[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 99 KB, 265x265, 1390574273083.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6308975 No.6308975 [Reply] [Original]

Which study is harder? Maths or Physics?

>> No.6309001
File: 23 KB, 342x401, 1390575629934.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6309001

>>6308975
Persuade your mom to chastity

>> No.6309004

Recalling that the field of mathematical physics lies within the realm of mathematics, I'd say mathematics, by far.

>> No.6309008

Physics is harder because it's uglier and you can't write problems off as being 'trivial'

>> No.6309012

>>6309004
by that logic the alphabet is harder than any language

>> No.6309014

>>6309012
Not the alphabet but, lets say, general linguistics

>> No.6309017

I think physics is harder, because not only does it take a lot of intelligence, but it also takes a lot of creativity and independence of mind

mathematics is much more linear than physics is

>> No.6309023

>>6309008
>>6309017

Math is harder because we already understand majority of Physics. Get good memory and you're set.

>> No.6309024

>>6309023
>Get good memory and you're set.

For Phys

>> No.6309029

>>6309017
>Physics takes a lot more creativity

>> No.6309030

>>6309023
>we already understand majority of Physics.
lol

people thought the same before Einstein came and actually advised people against studying physics, because they thought it had all already been figured out

we know next to nothing yet in physics

>> No.6309034

>>6309029
I can give a computer program axioms and let it deduce theorems

I'd like you to show me a computer program which can formulate new theories by observing its surroundings

>> No.6309035

Theoretical physics

Thats what you get when you put the hardest aspect of physics and mathematics together

>> No.6309037

>>6309030
The same could be said for math which is the guiding foforce to describing physics

>> No.6309041

Maths definitely

>> No.6309043

>>6308975
Mathematics and physics joint graduate here. Maths is more difficult. Physics you just need good bookwork and memory for.

>> No.6309047

>>6309043
what a fallacy

physics may be easier to learn by heart, but it's definitely harder to formulate new theories

Hilbert was considered the best mathematician of his time and Einstein was easily as good after teaching himself maths in a matter of years, while thinking up marvellous shit

>> No.6309052

Only weak beta males think physics is harder

>> No.6309054

>>6309047
Even if that were true, OP specifically said 'study'. You managed to ignore that in what was literally a seven word post.

>> No.6309056

At my uni physics is much harder and it definitely draws the more intelligent people

even a teacher said physics was the hardest study at the technical university I go to

it doesn't necessarily mean maths is easier than physics, but it's definitely easier to study

the volume of the things you have to learn in maths doesn't even compare to physics

we were doing integrals in analysis while the maths folks were still fucking around with basic topology, we were doing differential equations in linear algebra while the math folks were still fucking around with determinants

we had a 3rd math subject they didn't even have, instead they had programming where they started at zero, top kek

and on top of that we also have physics, which is a fucking lot to do

so at my uni I'd say physics is about 2-3 times harder to study than math, easily

>> No.6309057

>study
math

>research
physics

>> No.6309059

>>6309047
Einsteins physics is essentially mathematics tho. He relies a lot more on mathematical equations than observation when developing his theory

>> No.6309060

>>6309057
>>study
math

Nah, there are many great math books written by many great people

try finding a good physics book
hell, try finding a good math books for physicists (hint: it doesn't exist)

which makes physics harder to study, because what are you going to study with? hundreds of pages of math books which you go through in a matter of weeks in physics

>> No.6309063

>>6309056

>Paragraphs, what are they?

>> No.6309064

>>6309056
Sounds like the mathematics department at your university just plain sucks, bro.
Mathematicians were explicitly barred from taking mathematical physics options at ours because methods used in physics were so easy in comparison.

>> No.6309065

>>6309056
Grass is greener on the other side. That's what I thought to before switching from physics to maths

>> No.6309067

>>6309064
yes, except when you study math you start at zero

when you study physics you start doing differential equations right off the bat, there's just no fucking around

I just don't see how math is hard, you can easily learn Rudin in a month and that covers you from a semester or two easily

>> No.6309069

>>6309056
You're moving fast on a concept doesn't make it harder. Just that you don't go as much in depth

>> No.6309079

>>6309067
> when you study math you start at zero
wat

Anyway it still sounds like you're just talking about mathematical methods like calculus, numerics, etc -- the sort that you would be familiar with using to solve physical problems. University level mathematics very quickly stops being about that and turns towards rigorous topics like analysis and number theory. It's a completely different ball game and one that you need a lot more insight to tackle.

>> No.6309080

I think math is more consistent and more important because it's the base for almost everything.
Remove math from theories and it will become shit.

>> No.6309082

>>6309080
math wouldn't exist without the observation of the universe though

which is basically what physics is

>> No.6309083

math is masturbation
physics is sex

so following this analogy, which is harder?

>> No.6309085

>>6309083
so you're saying math is harder to do but physics is harder to get?

>> No.6309087

>>6309080
I think humans are more consistent and more important because they're the base for almost everything.
Remove humans from the theories and it will become shit.

>> No.6309089

How can math be harder if physics is math + understanding of the universe?

a part is never bigger than the whole, you mathematicians should as your friend, Euclid

>> No.6309093

Physics grad here.

I guess to study, maths is harder since the exams are different. At least in my math-minor most exams included proofs which we've never done before and required creativity and a good knowledge of the theorems we proofed in class. That's difficult if not impossible if you don't know much at heart and have the skills for it.

In physics on the other hand, in most exams, you could get more than half the points just by applying formulas and being good at rigorous calculations. The other half then was also very creative stuff that required a deep understanding of the topic but while I knew a lot of little-to-not-at-all gifted or hard-working folks pass many physics exams, the same wasn't true for math exams.

Either way, I think both physics and math can be very challenging but also very rewarding at times - I enjoy a new approach to how the universe might work (from Newton to relativistic to field theory stuff) just as much as elegant and very clever approaches to measure complexity in math or even simple proofs in algebra.

>> No.6309096

No idea, but am I the only who gets the impressions physics attracts the more severe autists of the two?

the math folks don't seem nearly as weird as we, the physics guys, do

gotta be honest wit you, I'm not too sane either

>> No.6309098

>>6309096
In my year, the mathcourses had more people with legit aspergers but they also had really really hot girls (which dropped out by the third year tho) physics was just average people and nerds.

>> No.6309103

Physics is just a specialised application of maths.

It's like asking what's harder, a rock, or a 1cm portion of the rock.

(not saying the 1cm portion of the rock is meaningless, we use that 1cm to figure out way more cool shit than mathemeticians do - IMO a supernova or gamma radiation is way cooler than eulers formula or ramanujan summation or w/e)

>> No.6309107

>>6309103
and german is just a specialised application of the alphabet

alphabet much harder than german wow

>> No.6309109
File: 169 KB, 1112x1200, 1390580385286.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6309109

>>6309096
>the math folks don't seem nearly as weird as we, the physics guys, do
https://math.stanford.edu/photos/students/index.html

>> No.6309112

>>6309107

Wow retard.

I never said maths was harder, I just said Physics is a part of maths, so asking which is harder is pointless.

>> No.6309113

ITT: mathematicians are mad there is no math nobel prize

cry my a river, they only present that shit for hard work

>> No.6309116

>>6309112
>physics is a part of math
other way around, idiot

pictures a part of the movie, but movies aren't parts of pictures

>> No.6309118

math is a proper subset of physics, so how can it be harder?

>> No.6309120

Physics if you like fun

Maths if you like autism

>> No.6309127

Physics majors have very small dik and most have cuckold fetish

>> No.6309133

>>6309116
This is what physics freshmen actually believe.

>> No.6309134

>>6308975
Physics is a subfield of applied math, mostly concerned with solving partial differential equations numerically.

...you be the judge.

>> No.6309135

>>6309134
this is what math freshmen actually believe

>> No.6309138

>>6309135
Then show me a piece of theoretical physics which isn't math.
Hint: You can't.

>> No.6309139

Sociology is hardest.

>> No.6309143

>>6309138
okay, light isn't math

atoms aren't math

>> No.6309145

Trying to say that math is only a part of physics clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding of mathematics. And saying that physics is only a small part of applied math is just as dumb. These are two separate disciplines that are very closely linked, yet view phenomenon through very different lenses. Not to mention that these subjects are massive. It is impossible to try to compare these.

>> No.6309148

Maths.

Compare the difficulty of the IMO to the IPO.

Also, at top universities, the mathematics students would almost all be able to study physics if they wanted to with little trouble but only a fraction of the physics students would be strong enough to study maths.

>> No.6309150

>>6309143
Neither are they physics.
You seem to believe physics = nature, which is dead wrong. Physics is the modelling of nature, spesifically the mathematical modeling of such.

>> No.6309156

>>6309150
define: physics
the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy.

>> No.6309155

Psychology is a science.

>> No.6309160

>>6309150
physics is about finding a theory of everything

a theory of everything is in one to one correspondence with nature

>> No.6309158

>>6309148
If you can get over shitty physics notations, shitty explanations of mathematical concepts, and a complete disregard for the "if" part of theorems.

>> No.6309159

>>6309148
I have yet to see a mathematician contributing anything major to physics, whereas many physicists have done the converse

>> No.6309164

>>6309159
Ever heard if mathematical physics dumbass

>> No.6309161
File: 22 KB, 343x353, 1390582927074.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6309161

>biology
>hard

>> No.6309166

>>6309164
mathematical PHYSICIST not physical mathematician

>> No.6309171

>>6309166
Wikipedia can keep you from sounding like jackass

>> No.6309174

>>6309171
>Prominent contributors to the 20th century's mathematical physics include Albert Einstein [1879-1955], Paul Dirac [1902 – 1984], Arnold Sommerfeld [1868-1951],Niels Bohr [1885-1962], Werner Heisenberg [1901-1976], Wolfgang Pauli [1900-1958] Max Born [1882-1970],Abdus Salam [1926-1996], Steven Weinberg [1933-], Sheldon Lee Glashow [1932-] Satyendra Nath Bose [1894–1974], Eugene Wigner [1902-1995], John von Neumann [1903-1957], Julian Schwinger [1918–19

Oh look, they're all PHYSICISTS

>> No.6309176

Modern physics is so extremely based on math that basically you are doing math, with the exception that the axioms you're using come from reality and are not made up for other reasons.
Keeping that in mind, i'd say math is harder because you're going, in general, to learn that shit with more insight than you would need to in physics.
I mean, let's say it in this way: if you know math, you can easily understand physics, you just have to put enough effort in understanding the principles.
If you know physics, it will be harder to approach new math, for example, category theory if your field is general relativity.

My two cents...

>> No.6309180

>>6309174
>confusing magicians for physicists

>> No.6309182

>>6309159
Ever heard of:
-Algebra, including linear algebra
-Analysis
-Geometry
Good luck doing anything at all in physics without these. And who developed them?
It was certainly not a phycisist.

>> No.6309188

>>6309159
You do realize how stupid your proposition is?
Physicist contribute to math simply because they use mathematics all the time, it is their language and in fact most of the contributions to math by physicists were about new ideas rather than just theorems and shit. Functional analysis development was pushed quite a lot by physics needs, but i don't see any physicist name on the major theorems of the field(Banach, Hilbert, Riesz, Fisher, etc...).
On the other hand, mathematicians don't give a shit about physics, or at least they are not bound to, so how would they contribute if not by a mere accident?

>> No.6309189

>>6309182
this is not what he asked for though

name any well known mathematicians formulating anything relevant in physics such as the relativity theory

such as leibniz, who invented the integral

>> No.6309190

>>6309188
are you booty bothered by this?

>> No.6309193

Math obviously. Physics if you love repeating the same experiment over and over again and crunching numbers while caring about garbage like significant figures and stats shit like an autismal fuck.

>> No.6309191

>>6309190
Why would I be?

>> No.6309194

>>6309189
The answer is any mathematician ever who worked on analysis during the 16th to 20th centuries.

>> No.6309195

Engineernig

>> No.6309197

>>6308975
Math is the field of dreams. You can follow your intuition and obtain a beautiful theory if you put in the work.

Physics is the field of solving the same differential equation over and over again in MATLAB using the built-in solver and doing differential geometry exclusively in real coordinates. Any mathematicial wll tall you how ugly the latter is.

>> No.6309196

>>6308975
Mathematics
It doesn't have to make any practical sense

>> No.6309200

>>6309034
>because most people who call themselves physicist/study physics formulate widely accepted and seemingly valid theorems
LEL

>> No.6309199

>>6309196
>if you remove a condition it becomes harder

>> No.6309203

Geology

>> No.6309206

>>6309060

Wikipedia is all you need to understand/study Physics

>> No.6309209

>>6309206
lol

so where do you get the math needed from?

>> No.6309211

So much butthurt ITT.

All physicists are mathematicians.

Not all mathematicians are physicists.

Neither is harder than the other. They focus on different areas using similar techniques.

Isaac Newton invented calculus (ok another guy did at the same time but w/e) but he was a physicist first and foremost.

tl;dr you're all sad and lonely cunts.

>from a BSc Physicist + MSc Mathematician who left education and now has a life earning bucketloads of cash and fucking bitches.

>> No.6309221

>>6309188

cough Isaac Newton
cough Calculus

plenty of physics problems were solved by advancements in maths

>> No.6309226

>>6309209

It's what I was implying, you can't study math off of Wiki. Understand my reason faggot.

>> No.6309229

>>6308975
If you are trying to compare these two fields as "which is harder" then you have obviously never studied either in depth.

>Physics is the study of this Universe.

>Mathematics is a unique philosophical construct of Universes with specific axioms.

Mathematics was "invented" (or discovered, depending on your personal opinion because any creature in our universe could re-derive the results) to describe some physical problems. The majority of mathematics that people know belongs to a subset of mathematics that seems to replicate common physical phenomena, such as cartesian coordinates being an excellent approximation of space in our Universe (triangles having a sum of angles being Pi or 180 degrees).

But mathematics goes much further than this because we can assume any axioms we want and and we calculate what are the consequences. But this doesn't meant that it is true in our Universe.

Physics is the study of the properties of this Universe. The trouble is that we do not know what the true axioms of the universe are or if there even are any. Everything we do in Physics is through assumptions of certain properties (like the speed of light being constant in vacuum as an example).

In Physics, we construct a philosophical Universe using mathematics that seems to replicate the physical problem we are trying to solve. Theoretical Physics is pure mathematics because there is no reason that anything a Theoretical Physicist predicts is true in our Universe without experimental evidence.

(cont.)

>> No.6309231

>>6309229
The goal of Theoretical Physics is to construct these "philosophical Universes" that explain problems in Nature we experimentally tested. Therefore, Theoretical Physicists are specialized mathematicians. Something should not be called Physics when there is no way to conduct an experiment to check its validity, i.e. String Theory. To accept a new hypothesis, it must predict something that all other explanations do not predict and that prediction must be test experimentally true.

>If you accept that some explanation is true without experimental evidence, then every other explanation that cannot be proven wrong is also true. Thus, none of them must be true, else everything is true and chaos ensues.

Physics is difficult because the axioms of the Universe you are using are not defined and you must learn all of the mathematics involved in the experimentally accurate philosophical universes that can be used to solve problems in nature that you see in your classes.

Mathematics is difficult because we can define any axioms we want and calculate the consequences. It is completely arbitrary.

Tl;dr
They are two completely different fields. Mathematics is the generation of Universes on paper and in your head using the language of math.


Physics is the study of our Universe; it involves constructing philosophical universes with mathematics that have results for problem that coincide with the experimental results. Then using these philosophical universes to predict the results of similar problems.

>> No.6309230

>>6309226
you can easily study math off the internet you dork

if you think any of the physics wiki articles are accurate, complete or good, then you're stupid

>> No.6309240

>>6309211
>Isaac Newton ... was a physicist first and foremost.

Spent the majority of his efforts trying to rectify the age of the Earth with the bible [87,000 word The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms]. Is hilariously wrong. Remembered as scientist 'first and foremost.'

>mfw

>> No.6309249

philosophy

>> No.6309252

>>6309231
I'm studying physics and I plan on becoming a theoretical physicist

any tips on what I should read? and should I study math as well? I want to do great things

>> No.6309255

>>6309240

Pretty sure the laws of motion and gravity are physics.

Dum dum dum dum dum.

>> No.6309257

>>6309252
theoretical physics is shitloads of math with ocasional reality, if you want to do pretty much anything you should study mathematics

>> No.6309258

>>6309252
What do you know so far?

>> No.6309260

>>6309255
>Doesn't know the meaning of the phrase 'first and foremost'
>Still needs to make fun of people

>> No.6309273

>>6309258
well, I'm 8 chapters into the Babby Rudin, I read the first half of Halmos' Finite Dimensional Vector Spaces and a book about mechanics and thermodynamics, but that one was shit and I was planning on reading the Feynman series

and in my spare time I like to think about spheres, but they still haven't told me all their secrets yet
I think there are people smarter than me (thought I haven't met many/any yet), but I feel like complete independence of mind and system building are my strongest points

>> No.6309274

>>6309273
How old are you?

>> No.6309277

>>6309274
21

1st semester in physics, I've lost some time due to civil service and I went to a higher technical college where I learned electronics which took 5 instead of 4 years

also I had to redo a class in primary school lol, believe it or not, kinda funny considering I learned the entirety of linear algebra we did in the first semester in 2 days and then got a perfect score

>> No.6309279

>>6309034
HAHA! TOP FUCKING LEL! What an idiot.
It's the opposite actually. You can make a computer do experiment, save the data and then extrapolate the results using various already registered mathematical models.
In math though, you can't do that you moron. Ever heard of Gödel? Well, he proved you can't do what you just said and unless we have a computer with intelligence and creativity, he won't be able to CREATE shit, he can verify them though which is completely different (P != NP).

>> No.6309280

>>6309277
Finland?

>> No.6309281

>>6309280
no, Austria

>> No.6309288

>>6309255
Pretty sure Principia is less than 87,000 words.

Dum dum DUM!

>> No.6309291

Mathematics by far.

My physics professor got a PhD in applied mathematics before he jumped over to physics. He obviously had no problems with the math, all he had to was learn the principles (funny how physics is basically biology if you remove the math, lel).

>> No.6309293

>>6309291
See? Mathematics is all the science in physics!
suck it physicists

>> No.6309294

>>6309291
yes, and Einstein would have never been able to study your precious math!

all I know is the math professor at my university said physics was harder
not because the subject is necessarily harder, but the volume of what you have to learn is simply overwhelming

5 out of 300 manage to get their bachelor degree after 6 semesters

>> No.6309292

>>6309211
>All physicists are mathematicians.

Nah.

You're not a mathematician till you have a PhD in mathematics and you do research in mathematics.

If we go by your definition of a mathematician (anyone who uses mathematics), it's only a question of how hard the mathematics has to be before one can be considered a mathematician.

>> No.6309295

For high school, I did better in Physics than other Math courses. I guess it's because I'm more of a visual person, so seeing math applied to something makes it easier for me.

>> No.6309298

>>6309294
>yes, and Einstein would have never been able to study your precious math!

What?

>all I know is the math professor at my university said physics was harder

Yes, that much is obvious. Now leave the discussing part to the big boys.

>> No.6309300

Can't we just agree that both are trivial?

>> No.6309301

>>6309292

Honestly I'd consider anyone who does degree level maths to be a mathmetician. Otherwise you get string theorists who arne't techincally mathematicians (although I do agree string theorists are p.retarded).

>> No.6309306

>>6309300
I'm a physicist and I am strictly against the label trivial

either you label everything trivial or you label nothing trivial, everything else is absurd and subjectivizes what you're doing which makes it worthless for any science

what for you is trivial is not trivial for somebody else, what for some aliens is trivial might not be trivial for us

everytime I read a book and even the simplest proof is left out due to it being trivial I think much less of the work I'm reading and the author who has written it. who is he to decide what is trivial and what is not?

if anything is trivial, then everything is. so we should just give out books that list a handful of axioms and the rest is trivial and we're done.

>> No.6309308

>>6309047
>Einstein was easily as good after teaching himself
>HILtothefuckingBERT

No. Compare Einstein and Hilbert's contributions to mathematics. Do you really think Einstein was on the level of Hilbert?

Hilbert was the one who almost caught up to Einstein in physics.

>> No.6309311

>>6309308
not that hard catching up to somebody if you just have to read his work brah

I almost caught up to Einstein as well on his theories, does that make me Einstein?

I find it funny how you mathematicians spew fallacies left and right, your math is based on feelings brah

>> No.6309313

>>6309311
>not that hard catching up to somebody if you just have to read his work brah

Exactly. That's what physics is to mathematics. Just a bunch of fact-memorization.

Nice to see that we agree!

>> No.6309315

>>6309306
But maths and physics ARE trivial. They only require intelligence. Eventually all the unsolved conjectures will be solved. Eventually all physical phenomena will be explained and everything can be calculated with arbitrary precision. But the human mind will forever remain a mystery. The hard problem of consciousness will never be solved.

>> No.6309320

>>6309306
well, tbh i can understand your opinion about this but it isn't applicable in the slightest. If you've done something twenty times then the twenty-first time you do it just isn't anything new. If there are 100 proofs in a book about mathematics and you check for |is this a vectorspace| 50 times by the same set of rules, you can just do it 5 times and call the other ones trivial. Everyone that's gotten this far should easily be able to do that.
Same with advanced mathematical works, call something trivial if anyone unable to do it themselves without much thought input shouldn't be reading anyways. I wouldn't explain everything i do down to kindergarten-level just because some child could've stumbled upon an copy somewhere.

>> No.6309325

>>6308975
Computer Science

>> No.6309326

>>6309315
>Eventually all physical phenomena will be explained
We don't even know if this is possible yet

>>6309313
yes, it may be easier to study physics, but it's harder to conjecture and formulate new theories

it took an Einstein for us to get any further in physics when we thought we were almost done with Newton

it didn't take an Einstein to formulate new theories in mathematics

while physics uses math to calculate and predict, the ideas of the theory of general relativity you don't find in mathematics

I feel like life is like a game and Einstein simply understood it better than anybody else, he saw the universe for what it was better than anybody else, he saw through the curtain of everyday reality and simply imagined "what if"

everytime I look around just in my room I get the feeling I know nothing, I don't understand my desk, I don't understand my floor, I don't understand my cupboard, I understand nothing and no matter how long I study maths, it won't help me understand any of these things

>> No.6309328

>>6309230

>if you think any of the PHYSICS TEXTBOOKS are accurate, complete or good, then you're stupid

Enjoy paying for your middle tier knowledge

>> No.6309331

>>6309326
because einstein totally made all of that up from scratch...
That the speed of light was constant was know at least since Michelson-Morley, that was before Einstein came along. He just had that and calculated the consequences, something totally different from "it took an Einstein for us to get any further in physics". He was a cool guy and stuff but you seem to overvalue his work

>> No.6309335

>>6309326
>it took an Einstein for us to get any further in physics when we thought we were almost done with Newton
>when we thought we were almost done with Newton

You have obviously no fucking idea about physics. So the advancement of physics just stopped after Newton? Do you know how much physics progressed netweem Newton and Einstein? Obviously not.

I'm going to skip ahead to
>everytime I look around just in my room I get the feeling I know nothing, I don't understand my desk, I don't understand my floor, I don't understand my cupboard, I understand nothing and no matter how long I study maths, it won't help me understand any of these things

Of course you're a philosotard, lmao. Feel free to study philosophy, where people like you thrive.

>> No.6309337

>>6309335
Oh yeah, Einstein can't even compare to geniuses like Gauss, Euler, Abel, Ramanujan, Galois etc ..

>> No.6309344

>>6309331
if it's just calculating the consequences that follow from the constant speed of light I wonder why none of your great mathematicians was able to do it

the idea behind this cannot be calculated

>>6309335
yea..

except people were actually advised against studying physics because they thought there wasn't much left to discover and physics was practically 'solved'

if you don't like philosophy then you don't like math

>> No.6309349
File: 50 KB, 960x540, 1390591288732.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6309349

>>6309344
>except people were actually advised against studying physics because they thought there wasn't much left to discover and physics was practically 'solved'

Is this what physicist's are taught these days? I refuse to believe this.

>hurr let's ignore everyone between Newton and Einstein because muh pop-sci documentaries only mention these two

>> No.6309350

>>6309344
>why none of your great mathematicians was able to do it
>implying mathematicians would care and/or weren't busy doing, i don't know, maths?
such argument

>the idea behind this cannot be calculated
>the idea
actually "the idea" didn't even really exist, it just sprung up when the contemporary theory (ether) was disproven by Michelson-morley.
There go your arguments

>if you don't like philosophy then you don't like math
I do actually like philosophy but still, these two are diferent fields of study. Where Philosophy deals with the axioms that we take, mathematics is more about what we can do with them.

>> No.6309369 [DELETED] 

I'm a physics major and I want to study math as well

I'll be in my 2nd semester of physics soon and I thought about signing up for math in my 3rd semester of physics and then doing the 1st and 3rd semester of math simultaneously (with the 3rd semester of physics) and then the 2nd, 4th and 4th of math, math and physics respectively

do you think this can be done? or what's the best way to go about this?

>> No.6309376

>>6309369
If you're good at the concepts math is doing that are different from physics (mostly prooving stuff) and are able to learn new concepts quickly, sure, go for it. But keep in mind that mathematics and physics are two totally diferent things (at least at university studying level) as in that in physics you just use mathematical concepts and call that math and in mathematics the actual calculations are far less and prooving stuff becomes the far more important aspect

>> No.6309393

I don't know about you guys but here in the UK all Physicists have compulsory mathematics modules (quite a few actually) upto all but the last year of the degree. Many universities have the Physics and Maths departments work together in teaching content which students from from either discipline will study.

I think it's fair to say that if you can do one, you can do the other.

>> No.6309402

>>6309393
I agree. I assume that 90% of these posts are HS students and freshmen who haven't studies either subjects.

>> No.6309422

>>6308975
Philosophy

The ingenuity and raw creative force necessary to make contributions to philosophy is astounding. That aside, the goal of philosophy is to express the most abstract conceivable concepts in as simple and clear a form as possible. Do you think half of the autistic physicists/mathematicians alive today could do the same? Doubtful. This, as Einstein once said, tells you they know very little about what they're actually studying. The philosopher must be so in-tune with his study that he can explain anything, regardless of how abstruse, to the lay person - otherwise he is an unsuccessful philosopher. Philosophers are the guys that postulate the new theories and the scientists just ride the coat tails of their findings.

It's a truth that will never be accepted on /sci/, but that's just the way the world works.

Best of luck

>> No.6309421

>>6309252
(Guy who wrote the post you responded to)

Theoretical physics is a subset of math that focuses only on our Universe. They construct more and more detailed philosophical universes to try to replicate nature in our Universe.

It is a lot different from what you probably think it will be like. You will likely not be doing anything ground breaking that will change the world. You will specialize and specialize and specialize, and work on something that even the people in your specialization don't fully understand. Then, what you finally accomplish will likely not be known to people outside your specialization.

The days of thought-changing physics discoveries is pretty much over.

My greatest suggestion is to not limit yourself to thinking you only want to do theoretical physics. I thought that originally (HS, I thought I was going to be a hardcore theorist), but changed to experimental because in experimental physics you actually test your ideas against real results. Theorist rarely test their results (or rely on other to do it for them) because of how specialized physics has become.

Also, whether you are going into theory or experiment, learn a computer language; any language. You will absolutely need it.

I would suggest going through a normal physics degree and complete a mathematics degree as well. This is what I did and it was invaluable to study both subjects in their natural environments.

(Sorry, for the late response. I had to teach for the past few hours.)

>> No.6309424

pascal was the first to formulate induction as we know it today

plus pascal triangle, and he was a physicist

>> No.6309430

>>6309421
Fair enough

I already know quite a bit of the C programming language, thought about learning Haskell as well

I'm in my first semester, do you suggest picking up math for the 2nd semester already and then doing the 1st and 3rd semester of math simultaneously (along with physics ofc)?

next semester won't be very hard for me because we're going to do electricity and optics and I already had 5 years of eletronics in school, I doubt I'll hear anything new

>> No.6309442

>>6309430
C is great, but I would work on another language like Python, Mathematica, etc. if I were you. C is really nice to know, but these languages are more common because they are easier to work with. Not a necessity, but would be useful.

Ya, I would suggest you start taking math courses early and also get involved in some form of research with a professor in your department. It doesn't matter if you like their topic or not; you want the experience and to find out what you like to do. You may not like something you thought that you would love; or like something you never thought about. Otherwise, you will still be undecided in grad school. Then you will be wasting time if you chose incorrectly and have to start over.

>> No.6309454

>>6309421
>doing stuff "to change the world"
lel is this 6th grade again

>> No.6309459

>>6309422
gr8 b8 m8 ill r8 it 8/8. no 8.

>> No.6309460

>>6309096
I thought engineers were weird until I took graduate math/physics courses. Jesus Christ they make us look like fucking James Bond

>> No.6309467

>>6309460
grad math/physics people are all beta bitches. seriously, they're all scrawny, awkward, cum-gargling losers.

>> No.6309468

>>6309174
holy shit fucking rekt, although some of those guys were pretty amazing mathematicians as well

>> No.6309470

>>6309454
I don't think this is a bad thing to say. Everyone early in their career who are doing advanced STEM (or want to go into this field) likely think that they could "change the world." It's this thinking that usually leads to arrogance (as demonstrated by many posts above) and to the thinking that some material is less important than other. Then they often don't go to class or don't study, and when things get hard, they fall behind.

Go into these fields as a dry sponge ready to absorb everything taught. You will learn the subjects better and will do better at university.

>> No.6309471
File: 117 KB, 599x575, 1390597435757.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6309471

http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php/content/view/1650/278/

Maths is easier. I think we have a case here

>> No.6309472

>>6309471
The numbers mean what percentage of people got a first honours degree in UK unis

>> No.6309473

>>6309471
this list is not conclusive

>> No.6309474

>>6309471
> computer science harder than physics
I don't think so Tim

>> No.6309477

Mathematics is often thought to be among the hardest degrees but is it really? Especially when nearly a third of all maths graduates end up with a first. The subject can be challenging, no doubt about that, however the reason why so many students get a first could be because in maths, right and wrong answers are much more clear than in other subject areas. Simply put, in maths, 2+2 = 4. In subjects like Law, Business Studies and other Social Sciences, the answers are never that clear-cut. In maths, you can get 100% in exams. In other degrees, no matter how brilliant your answer is, you can never score higher than 90%.

>> No.6309478

Why do we hate each other? We should be friends.

>> No.6309494

>>6309478
We don't hate each other. I love you, and I will love you forever. As soon as you admit that maths is harder.

>>6309477
0/100000000000000000000

>> No.6309499

>>6308975
Engineering

>> No.6309502

>>6309494
I mean you can make an argument maths is harder than the maths in physics and generally it will be true, since the maths in physics is a proper subset of maths (even though when it comes to actually calculating shit physicists seem to be better at it)

but you cannot deny how much you have to learn in physics that doesn't have a lot to do with maths, atom models, chemistry, all sorts of theories

putting all the math aside physics is no joke
just grasping the concept of general relativity is too much for most people, let alone the math of it

>> No.6309504

>>6309471

Or does this just mean smarter people pick up the more difficult fields? And in this particular case, the pure mathematicians are the prodigious over-achievers while the physicists are the above-average intelligence /sci/-lurkers with a fair work ethic?

>> No.6309509
File: 35 KB, 720x466, 1390598929435.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6309509

>>6308975
Implying

>> No.6309511

>>6309509
poor philosophers. they're a laughing stock

>> No.6309513

>>6309509
math is a language

shouldn't other languages be up there as well? programming for instance

>> No.6309517
File: 182 KB, 1134x697, 1390599232695.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6309517

>>6309509

>> No.6309522

What's it with math majors and them wanting for everyone to know that their major is so much harder. One of my best friends is a math major and he one of the nicest people I know but in this one case he like to boast how superior and harder his major is(engie fag here)

>> No.6309527

>>6309511
there is no dominating view that supports this in academia. you must be 14 or just very stupid. only autists and /sci/ hold this view. depending on their sub-discipline, philosophers are rather respected in academia.

>> No.6309532

>>6309527
lold

>> No.6309536

>>6309229
>>6309231

>If you accept that some explanation is true without experimental evidence, then every other explanation that cannot be proven wrong is also true. Thus, none of them must be true, else everything is true and chaos ensues.

>> No.6309539

>>6309522
I once said to my friend who studies math because I was pissed off with how much shit I had to do in physics compared to him: I wish I studied math

now he can't get off my dick about it

>> No.6309544
File: 5 KB, 196x165, 1390600010802.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6309544

How do cardinal numbers relate to limits?
I figure both are obtained from many objects by a sort of orthogonal process, where we gather everything together and find an encompassing object.

>> No.6309545

>>6309532
seriously are you even in grad school? you're probably a talentless hack who can't get into a PhD program. you know shit to nothing about the academic world and recycle the trite bullshit that's been on /sci/ for lord-knows-how-long. Why is there such a ludicrous view of philosophers on this site? I'm honestly curious because the only explanation of which I can conceive is that you just don't know enough about the field. Are these just trolls? Philosophers, mathematicians and physicists work together so often in academia. Please help me understand why this kind of shitposting exists.

>> No.6309546

>>6309536
> accept that some explanation is true without experimental evidence

more like
>think that this explanation is the most probable one currently known

>> No.6309549

>>6309545
pls stop

>> No.6309560

>>6309502
>(even though when it comes to actually calculating shit physicists seem to be better at it)
Practice makes perfect.

>just grasping the concept of general relativity is too much for most people, let alone the math of it
So it's basically 2deep4u?
I can name many examples of the same in maths. For example, the infinite dimensional sphere is homotopy equivalent to a point, even though no finite dimensional sphere satisfies this property.

>>6309504
I think you're on to something.

>>6309545
It's one of /sci/'s shitty memes.
Everyone serious can admit that philosophising is a big part of science.

>> No.6309566

>>6309560
>Everyone serious can admit that philosophising is a big part of science.
Let's be serious here. Philosophy grads are mostly useless to science

>> No.6309569

>>6309544
This is probably a massive cop out, but you can obtain a cardinal number by taking the colimit of the diagram of all smaller ordinal numbers with their inclusions.

>> No.6309570

>>6309560
"huehue why don't you try to imagine something beyond three dimensions :D"

you're an idiot, we experience this universe as three dimensional and we will _never_ be able to imagine it any other way. ofc we can calculate it and try to understand it as best as possible, but we will never see that a 4th dimension stacked onto a 3rd one is as simple as a 3rd onto a 2nd dimension.

If we lived in a 2 dimensional universe none of us would be able to imagine what the 3rd dimension looked like and we would conjecture time to be the 3rd dimension

tl;dr: your example is shit

>>6309566
that's because in order to study philosophy you need to study math and physics as well
those who don't got nothing to say, those who do are scientists anyway

>> No.6309577

I'm a physicist but nothing interests me more than spheres and manifolds and geometry in general

what do?

>> No.6309580

>>6309577
Are you a physicist, or do you aspire to be one? Because in the latter case it's probably not too late to switch. Also, don't call yourself a physicist if you're not a physicist.

>> No.6309579

>>6309545
>you're probably a talentless hack who can't get into a PhD program
I'm very talented. That's why I don't waste my time getting a PhD when I can instead get a high salary job with my MSc.

>Why is there such a ludicrous view of philosophers on this site?
Because philosophers ARE ludicrous. Literally any child can and does philosophize at the same quality as "professional" philosophers. Someone who dedicates his career to thinking like a child cannot be taken serious. I studied science and math and I can produce much deeper philosophy than a philosotard who only studied philosophy and doesn't know shit about science and math. It's the natural hierarchy of intelligence. If they had a higher IQ, they'd go for a real career and stop wasting their time with useless childish nonsense.

>you just don't know enough about the field.
Neither do philosophers. The only thin they know is that they don't know anything about their own field. Remember: You cannot know nuthin! lol

>Philosophers, mathematicians and physicists work together so often in academia
Mathematicians and physicisits work together. Philosophers cannot contribute anything of value. In proving a theorem, designing and experiment or making an explanatory model, where do you need philosophy? Fucking nowhere. Only expertise and profound knowledge in science and math will do the job. Pseudo-intellectual drivel doesn't solve any problem.

>> No.6309583

>>6309577
Study whatever you like and gets you enough money to live and spend your free time learning maths.
I'm already learning math and physics in my spare time while being an undergrad math student going to specialize in something like prob+stats+economic/finance or some shit.

I realized that with some more effort i can learn a lot by myself and i don't want to risk getting jobless with some pure degree that i'm not cut for.

>> No.6309584

>>6309570
>that's because in order to study philosophy you need to study math and physics as well

My lels are in orbit. The only reason to study philosophy is because they are lacking the intelligence for science or math. Have you ever seen a philosophy student? The contents of an entire semester philosophy course on logic can be learned by a math or physics student within one day and he'll perform better on the exam than most philosophy students (hint: the majority of the latter fails the exam).

>> No.6309585

http://youtu.be/tnw6FGf9SjE

>scientists getting completely wrekt by philosophers

>> No.6309587

>>6309579
>That's why I don't waste my time getting a PhD when I can instead get a high salary job with my MSc.
phd is not for a higher salary dingus

>> No.6309588

>>6309546
That is not the point of this statement. There are many disciplines in theoretical physics that nearly assume that their predictions are true, yet these predictions do not have anyway of experimentally testing their accuracy.

String theorists are notorious for this. There are many string theorists who are famous for saying things like, "when the experimentalists prove me right" or "when super-symmetry is discovered." Then there is no feasible means to measure any of these things. The very fact that there even is a field in physics called "string theory" is an indication of this. It is a field of pure mathematics that cannot be related to nature because there is not natural phenomena predicted that can tested experimentally. Yet, there is an entire field of physicists who are string theorists; they should be mathematicians or mathematical physicists instead because they are working in a universe that cannot be tested as an accurate portrayal of our universe.

>> No.6309590

>>6309585
Yeah, we all know that philosophers always get the last word.
The sad thing is that they think that means they are right.

>> No.6309591

>>6309570
>tl;dr: your example is shit

Because you're unable to understand it?

>> No.6309589

>>6309579
0/10

>> No.6309593

>>6309584
>The contents of an entire semester philosophy course on logic can be learned by a math or physics student within one day and he'll perform better on the exam than most philosophy students

that's too much bullshit even for me

>> No.6309594

>>6309587
That's my fucking point, you illiterate douchebag. A PhD would be wasted time and adds no further qualifications unless you plan on staying a university employee for the rest of your life.

>> No.6309595

>>6309580
physics major*

let's say I will be a physicist
I just want to conjecture about my favorite objects in the universe - spheres

I can't tell you how much I want to possess an infinitely round ball made of platinum, I would shove it up my ass and hope it makes me cum, I'd stare at it as much as I can and when I can't get enough I'd push it right in my fucking eye so I can see it better

that's how much I love spheres, also I love boi tummies~

anyway, I have so many ideas and things I want to do and I feel like uni is slowly killing my creativity, it leaves me with no time to study my beloved spheres, I already figured that 24 seems to be an important number for a few things regarding dimensions and spheres, but it still needs to tell me all its secrets

what is the exact subject that deals with this kind of shit? I think I'm into group theory and geometry the most?

>> No.6309597

>>6309594
a phd is if you are genuinely passionate about your subject and want to collaborate with top class academics and dedicate to research (if you go to an elite university)

>> No.6309601

>>6309593
It's true though, no matter how hard it hurts your feelings. A philosophy course on logic requires literally nothing more than an at least average IQ. If you think it's too hard, then you're probably one of those persons who cannot answer the IQ test questions like "If all X are Y and all Y are Z, then ..."

>> No.6309605

>>6309601
>hurts your feelings
>you're probably one of those person who [..]
yawn

>> No.6309604

>>6309601
>implying logic can be taught

either you can deal with the abstract or you can't

>> No.6309612

>>6309609
>counterargument
you gotta provide a legitimate argument first m8

>> No.6309609

>>6309604
Exactly. That's why IQ is a good measure of intelligence and it confirms that philosophers are on average of lower intelligence than scientists or mathematicians.

>>6309605
>has no counterargument

>> No.6309616

>>6309601
while you're obviously exaggerating, Intro to logic really is not difficult. it's like taking pre-calc or college algebra for a math requirement. It's made easy because everyone of a variety of backgrounds have to take it or have the option to take it.

if you study logic in a philosophy program at a phd level you're going to be learning stuff of the caliber of logicians at math departments. Most professional philosophers know mathematical logic, as surprising as that may be to you.

>> No.6309620

>>6309609
The fallacies in your posts are astounding, really. Maybe there's use for philosophers after all - helping lost causes like yourself.

>> No.6309622

>>6309612
I did. My argument is philosophically sound and valid.

>> No.6309625

>>6309620
There are no fallacies in my posts.

>> No.6309639

>>6309625
found one

>> No.6309647

physics is dead. why do all these people want to study physics? Study it on your own time. do not pay money to learn about it in college, jeez.

>> No.6309658

>>6309647
The very fact you said "jeez" reflects your incompetence.

>> No.6309660

>>6309658
But he/she is right. Physics IS dead. After string theory there is no research in physics anymore. Everything has been explained and the only work in physics is highly abstract math without effects in reality.

>> No.6309662

>>6309647
>pay money

ahahaha, I can only laugh at Americans
bitch I get paid for studying

>> No.6309663

>>6309660
>what is quantum mechanics

>> No.6309664

>>6309595
>pls respond

>> No.6309667

>>6309663
Abstract nonsense nobody understands.

>> No.6309670

>>6309667
if physics is dead why isn't real life science fiction yet?

>> No.6309676

>>6309660
I think you confuse "explained" with "described"

>> No.6309678
File: 51 KB, 839x357, 1390604748562.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6309678

>do not pay money to learn about it in college

>> No.6309686
File: 159 KB, 610x648, 1390604981966.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6309686

>>6309569
No, it makes sense and is what I expected.

Question is in which category you want to do this? The cardinal number construction is a little exotic to the normal math I do, so I wonder: Do the cardinals ever stop being sets, size wise. The question being if how far this colimit construction gets you in Set.

>> No.6309688

>>6309678

classical physics is not a lie

>> No.6309689

>>6309678
wow
such source
much rely

>> No.6309724

>>6309570
>"huehue why don't you try to imagine something beyond three dimensions :D"
>Implying that's now what you said with hurr durr GR is so difficult >_<

>tl;dr: your example is shit
Your brain is shit. No wonder you study fiziks.

>> No.6309736

>>6309724
my dick ain't shit tho, why don't you suck it bro?

>> No.6309752
File: 3 KB, 175x152, 1390606656425.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6309752

>>6309686
>how do I Topos Theory

>> No.6309770

>>6309660
Please list your years of study, the institution, the field you specialize in, the research you conducted that gives you the ability to make such a ridiculous accusation... Can't... You are a high school junior who took one class on classical physics and read some articles on modern physics on Wikipedia.... Think all other physical problems have been solved... Think string theory is real physics...

You really are quite pathetic for talking about a subject you have no experience in. Your understanding of physics is completely wrong.

(Ph.D student researching CM)

>> No.6309776

>>6309770
CM?
Continous matter?
Calabi-Yau manifulds?
Classical mechanics?

>> No.6309777

>>6309776
condensed matter you fuck

>> No.6309788

>>6309093

"At least in my math-minor most exams included proofs which we've never done before and required creativity and a good knowledge of the theorems we proofed in class. That's difficult if not impossible if you don't know much at heart and have the skills for it."

That's for all math majors, not just yours, which is why I think math is more difficult than physics.

Physics exams still stress memorization over rigorous logic.

>> No.6309794

>>6309770
theory or experiment?

>> No.6309796

>>6308975
Both are super fun. I find abstract applications of maths fascinating, I don't care for the finer points which can make some of the applied example sheets disgusting. I'm probably slightly on the pure side but I'm not sure, HEP looks really cool.

>> No.6309800

Double major third year here: physics and computer science. 300 level and 400 level pure math course are much harder for me but lower level were the same difficulty as physics and computer science courses. I have absolutely zero interest in them. I guess I am not smart enough to see the use in them.

>> No.6309809

>>6309794
Experimental in quantum information

>> No.6309814

>>6309809
dang, what year? I wish we had professors working in that area at my university, I'm in my third year for experimental solid state

>> No.6309813

>>6309788
you know why?

because it is INSANE to expect anybody to come up with any equation to describe any physical process in any reasonable amount of time

you can deduce much easier in math than you can in physics, what do you want a physics test to look like?
"Assume the speed of light is constant in all inertial systems. Show that time dilatation follows and give a formula to calculate redshift."

yea right lol

>> No.6309819

>>6309813
they can give you the formulas

>> No.6309825

>>6309156
A={Concerned with the properties of matter}
B={Required to learn how to understand a mathematical model}
C={Does a load of maths}
B=C
Eh, well, I dunno, maybe I'm being generous. But physicists are great.
x in A=> x in B
A⊆B
In particular
(i) A={Physicists}
(ii) B={Mathematicians}

>> No.6309833

>>6309819
but you wanted rigorous logic instead of memorizing formulas

do you not see how insane this is? deducing in math is much easier that's why they ask you to do it in tests

you don't have to be a genius to go from A to B in most cases, but you have to be a genius to go from constant speed of light to time dilatation (on top of that in 90 minutes, too)

>> No.6309834

>>6309814
2nd year. I got lucky because it surprising hard to do research in quantum information. I did solid state in my undergraduate research, I enjoyed it when i had a good advisor.

>> No.6309839

>>6309834
Yeah, a good advisor means everything. I just learned that lesson after working for almost two years with a shitty one, and now I am hanging out to dry trying to find a new one since I didn't gain many experimental skills working under him.

>> No.6309850

>>6308975

Engineering is harder than both combined

proof: I had to do a triple integral in SPHERICAL COORDINATES

holy fuck, are you guys even trying?

>> No.6309851

>>6309813
I got that on my classical mechanics exam.

>> No.6309854

>>6309850
LOL if you are joking

If not,

Fuck you and get out

>> No.6309858

>>6309839
I agree. Best of luck, anon.

One suggestion if you are still an undergraduate, try applying for the DAAD Rise program. It is great experience and looks great on a CV. If you have money to fly to Germany.

>> No.6309860

>>6309851
>classical mechanics
>relativity theory

pick one m8

>> No.6309864

>>6309858
Nope, I'm a grad student too. I studied particle theory in my undergrad, so I kind of blew off the lab courses. The prof that I am trying to work for now is basically giving me a thesis-worthy project to complete by the end of the semester in order to join his group... not fun. How's your shit going?

>> No.6309871

Political Science

>> No.6309885

>>6309864
I had a bad advisor at first; too scattered minded and unable to focus on one project at a time. I changed after the first year and I am really happy so far with my work. I am lucky I could change easily after the first year. Always nice to talk to another physics grad, anon. I hope things work out.

>> No.6309883

Physics is easier because it's just observing, in math you actually have to create things by yourself. It's like asking, what's easier drawing a picture, or tracing one?

>> No.6309900

Physics is hard math + applying physical truths as well as axioms/theorems to, for lack of a better term, fuck with equations. Majoring in math though is hard as hell math. Really they're on a different spectrum.

>> No.6309902

It probably depends on you.

I did a degree in both theoretical physics and mathematics, I took classes on differential geometry, group theory and a graduate level functional analysis class. I also took a mathematical physics class on lie algebras. Maths was incredibly easy compared to physics. Learning functional analysis was a walk in the park compared to the first time I learned quantum mechanics, and the same can be said for differential geometry and GR.

It's difficult to explain why physics was harder, but I can say that physics just required a higher level of thinking than maths. That's just my experience though.

>> No.6310172

>watching low tier physics and math students argue about which field is harder
>lel

>> No.6310798

>>6309860
>implying they are disjoint
back2school4u

>> No.6312691

both are soft