are mathematicians larping?

[Anonymous No.10060185]

>Feynman was once asked by a Caltech faculty member to explain why spin 1/2 particles obey Fermi-Dirac statistics. He gauged his audience perfectly and said, "I’ll prepare a freshman lecture on it." But a few days later he returned and said, "You know, I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t reduce it to the freshman level. That means we really don’t understand it."

why are mathfags incapable of explaining what they're talking about in an intuitive way? i posted this yesterday:
>>10057757
and nobody was able to explain anything about wtf the Langlands Program actually is. or the second question in that thread about how it compares to Grothendieck's book. not a peep. and look, Mochizuki can't explain his shit to anybody, not even Fields medalists, meanwhile Atiyah claims to have calculated the fine structure constant from first principles but nobody knows wtf he did to get it (can't he just post his code for fuck's sake?)

physicists OTOH always make a point of being able to describe things in intuitive analogies (even if they're "approximate").
>string theory says that all elementary particles are made of little 1D strings
>AdS/CFT says that gravity in space is equivalent to a conformal field theory of one dimension lower
>inflationary theory says the universe started out expanding slow, thermalized, and then expanded exponentially rapidly afterword
>black holes are regions of space with gravity so strong, not even light can escape
>the higgs boson had a mexican-hat shaped potential and once it found a nonzero expectation value, it acted like molasses on the other elementary particles to slow them down
>tests of bell's inequalities mean that you can't explain quantum mechanics if you postulate that really it's deterministic but we just don't know about some hidden variables
>superconductors conduct electricity with zero resistance because electrons pair into cooper pairs, and therefore they can condense into a state of moving in unison

why can't mathfags do this?

[Anonymous No.10060200]

>>10060185
Well I don't really know what I'm talking about but I believe it's becauses Mathematics is layers of abstraction built upon each other. Of course this is also present in physics but atleast physical foundations can have some sort of analogy to a layman. Mathematical structures are less easy to travel up that abstraction ladder and really follow what's going on

[Anonymous No.10060205]

>>10060185
Math is way more complex than physics.

[Anonymous No.10060224]

>>10060200
yeah true, but the only way i ever made sense of math during my undergrad math major was to create mental pictures and relate it to real life (physical) stuff that i could make sense of. for me, i could never just memorize definitions and equations, i needed a visualizable picture. do top-tier mathematicians not do this?

>>10060205
then how come witten is BTFOing all the knot theorists and Atiyah sung his praises for providing new math stuff for mathematicians to work on?

actually, more to the point, you guys study your definitions and axioms and try to prove tautologies -- we on the other hand deal with the real world where lots of shit happens you'd never think of without seeing it with your own eyes. it's pretty egotistical to think that any human or group of humans could come up with ideas more complex than the actual physical reality (a subset of which, in fact, constitutes all mathematicians' brains btw)

[Anonymous No.10060235]

>>10060224
>it's pretty egotistical to think that any human or group of humans could come up with ideas more complex than the actual physical reality (a subset of which, in fact, constitutes all mathematicians' brains btw)
Physicist here, I think it's pretty silly to think that all axioms people study actually correspond to physical systems. There's a reason mathematicians often solve pathological cases that physicists just straight up throw away or shrug under the rug because they are nonphysical.

[Anonymous No.10060245]

>>10060185
First off, you need to understand that, here, you are not talking to nor are entitled to professors and experts who have seminars ready at your call. We get it, people wouldn't spend an hour explaining every little detail of the Langlands Program in your shitty thread. This is not wikipedia, this is not math stackexchange.

Second off, you need to understand that complicated theories get complicated answers. Tell me, can you explain calculus to a child who is just learning about counting? If so, fuck off and be more useful as a tutor, if not, why? Because you first need to explain to him what an equation is, then you need to explain to him basic geometrical principles, then you need to explain to him what a function is, then you need to explain to him what a limit is, and so on and so on before you finally bring the child forward years in mathematical development in order to understand the (as we can look back on) really basic idea that a derivative is. When you are bringing up fields as specialized as IUT and asking people to condense them into single-sentence ideas, you are asking people to do the impossible task of condensing years (even decades) of research and breakthroughs into something convenient enough to fit onto a pamphlet. The fact of the matter is that math isn't always as intuitive as you want it to be, despite how much you would like field's medal worthy theories to be as effortless in their study as taking off the wrapper off a toffee piece.

[Anonymous No.10060249]

>>10060235
true, mathematicians love studying the cases that are believed by physicists to be "useless" and often they turn up 100 years later as being relevant to physics.

but that's not my point. my point is that if you're studying the world, then that is more complicated than studying human thoughts. and the proof is that human thoughts arise from human brains which arise from biology which arises from chemistry, and all of that can be explained by physics. another way to state this is that humans are pretty assuredly classical turing machines, but even if that's not totally true, then for sure all the dynamics that constitute humans and their brains are 99.9999% described by the standard model of particle physics. (the remainder is a bit of evolution to adapt us to earth's gravity, and there we have a theory to cover that too.) therefore, studying fundamental physics and the emergent phenomena that derive from it is necessarily more complex than anything humans can come up with with pure thought alone

[Anonymous No.10060257]

>>10060245
here's an intuitive explanation of a derivative

if the function is tilting up at that point along the horizontal axis, then the value is positive. if it tilts up more than another up-tilting curve, then it's a bigger positive number. same thing for negatives. if the function is going horizontal, or parallel to the x-axis, then the derivative is zero

from these rules i could definitely teach a bright child how to draw an approximately good derivative function by having them look at the function

you don't need to get too bogged down in definitions and formalities to understand the gist of what goes on mathematically

[Anonymous No.10060263]

>>10060185
>and nobody was able to explain anything about wtf the Langlands Program actually is
Which part of it you do you not understand?

[Anonymous No.10060270]

>>10060263
i don't see any "part" of anything there which actually explains the langlands program, except some links to 5+ hours of lectures spearheaded by some russian dude with an intolerable accent and a shit screen presence

[Anonymous No.10060272]

>>10060270
>i don't see any "part" of anything there which actually explains the langlands program
I meant which part of the Langlands program do you not understand?

[Anonymous No.10060276]

>>10060185
>>superconductors conduct electricity with zero resistance because electrons pair into cooper pairs, and therefore they can condense into a state of moving in unison
Okay, now explain this to me except I don't know what the terms "superconductor, conduct, electricity, resistance, electron, cooper pair, condense, state" mean so you can't use any of them.
This is what a mathematician would experience trying to teach you Langlands when you don't know what a modular form is.

[Anonymous No.10060278]

>>10060257
>sure, i'll explain what a derivative is!
>continues to explain a derivative using algebraic and geometrical terms
You missed the point. Read what I typed again until you read
>to a child who is just learning about counting
Besides, what I was trying to get you to understand is that unintuitive ideas, especially the fields that people have to spend years just trying to get a basic understanding of, are not going to lend themselves kindly to simple, neat explanations. Your intuition is only going to be as useful as your understanding of the preliminaries. You are the child who barely knows arithmetic looking up at the adult and asking, "what is a derivative?" when you ask for people to boil down graduate work (at best) into easy, intuitive answers.

[Anonymous No.10060279]

>>10060272
i don't understand ANY of it

like, please, just any sort of nice introductory sentences would be appreciated

[Anonymous No.10060286]

>>10060279
>i don't understand ANY of it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langlands_program

>like, please, just any sort of nice introductory sentences would be appreciated
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langlands_program

Part of the program roughly conjectures that for 'nice' fields, there exists a bijection between certain Galois representations and certain automorphic representations.

[Anonymous No.10060288]

>>10060249
>but that's not my point. my point is that if you're studying the world, then that is more complicated than studying human thoughts. and the proof is that human thoughts arise from human brains which arise from biology which arises from chemistry, and all of that can be explained by physics.

This is a very small brained post. There's nothing saying that the principles from which physics is derived aren't ultimately simpler than the structural principles that makes conscious thought possible. You could possibly create a 'complete' account of physics that didn't deal with thought structures at all, since that's a different domain with different abstractions that don't simply arise out of the former.

[Anonymous No.10060290]

because math is inherently abstract

[Anonymous No.10060293]

>>10060276
here you go:
electricity -- you know that stuff that makes the lights go on and what makes your tongue feel tingly when you lick a battery? or better yet, lightning?

conduct -- that means electricity can flow through it. you know like the wires you plug into the sockets? the sockets connect to more stuff that can conduct electricity, they're made out of metals, you know the shiny stuff like coins are made out of

resistance -- electricity can flow very well through certain things but not through others. in the things it doesn't conduct well through, it goes into heat, you can burn yourself on a hot resistor!

>electron
actually electricity is like the motion of a bunch of little balls of electric charge. the electron is the fundamental little "ball of charge" that we all know and love

my point is that you CAN explain physics even in CHILD level terms

[Anonymous No.10060298]

>>10060279
just a bunch of conjectures related

[Anonymous No.10060299]

>>10060279
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Langlands+program

[Anonymous No.10060303]

>>10060286
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langlands_program
100% jargon that even a math-major physics grad student can't understand

>https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langlands_program
literally 1 sentence, and an unhelpful sentence at that

>Part of the program roughly conjectures that for 'nice' fields, there exists a bijection between certain Galois representations and certain automorphic representations.
i honestly don't know what automorphic representations are

[Anonymous No.10060306]

>>10060293
now if you just do the other half of the terms which are actually a bit difficult to explain, and then manage to fold your 8 random disjointed analogies into one analogy so you actually have a coherent sentence explaining how they interact, you'll have an explanation

[Anonymous No.10060310]

>>10060303
>i honestly don't know what automorphic representations are
What part of their definition do you not understand?

[Anonymous No.10060314]

>>10060310
i didn't read the definition.

is there some intuitive way of knowing wtf you're talking about without cracking some advanced math textbook?

[Anonymous No.10060317]

Feynman was wrong. not everything is understandable without the requisite knowledge.

[Anonymous No.10060319]

>>10060314
>is there some intuitive way of knowing wtf you're talking about without cracking some advanced math textbook?
No, that's why I said in your other thread that "There isn't a retard level explanation".

[Anonymous No.10060323]

>>10060319
and that's the whole point of this thread.

even feynman said that if you can't explain it in freshman terms, then _you_ don't understand it.

[Anonymous No.10060329]

>>10060323
see >>10060317

[Anonymous No.10060331]

>>10060185
You have to realize that mathematicians and strong math students have brainlets ask them questions on a ridiculously regular basis. We have our own research and shit to do as well. As such it simply doesn't make sense to put a lot of effort into giving a total brainlet a comprehensive and intuitive explanation of a non-trivial subject when you KNOW that the biggest impact it will have on the world is giving said brainlet a new way to make themselves look more intelligent than they actually are. Every day there are brainlets on /sci/ asking questions like these, often times the same question. There are answers to these questions all over Quora and stackexchange as well so anyone who is actually interested in the topic and wants to learn about it will instead just do a 2 second google search for the information.

tl;dr: Our time is much better spent doing our own research and answering questions for students who are actually in math programs and making a decent effort to learn the stuff on their own.

PS: Physicslets are fucking dipshits and should learn to handle their own shit like adults instead of relying on mathematicians to do everything for them that doesn't involve repeating the same experiment over and over in a lab.

[Anonymous No.10060332]

>>10060323
>even feynman said that if you can't explain it in freshman terms, then _you_ don't understand it.
Feynman also said that if you don't even bother reading the definition of something, you probably aren't trying to understand it.

[Anonymous No.10060339]

>>10060224
>actually, more to the point, you guys study your definitions and axioms and try to prove tautologies -- we on the other hand deal with the real world where lots of shit happens you'd never think of without seeing it with your own eyes. it's pretty egotistical to think that any human or group of humans could come up with ideas more complex than the actual physical reality (a subset of which, in fact, constitutes all mathematicians' brains btw)
Physics uses very narrow and specialized subsets of mathematical theories. You think you're expanding your view by looking at the real world but really you're just boxing it in. Mathematicians always strive to work in absolute generality and don't care if the theory cannot be given a physical analogy.

[Anonymous No.10060343]

>>10060331
It's the other away around. Brainlets ask physicsts retarded shit all the time like "if the sun was a black hold how fast would we die?" So physicsts are very good at explaining concepts. OTOH, no one really gives a shit about advanced mathmatics. No brainlet has ever asked about monoids or Teichmüller theory or whatever the fuck because brainlets frankly don't care.

[Anonymous No.10060355]

>>10060249
>but that's not my point. my point is that if you're studying the world, then that is more complicated than studying human thoughts. and the proof is that human thoughts arise from human brains which arise from biology which arises from chemistry, and all of that can be explained by physics.

Yeah, just let me solve a couple million 10^23 interacting many body wavefunctions and I'll tell you how a mathematician's brain works.

[Anonymous No.10060356]

>>10060343
>So physicsts are very good at explaining concepts.
Because physics concepts are babby tier with physical analogues and physicists don't really have anything better to do anyways.

>No brainlet has ever asked about monoids or Teichmüller theory or whatever the fuck because brainlets frankly don't care.
We do get those questions all the time and they do come from people who frankly don't care. Just like OP asking about the Langlands program. They don't actually are about the research. They just want to feel smart when they very obviously don't deserve to.

[Anonymous No.10060362]

>>10060185
Because most things in math are not reletable to reality. Hell, even modular arithmetic, which is very simple, is not intuitive or reletable. Thinking about how a number is not really a number but a class is not trivial. And you can't just make an analogy with waterfalls, or spaghetti.

[Anonymous No.10060368]

>>10060224
>it's pretty egotistical to think that any human or group of humans could come up with ideas more complex than the actual physical reality

What are mathematical paradoxes.

[Anonymous No.10060378]

>if you can't explain something so a retard can understand it, you don't really understand it yourself.
I hate this meme, it's obviously untrue and fuck guys like Feynman for pandering this hard. If you unironically believe it this way, stop coping you fucking brainlet. You can't explain 2+2=4 to a dog, you can't explain basic algebra to the average 2 year old, you can't explain calculus to a person with down syndrome. It doesn't matter how well you understand anything when the person you are trying to explain it to fundamentally lacks the capacity to understand it. Not everyone is equally intelligent and there are things the average freshmen will never be able to grasp, that doesn't mean nobody understands it.

[Anonymous No.10060382]

>>10060356
>They don't actually are about the research. They just want to feel smart when they very obviously don't deserve to.
Unless public perception towards math has somehow made a tremendous shift in the 4 years since I had to interact with people with only a high school level of education, this seems probably false to me. Having math knowledge is not fashionable.

[Anonymous No.10060385]

>>10060185
Pure mathematicians didn't even exist until the 20th century, you can just call it an anomaly and refer to all the good mathematicians as physicists.

[Anonymous No.10060386]

>>10060185
Plenty of physicists and mathematicians, including famous ones, ARE full of shit and just engaging in mental masturbation. The key is discerning which models and results are provable (mathematics) or correspond to reality (physics).

[Anonymous No.10060401]

>>10060356
And the result of this mathmaticans autism? The folks who "proved" the abc conjecture can't explain their reasoning to other expert mathmaticians. It's an embarrassment. Complete communication breakdown.

[Anonymous No.10060408]

>>10060401
>The folks who "proved" the abc conjecture can't explain their reasoning to other expert mathmaticians.
It was explained to Fesenko, and Tan, and Go, and Saidi, and Porowski, and Hoshi.

[Anonymous No.10060414]

>>10060382
Last 4 years have seen a rise in pretentious /pol/ and /r9k/ style brainlets who revel in pseudo-intellectualism.

>>10060401
Mochizuki doesn't care about the ABC theorem. Other people studying IUTch have consistently said that it's just a result that happened to fall out of the theory and not a significant portion of the theory. Also, that wanting to understand the ABC proof is not a good reason to study IUTch since it's just kind of a happy accident and there is no reason to believe that there will be other similar results from the theory. I think the real issues are that the theory is too new and some things haven't been formulated in the clearest way. David Roberts has a pretty good writeup on this and I think much of the confusion would be cleared up if some parts of the theory were re-formalized in category theory instead of Mochizuki's multiple-names approach.

[Anonymous No.10060427]

>representations of semisimple affine Lie groups on Verma modules
>automorphic forms of nodal points on Riemann surfaces and modular curves
>??? (aka geometric Langlands)
>AdS/CFT
>mfw

[Anonymous No.10060436]

Math is useless. I don't even use Calc in the real world, but I'm making 120K/yr.

[Anonymous No.10060445]

>>10060270
>>10060279
Alright, thing is, the langlands program relates some very abstract objects to one another, so it's a bit difficult to bring things down to a basic level since even the basic objects lay in the realm of number theory. Let me give it a shot. Basically the idea is that primes have structure of some sort, one can deduce some nice properties of them. Sort for example, the Gauss reciprocity law (technically it's a statement closely related to the reciprocity law) states that x^2+y^2=p can be solved for a prime p (x and y are integers) if and only if p=4n+1. On one side you have a property of a prime number, it having remainder 1 when divided by four, on the other hand you have some solvability criterion for some equation. Langlands basically generalized the hell out of this relationship and conjectured some deep relationships. Namely that the in order to understand abstract properties of not only primes but the analogue of primes within more abstract groups one can relate them to the spectrum of some objects that show up in geometry (like varieties) and heavily rely on tools related to harmonic analysis (actually tools form representation theory but harmonic analysis is effectively representation theory of things like compact groups or locally compact abelian groups). So the kicker is that objects central to number theory are related to objects central to geometry and harmonic analysis. This is the best I can do. Sorry.

[Anonymous No.10060455]

>>10060185
Math is less tied to the real world than physics. That's it.

[Anonymous No.10060462]

>>10060436
people like you deserve to be destroyed

[Anonymous No.10060468]

>>10060445
don't be sorry. good post, i appreciate it.

i still am a bit dubious about how prime numbers are all that important, but then again, i said earlier that mathematical results show up in physics usually 100 years after they appear in mathematics.

[Anonymous No.10060489]

>Physics major friend texts me
>Hey, what book did you use to learn group theory?
>Send him a completely legal pdf of a group theory book (go away elsevier)
>Why the sudden interest in it?
>I'm trying to read a book on susy but it needs group theory
>Oh, cool, didn't know susy used group theory (I'm extremely ignorant when it comes to physics beyond mechanics and I only know mechanics because Arnold's writing style is goat and I would read a twilight fan fiction if it was written by him)
>Yeah, fucking book doesn't even have an introduction to group theory
>Why would it have one?
>Well, you need it for susy
>Yeah, I get that, but why would it include one when there's literally hundreds of books in group theory?
>To make it easier
Is wanting to be spoon-fed a common thing among physics students?

[Anonymous No.10060491]

>>10060489
>didn't know susy used group theory
rofl

[Anonymous No.10060496]

"nonphysical" is based on feels, math is based on proof.

[Anonymous No.10060499]

>>10060468
Well, rather than primes themselves many of the objects that show up in the langlands program seem to show up in theoretical physics as well, take for instance Witten's paper relating qft and geometric langlands, so rather than primes themselves it's abstract objects that in their most basic form relate to primes that are used in some theoretical physics.

[Anonymous No.10060500]

>>10060489
idk probably, as a physics student i think most of my peers should have been engineers

[Anonymous No.10060507]

>>10060185
You live, you Experience, you go to a dark recess of nothing forever. Some guy scribbled something about nano cells and Space X though.

[Anonymous No.10060516]

>>10060489
probably didn't want to learn some group theory stuff he doesn't need for susy

>>10060500
it's too late for me to switch bro

[Anonymous No.10060517]

>>10060200
what's going on is you're born immortal. The average human waste almost 98% of their potential and time. utilizing and maximizing all 100% OF YOUR TIME brings you to everlasting Godhood where you live on without dying you conquer the universe. The reason your hear is because you were given this right at birth. You choose to die. Dying is chosen. Those these words are all in bold black to get you more accustomed and to ease your slow yet in reality very fast descention into darkness

[Anonymous No.10060527]

>>10060290
Aubrey Lee. Not your Lee. Tis not math tis a whore. Tis my Ho.v *tears*

[Anonymous No.10060530]

>>10060500
I think it's due to the fact that, at least in my uni, the math they require for some of their more advanced classes is taught in the class itself instead of having it as a prerequisite, so they expect everything to be like that.

>>10060516
That much was clear. I still don't understand why he expected a susy book to have a group theory crash course when he can just pick any book and read only what he needs.

[Anonymous No.10060533]

>>10060427
If you like it so much than don't value being a bitch over the fate of the world. Really

[Anonymous No.10060534]

>>10060530
It's probably not obvious beforehand only what you need for susy.

[Anonymous No.10060544]

>>10060534
But you can look that up in 5 minutes. Why this need to have it all in one book? Imagine if every book included an introduction to all of its prerequisites.

[Anonymous No.10060560]

>>10060245
>>10060185

Here is the best explanation a layman can ever hope to get about IUT

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kq4jbNl4lJk&feature=youtu.be

Enjoy I guess

[Anonymous No.10060602]

>>10060185
>>tests of bell's inequalities mean that you can't explain quantum mechanics if you postulate that really it's deterministic but we just don't know about some hidden variables
just want to point out this isn't true. The Bell inequality doesn't prove quantum systems can't be deterministic, it just proves they can't be deterministic and local. There could very well be non-local hidden variables.

[Anonymous No.10060610]

>>10060602
are you implying superdeterminism?

[Anonymous No.10060633]

>>10060610
Just looked that up, that's the most retarded thing I've ever heard.


This is what I'm leaning toward right now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MsMuQa80fI

[Anonymous No.10060688]

>>10060185

Feynman had an honesty that you rarely find in academia. He said some of the most beautiful things I've ever seen.

One of the worst curses of the scientific world is people not being able to admit they don't know something.

Mathematicians, among academics I've had to work with, are consistently the most arrogant. They will assure you their area is the most important truth discovering area, but are completely incapable of dealing with any sort of real life problem.

Try it yourself. Get any kind of applied real life problem you're working on, ask a mathematician to give you his opinion on what the outcome will be, and just watch them collapse, taking 35 years trying to demonstrate the first step in their reasoning while in the mean time you've already discovered a new type of supercondutor, a new state of matter, or whatever.

Mathematicians are scavengers and larpers. They either solve puzzles no one cares about, and eventually claim to be geniuses if their particular puzzle serves any purpose in real life (which is not guaranteed), or they take some important result of other sciences and try to develop a model to explain what they saw.

Einstein said himself, "Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore".

[Anonymous No.10060693]

>>10060185

Also my supervisors have always told me things along the lines of "If you have trouble explaining a concept to an undergrad student, it's because you don't understand it yourself".

I wholeheartedly believe that to be true. If you can't do this it's very likely you're dealing with quackery (Like Lacanian psychology level bullshit).

[Anonymous No.10060698]

>>10060245

>He can't explain slopes or areas under curves to a child.

>He thinks he is a genius.

[Anonymous No.10060706]

>>10060633
>chaos
yep

[Anonymous No.10062584]

bump

[Anonymous No.10062729]

>>10060249
>humans are pretty assuredly classical turing machines

[Anonymous No.10062781]

Mathematicians are niggers.

[Anonymous No.10062783]

And they glow in the dark.

[Anonymous No.10062855]

>>10060560
tl;dw
https://youtu.be/kq4jbNl4lJk?t=1h2m50s

[Anonymous No.10062918]

isn't there an intuitive explanation of what the poincare conjecture is? how intuitive do you really want things to be, that the smartest retard and the dumbest layman can clap their hands at the end of the presentation?

[Anonymous No.10062938]

>>10062918
>physicists OTOH always make a point of being able to describe things in intuitive analogies (even if they're "approximate").
In math we dont do that because you usually loose whatever makes the thing great, lets take Langlands program as an example, heres a retard level explanation of what it is:
>Langlands program is a bunch of relationships between matrices of number systems and symmetries between other numbers you can add to that number system
Any mathematician will probably flinch at this just like how a physics flinches every time someone goes 'lol boling ball on a trampoline!'

[Anonymous No.10062943]

>>10060185
>physicists OTOH always make a point of being able to describe things in intuitive analogies (even if they're "approximate").
In math we dont do that because you usually loose whatever makes the thing great, lets take Langlands program as an example, heres a retard level explanation of what it is:
>Langlands program is a bunch of relationships between matrices of number systems and symmetries between other numbers you can add to that number system
Any mathematician will probably flinch at this just like how a physics flinches every time someone goes 'lol boling ball on a trampoline!'

[Anonymous No.10062944]

>>10060185
OP as an applied mathematician with a different undergrad background I know exactly what you mean.

Career mathematicians tend to have an instinctively poor "dumbed down" explanations and high level description of their work. I often find that proofs which could be extremely simple and eloquent intentionally use far more elaborate paths than required, often employing as much math from different fields as possible. They do this for one simple reason:

[math]The~harder~it~is~for~reviewers~to~understand~your~proofs~the~more~likely~it~is~that~your~paper~will~pass~review~quicker.[/math]

It's really simple and boils down to playing on a reviewers's ego. As long as you use proper definitions and constructions and cite your foundation well, you can make someone feel inadequate/dumb for not understanding your work before they have to really dig into it and once they finally do understand some of it (because all math is easy, and anyone with half a brain will eventually grind into understanding any of it) they lose some concentration, they get a slight elation to understand parts of your paper and assume the rest must also be correct (without being as thoroughly critical as they would've with simpler constructions) and bam paper published.

I often find this when I recommend rewrites, pointing out flaws, and then I see that two other reviewers have responded positively and recommended acceptance. After they read my response they feel slightly embarrassed so they just recommend some rewrites and eventually the editor gets tired of me holding the paper back so some dubious constructions are allowed.

Now the next generation of mathematicans will have to use the intentionally obscure theorems and constructions.


>can't he just post his code for fuck's sake?
They almost always think they will eventually be able to sell shit. Alternatively few reviewers will bother to spend weeks to months coding someone else's algorithm (where's the benefit to their own careers?).

[Anonymous No.10062953]

>>10062944
> Alternatively few reviewers will bother to spend weeks to months coding someone else's algorithm
This is something that really pisses me about math, physics , and engineering papers. the data and any code is always fucking hard to get. In CS its almost always freely available on github, sometimes with the ability to run it directly from there, and knowledge turnover is a lot faster because they arnt afraid of citing a specific authors posts on stack exchange, for example when he expands on something he wrote in a paper due to someones questions about it. CS may be too lax in this reguard, but other fields realy need to adopt at least a bit of post 2000 technology.

[Anonymous No.10062956]

>>10060224
you can have mental representations/pictures that dont relate to real life stuff you realise

[Anonymous No.10062958]

>>10062855
interesting

[Anonymous No.10062959]

[Anonymous No.10062966]

Higher math has bullshit functions relating to infinity, when infinity is just some fictional unsubstantiated concept, and doesn't even survive the basic breakdown of math that is logicism. Niggermaticians decided infinity was more important than logicism so they basically gangfucked the entire field.

So whats wrong with mathematicians? The faulty assumption that any of them know what infinity is.

[Anonymous No.10062970]

>>10062966
next time take your pills before replying

[Anonymous No.10062978]

[Anonymous No.10063003]

>>10062970
Kys retard. Infinity fags do not understand that abstract ideas need to be validated by real work. The idea of a watt is abstract, and only made into some measureable reality by figuring what effects the abstract measures of voltage can inflict.

Infinity is just solely abstract however, and has absolutely no working real part of measure. It is a gaping fucking flaw in higher math that has virtually retarded the field since Einstein.

[Anonymous No.10063008]

>>10063003
Aka infinityfags think its perfectly normal to just onvent arbitrary and completely irrational terms for measurements that cannot and do not exist; explicitly because trust in the fiction of infinity which is also similarly described.

[Anonymous No.10063024]

>>10060185
That quote is very stupid. You can only use lossless compression so far. After a point, if you want to compress the information further, something is lost.
Dumbing things down is lossy compression. It is a stupid idea in itself, because it gives people the illusion of having understood the full theory, when the only thing they understood is a simplified version of it.

Also, Feynman is a meme.

[Anonymous No.10063028]

>>10060224
>muh Witten
Ever heard of the expression "the exception that proves the rule"?
God I hate physishits. Dumb as fuck brainlets, the lot of you.

[Anonymous No.10063034]

>>10060185
>>the higgs boson had a mexican-hat shaped potential and once it found a nonzero expectation value, it acted like molasses on the other elementary particles to slow them down
this one anoyes me because of how fucking shit it is. It has no relation to the truth except that it uses the same names. Whats even worse is that ive seen dumbed down explanations of the higgs mechanism thats actually correct so this is just retarded.

[Anonymous No.10063035]

>>10060693
Your supervisors are full of it. This type of arrogance is typical in academia. Professors like to think they make a difference when it comes to their students' education. Newsflash: they don't.
Professors say stupid shit like this because they want to claim that the student has understood the material because they're good teachers. But the truth is that the students that understand the material do so by their own virtues, with very little aid from the professor.

[Anonymous No.10063038]

>>10060688
You're a moron.

[Anonymous No.10063041]

>>10060401
This has happened before you idiots. It took decades for Galois' work to be widely accepted.
Accept that you're simply not smart or informed enough to understand a particular subject.
If you can't just kill yourself. Physishits are a waste of oxygen anyway.

[Anonymous No.10063042]

>>10060378
This.

[Anonymous No.10063080]

>>10062953
Math and engineering papers are terrible in this regards, they will virtually never give you their code if you ask for it. And if you publish open source code in a field where software licenses are usually closed source and sold the the reviewers become actively hostile towards you.

[Anonymous No.10063093]

>>10063038

Are you a butthurt mathematician?
I bet you can model complex topology problems in your vastly superior brain, but can't use your intuition to predict the most basic of outcomes in a physics/chemistry/statistics related experiment.

We can test you out if you want.

[Anonymous No.10063098]

>>10063093
Anything you can do I can do better, faggot.

>can't use your intuition to predict the most basic of outcomes in a physics/chemistry/statistics related experiment.
Why would I need to use my intuition? There's a mountain of information that has accrued over the centuries available to me.

[Anonymous No.10063106]

>>10063098

>Anything you can do I can do better, faggot.

Highly unlikely. You need intuition because in real life science, where you need to move beyond a blackboard, you can't spend infinite money attempting infinite things to get to an answer. You need an intuition to guide you beyond where the literature is, and it's often not as pretty and clear as stacking theorems.

(Which is why mathematicians are basically useless for that purpose)

[Anonymous No.10063141]

>>10060468
If you find the relevance of primes dubious, perceive them as parametrizing particular ring ideals and then tie their importance to the all important status of ring ideals.
t. theoretical physicist

Regarding primes in Z, think of them as parametrizing the grids that cover no smaller grids.

... -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 ...
is the grid geberated by 2
(Think of a cristal with a 2mm spacing ir something)

... -25 -20 -15 ...
is the grid generated by 5

-12 -6 0 6 12 18 ...
is the grid generated by 6

etc.

The grid of 2 already covers all element of the grid of 6 (or of any grid of 2m, really)

The primes are exactly the numbers which geberate fundamentally new grids that yiu haven't yet covered by smaller numbers

You not only have such grids/ideals for the algebraic object given by + and *, but by any ring

[Anonymous No.10063445]

>>10062944
good post, thanks

[Anonymous No.10063447]

>>10063106
>Highly unlikely.
I disagree.

[Anonymous No.10063465]

>>10063447
There are experimental fields in physical chemistry where practiced researchers can estimate the properties of chemicals more accurately by looking at their skeletal structure more accurately and reliably than the best quantum chemistry software in the world can predict.

What benefit exactly are you going to provide a research team given that the models aren't even correct?

[Anonymous No.10063472]

the problem with math is that 99% of the effort is a waste

imagine you're randomly sending out a signal into the sky in the hopes of making contact with an alien civilization

if you send the signal out at random across the entire sky, 99% of the time you will miss anything of significance

this is math

[Anonymous No.10063477]

>>10063472
i think you've successfully described "research".

[Anonymous No.10063839]

>>10060185
>Little 1d strings
Oh yes how intuitive