant finance. Its extremely competitive but also extremely well paid and the work is good if you're into numerical analysis. This is what people mean when they say 'Ph.D. maths 300k starting' its not just a meme, its a reality for the few who've got the balls for it.

>>3954839
To get into quant finance you want to do a lot of numerical analysis, classes like numerical solutions to PDEs are good. Any stochastic calculus you can do you should. Basically though its all graduate level maths you need, so your undergrad just needs to give you a solid mathematical background, then you can go into a Ph.D. either in applied maths or financial maths, or go into a masters of quant finance. Ph.D. is the more realistic route though really - if you don't have one you might find yourself unemployable.

>>3954849
thanks

What can you tell me about undergrad courses, I try to do all the classic and fundamental courses, applied rather than pure where I can. For electives stat and software engineering. Is this a good idea? I took a numerical course and it was puss, matlab for biologists. But I try hard to be good at c++. Any advice welcomed I am nearing a stage where I need to make decisions.

>>3954884
Don't steer too vigorously away from pure maths. Take analysis and you'll get a much better grasp of applied concepts.

>>3954864

I do actually. I bet you haven't even graduated yet.

>>3954884
It really doesn't matter, the more programming and math/stat/applied classes you have the better and having taken some actual finance and econ is a plus but your employers won't even see it and the grad programs are not that specific, the majority of the people who apply for them are in engineering/physics/CS and haven't even done more than one or two real math classes.

I'M SO ALPHA, IT'S CASH. YOU ALL PLAY DOTA BECAUSE THE MATH OF GIRLS IS TOO HARD TO GET USED TO. I HAVE A RULER TO DO ALL THAT SHIT FOR ME AND I STILL GET GIRLS AND SHIT-TONS OF CASH. YOU GUYS CAN'T EVEN COME AT ME BECAUSE OF YOU STUPID EXTRA COMPLICATED MATH. IT'S NOT EVEN USEFUL. I DON'T EVEN NEED AN S IN MATH TO RUN SHIT IN MY TOWN. YOU SHOULD TRY A REAL FIELD LIKE ROCKET SCIENCE. THE GIRLS I GET ARE SO HOT THAT YOU WOULD DIE OF YOUR BONER. I GOT USED TO THAT SHIT A LONG TIME AGO AND NOW I'M FUCKING USED TO IT. EAT A DICK WHILE I FUCK INSTEAD OF EATING PUSSY. TELL ME ANYTHING YOU WANT BECAUSE I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO READ THIS THREAD ANYMORE.