/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15184765]

I'm having a crisis of faith in mathematics. I'm European and before university mathematics was my favourite subject and I went through the hardest mathematics grammar schools. It was my favourite because it was the only subject not dependent on rote anything, be it memory drill, or whatever. In this subject you could arrive at answers in tests through pure reasoning and not some rote piece of information you had to remember, such as was the case in history or biology. But as time went on and I met actual mathematicians and went to a pure maths program, it all quite ensoured me. In my early teenage years I've not had particularly well developed critical thinking abilities. This meant I gave into the superstition of MBTI and through it I met MBTI communities. After realizing the nonsense it was, I returned to them and in there was a PhD graduate of pure mathematics. This person struggled to understand consistent human behavior across time is inherited through genetics, which are made up of a series of additive alleles, and how that entails the distribution of human behavior is gaussian, hence no binary dichotomy model such as MBTI could be valid. I tried to help him understand by explaining how that's exactly the same case as coin flips, hence the binomial, but he just wouldn't get it, and kept using ad hominem argumentation, without ever losing faith in his pseudoscience. And in regards of the pure maths program, there was nearly no reasoning. We've had to remember 20 pages of definitions for god knows what reason from god knows where, essentially training us to be little bitchy parrots. When discussing having found a quicker solution, the TA agreed with my chain of reasoning, but said I should stick to the definition instead, with everyone glorifying drilling solving problems the way professor has done on the board over and over again, which made me remember this weaving-basket forum post of a humanities major trying mathematics and realizing it's all just a bunch

[Anonymous No.15184766]

>>15184765
of “autists solving puzzles”. As a child I briefly programmed in C, but in spite of being victorious in regional competitions, I quickly realized the people best at programming just keep programming all the time, and the tasks we were supposed to do in programming lessons or when I remembered programming were just so tedious and mundane. When I moved from C to Unity, I realized it was about remembering all the commands from all the various imported libraries, which I realized only several months of a quite fun time trying to figure out how to implement a region-triggered event. As such I decided never to touch programming again. But then seeing analysis in pure mathematics, that’s exactly how it felt like. And it’s even worse, because these people aren’t gleaning anything interesting from what they’re doing beyond a boundary, meaning they can’t even put a definite finger on anything. I’d rather have a statistician bullshit me than an analysis mathematician. I'd always thought mathematics was the peak of human reasoning, but with all of what I’ve experienced, I’m finding it hard to believe. Even looking at the structure of crystallized reasoning and the most complex jobs, writing ability, particularly as a form of composing written arguments, rises far above mathematics. I also know /sci/ to be a particularly dumb board. I wanted to do mathematics, because it was the only form of knowledge which wasn’t an empirical form of unintelligent parroting. But now I’m not so sure I want to continue giving this field chances. As the saying goes “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” I’m already going to be inheriting real estate and have a gig that pays more than a mechanical engineer. I might just have to take my talent elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.15184780]

>>15184765
Had a similar experience. I dropped out and joined medicine. It's also tons of rote learning but ironically less than in a university Math program.

Higher Education sucks. It's been adapted to fit females

[Anonymous No.15184793]

the problem with mathematics is that it does not dive deeper into the meaning of words and statements, and leaves it to philosophy and linguistics. As you can see here, stated in the introduction of Principia Mathematica, on page xv. This would mean that the assigment of words and concept from natural language to mathematical notions is not as rigorous as it seems. So, in search of further rigour, you'd need to venture into philosophy, semantics and grammar.

[Anonymous No.15184804]

>>15184765
Yeah pure math sucks. All the most interesting discoveries take place in applied math and always have.

Pretty much all the interesting concepts are born first in applied math and then bastardized by pure mathematicians who take abstractions too far. Sure you need to prove things, but there has to be a point to it. Proving things to prove things and defining things to define them is just autism.

You barely have to memorize in real math (anything applied).

[Anonymous No.15184810]

>>15184780
>It's been adapted to fit females
This
Why do women like memorisation so much anyway?

[Anonymous No.15184823]

>>15184810
Because they lack the ability to perform reason and synthesis.

[Anonymous No.15184860]

>>15184765
Don't let one idiot graduate and several other imbecile teachers spoil math for you. Your early intuitions are right. If you can, maybe move to Japan or Brazil where they appreciate mathematical reasoning more. At least don't lose faith in the math as you envision it could be and spread the word.

[Anonymous No.15184869]

>>15184765
I think the IQ estimator is being charitable with you.

[Anonymous No.15184880]

>>15184765
Jesus, you really like talking about yourself!

[Anonymous No.15184899]

>>15184765
>human behavior across time is inherited through genetics, which are made up of a series of additive alleles
Ok.

>that entails the distribution of human behavior is gaussian
Now that's a pretty retarded conclusion.

>hence no binary dichotomy model such as MBTI could be valid.
And now you've totally lost the plot.

[Anonymous No.15184902]

>>15184823
Why did they evolve that way?

[Anonymous No.15185049]

>>15184899
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4739500/

Also, yes it is. So long alleles can each be of two states and so long they are additive and so long their effect size is of similar magnitude and so long there is a ridiculous amount of them, which there is, they will be gaussian, hence trying to make it dichotomy-based is stupid, because it's 1) a spectrum and 2) 68% of people don't even pass the 1 sigma. The inheritance of human behavior is a fair point, as some part of it will be cultural. However, the most consistent context-general human personality in each person will be inherited by a quite substantial amount.

[Anonymous No.15185057]

>>15185049
What the fuck does it even mean for behavior to be gaussian, you cretin?

[Anonymous No.15185069]

>>15185057
Suppose you have a trading game in which you have a percentage amount of risk of losing a set amount of value when you trade, however when you trade successfully, you will double the value. With each trade the risk amount increases. In such a scenario, the amount of trades you would do until you stop would have interindividual variance, be consistent in each individual, and would be distributed on a gaussian. That is to say, if you would plot a histogram of at how many rounds of trading they stopped, you would get something akin to a gaussian. Repeat over a large enough sample size and small enough increments, and you will most definitely end up with one.

That would be an example of what it means for it to be gaussian.

[Anonymous No.15185076]

>>15185069
I didn't ask you for a braindead example. Explain to me what it means for behavior to be "gaussian" in a way that accounts for generality of your claim. I brush my teeth every morning. Is this a "gaussian" behavior?

[Anonymous No.15185092]

>>15185076
If you'd logarithm the teeth-brushing behavior of people it would most likely be gaussian yes. We're talking about histograms of things like frequency. But also probability of even happening in the first place plotted against a particular latent variable across many such behaviors. (such as a probable latent variable behind things like "did you shoot up heroin?", "do you fuck hookers?", "did you ever kill someone?")

[Anonymous No.15185104]

>>15184765
>faith
>mathematics
You were never gonna make it.

[Anonymous No.15185108]

>>15185104
It's a form of expression.

[Anonymous No.15185109]

>>15185092
Man, you're an actual schizophrenic. Please tell me more about all those teeth-brushing allelles that produce some gaussian distribution of how many times a day people brush their teeth.

[Anonymous No.15185111]

>>15184765
Anon, reject infinitism, embrace ultrafinitism

[Anonymous No.15185113]

Anon, I'm a mathslet, what do you mean by gaussian?

[Anonymous No.15185114]

>>15185113
Nothing. He's a legit retard and he learned the term "gaussian" literally yesterday for the first time.

[Anonymous No.15185116]

>>15185104
mathematics is based on dogma - the axioms of the framework

[Anonymous No.15185117]

>>15185109
It's not a direct effect. It'd affect things like disgust sensitivity and compulsive behavior. For example a particular mutation could reduce a part of your lobe that when reduced leads to OCD. Or alternatively, it could sabotage your smell. To not know that alleles affect behavior at this point of history requires a particular degree of libtard denial.

[Anonymous No.15185120]

>>15185076
The distribution is gaussian.

[Anonymous No.15185121]

>>15185116
axioms are arbitrary, pick whichever you like then do math with them.

[Anonymous No.15185126]

>>15185109
>t.probability-let

Meta-analyse more you chuddite lmao rekt

[Anonymous No.15185128]

>>15185121
they're not supposed to be arbitrary, they're supposed to be based on the physical world. if they were arbitrary, then nobody would say mathematical objects like numbers are equivalent to numbers in the english language, but they do, out of their dogma that their set of axioms is applicable to the real world - an unproven statement.
also, i forgot to mention primitive notions, they should be considered, aswell as axioms.

[Anonymous No.15185131]

>>15185121
2 = 3

[Anonymous No.15185132]

>>15185117
>It's not a direct effect.
I'm sorry, what? You said my brushing my teeth in the morning is a "gaussian" behavior. Where do you get the gassian distribution for to this behavior? Are you going to measure how many times a morning people brush their teeth? They either do or they don't.

[Anonymous No.15185136]

>>15185128
>they're not supposed to be arbitrary, they're supposed to be based on the physical world.
Says who? That's true of the math used by scientists and engineers, but a mathematician has no obligation to be pratical

[Anonymous No.15185138]

>>15185114
So what does gaussian mean?

[Anonymous No.15185142]

>>15185131
If you are a grand master number theorist or geometer, yes....you CAN prove such claims.

[Anonymous No.15185144]

>>15185138
>So what does gaussian mean?

Dont do your own research, trust the experts.

[Anonymous No.15185147]

>>15185138
Gaussian means "OP is a huge gaylord faggot"

[Anonymous No.15185149]

>>15185136
says all of the mathematicians who use mathematical objects in order to count, make claims about area, volume, cardinality, ordinals, sets, these are all supposed to be representations of the real world, not to mention geometry.

[Anonymous No.15185152]

>>15185113
A gaussian distribution is the most common distribution found in nature. It is the continuous case of the binomial distribution, which is the distribution of possible sets of outcomes you get with the addition of basic binary random effects. Imagine this scenario. Let us suppose the bits on a computer are sufficient to encode any information. Now let us randomize those bits and add them up to each other. If we come across a 1, we add +1 to an integer value. If we come across a 0, we add nothing. If we keep repeating this process and add +1 on a histogram at each value of this integer we've arrived at, we will get the binomial distribution. If we'd have infinite bits, then we'd get the gaussian distribution. Alleles are akin to such a randomization. And each point on the histogram represents their alleles. Behavioral inheritances are just salient subsets of this set of allele flips. The amount of alleles is so ridiculously large in spite of being a binomial distribution, it can be taken-for as a gaussian one, especially considering the gaussian distribution is also the shape of noise in data and most environmental variables, especially if they're non-cultural.

[Anonymous No.15185154]

>>15185149
When you use math to explain things in the real world, then your math needs to be compatible with the rules of the real world. But mathematicians are not restricted to such circumstances. You can do math with utterly fanciful axioms. Nothing stops mathematicians from doing so.

[Anonymous No.15185156]

>>15185113
This braindead high-school-dropout nigger thinks allelles correspond to behaviors.

[Anonymous No.15185159]

>>15185156
I know probability is hard, anon, but you don't have to throw a fit for not understanding it.

[Anonymous No.15185162]

>>15185159
Still waiting for you to show me the brush-my-teeth-in-the-morning allelles and how they control my morning-teeth-brushing distribution.

[Anonymous No.15185165]

>>15185162
>and how they control my morning-teeth-brushing distribution
Is...the statistics in the room with us now?

[Anonymous No.15185171]

>>15185162
Always having to do your homework for you, eh?

[Anonymous No.15185173]

>>15185171
>absolutely desperate to save face
>posts the first result on his kiddie google search
>doesn't even read it
Time for you to kill yourself. You will never even finish high school.

[Anonymous No.15185176]

>>15185173
I already finished HS. I can see your reading comprehension is as good as your statistical reasoning. Maybe there is something to this g factor, eh?

[Anonymous No.15185177]

>>15185176
You will never be intelligent. You will never have an education. You will always be a low IQ sperg.

[Anonymous No.15185182]

>>15185177
Moving goalposts, are we?

[Anonymous No.15185184]

>>15185152
So is it just the same as the "normal" distribution bell cuve

[Anonymous No.15185186]

>>15185184
Yes!

[Anonymous No.15185190]

>>15185182
Tell me more about how a bunch of allelles create a gaussian distribution of how many times people brush their teeth in the morning, you clinical cretin.

[Anonymous No.15185207]

>>15185186
So if we say something is non gaussian would that imply that the distribution is being affected by some external factor or would that in turn have its own gaussian distribution because I've seen them with very clear breaks and cut offs

[Anonymous No.15185215]

>>15185190
Closest I could find to conclude a conversation with an Internet troll before going to bed, but would probably be one of the latent variables. Upon reflection, I should've played some TF2 instead of arguing with a statlet. For future reference, I shall stop indulging people like you with a response.

[Anonymous No.15185222]

>>15185207
Yes, that would complicate it a bit. For example, with the tooth brushing article I've sent, you can see that distribution is right-skewed. The same case would be for example with reaction time. Intriguingly, the logged gaussian is the same as the right-skewed one. But essentially it's quite clear that with for example the difference between 1ms and 100ms being much larger than 100 ms and 200 ms, that's why it's right-skewed. But it's still a simple log-scale, and fundamentally not too dissimilar from a regular gaussian. Though there are some niche cases where such simple statistical thinking doesn't apply, such as the stock market.

[Anonymous No.15185224]

>>15185207
Oh and in terms of a disproportionately large effect size you'd see something essentially leading to two separate gaussian distributions. That's what happens with gender for example (less controversial difference here would be post-pubertal height)

[Anonymous No.15185230]

>>15185207
Also would be good to see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurtosis

[Anonymous No.15185234]

>>15185207
I'm sorry I sperged out with so many responses I misread your post. Honestly, I don't know. But it's a very good idea!

[Anonymous No.15185261]

>>15184765

[Anonymous No.15185291]

>>15185261
Now do iq broken down by the different test components

[Anonymous No.15185321]

>>15185215
nvm I forgot I deleted TF2 because my fan is offset

[Anonymous No.15185888]

Like >>15184780 and >>15184804 say you're probably just burnt out from the level of abstraction. You'll feel better finding practical applications or doing a subject more grounded in empiricism (hence your attraction to statistics over analysis). Try something like time series analysis or linear programming or operational research or something with industrial engineering.

But deeper than that it looks like you're bored with the exercise of University. That sucks, because you need to do them to learn, but it's good because nothing in real life is an exercise. Most things are projects. Start a project and see if you can find something creative to do. This might be hard for you because you are European, and are completely broken with the feudal spirit and lack the entrepreneurial spirit that we have in the United States. You can actually notice the feudal submissiveness in your post, where you complain for paragraphs about the curriculum of your school without ever once thinking about doing something of your own initiative. Still, I wish you luck, and God Bless America.

[Anonymous No.15186478]

>>15184765
human behaviour is inherited socially. and varies considerable because of this.

[Anonymous No.15186507]

>>15185888
Not bored and not abstraction, you two are worthless talentless brownskinned pieces of shit,and now cope.

In other words the filters are tpo heavy for you

[Anonymous No.15186518]

>>15184765
>>15184766
You are an useless pseud with no talent. Oh your parents give you money? Cool but you are still useless. Your criticism of mathematics and computer science are nothing but a list of your own mental problems.
>i dont like this i don't like that
>this hurts my sensitivities
>im studying a field i hate and now im mad how can this be happening to me?

[Anonymous No.15186735]

>>15186518
A gig, mind you, I found on my own. No nepotism involved.
>this hurts my sensitivities
Yes, because I know what thinking looks like. Mathematics and computer science as far as I've come across are not thinking. It's just rote repetition.
>>15186507
You're coping that I badmouthed your favourite delusional endeavor.

[Anonymous No.15186790]

>>15184765
Your logic on MBTI is flawed. You seem to falsely believe that one gene = one behavior, but the biology is much more complicated. Maybe you should study biology some more before falling into a Dunning-Kruger mind trap

[Anonymous No.15186937]

>>15186790
I didn't say that. I'm merely talking about how sets of genes emerge into stable, latent variables of neurology which interact with environment in quite salient and often linear ways such as to manifest behavior. But if you beg to differ, then enlighten me.

[Anonymous No.15187463]

OP is a faggot. Who's with me?

[Anonymous No.15191717]

>>15184765
>I'm having a crisis of faith in mathematics.
good, mathematics is when you are young. When you become an adult you should pick a branch that is economically useful in the current year
>but he just wouldn't get it, and kept using ad hominem argumentation
humans are like that, maybe he was tired, or was working out some details of this. It doesnt mean he wasnt actively creating new knowledge during the discussion
>hence no binary dichotomy model such as MBTI could be valid
MBTI is a heuristic, akin to statistic model where you create buckets for a particular model data. It will never be a real science, will also change constantly based on the assumptions, doesnt mean that its useless.

[Anonymous No.15192364]

>>15185116
Mathematics is the science of drawing necessary conclusions. The axioms don’t matter, only what conclusion you draw from them. Then if you find a real system that fits the axioms, the conclusions can be applied. In pure math the system that the axioms apply to is usually just some idea or spatial intuition.

[Anonymous No.15193737]

>>15184765
>consistent human behavior across time is inherited through genetics
lmao