/sci/ - Science & Math

no , but those who make a matter are.

Many experimental physicists can't even into babby linear algebra. They apply QM without having more of a pop sci understanding of it.

>>6031152

This is the most untrue statement I have ever seen. The very current physics fields are all ultra heavy specifically in linear algebra

Not really I mean nowadays maybe but Einstein came constructed GR through rigorous physics not rigorous mathematics (obviously physics requires math though)

>>6031136
Some of them do try to do math (mainly string theorists), but they're usually unable to prove anything rigorously. That's why it's best to look up an author's background before wasting your time on a "proof" by a physicist.

Obviously that depends on your definitions of physicist and mathematician. I would say no, of course not.

most mathematicians are secretly physicists

>>6031136
>physicist
>proving theorems

With the exception of a minority, they're just as much mathematicians as engiqueers.

>>6032514
only the good ones.

>>6032525
moar like only the babby ones who can't into purely abstract thinking.

>>6032537
Sure, whatever you think buddy

>>6032553
Lurie is no Tao

Surely not "All". Some for sure. Ed Wittne, top physicist + fields medal. Smartest person in the world, basically.

>>6031136
No. They're all very learned in math, and are usually pretty good at it, but they're not mathematicians. Physicists do math with a purpose that's outside of the math itself.

Most physicists are not good a mathematics. The average physicists has no idea what topology or measure theory is, not to mention unbounded operators. Basically, all the components one need to tackle even the most basic physics problems form a mathematically rigorous point of view.

>>6032765
>The average physicists has no idea what topology or measure theory is, not to mention unbounded operators.
I have never met even an undergrad physics major, who didn't have a firm handle on basic topology.

>>6032768
Which university to you attend?

>>6032769
Purdue

>>6032773
As far as I can tell, physicists at your university hardly have a single course in topology. I somewhat doubt that they have a grasp of weak topologies, nets, tychonoff's theorem, Weiestrass' theorem, urysohn's lemma or any of the other fundamental results on topology. Actually, I doubt most of them would be able to tell you why convergence in terms of, say, a metric is equivalent to convergence in terms of the induced topology.

What, next you're gonna tell me that the average physicists knows what a distribution is?

>>6032792
>single course in topology
single course in mathematics

>>6031136
they'd like you to think that

>>6032514
this

>>6033486
>i don't know any actual pure mathematicians
pure math is useless masturbation about nothing, not physics

>>6032792
>What, next you're gonna tell me that the average physicists knows what a distribution is?
Uh, yeah, even engineers know that.

>>6033495
>i don't know any actual physics

>>6032792
>What, next you're gonna tell me that the average physicists knows what a distribution is?

I would think so given how useful the Dirac delta is in QM.

As for the rest, you are largely correct. Physicists don't learn math that in depth as the goal is not to learn mathematics, but to either construct models or briefly explain experimental results. In depth would occupy too much time and is often unnecessary for application to the problem they are trying to solve. For example, the amount of topology necessary to understand anyon statistics is pretty minimal.

>>6032768
Wat
I'm about to start 2nd year Cambridge maths and spent some of the summer learning babby's first topology. Looking forward to measure theory next year. I'm friends with a retired experimental physicist who studied at Oxford and worked at Berkley (I think? Or possibly some Ivy league high energy place) and CERN amongst other places, he wouldn't have a clue about such abstract analysis. Perhaps it's a US thing. Or
8/10 provoked a reply and made me feel a bit disconcerted.

>>6033504
if you think physics is useless masturbation, pure maths takes it to a whole new level

>>6032514
What? No.

The two disciplines are different, just with some crossover.

>>6033523
they learn some diff manifolds and think they have topology

>>6031173
And every other kind

>>6033524
>doesn't know any physics beyond undergrad level

>>6033495

>>6033547
>>6033590

sage is not a downvote

le downboat

>>6033524
I'll take String Theory for 600, Alex

>>6033629
at least they are pretending it is vaguely about reality, mathematicians don't even pretend

>>6033634
Why would we? Only a very small amount of mathematics can even apply to the real world and most of it is boring babby shit.

>>6033637
exactly. that is the fundamental difference i am trying to convey to the faget that thinks they are the same

>>6033637
> a very small amount of mathematics can even apply to the real world
this is what high schoolers actually believe

>>6033681
There is such thing as applied mathematics you know. I knew a mathematician, who was working in conjunction with the biology department, on the distributions and movements of ant colonies due to pheromone excretion. You know like when they build those big bridges for the workers to cross steams and stuff? Really gutted I can't remember which institution he was with. Somewhere in the North East of England I think.

>>6033786
this is what most mathematicians do.
I know three people with math degrees. Two are working in physics, the other wants to be an actuary.
people who get to masturbate out new theorems are few are far between.

No.

Physicists need to consult mathematicians if shit gets dicey and out of their reach ( validate it on a theoretical basis beyond that of a physicist's specialty or knowledge ).

Likewise, Mathematicians generally would not be able to do physics well because they would not know of the physics they are bounded by.

The exception is mathematical physicists who do a blending of the two.

>>6031152
Yeah 2/10.

I can think of at least two professors in my university's math department who have Ph.D.s in mathematical physics and prove theorems rigorously in areas such as differential geometry, topology, and operator theory.

>>6033637
>boring babby shit
then tell us how the enriched localization operation of KK-theory in the context of motivic stable homotopy theory for derived noncommutative spaces gives a pushforward functor from the cobordism cohomology theory of a B-bordism whose underlying superscheme is equipped with delooping of twisted fivebrane structure to an (infinity,1)-sheaf of chromatic ring spectra over the structured (infinity,1)-topos associated to the moduli stack of elliptic curves and how this relates to syntomic regulators in infinity-adic Arakelov geometry

>>6032773

victor?

No.

Physics is merely a subset of mathematics. Mathematicians are the true gods of society.

No, physicists and mathematicians have two completely different approaches. You might think that theoretical physics and maths are the same as a babby first year physics student, but if you read graduate physics books and compare them with graduate maths books (even stuff that has applications to physics like functional analysis and differential geometry), you'll realize that they're two completely different subjects.

Mathematical physicists are the only ones who overlap the two subjects.

>>6033502
False. Engineers as well as most physicists do
formal manipulations with the socalled 'dirac delta function'.This is not the same as knowing what a distribution is.

>>6033511
Again, what pops up in quantum mechanics (as well as regular mechanics) in a standard physics course is not the dirac delta distribution. It is the dirac delta function. See for instance, the books by Landau, Shankar, Griffiths, Sakurai and so on, i.e. the standard physics texts in the subject.

>>6033523
This.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCjODeoLVw

>>6034150
'The mathematicians only are dealing with the structure of the reasoning. And they do not really care about what they are talking. They don't even need to know what they are talking about, or what they themselves say, or whether what they say is true.'

Feynman obviously had little understanding of how succesful mathematicians work.

>>6034150
>Feynman knowing anything about mathematics or physics beyond the 20th century

>>6033799
>this is what most mathematicians do.
>I know three people with math degrees. Two >are working in physics, the other wants to be >an actuary.

What an impressive proof.
I know 3 people. In fer from that to all mathematicians.

You definitely ARE a physicist.

>>6031139
So you are calling Michael Faraday insignificant?

>>6034155
Feyn very clearly knows what he's talking about. You've taken his words out of context. He says mathematicians care about structure of reasoning. Mathematicians care about the general case, whereas, he says, physicists need only a particular case which is much simpler.

He does express some hope that underlying these mathematical structures there is something true.

Well, what do you expect from a physicist.

>>6034155
Feynman very clearly knows what he's talking about. You've taken his words out of context. He says mathematicians care about structure of reasoning. Mathematicians care about the general case, whereas, he says, physicists need only a particular case which is much simpler.

He does express some hope that underlying these mathematical structures there is something true.

Well, what do you expect from a physicist.

>bongodrums.jpg

>>6033786
>>6033637
there is almost no mathematics without application.
new mathematics arises from problems, that come from outside or from within mathematics.
show me a field in mathematics that deals with shit, that doesn't connect to other fields of mathematics, that deal with applications

>>6033786
I'm an ecologist. I had an epiphany last year when I realised application of basic maths in this field = groundbreaking papers. The level of mathematical understanding in the biological sciences is tragically low. However, it makes it easy for someone like me - shitter at maths than all mathematicians and physicists, but better than many biologists - to make an impact. So don't tell anyone.

>>6034037
>implying the entirety of that field of research came about due to your specific babby application.

>>6034131
Mathematics does not use anything as disgusting as the scientific method.

>>6033799
>PhD's in Triple Integrals
>Doing work comparable to the work pure mathematicians do.
Choose one

>>6035199
>that doesn't connect to other fields of mathematics
All branches of mathematics are connected. Most applications for mathematics come way after the field has been established for a long time. I don't know of any application that has caused a whole branch of mathematics to be created (applications that only increase interest in sections of already existing branches don't count).

>>6035372
>PhD's in Triple Integrals

How old are you?

>>6034113
Yes?

>>6035199

Ridiculous. I work on A, which is related to B, which is related to C, which is related to D, ... which is related to Z, which is applied to science.

I am not doing applied math.

Get a clue.

>>6035385
How new are you?

>>6034136
You're wrong the 'dirac delta function' is not a function, its a distribution.

>>6034136
>False. Engineers as well as most physicists do formal manipulations with the socalled 'dirac delta function'.This is not the same as knowing what a distribution is.
See this is what happens when you talk out of your ass.
Distrib theory was a first year math class in muh engi school in France.

>is not the dirac delta distribution. It is the dirac delta function
Seems you're the one who has no idea what a distribution is, buddy.

>>6035372
>Mathematics does not use anything as disgusting as the scientific method.
>disgusting as the scientific method
>disgusting
2deep4me
Seriously not that anon but why the fuck are you even here? The board title here clearly states science AND math not your liberal arts postmodernism babbling you massive wanker

>>6032760

Yep, third year in uni for physics, I'm decent at maths and can do the vast majority of what I come across.. But the stuff by some of the proper mathematicians, even on here, boggles my mind.

>>6035997
Out of pure curiosity, what kind of engineering did you finish?

Three years into electrical engineering and I haven't seen distribution theory.

>>6036037
It's a generalist course, and distribution theory was part of the general cursus.
I specialized in electronics myself, but it was after that class.

>>6036065
*generalist school, sorry

Can somebody explain to me what high level physics is like? How is it different to pure maths (obviously physics is based on real life but how are some of the more abstract models in real life created?)

>>6036085
Depends what kind of physics.

>>6036085
Yeah, what are you talking about? Applied physics, fundamental high-energy stuff or even other things?

>>6036085
Theoretical physics is a lot about solving mathematical problems, which seems pretty "mathy" if your understanding of maths is like what you learned in high school. Mathematics on the other hand is about proofs, so the methods are very different.

>>6036232
What's the difference between solving a problem and a proof?

If you're asked "what is the solution to this equation?" then you solve the equation, are you not in the process proving that the equation has that solution?

Unless we're talking about problems in physics where numerical methods have to be used to approximately solve problems instead of analytical ones, I don't see what the differences is between solving a problem and a proof.

>>6036009
Mathfags don't use the scientific method. They don't like it either.

I am currently doing a PhD at an Ivy League math department, and I gotta say that all physicists that I have ever met struggle to understand babby tier math. If you were good at math, you would've studied math.

When I got my Bachelors of Science in Physics, I also found out that I had enough math courses under my belt (they were required to get my Physics degree) that I had also earned a minor in Mathematics on top of my other minor Computer Science.

>>6036258
Typical problem in physics:
How do we calculate quantity X.

Typical problem in math:
What are the properties of X? How should X be defined so that it has the properties we want? How does X relate to other related stuff, like Y?

>>6036404
Wow, no, you're totally missing the distinction.
>What are the properties of X? How should X be defined so that it has the properties we want? How does X relate to other related stuff, like Y?
It's all under the umbrella of theoretical physics.

Math is interested in
What larger classes of object does X belong to.
Can we generalize the properties of X to them.

>>6036404
>What larger classes of object does X belong to.
This is a part of the definition of X. You can't talk about X without giving a context for it.

>Can we generalize the properties of X to them.
This is a valid question, but misguided. Let Y be a property of X. The correct question is: In what contexts does property Y make sense, and what can be proven in these contexts?

A perfectly good example is the determinant of a linear operator. It turns out that this notion makes sense in certain symmetric monoidal abelian categories, and many nice properties of determinants, like functoriality and det(1)=1 can be proven in this context.

>>6036425
>This is a part of the definition of X. You can't talk about X without giving a context for it.
I don't write words with my keyboard so you can gloss over them.
Why do you think I wrote "larger"?

>>6036425
>This is a part of the definition of X.
No.
Simple example:
e^(1/(1-abs2(x)))
Nothing in the definition says it's a test function.
Yet it is.

>>6036428
Even so, it is not a typical question you face in math, or rather it is relatively trivial.
Of course, if oyu can give me one nontrivial example of this I'll give in.

>>6036436
>Of course, if oyu can give me one nontrivial example of this I'll give in.
Everytime you extend a class of objects.
Like functions to distributions.
Or whenever you extend symmetric operators on a Hilbert Space.

>>6036433
>e^(1/(1-abs2(x)))
As it stands, it is just a formal word in a syntactical language has no inherent meaning. The property of being a test function is a property of the semantic model you choose for it, not of the word itself.
I.e. you give it the meaning, and then it is defined within the collection of all test functions.

>>6036436
See this blog post:
http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/the-spectral-theorem-and-its-converses-for-unbounded-symmetric-operators/

Physicists are only interested in the hamiltonian, the position and momentum operators, and a few others.

Tao tries to make more general statements, which is what math is about.

>>6036444
I hope you're really not going to make the really really really retarded argument that when you give the definition of something you've done all the math work.

There's a difference between something beeing true and actually doing the demonstration of it.

>>6036444
>hurrrr Riemann hypothesis is trivial, it's all in the definition!
Seriously?

>>6036443
I fail to see how this is nontrivial.

Functions -> distributions for example. Distributions were defined by relaxing properties of functions, so the inclusion is trivial.

>>6036454
Defining the distributions was non trivial, and it was a mathematicians work.
What the fuck have you been smoking?

>>6036454
>Distributions were defined by relaxing properties of functions
That's not even true.

>>6036451
Obviously not.

All I am saying is that when you define something in mathematics, its context is a part of the definition, whether you explicitly include it in the definition or not.
For example,
"Consider e^x"
Is a meaningless statement if we are being totally rigorous. If you saw this in print the author probably meant e^x as a function on R or C, but this is an implicit context for the definition. If you want to concider "e^x" as some other thing, like extending its domain to matrices, then you have defined a new semantic model of "e^x" and a new context in which to interpret the word. I this sense, the question "to what class of objects does X belong" is a non-question, because it is a (necessary) part of the definition.

>>6036458
>Changing the topic is a valid counter-argument

>>6036456
Are that dumb by nature, or are you forcing it? You must be really dense to misinterpret what I said like that.

>>6036447
Of course, and I agree. This is what math is about.

However, this is not a case of
>What larger classes of object does X belong to.

>>6036466
>its context is a part of the definition
Yes, and that doesn't tell you everything.

Other example: you can define matrix calculus without the underlying algebra theory.
This you can define matrices, and only after that "realize" they are actually equivalent to linear operators in a certain vector space.

>>6036473
>Changing the topic is a valid counter-argument
I'm not.

>Are that dumb by nature, or are you forcing it? You must be really dense to misinterpret what I said like that.
Then try to make your point clearer.
You know you can define all sorts of structures over, say, real functions, AFTER having defined particular members of those structures.

>What larger classes of object does X belong to.
It's exactly that.
Here Tao is interested with the fact that physicists use the Hamiltonian as if it was a bounded operator, when it's not, and considers a more general class of operators.

>>6036474
>>its context is a part of the definition
>Yes, and that doesn't tell you everything.
I'm not saying it does. I'm saying that questions along the type "is X an object of type Y" is a non-question for the above reasons.

Yes. This happens all the time in math. New connections are discovered etc.
Such a correspondence is a much more general thing and highly nontrivial indeed.
But this is not what I was arguing.

>>6036486
>But this is not what I was arguing.
Well it's what I was arguing.

>>6036486
>Such a correspondence is a much more general thing and highly nontrivial indeed.
And it's what I was saying.
Your class of object (matrices) actually belong to a more general class (linear operators).

>>6036483
>It's exactly that.
>Here Tao is interested with the fact that physicists use the Hamiltonian as if it was a bounded operator, when it's not, and considers a more general class of operators.

It's not. It's a question along the lines of
>How can we define X to have the properties we want, and then how does it relate to other stuff.

>>6036496
You would be wrong. The Hamiltonian is already clearly defined.

>>6036495
I would contend that they are exactly the same. Nothing more general whatsoever.

>>6036499
wot? Care to show me the isomorphism between linear operators over test function and matrices?

Linear operators are WAY larger than matrices breh.

>>6036498
You are contradicting yourself, you know.
"More general" automatically implies an inclusion from the more specialized concept.

>>6036505
Yeah and? He's studying classes of operators that include the Hamiltonian.

>>6036504
It is that hard to imagine (uncountably) infinite matrices?
As long as you have a Hamel basis (which you always do in a vector space) you have matrices.

>>6036507
And the inclusion is a non-question. By definition it is included. Exactly my point.

>>6036404
you didn't answer my question.

>>6036404
>>6036514
Yeah, solving problems exactly in physics is the same as writing a proof.

>>6036513
>By definition it is included.
Yes, and the question is constructing larger classes that include Hamiltonian.

>>6036512
No, stop playing on words and clinging so badly. Restrict the argument to finite matrices if you're gonna be anal.

>>6036520
>Yes, and the question is constructing larger classes that include Hamiltonian.
Whish is an entirely different problem alltogether.

That problem may or may not be nontrivial, depending on what you require of your new class, but the fact that H is included there is trivial.

>No, stop playing on words and clinging so badly. Restrict the argument to finite matrices if you're gonna be anal.
I really don't get what your problem is.
Any linear operator defines a matrix and vice versa.
Say you have a linear operator L on a 2-dimensional space with basis i,j. Then if L(i)=i+2j and L(j)=i, then L is represented by the matrix
1 2
1 0
This is elementary linear algebra. Extending to infinite vector spaces is trivial.

>>6036529
>the fact that H is included there is trivial.
Yes it is, and the question is WHICH larger class can you find it to belong in.

>I really don't get what your problem is.
That you're grasping.
You can develop FINITE matrix calculus without the underlying algebra theory and THEN find out it belongs to a more general class, either by developing linear algebra, or by defining a more general matrix calculus.

>>6036529
Or also you can develop cross product on R^3 and THEN generalize it by describing the larger class of external products.

What's wrong with you? This is basic stuff you should understand that.

>>6036535
>You can develop FINITE matrix calculus without the underlying algebra theory
What exactly do you mean by "the underlying algebra theory" here?

>>6036542
Yeah, it's pathetically basic, and I don't get why you have problems with infinite matrices, or the completely elementary correspondence between them and linear operators.


>Or also you can develop cross product on R^3 and THEN generalize it by describing the larger class of external products.
Yeah, this is common knowledge, and whether you define everything in terms Grassmann algebras from the start or whether you start in R3 then generalize makes no difference.
What kind of point are you trying to make anyway?

>>6036558
Seems to me you have the outlook of a student, not a researcher.
Duh, of course your prof teach you starting with the most general case, but that's not how the development went.

No it's not "trivial" to define matrix calculus in uncountable dimensions, otherwise it would have existed right away.

No it's not "trivial" to realize that polynomials belong in a particular structure. Maybe, I don't know, you might happen to remember that the discovery of that structure was the most important thing to happen in the foundation of linear algebra?

>>6036558
>but if I have the general theory from the start I don't need to develop the general theory
WOAW
NO
SHIT

>>6036603
I actually do research. The questions that come up are like
-How can I generalize structure X to a given context Y?
-How should I define X such that it meets certain criteria?
-There should be a correspondence between X and Y. How to construct it?

Never ever "Is X, which is defined to by of type Y, actually of type Z?" which is nonsensical.

>No it's not "trivial" to define matrix calculus in uncountable dimensions, otherwise it would have existed right away.
Yeah, it's trivial. The fact that nobody came up with the idea at first (or maybe they did, but decided not to publish?!) is not edivence to the contrary. Just like the fact that sets and functions form a category is trivial, but wasn't formalized until last century.

>No it's not "trivial" to realize that polynomials belong in a particular structure. Maybe, I don't know, you might happen to remember that the discovery of that structure was the most important thing to happen in the foundation of linear algebra?
Polynomials don't "belong" anywhere a priori. You can realize certain algebras as polynomial algebras, which is a completely different problem.

>>6036606
Far out, ma~n.

>>6036617
The realization that you could define a polynomial algebra was a huge step.

>Is X, which is defined to by of type Y, actually of type Z?"
Miswording what I said isn't gonna help your point.

>I actually do research.
And yet you think distributions are defined by "relaxing properties of functions". Strange eh?

The problem is deeper than that, when you think theoretical physics stuff belongs in mathematics.
The formalization of quantum mechanics was done by theoretical physicists, and it includes
>What are the properties of X? How should X be defined so that it has the properties we want? How does X relate to other related stuff, like Y?

The fact that you think theoretical physics question are limited to "How do we calculate quantity X." shows you're just another fucker who talks out of his ass.

>>6036667
Thankfully, my research has absolutely nothing to do with distributions, PDEs or anything depressing like that.

Allright, dunce. Physics is concerned with one thing, and one thing only. Calculating stuff. Whether this be scattering amplitudes or long-term behavior of dynamical systems or evolution of dynamical systems, everything is about calculating stuff. That is the single motivation of the subject, and all other motivating questions are auxillary to this.

There is a branch of mathematics called "mathematical physics" which aims to develop mathematics for use in such calculations. I think you are confusing the two.

>>6036690

Think you'll find Physics is the study of reality. That's why topics as distinct as Crystallography and String Theory fall into this same broad categorisation.

>>6036697
String theory isn't physics, mate. Until it produces a prediction that can be tested, it's pure math.

>>6035939
sure. you're not doing applied math.
although I don't quite know where to draw the line?
Is the numerical analysist, that creates methods to solve PDEs in physics doing applied mathematics?

Pretty sure.

Is someone working in functional analysis, that helps the numerical analysist out by telling him, that a unique solution, that satisfies specific conditions exists, doing applied mathematics?

I don't know

is someone who works on operator algebras helping the guy in functional analysis out an applied mathematician?
I think they would feel insulted, if you would call them that.

The point is, that none of those guys do "useless mental masturbation" they are all working together to solve problems, that in the end connect with the real world.
I didn't call all of mathematics applied.

>>6035997
>Distrib theory was a first year math class in muh engi school in France.
really first year?
I don't think there's much use for distribution theory without some backround knowledge on functional analysis.
What kind of stuff did you guys do in that course?

>>6036703
it has already made 3 predictions that have been tested already. please stay up to date.

to bad all 3 had negative results.

>>6036703

Sure, but the point I was making stands; physics isn't just about gathering data and calculating stuff.

A lot of abstract development has to occur in some areas before we can understand what we need to calculate. Look at Particle Physics in the 50's: Whole bunch of data, did the calculations, "Oh, looks like there's actually a couple hundred elementary particles." It took a whole lot of people just looking at those numbers and thinking about the patterns they formed before they could come up with a testable framework.

>>6036284
And every person who watches Shingeki no Kyojin doesn't like donuts. You're literally mentally retarded.

>>6033495

>>6036930
>Weeaboo shit.

The point was that the mathematical method allows you to prove things with certainty while the scientific method only gives you "good enough" theories that you can't ever know for certain. They do deal with different things but there's something deeply unsettling about using the scientific method when you're used to dealing with absolute certainty.

To quote Godel
>I don't believe in empirical science. I only believe in a priori truth.

>>6037002
>>6036930
>>6036284
>>6036009
ughhh.
so did this board just turn into math versus physics?
both are valid. both are useful.
fuck off elitist faggots

>>6037002
>you cannot know nuthin
Math is just as flawed as any other human construct. Science deals only with objectively verifiable facts and doesn't care about your emotions. Anti-science postmodern bullshit doesn't belong here. Fuck off back to /lit/ or /x/.

>To quote Godel
Nice fallacy.

>>6037002
>scientific method only gives you "good enough" theories that you can't ever know for certain
Did you fail probability theory?

>>6037042
Did you not read the OP post? This was a troll thread from the beginning.

>>6037055
Math is not a human construct, nor does it deal with the physical world. Science only deals with theories, it does not deal with facts. It can't.

>>6037061
Whether or not you have a probabilistic model for explaining your computations does not mean that the things you're dealing with are actually particles or strings or anything else. You clearly do not understand the scientific process.

>>6037171

>>6037171
>Whether or not you have a probabilistic model for explaining your computations does not mean that the things you're dealing with are actually particles or strings or anything else.
Those physical theories have observable effects. Do you even know any physics at all?

>>6037171
>Math is not a human construct nor does it deal with the physical world.
It was invented by humans, and is an application of neuronal activity occurring within the brain. If want to believe in mysticism and numerology, you don't belong on /sci/. Take that fuckery to /x/ and don't shit up our board with irrational garbage.

>Science only deals with theories, it does not deal with facts. It can't.
My sides. Science only deals with objective observation and logic.

>>6037205
>philosophy
>mathematics

You can't use the scientific method in mathematics. It's the reason that mathematics is not a science.

>>6037216
They have supporting evidence, that doesn't mean they're absolutely certain. In fact, the only way the study can move forward is by having physicists form hypothesis of alternate models, formulate experiments that show evidence supporting the new model and not supporting the prior model. In other words in order to make progress via the scientific method you constantly have to show the prior theories are flawed and suggest a superior one.

>>6037243
>It was invented by humans, and is an application of neuronal activity occurring within the brain. If want to believe in mysticism and numerology, you don't belong on /sci/. Take that fuckery to /x/ and don't shit up our board with irrational garbage.

>My sides. Science only deals with objective observation and logic.

Doesn't realize the obvious contradiction. Clearly you are the one who belongs in /x/.

Mathematics is discovered, not created.

>>6037309
>They have supporting evidence, that doesn't mean they're absolutely certain. In fact, the only way the study can move forward is by having physicists form hypothesis of alternate models, formulate experiments that show evidence supporting the new model and not supporting the prior model. In other words in order to make progress via the scientific method you constantly have to show the prior theories are flawed and suggest a superior one.
Can you do that? Do you have any evidence against leading theories in science? No? Then GTFO of /sci/ with your delusional nonsense.

>Doesn't realize the obvious contradiction.
There is no contradiction.

>Clearly you are the one who belongs in /x/.
Nice projection, shitposter.

>Mathematics is discovered, not created.
Why do you mindlessly repeat already disproved fallacies and refuse to address what I have written?

>>6037325
>Can you do that? Do you have any evidence against leading theories in science? No? Then GTFO of /sci/ with your delusional nonsense.
They're all garbage compared to any theorem in mathematics.

>There is no contradiction.
>science is invented by humans and is an application of neuronal activity occuring within the brain.
>Science is objective.

>Nice projection, shitposter.
but you do, otherwise you would at the very least understand the scientific method and why it's so shit compared to the mathematical method.

>Why do you mindlessly repeat already disproved fallacies and refuse to address what I have written?
You lack reading comprehension, this won't help you out when you enter highschool.

>>6037361
>They're all garbage compared to any theorem in mathematics.
I don't care about your mental masturbation. Why are you bringing up unrelated topics in a delusional manner?

>There is no contradiction.
>science is invented by humans and is an application of neuronal activity occuring within the brain.
>Science is objective.
What do these quotes have to do with my post? Are you hallucinating?

>but you do, otherwise you would at the very least understand the scientific method and why it's so shit compared to the mathematical method.
Unlike you I embrace science and do not hold beliefs in nonsense without observable effects. If you deny the scientific method, you don't belong on this board. Keep anti-scientism on >>>/x/.

>You lack reading comprehension, this won't help you out when you enter highschool.
You stop projecting your unwanted characteristics onto me and seek professional psychiatric help.

>>6037384
>I don't care about your mental masturbation. Why are you bringing up unrelated topics in a delusional manner?
You were the one posting about philosophy. The argument is that many mathematicians express disgust at physicists and the scientific method.

>What do these quotes have to do with my post? Are you hallucinating?
I copy pasted them from your post, roughly.

>Unlike you I embrace science and do not hold beliefs in nonsense without observable effects. If you deny the scientific method, you don't belong on this board. Keep anti-scientism on >>>/x/.
It's science AND math. If you still can't understand that they're both on this board and mutually exclusive then you should take your nonsense to /x/.

>You stop projecting your unwanted characteristics onto me and seek professional psychiatric help.
This from an individual proclaiming their lack of rigor as some sort of gift.

>>6037406
>You were the one posting about philosophy. The argument is that many mathematicians express disgust at physicists and the scientific method.
I did not post any philosophy. Your arbitrary and meaningless "argument" is a pseudo-scientific philosophical position not associated with mathematicians and in fact any group of people at all but mystics and numerologists.

>I copy pasted them from your post, roughly.
You openly admit posting irrelevant garbage?

>It's science AND math. If you still can't understand that they're both on this board and mutually exclusive then you should take your nonsense to /x/.
>AND
Looks like we can't expect a philosotard to understand a basic logical operator.

>This from an individual proclaiming their lack of rigor as some sort of gift.
Your constant stream of projections are fascinating. Why kind of mental disorder do you have?

Are all fruits oranges?

Not really. A lot of physicists (mainly theorists) take the time to learn higher level math so that they can apply it to physics (ie, stuff like functional analysis, topology, etc), but they're not mathematicians unless they're mathematical physicists.

The difference is that physicists study the universe, and pure mathematicians study abstract thoughts in their head. Physics is science, math is philosophy, so it's not the same thing.

>>6034134
Don't all scientists practice applied math?

>>6037450
>mathematical physicists
>mathematicians
pick one

>>6037421
>I did not post any philosophy. Your arbitrary and meaningless "argument" is a pseudo-scientific philosophical position not associated with mathematicians and in fact any group of people at all but mystics and numerologists.
>I don't know anything about rigor in mathematics and refuse to acknowledge anything that challenges my delusions where mathematicians consider themselves scientists and look up to physicists even though almost no breakthroughs in science lead to breakthroughs in math.

>You openly admit posting irrelevant garbage?
reposting your irrelevant garbage, perhaps.

>Looks like we can't expect a philosotard to understand a basic logical operator.
I'm a mathfag, not a philosofag. They're two mutually exclusive sets. Even the most pedantic reader has to acknowledge that the intended meaning is an OR operator.

>Your constant stream of projections are fascinating. Why kind of mental disorder do you have?
Apparently the type that makes me waste my time with illiterate users on the internet.

>>6037454
Pure mathematicians are to applied mathematicians as cobblers are to people who wear shoes. In other words, applied mathematicians don't actually produce theorems or do much math at all.

>>6037456
Mathematical physicists develop new mathematical methods for physics. It's not the same as theoretical physics since theoretical physicists make mathematical models for the experimentalists to test. But they're closely related.

Mathematical physicists mainly use pleb shit, like differential analysis.

>>6037473
Why do they even call them mathematical models if there isn't anything mathematical about them? They should just be called physical models.

>>6037460
>I don't know anything about rigor in mathematics and refuse to acknowledge anything that challenges my delusions where mathematicians consider themselves scientists and look up to physicists even though almost no breakthroughs in science lead to breakthroughs in math.
Your disconnected and schizophrenic ramblings are hilarious. Where was any of this ever implied in any of my posts? Please take your pills.

>reposting your irrelevant garbage, perhaps.
I have only stated facts.

>I'm a mathfag, not a philosofag. They're two mutually exclusive sets. Even the most pedantic reader has to acknowledge that the intended meaning is an OR operator.
"U cannot know nuthin" is an anti-mathematical attitude and someone who intentionally posts mystic pseudoscience is by definition a philosofag.

>Apparently the type that makes me waste my time with illiterate users on the internet.
projection and ad hominem

>>6037473
>for physics
Applied math isn't real math.

>>6031136
Theoretical physicists do. They all need to know advanced linear algebra (dual spaces and tensors among other things). The majority of them need to be familiar with L^2 spaces and other Hilbert spaces. Anybody doing QFT needs to know about gauge symmetries which boil down to lie algebras.

I don't know about experimentalists. Apparently all they do is run an experiment, if they don't get something interesting they just modify it and repeat until it "works". This is strange to me and very non-mathematical, although it produces a lot of accidental discoveries.

>>6037478
>Your disconnected and schizophrenic ramblings are hilarious. Where was any of this ever implied in any of my posts? Please take your pills.
Yes, when you posted your severely butthurt response to the mind-shattering revelations posted in >>6037002


>facts
>scientific method
choose one

>"U cannot know nuthin" is an anti-mathematical attitude and someone who intentionally posts mystic pseudoscience is by definition a philosofag.
It's not actually. It's the socratic method and the basis for the scientific method. The mathematical method sidesteps the whole issue because it doesn't deal with the physical world. You are by definition an illiterate.

>projection and ad hominem
>posting ad hominems then later crying about them.

>>6037489
>Theoretical physicists do. They all need to know advanced linear algebra (dual spaces and tensors among other things). The majority of them need to be familiar with L^2 spaces and other Hilbert spaces. Anybody doing QFT needs to know about gauge symmetries which boil down to lie algebras.

This is really not advanced at all. All of it is undergrad for a typical pure math major.

>>6037494
Lie algebras, L^2 spaces and tensors are not typical for a pure math major at the undergrad level. Maybe at Harvard.

>>6037489

>dual spaces and tensors

Not exactly what I'd call advanced.

>>6037494

L^2 spaces more like Pleb^2 spaces amirite

>>6037490
>Yes, when you posted your severely butthurt response
I am not butthurt. I am only trying to correct you.

>mind-shattering revelations
If by this you mean refuted anti-scientific dogma, sure.

>It's not actually.
It is completely unscientific and baseless. If anyone took that attitude you would not be using a computer right now and society would still be stuck in tribal culture.

>It's the socratic method and the basis for the scientific method.
A deficient /x/tard like you would not understand either of those terms. Please take a science class and stop shitposting.

>The mathematical method sidesteps the whole issue because it doesn't deal with the physical world.
There is nothing beyond the "physical world". Bullshit without evidence can be dismissed.

>>posting ad hominems then later crying about them.
>tu quoque and backpedaling
Where did I post an ad hominem? Spoiler: I never did.

>>6037500
lol

sage

>>6037502
>I am not butthurt. I am only trying to correct you.
Obviously butthurt

>If by this you mean refuted anti-scientific dogma, sure.
lol

>It is completely unscientific and baseless. If anyone took that attitude you would not be using a computer right now and society would still be stuck in tribal culture.
No, it's exactly because of it that the scientific is so rigorous and we've progressed so much. Were it not for that we would still be attributing physical phenomena to magic. Here is a cartoony babby tier analogy that will help you understand.
>You cannot know nuthin'
>I don't have to know anything with certainty. If I propose a hypothesis and do experiments to collect evidence in support of this hypothesis then I can know things "enough" and start calling my hypothesis a theory.
>but you can't know nuthin' for certain
>That's why it's a theory.

>A deficient /x/tard like you would not understand either of those terms. Please take a science class and stop shitposting.
Clearly you are the /x/tard who doesn't understand basic notions of logical argument.

>Where did I post an ad hominem? Spoiler: I never did.
I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but you are clearly experiencing severe symptoms of schizophrenia.

>>6037502
>There is nothing beyond the "physical world". Bullshit without evidence can be dismissed.

The mathematical method doesn't rely on evidence. Nor does it rely on hypothesis and theories. Instead it relies on structures including conjectures, proofs, and theorems.

>>6037514
>Obviously butthurt
That is a claim. Please post the evidence.

>lol
I am sorry you lack the intellectual capacity to understand why and resort to /b/-level ridicule.

>No, it's exactly because of it that the scientific is so rigorous and we've progressed so much.
According to you science is not rigorous.

>Were it not for that we would still be attributing physical phenomena to magic.
That's exactly what you're doing.

>Here is a cartoony babby tier analogy that will help you understand.
>You cannot know nuthin'
>I don't have to know anything with certainty. If I propose a hypothesis and do experiments to collect evidence in support of this hypothesis then I can know things "enough" and start calling my hypothesis a theory.
>but you can't know nuthin' for certain
>That's why it's a theory.
You analogy is wrong and retarded. This is not how science works. Science does not include any idiotic philosophical babbling and objectively verifiable observations either prove or disprove a theoretical consideration. "Theory" also does not mean what you think it means.

>Clearly you are the /x/tard who doesn't understand basic notions of logical argument.
>projecting once again

>I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but you are clearly experiencing severe symptoms of schizophrenia.
So you admit that you do not have any evidence?

>>6037522
And every aspect of this "mathematical method" is explained biologically using neuroscience. No invisible demons involved.

>>6037529
>That is a claim. Please post the evidence.
Evidence would at best support a hypothesis and with such a small number of samples it wouldn't be nearly enough to be noteworthy. Instead I'll provide something better, a mathematical proof.

Suppose that you are in fact not butthurt. (1)
Observe that you continue to post despite claiming I'm a troll.
Note that the only reason anyone would do this is because they are clearly butthurt. (2)
Note that statements (1) and (2) are in direct contradiction, you cannot be both not-butthurt and butthurt at the same time. Therefore by method of proof by contradiction you are in fact butthurt.

>According to you science is not rigorous.
Compared to other things in the set of not-mathematics it is rigorous. Unfortunately compared to mathematics it is babby tier.

>You analogy is wrong and retarded. This is not how science works. Science does not include any idiotic philosophical babbling and objectively verifiable observations either prove or disprove a theoretical consideration. "Theory" also does not mean what you think it means.
Only undergrads and highschoolers believe that the scientific method produces facts, you are clearly retarded.

>projecting once again
You were the first one to make such claims. I'm only mirroring them. It's entertaining to watch you complain about them given your prior use.

>So you admit that you do not have any evidence?
I'm not going to humor you for an irrelevant point.

>And every aspect of this "mathematical method" is explained biologically using neuroscience. No invisible demons involved.
Crackpot who's never heard of the foundations of mathematics. No mathematician would ever make this claim.

>>6037536
>Note that the only reason anyone would do this is because they are clearly butthurt.
False premise.

>Unfortunately compared to mathematics it is babby tier.
I do not see any evidence of this. Every product of science that I use in my daily life works. You are unbelievably arrogant and almost certainly suffer from egomania. I would love to see how great contributions are to human knowledge that they outrival the work of every scientist.

>Only undergrads and highschoolers believe that the scientific method produces facts, you are clearly retarded.
Nice fallacy. Science is a method of gaining objective knowledge. By falsifying a theory this means that you can know with certainty that it is false.

>You were the first one to make such claims. I'm only mirroring them.
They apply to you, not me.

>I'm not going to humor you for an irrelevant point.
Then you agree that I did not make any ad hominem attacks by a simple application of Hitchens' razor.

>Crackpot
Denying science and basic principles of rationality means you are the crackpot.

>who's never heard of the foundations of mathematics.
"Foundations" is a topic of the philosophy of mathematics, not math. Mathematicians do not care about irrelevant hogwash and reformulations which have no effect on their work.

>No mathematician would ever make this claim.
>no true scotsman fallacy
Please demonstrate this. Please show me that every mathematician sides with your idiotic untestable spiritualist numerology that contradicts basic findings in biology. I can't wait to laugh. I bet you also believe in magical souls.

>>6037171
>Math is not a human construct

This is what pure mathfags actually believe.

>>6037572
>False premise.
Provide a proof.

>I do not see any evidence of this. Every product of science that I use in my daily life works. You are unbelievably arrogant and almost certainly suffer from egomania.
1000 years ago you could have made the same statement and it would've held just as much weight. No theory can ever compare to a theorem. A quick internet search pulls up a page of examples of the type of shit you get when you try to use the scientific method in mathematics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_coincidence

This is only through sparse applications, one can't even begin to imagine how many far reaching misconceptions lie at the heart of the sciences.

>I would love to see how great contributions are to human knowledge that they outrival the work of every scientist.
Pick up any pure mathematics text book and read any proof that doesn't require evidence and proves statements with absolute certainty. How often is it that a breakthrough in science leads to a breakthrough in mathematics? Now consider the opposite statement.

>Then you agree that I did not make any ad hominem attacks by a simple application of Hitchens' razor.
It would just be one more delusion added to the stack so go ahead and believe if it you want.

>Denying science and basic principles of rationality means you are the crackpot.
A crackpot would throw out science for mathematics.
>Please demonstrate this. Please show me that every mathematician sides with your idiotic untestable spiritualist numerology that contradicts basic findings in biology. I can't wait to laugh. I bet you also believe in magical souls.

>"Foundations" is a topic of the philosophy of mathematics, not math. Mathematicians do not care about irrelevant hogwash and reformulations which have no effect on their work.
It's studied by mathematicians, philosophers don't even cover category theory.

>... idiotic untestable spiritualist numerology...
ad hominem

>>6037592
>evidence
>mathematics
doing it wrong

>>6037498
They're all covered freshman year.

>>6037476
They use mathematical concepts?

Was Newton a mathematician?

>>6037661
>calculator operations

Nope.

god this thread is shit

i thought Hardy's philosophies stopped being mainstream years ago

>>6037489
So what you're saying is they need to have a very shallow grasp on geometric intuition on a level any non-retarded preteen should possess? I don't think that's enough to see them as mathematicians.

>>6037603
>Provide a proof.
The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim.

>No theory can ever compare to a theorem.
You would not be making any theorems right now without advances in science.

>A quick internet search pulls up a page of examples of the type of shit you get when you try to use the scientific method in mathematics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_coincidence
Not sure how this is at all relevant.

>doesn't require evidence
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>proves statements with absolute certainty
Which is the product of objectively observable brain activity.

>It would just be one more delusion added to the stack so go ahead and believe if it you want.
By defining "delusion" as "application of rational thinking" your sentence becomes true.

>A crackpot would throw out science for mathematics.
No, he wouldn't. He would throw both subjects out for some insane conspiracy theory on par with the postmodern hodgepodge you are advocating.

>It's studied by mathematicians, philosophers
Wrong again. It's studied by philosofags (intellectual impostors) who don't know shit about real math. For example real mathematicians do not practice or care about the ill-conceived cacophonies of numerologists.

>don't even cover category theory.
Category theory when not applied as a tool to do actual mathematics is masturbatory and cringe-worthy computer science kitsch.

>ad hominem
Just stating observations. If you didn't have an IQ below that of a earthworm, you would realize that the first steps of science are observational in nature.

>>6037898
>anti-platonism troll

at least consciousness was funny

>>6037898
>The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim.
You made a claim, you were asked for a proof.

>You would not be making any theorems right now without advances in science.
Most advances in science are entirely useless to working mathematicians. Even computers. There are a few exceptions for computational mathematicians but that's more comp sci than math, emphasis on the "sci" part. It's incredibly rare for a breakthrough in science to lead to a breakthrough in mathematics, it almost always works the other way around.

>Not sure how this is at all relevant.
>What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Evidence based arguments lead you to being drowned in coincidences. Proof based arguments deal with absolute certainty.

>By defining "delusion" as "application of rational thinking" your sentence becomes true.
But to do so would be admitting delusion.

>Wrong again. It's studied by philosofags (intellectual impostors) who don't know shit about real math. For example real mathematicians do not practice or care about the ill-conceived cacophonies of numerologists.
No, the field requires an actual understanding of non-trivial pure math topics (unlike physics). The people who work on it are philosophy inclined mathematicians and not mathematics inclined philosophers.

>Category theory when not applied as a tool to do actual mathematics is masturbatory and cringe-worthy computer science kitsch.
One of many topics required. Dealing with the different set theories and axioms in the study of foundations is non-trivial work involving lots of proofs. It is more actual mathematics than the stuff you see scientists doing. Comp Sci scum however have started claiming that category theory makes their work math but it's just as laughable as when physicists try to call their work math.

>you would realize that the first steps of science are observational in nature.
This is why it's shit.

>>6037914
>at least consciousness was funny

No, it was never funny.

>>6037498
L^2 spaces and tensors are covered during 2nd and third year, respectively.

>>6035996
Why are you pointing this out? This was my point exactly.

>>6035997
>Seems you're the one who has no idea what a distribution is, buddy.
>Missing the point entirely
>Not replying to the brunt of the argument, which is that all the standard physics texts makes use of ill-defined 'dirac delta function', not the 'dirac delta distribution'.

>>6038429
>a book not on mathematics doesn't cover mathematical concepts
>somehow it means physics student can't learn what distributions are in another class

>>6036793
citation?

>>6038435
It certainly makes reasonable the assumption that the average physics student doesn't have a good grasp of the subject. A good understanding of distribution theory would require courses in real analysis, topology, measure theory and functional analysis. Seeing as some of the material is considered masters material for mathematicians, I seems confounding to me that people in this thread apparently are of the belief that most undergrad physics are very well versed in the subject.

>>6038444
Not to mention Fourier analysis and complex analysis, which of course happen to be two areas with which the average physics student is acquainted, but often not with a rigorous foundation.

>>6038444
>moving goalposts
>no true scotsman
Pathetic.
>make the bullshit claim that physicists don't know what a distribution is
>point out it's part of the cursus
>now it's about having a perfect understanding of everything relating to distributions
Jesus Christ, control yourself.

>>6038445
>often not with a rigorous foundation.
Continuing to display your assumptions only reveals how sheltered you are.

>>6038447
I'll stand by my claim that most physics students don't know what a distribution is. To most physicists, the dirac delta function is an example of a distribution.

I never claimed that no physicists know what a distribution is. Someone else claimed that all undergrad physicists know distribution theory, which is obviously false, as one may easily verify by consulting any standard physics text on QM, EM, CM or GR.

>>6038450
Continuing to show how illusioned you are about your own ability in mathematics.

>>6038455
>undergrad
It was never about undergrads, you're moving goalposts again.

>which is obviously false, as one may easily verify by consulting any standard physics text on QM, EM, CM or GR.which is obviously false, as one may easily verify by consulting any standard physics text on QM, EM, CM or GR.
Mathematicians have no understanding of probability theory, as may be verified by consulting any math text on linear algebra.

>>6038461
>It was never about undergrads, you're moving goalposts again.

see
>>6032768

>Mathematicians have no understanding of probability theory, as may be verified by consulting any math text on linear algebra.
Your analogy is false; to obtain a true analogy, you should come up with an example of subject which is well-developed from a mathematical point of view, but which is always presented in an inconsistent, flawed or even self-contradictory manner in textbooks not directly related to the subject. An easy example would be set theory, which is often neglected in maths texts. Indeed, you would find that most mathematicians are not well versed in the theory of sets. The analogy is complete.

>>6038464
The analogy is correct, looking for the math level of physicists in non-math books is an invalid method no matter how you look at it.
Their math classes don't use the physics textbooks.

>>6038468
You're avoiding the fact that I was completely right: undergrad physicists usually do not really know what a distribution is. In case you actually want to back up your claim, feel free to link to the web-site of your university, where I'll assumably be able to find out which courses physicists are usually required to take where you attend, and which texts they use in those courses.

In case you don't feel like showcasing how little maths is required, I'm out for the day. Have fun working with the Hamiltonian as if it was a self-adjoint matrix, thinking that integration is what you were taught in high-school and multiplying those distributions together as if they were functions.

>>6038472
>feel free to link to the web-site of your university,
www.ec-lyon.fr
Distributions are in the first year math program (so, the third year after high school).

>>6038472
>Have fun working with the Hamiltonian as if it was a self-adjoint matrix
The hamiltonian is a self-adjoint operator, and you argued yourself that all operators where matrices in your definition.
Not being consistent there.

>>6038461
I don't think even grad level physics students understand these topics. The initial argument was that working physicists have a mathematical understanding equivalent to that of an undergrad pure mathematician.

>>6038478
I don't know why you're mentioning a mathematics program when your argument is that physicists know mathematics but the classes and textbooks under that PhD program are not listed.

I looked through the other courses offered and they mostly seem to be for engineers. They don't even offer any science besides <wait for it> computer science.

At least that's what I get according to this page.
http://en.ec-lyon.fr/47440591/1/fiche___pagelibre/

Are all scientists philosophers?

>>6038495
>I don't know why you're mentioning a mathematics program
Because it's an engi school. The math classes are part of the generalist engineering program.

>>6038502
Wait, are you arguing that an engineer knows as much math as a physicist and that a physicist knows more math than an undergrad pure mathematician?

>>6038503
see
>>6033502

>>6038508
>>6038503
>Muh advanced approximations and mathematical coincidence course

>>6038512
I can feel your butthurt all over the way across the atlantic.

ITT: dick measuring

fuck off elitists
you aren't wanted

>>6038515
Your understanding of probability distributions is at best equivalent to a stats undergrad. Unless you've done at least some measure theory then it's not worth mentioning.

It's like a highschooler saying "I took algebra in highschool." or "I learned about linear algebra" in highschool to claim that they have an understanding of it equivalent to the level of an undergrad pure mathematician.

>>6038528
It's not dick measuring. It's just mathfags pointing out that mathematicians and scientists do fundamentally different things with very little actual overlap.

>non-scientists claim to be social-scientists
>social-scientists claim to be physical-scientists
>physical-scientists claim to be mathematicians
>mathematicians cringe at the whole dynamic

>>6038529
>Your understanding of probability distributions is at best equivalent to a stats undergrad.
I have no idea what a stats undergrad learns.
>Unless you've done at least some measure theory then it's not worth mentioning.
I did, and continuing to namedrop math fields doesn't really do anything.
The point is I learned what a distribution is, and yes, rigorously so.

>>6038536
>physical-scientists claim to be mathematicians
Nobody is pretending that. It's just you being wrong when you think physicists and engineers don't learn any math.

>>6038536
>>6038538
>>6038540
this argument happens every fucking day because mathematicians are elitist faggots who say "hurr durr mathematicians only people do math"
it's not true
a first grader does math.
shut the fuck up. both of you.
this argument is stupid

>>6038540
refer to
>>6031136

It happens a lot. Physicists also try to claim that mathematics is a science or that mathematicians work revolves around helping the sciences. Neither of which are true since the sciences are largely irrelevant to mathematicians.

You also have retards like this who have no understanding about what mathematics actually involves.
>>6038546

>>6038551
Oh the answer to OP is definitely "no", no doubt about that. I was just contesting the idea that somehow physicists and engi did no rigorous math and just learned some formulas in math class.

>>6038551
> You also have retards like this who have no understanding about what mathematics actually involves.
This is the elitist shit I'm talking about.
Cut it out. It's not cool. It's really fucking stupid.
And it's never going to end.

Mathematics (noun)
the abstract science of number, quantity, and space. Mathematics may be studied in its own right ( pure mathematics ), or as it is applied to other disciplines such as physics and engineering ( applied mathematics ).

Both are doing math, you fucking moron.

>>6038558
In the classical sense yes. In the modern sense however doing mathematics involves proving theorems. Rigorous proofs in mathematics actually define the set theory they're working in ZFC, Constructionist, etc.. and all of their terminology. Physicists and engineers do not do that and it would be silly to have them do it. Why would anyone make them do mathematics when they are not mathematicians?

>>6038571
>modern sense however doing mathematics involves proving theorems. Rigorous proofs in mathematics actually define the set theory they're working in
But I did all that, really.

>>6038571
>Why would anyone make them do mathematics when they are not mathematicians?
Because it's the best way to acquire an analytical mind.
Also, it's much easier to remember in the long term than learning a list of formulas and random facts and forgetting them after a year.

>>6038566

How can you believe in evolution if it's just a theory (a geuss)?

the·o·ry (noun )
an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

dictionary definitions are not appropriate when dealing with technical terminology.

>>6038481
erh, you are aware that this forum is anonymous right? I argued no such thing.

>>6038574
I would be interested in seeing a screenshot of one of these rigorous proofs.

>>6038581
good job picking definitions

theory:
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

Technical terms have definitions, too. Otherwise you morons are just arguing semantics. Mathematicians do more than just proofs.

>>6038583
Meh, why not. That will give me an occasion to pull my old notes out of the drawers.

>>6038586
This definition doesn't change anything.

If you want to argue semantics then one could go back to your definition of mathematics.

>Mathematics (noun)
>the abstract science of number, quantity, and space. Mathematics may be studied in its own right ( pure mathematics ), or as it is applied to other disciplines such as physics and engineering ( applied mathematics ).
>the abstract science
>science

and then look up the technical definition of science in relation to the scientific method. Protip: Mathematics does not use the scientific method, your definition is also inappropriate and non-technical.

>>6038590
> a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
> knowledge of any kind.
there's a reason why they give you multiple definitions moron
just stop being an elitist prick.
adding 1+1 is still called math.
just because you say it doesn't (who the fuck are you to be able to make this distinction) doesn't make it so scientists and engineers don't do math.
My class is called Engineering Mathematics, not "hurr durr engineering numbers"

>>6038597
>adding 1+1 is still called math.
>Arithmetic is math
also
>not defining your set
>not defining your operations
>not proving some theorem
shiggydiggydoo

>>6038611
>not defining your set
>not defining your operations
>not proving some theorem
this isn't the whole of math you fucking moron.
is your brain so weak that you can't comprehend this?
you just make up a shitty definition and just keep pushing it and pushing it?
well it's a shitty definition. Most people will disagree with you. The fucking dictionary disagrees with you.
Arithmetic is part of math. so is set theory, category theory, graph theory, chaos theory, control theory, computational fluid dynamics, linear algebra, and *gasp* modelling in computer science.
get off your high horse. you aren't special for studying pure math.

>>6038614
>modelling in computer science

oh look, it was a compsci fag all along trying to pretend they're mathematicians too.

>>6038619
> compsci fag all along trying to pretend they're mathematicians too.
so you are admitting you are just an elitist faggot?
well then prove they aren't you elitist faggot.
(not compsci btw)

ITT: undergrads fighting each other

stay pleb, gentlemen, just wait until you are doing enough work such that you don't care about this stupid argument anymore

>>6038629
No, I'm not being elitist. I'm just pointing out that they're two separate things.

It's like a religious man trying to claim that religion is a science and the only people who deny it being science are elitists.

Comp sci is interesting in its own right and does it's own thing. The sciences as well. Why can't you guys just be happy doing your own thing? We don't try to convince other people that we're sciences.

>>6038631
This actually is a pretty big timesink. I need to get back to research.

> We don't try to convince other people that we're sciences.
Because math is so fundamental that every fucking person has to do it.
why the fuck do you think it's only math when you are proving theorems?
Arithmetic is the most elementary branch of mathematics.
Why the fuck do you think it's not?

>>6038583
Meh sorry about that, my prep class are still sitting in my parent's house.
I only have the engineering school classes here.
And no scanner.

Enjoy a grainy photo of the first page of the demonstration of Riemann Lebesgue.
The awful handwriting is just a bonus.

>>6038644
okay I thought of a good example.
As an engineer, I have to learn about combustion reactions and the temperature of the products that comes out.
I have to set up balanced chemical equations, get enthalpy information from charts and find the equillibrium point.
I have to do THERMODYNAMICS, a branch of physics, which is studied primarily by physicists and not engineers.
I also have to know CHEMISTRY, to properly balance the equations, understand Gibb's functions, etc.

Are you saying that because I'm an engineer, I'm only doing engineering, neither chemistry or thermodynamics?

>>6037592

Was Pythagora's Theorem not true before it was first discovered by humans?

>>6038650
Arithmetic is a subset of classical algebra and no one does it or considers it math anymore because it's not only solved trivially but because it's a really antiquated way of thinking about mathematics.

Modern mathematics are axiomatized and it involves proving theorems which can then be used. You can use a theorem without proving it but someone had to have proved it at some point in the past. Using a theorem is not the same thing as doing mathematics. It's the difference between making shoes and wearing shoes. You would never call someone a cobbler just because they wear shoes.

>>6038631
> just wait until you are doing enough work such that you don't care about this stupid argument anymore
then they won't come to 4chan anymore, I guess (or maybe I hope is more exact)

> I need to get back to research.
research of a job or what ?

Do you realize how pointless it is to have such an argument on a board like this on such a website ? I really hope that if you're involved in an actual research team, you have more discernment ...

>>6038657
le french dude.
C'mon guy. Ameritards can't even imagine that a French engineer is better in math than most of their scientists.
Riemann Lebesgue : guys with math major barely study it rigorously (except in best univ) ...

>>6038665
>before
how can a theorem that doesn't yet exist be true or false?

>>6038668
> no one does it or considers it math anymore
accountants do it. I do it.
wikipedia says it's a branch of mathematics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic
> a really antiquated way of thinking about mathematics.
and still very useful
> Modern mathematics are axiomatized and it involves proving theorems which can then be used
and modern physics doesn't include classical physics. That doesn't mean that classical mechanics isn't science.
> it involves proving theorems
says who?
who says mathematics is purely proving theorems and using these theorems?
This sounds like PURE mathematics, which we said earlier wasn't the whole of mathematics because there is also APPLIED mathematics.

>this thread
>my sides

Do you guys really feel elitist because you learned some undergrad math literally anyone could learn by using publically available sources?

>>6038729
>This sounds like PURE mathematics, which we said earlier wasn't the whole of mathematics because there is also APPLIED mathematics.

Applied mathematics isn't really math though. It wouldn't exist were it not for pure mathematics. Essentially Pure mathematics is to Applied mathematics as physics is to engineering.

>>6038749
> still no one knows what engineers do.
> Applied mathematics isn't really math though.
it's got the fucking name in it.
I know the counter response, so does computer science blah blah
who are you to decide that applied mathematics isn't math?
it clearly is.

>>6038749
> Essentially Pure mathematics is to Applied mathematics as physics is to engineering.
ROFL
so they can be the same?
there's plenty of engineers who do science instead of designing new crap.

>>6038936
So does computer science.

>>6038955
>Engineering is when you formulate a hypothesis, carry out its experiments, collect evidence, and either discard the hypothesis or establish it as a theory.

>>6039220
yeah there's engineers that do that.
computational fluid dynamics, materials engineering, navigational mechanics, robotics.
These papers aren't written by physicists, they are written by engineers.

>>6039225
You would call this work "engineering"?

>>6039259
R&D has been among the engineering jobs for a while now granpa.

>>6039259
yep.
that's what I'm planning on doing with my degree.

>>6039296
>>6039264
I guess this means physicists are more like engineers than they are like mathematicians.

>>6039333
But all three still do math.

>>6039348
>Use the mathematical method.
>Publish mathematics research papers.
>Prove theorems.
No

>>6039360
and we're back

math is more than just proving theorems.
>Use the mathematical method.
you mean basing our new equations based on older ones?
sure, why not?

math is more than the mathematical method.
Applied math is still math

>>6039390
>math is more than just proving theorems.
It's not. You haven't even attempted to post an example.

Mathematical method is axiomatic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Relationship_with_mathematics

Physics equations have nothing to do with axioms or mathematics.

>>6039390
>math is more than just proving theorems.

Depending on who you ask, doing mathematics can also include learning to interpret theorems.

http://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/there%E2%80%99s-more-to-mathematics-than-rigour-and-proofs/

>>6039400
> Physics equations have nothing to do with axioms
they were originally derived from axioms...
> or mathematics
you keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

1+1 continues to be arithmetic which is an elementary branch of mathematics

>>6039406
>they were originally derived from axioms...
There are no axioms for the physical laws. If there were then you would have a theory of everything.

>1+1 continues to be arithmetic which is an elementary branch of mathematics
Using, but not creating. It's not even a complete mathematical statement. If you had 1 + 1 = 2 then you would at least be able to post a rigorous formal proof for it (it's nontrivial though).

>>6032694
>yfw Tao has papers published on gauge theory, general relativity, and a bunch of other shitty physics shit
>mfw mods are trying to stop making sage visible

>>6039410
I more meant the mathematical language that physics uses and less then physical laws.
I understand what you mean. It's not axiomatic...there's got to be a word for this. Proving (mathematically) from some law, other laws. For going from conservation laws to motion laws.

I guess our disagreement is I just say "do mathematics" as using, creating, destroying mathematics.
Mathemagicians don't like that.
I know math majors; they aren't working on theorems. They are using their craft in cool ways to improve the world around them.

>>6037914
Pseudo-scientific and pseudo-mathematical contents of numerology and mysticism pose a serious threat to a science and math board.

>>6038357
>You made a claim, you were asked for a proof.
Thanks for confirming you dropped out of primary school. YOU made a claim without proof and I rationally dismissed it.

> Most advances in science are entirely useless to working mathematicians.
You're either obviously deranged or not even trying anymore. The entire life of any modern human is quintessentially governed by scientific and technological progress. If yours wasn't I would be very interested in learning what isolated rainforest tribe just now began to receive electricity and internet service.

>Even computers.
Then why are you using one right now if you lack the desire to understand or at least appreciate it? This is an extraordinarily anti-intellectual mentality which any normally-functioning, civilized member of society would not possess.

>drowned in coincidences.
With appropriate experimental conditions causation can be established. Quit pulling shit out of your grossly uneducated, indoctrinated ass.

>Proof based arguments deal with absolute certainty.
By virtue of how the healthy brain is structured morphologically and assigns (from experience) meaning to the (humanly-constructed) terms "proof" and "absolute certainty", (via cascades of deterministic biochemical processes) this comment becomes both tautological and unnecessary. Your denial of rudimentary facts taught in mandatory primary school science courses and your advocacy of quasi-religious numerological dogma will not change this.

>But to do so would be admitting delusion.
As someone who is lacking elementary cognitive science education you are not in the position to refer to others as delusional.

>non-trivial
Another term you fail to comprehend. The subject unquestionably does not fall beyond the epitome of babby if freshmen CS majors can grip most of it with their code monkey toolbox.

>The people who work on it are philosophy inclined mathematicians and not mathematics inclined philosophers.
My fucking sides. There's no such thing as a "philosophy inclined mathematician". Philosophy, be it philosophy of math or otherwise, is the last resort for pseudo-intellectuals who are too cognitively impaired to handle any activity more demanding than smearing drool across a television screen. Nobody is concerned about your baseless/empty "u cannot know nuthin" screeches and asinine reformulations of subjects into different languages which do not offer anything new mathematically. These infantile pursuits are a complete waste of worldvolume.

>One of many topics required.
Nope, it is the only topic required. You would of course know this if you ever studied it beyond a useless periphery introductory course.

>This is why it's shit.
Sorry, but this is not the blog of an underage idiot. It’s a section of a website dedicated to the discussion of science and math and science and math only. Your hurt feelings against objectively-verifiable observations are not science and math so please do us all a favor and take them to >>>/x/ where they are welcome. It isn't our fault that you have to resort to such edgy rebellion against all humanely-accessible knowledge because it so strikingly contradicts your demagogic convictions.

>>6039610
>Thinks computers do proofs
>Thinks comp sci majors understand different set theories much less construct real numbers or more interesting rings.
>doesn't understand the scientific method
>doesn't understand coincidence
>thinks scientific theory = fact
>thinks set theory is a subset of category theory and in general has no grasp of the nontrivial work involved in foundations
>spazzes out when someone points out how shitty the scientific method is

>>6039618
I'm not even gonna read any of that what I presume to be psychotic gibberish. Please do not abuse the block quote function. If you are unable to form complete sentences, you do not belong on /sci/.

>>6039621
Your posts read like those of a 15 year old and are not worth posting. Why are you responding to day old posts anyways?

Hey guys, why so much grandiloquent language here? Is it so necessary?

>>6039623
>Your posts read like those of a 15 year old and are not worth posting.
Your infantile insults read like those of a 15 year old and are not worth posting.

>Why are you responding to day old posts anyways?
I am correcting the blatant falsehoods of that poster.

>>6039625
I'm just surprised the thread is still bumping. Isn't there a bump limit at 250 posts?

>>6039625
>grandiloquent language
You require a dictionary to understand simple english?

>>6039627

You seem upset.

>>6039630
I am not upset. I am here to discuss science and mathematics.

>>6039631
That's surprising. Considering you don't seem to know anything about mathematics.

>>6039632
Why do you continue to post those same dull, infantile insults? I am almost certainly more educated in mathematics than you and this fact is not altered by your hurt feelings. Please grow up and learn to debate like an adult.

>>6039636
>empty claims
Post a screenshot of your PhD.

>>6034841
yes.

are all engineers mathematicians, physicists, geologists, chemists, biologists, economists and finance combined?

>>6039664
yes.

>>6039639
lel.
I believe this anon >>6039636 is the same that the anon of several other dead-end endless threads turning into 12yo kids arguments who are quoting themselves with rage, angriness and hilarious fatuity (same attitude, same desperate attention whore, same empty claims...)

I don't know if I have to laugh or feel sorry for this guy

>>6034131
>Mathematicians are the true gods of society.

If that's true, then why are all the smartest men of history Physicists or precursors to what we would now call physicists (Natural Philosophers and the like)?

>>6034150
>The physicist is NEVER interested in the general case

Theoretical Physics student here. Wtf is he talking about?

>>6038631
>undergrads fighting each other
What I've seen from grown-ass academics suggests that this retarded feuding only gets worse with age. I swear, every fucktard thinks their discipline is the linchpin of the universe.

Anyway, I'm here to chuck something else in this little spastic spat. Reading through the sticky on /sci/ I came across this:

http://amasci.com/miscon/miscon4.html

Hit Ctrl + F and pasta this inside:
There is no single list called "The Scientific Method." It is a myth.

>>6039732
They're not. They're just the loudest.

>>6040218
1) Social scientists don't do science.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbY
2) The scientific method doesn't really refer to a list but rather a few requirements to maintain rigor.

In order to be considered valid a hypothesis has to be testable via controlled experiments. String Theory is often criticized on this point because there are experiments possible but they would require particle colliders larger than our solar system. Religions also do not produce valid hypothesis because you can't experiment against them (their validity deals with faith, not evidence). In order to turn a hypothesis into a theory one has to collect supporting evidence. The evidence is typically analyzed using statistical methods, for example in order for a particle discovery in physics to be considered legit it has to be a sigma 5 event.

>>6039739
A mathematicians work involves generalizing concepts and structures as much as possible via theorems. So for example in mathematics your theorems are typically about n-dimensional spaces that may or may not be euclidean, a physicist however is often interested in a euclidean space of a specific dimension (it is not useful for them to deal with situations or objects that can't exist in the physical world).

ITT : People who never heard of pythagoricians

>>6039732

Because physicists have massive egos. They get the mathematicians to do all their work and then take credit for it.

>>6040529
>(it is not useful for them to deal with situations or objects that can't exist in the physical world).

but they don't really know what can "exist" or not in the real world... They just try to describe it.

Kinda philo. but some physicists are really clear about the fact that they're just using tools (no matter how complicated and non-natural they are) that allow them to have an efficient way to describe what happens.

Does a "Wave function" of a particle really "exist" ? What "exists", except things we can measure ?

>>6040529
>Social scientists don't do science
Won't find argument from me on this point. I just found it funny that I stumbled upon that nugget by browsing the stiky. I understand the need to check one's shit and it's compatibility with the observable world.

>>6040552

Thing is that there's some special things that only work in specific cases but not the general case. The specific cases are often not as interesting to mathematicians because they can't be generalized.

>who cares if you can prove something ridiculous for an equally ridiculous ring, it doesn't generalize to any other rings

pic somewhat related

>>6040575
B-but dy and dx ARE separable...

>>6040578
no man, it's a shortcut convention that people use. When you separate them you're actually doing the chain rule backwards. They intuitively carry some meaning but formally the way they're defined a dy or dx by themselves don't mean anything.

dy/dx = (dy/dt)(dt/dx)

>>6036947
I lold hard

>>6040589
'formally defined' is a dangerous phrase to be tossing around.
C.f. differentials.

>>6039618
>>Thinks computers do proofs
They do. They can do either formal verification of proofs or create them with sufficiently large artificial neural networks.

>>Thinks comp sci majors understand different set theories much less construct real numbers or more interesting rings.
Sets are just a trivial truncation in their pathetic "type theory" code monkey tomfoolery. They can even construct the reals using higher inductive types. Regrettably other algebraic structures as just as easy to define and work with.

>>doesn't understand the scientific method
>>doesn't understand coincidence
You're projecting yet again. Just how brain damaged are you?

>>scientific theory = fact
Correct. And your “hurr durr but science is wrong” junk is not a valid retort.

>>thinks set theory is a subset of category theory
The most natural set theory is defined topos-theoretically using ETCS. You have successfully demonstrated your complete lack of education.

>nontrivial work involved in foundations
There’s nothing nontrivial in the ramblings of toddlers.

>>spazzes out when someone points out how shitty the scientific method is
The only thing this points out is your reception of failure grades in every mandatory primary school science course and subsequent dropout.

>>6041297
>Correct. And your “hurr durr but science is wrong” junk is not a valid retort.
but anon how can you reconcile relativity with quantum physics if both are supposed to be "fact"?

It kind of annoys me that so many people in this thread think that mathematicians only want to work in the most general context, or that the main purpose of mathematics is to generalize some known theory. This is not true. It is true that mathematicians are generally regquired to know why they may do the things they do, whereas physicists generally just assume that everything works out. Consequently, mathematicians oftentimes have an easier time identifying simple generalizations, such as 'it doesn't matter if I'm in R^3 or R^d. But this does not imply that mathematicians then always choose to work in the more general context. Some mathematicians do, others do not. I'd say probably most mathematicians choose to work in a very specific setting, because it is possible to prove much more in such a setting, naturally. Doing everything in the most general setting oftentimes only allows you to do the most fundamental things, and this is not what the average mathematician is interested in.

>>6031136
ser

>>6041307
>how can you reconcile relativity with quantum physics
String Theory

>>6041585
>Tons of different variants of string theory with an infinite number of possible 6 dimensional calabi yau space configurations. All of these variants mutually exclusive.
>muh logical fallacies

>>6041597

String theory is how I learned to tie my shoes.

>>6041603
sounds legit

>>6035997
>France
>Science

>>6040589
> it's a shortcut convention that people use
when you are <20yo, maybe.

And then you'll learn they have a real (math) signification by themselves...
>>6040643

>>6041620
new debate about the number of field medals :) ?
About the influence of French scientists from half 17th to half 20th ?
...


reminder :
"engineer" in France = "applied mathematician/physicist" in most of the countries.