Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 20 KB, 235x400, ag.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
7303383 No.7303383 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Keep this in mind as you get advice on this board or hear from a math elitist troll. Most mathfags here are unsophisticated and between the ages of 17-19 years old. They are babies & don't practice real math yet.

You are getting advice from babies taking calculus 1-3, real analysis and abstract algebra for the very first time.

>> No.7303387

Cool thread 10/10

>> No.7303405

>>7303383
Daily reminder that math is pointless without applications. All mathematicians do is sit around and make equations that scientists and engineers use to do real work.

>> No.7303417

>>7303405
That is like saying English is pointless without applications. This is pretty much what white trash say before not studying.

>> No.7303421

>>7303417
> That is like saying English is pointless without applications.
and?

>> No.7303431

>>7303421
Are you white trash?

>> No.7303436
File: 130 KB, 720x480, 1432763173673.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
7303436

What does it even mean to "complete anything in cohomology"?

I know the definition of cohomology and I've seen a few examples. And most importantly I figured out that it doesn't interest me. There are sufficiently many other math topics which I find more interesting and which don't involve cohomologies.

Could it possibly be that OP's criticism applies to himself the most? That maybe he is an undergraduate babby who took a glimpse at an introductory algebraic toplelogy course and now believes himself to be superior to 99% o /sci/?

>> No.7303438

>>7303383
You never stated somewhere? Or were you shat out doing complex analysis?

>> No.7303439

>>7303438
Started*

>> No.7303443

>>7303436
I think the point is this board has low level math content and the math that is discussed falls in the category of introductory mathematics (e.g. calculus 2, linear algebra, differential equations). Rarely do you see any discussions with any mathematical meat to them. Also, looking around you can easily see that most people here are freshman or sophomores.

>> No.7303452 [DELETED] 

>>7303436
I suck at math and therefore instead of arguing against OP I am going to project my own insecurities about sucking at math onto him to make myself feel better.

>> No.7303453
File: 31 KB, 420x345, 1432056521853.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
7303453

I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in mathematics, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret papers on triple quasi-integral semi-simple coelliptic cohomology, and I have over 300 confirmed citations. I am trained in galois cohomology and I’m the top algebraist among all US math departments.

>> No.7303461

>>7303436
>I suck at math and therefore instead of arguing against OP I am going to project my own insecurities about sucking at math onto him to make myself feel better.

>> No.7303464

>>7303453
Well I can evaluate prophase, metaphase, prince, and snake charmer integrals.

>> No.7303468

>>7303443
It's better than /lit/fags.

>> No.7303479

>>7303443
>Also, looking around you can easily see that most people here are freshman or sophomores.

I know. It's terrible. There are people on this board who unironically take philosophy seriously or think it is relevant to science or math.

>> No.7303481

>>7303443
agreed.

>> No.7303524

>>7303383

I evaluated your heading as troll, grade V.

Why 42?

>> No.7303534

>>7303479
There is such a thing as the philosophy of natural sciences.

>> No.7304079

>>7303524
42 meaning of the universe.. or something

>> No.7304105

>>7303405
>All mathematicians do is sit around and make equations that scientists and engineers use to do real work.
>make equations that scientists and engineers use to do real work.
>make equations that scientists and engineers use
>All mathematicians do

holy shit you are stupid

>> No.7304107

Grothendieck = hip, 'indie' version of the unabomber who wrote crazy books instead of blowing up people and was better at math

>> No.7304109
File: 53 KB, 460x300, grothendieck-wizard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
7304109

>>7304107
>Implying Grothendieck isn't literally a wizard

>> No.7304501

>>7304109
he shagged women and abondonned his children.

literally ALPHA AS FUCK

>> No.7304512

>>7303417
A language not spoken is a dead language

>> No.7304520

>>7304501
lol, for some reason I read that as.
>he shagged and abondonned his children.

>> No.7304524

>>7303431
Do you write language for sake of the language and not to convey some sort of message?

>> No.7304525

>>7304512
Knowing dead languages allow us to unlock the secrets of our past.

>> No.7306375

>>7304109
You are a wizard harry! Oh wait... wrong context. I heard he rambled about the devil in his later years. The dude was a genius, I don't doubt there was some truth to what he spoke about even if we can't comprehend it.

>> No.7306383

>>7304525

that's still applying the language you faaaaaaaakin idiot

>> No.7306412
File: 32 KB, 740x308, purity.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
7306412

>>7303405
>All mathematicians do is sit around and make equations that scientists and engineers use to do real work.

Define 'real work.'

>> No.7306440

>>7306412
Work that has relevance to real life.

>> No.7306445

>>7304107
>>7304109
>>7304501
>>7306375
He was perhaps the greatest mathematician in history. His contributions are so deep and far-reaching that it honestly makes me incredibly relieved to know that he was able to make his contributions in his lifetime; where would we be without him?

There are many mathematicians that are the laborers of the field; they reap the seeds that the great innovators like Galois, Hilbert, Noether, Poincaré, Lawvere, Grothendieck, Riemann, Euler, et alii, have planted. They prove smaller results, shallower results, and solve plenty of the tough problems, but the innovators have had the real influence on the progress of mathematics. All of my respect goes to them.

>> No.7306450

Im so confused. I thought mathmagicians were like the big tits in the science world.

>> No.7306467

Daily reminder that you will be unemployed forever or earning slightly above a minimum if you know what cohomology even is. Applied mathematics is where it is at. Pure mathematics is as useless as an art degree.

>> No.7306468

>>7306445
Same can be said about Godel, Turing, Church, Cantor, Ramanujan, Gauss, Kolmogorov, von Neumann, etc. They are the architects, the creators, the ones that create paradigm shifts, the movers. Everyone after them just fill in small gaps here and there that are ultimately insignificant compared to the body of work their founders have done. I'd just be happy if I could fill in some small gap they left behind.

>> No.7306485

>>7306440
And you're saying math doesn't?

>> No.7306524

>>7306468

If you think Ranamujan belongs in any such list, you are literally spouting meme pop-math, and probably have no idea what his life's work consisted of. He had breathtaking grasp of various elementary number theoretic ideas and approximations by infinite series, etc...clearly a natural genius...but contributed little to theory and apparently had trouble learning complex analysis from Hardy. He did nothing even remotely close to a "paradigm" shift, not even to close to the work first rate mathematicians which are not well known by pop math enthusiasts, such as Emil Artin or Andre Weil.

>> No.7306930
File: 57 KB, 400x320, 1321044527682.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
7306930

>>7303405
2/10

>> No.7306937
File: 320 KB, 1162x1600, 1433371857783.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
7306937

>>7306383
Retard, you learn it without knowing if you will apply it, just like pure math.

>> No.7307269 [DELETED] 

>>7306524
>being this le edge
clearly you are a pop faggot too.

>> No.7307291

>>7303383
you don't even know what is a markov chain and you're talking about cohomology

how pathetic

>> No.7307306

>>7303383
What is cohomology? I'm just learning about the fundamental group now.

>> No.7307313

Physics is pointless without applications.

Tyson and Hawking are hacks.

>> No.7307397

>>7306412
>tfw math is just applied logic

feels bad man

>> No.7307420
File: 58 KB, 799x261, 1410520133703.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
7307420

>>7306412

>> No.7307421

>>7303464
Pff.

Do you have that image?

>> No.7307428

>>7307420
the autism is strong in this one

>> No.7307456

>>7307397
Wrong. Logic is only a branch of math.

>> No.7307467

>>7307306
Starting with an abelianized copy of the fundamental group there is an infinite exact sequence of free abelian groups teminating with your abelianized copy of the fundamental group the quotient groups of successive elements of which are very useful to think about. There are also more direct definitions of the homology groups. That things are abelian makes them a lot easier to work with and think about than the higher order homotopy groups for example. If you want something to make you shiver look up what the higher order homotopy groups for the frigging n-sphere are like. That setup with the exact sequences shows up in all kinds of subfields of math and is generally called homology. In cohomology you replace the abelian free groups with associated groups of homomorphisms and then have an exact sequence going in the opposite direction. I don't know the details yet but I'll probably have to figure it out sooner orlater.

>> No.7307479

>>7306450

It's an okay degree, but most well paying jobs require applied forms of education because it's easier to transition it into real world jobs.

I have a master's degree in mathematics and currently work in a management position at a fairly large insurance company.

>> No.7307492 [DELETED] 
File: 130 KB, 920x636, 1433153393612.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
7307492

>>7307456

>> No.7307497
File: 81 KB, 1594x329, 1433154249364.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
7307497

>>7307456

>> No.7307548

>>7303461
>he doesn't find cohomology interesting
>he sucks at math
Literally what.
Not the same guy you're responding to, but as a master's student, my interests are largely in analysis and number theory.
I liked algebraic structures and topology before I took grad level courses in them. Now I'm kind of sick of them.

>> No.7307643

>>7307548
Cohomology does show up in differential geometry a bit and in algebraic number theory it is of course is going to be a thing. For a differential geometric algebraic time look up De Rham cohomology.

>> No.7307785

>>7307548
Your reading comprehension is a little low
>Could it possibly be that OP's criticism applies to himself the most? That maybe he is an undergraduate babby who took a glimpse at an introductory algebraic toplelogy course and now believes himself to be superior to 99% o /sci/?

I believe the response was to that.

>> No.7307926

>>7307306
The most intuitive way to first learn cohomology is in a basic smooth manifolds course, where you will learn about the extremely natural idea of de Rham cohomology and the Mayer-Vitoris sequence. The important parts of these concepts I think really help one better appreciate a more abstract study.

>> No.7307935

>>7307548
It's not about whether you're sick of something or not. Can you legitimately say cohomomlogy is not an interesting concept? "I'm not interested in cohomology" doesn't even seem like a real statement to me. And I work in pure analysis/PDEs--doesn't stop me from realizing areas I don't work on are interesting. It's not like cohomology is some sort of obscure, research level topic. It's a fundamental cornerstone of modern mathematics. I don't see how any mathematician can call anything so fundamental uninteresting.

>> No.7307972

>>7303479
>>7303534
kek

>> No.7308049

>It's a fundamental cornerstone of modern mathematics.

we're not sure. Sorry to say this, but even if half the themes of modern research have something to do with cohomology, it might prove totally useless in 20 years. And in 50 years people will just be like, "it was a surely a thing, but now it's just lame and boring".

>> No.7308058

>>7307935
>I don't see how any mathematician can call anything so fundamental uninteresting.
maybe because they just don't know it, like when algebraists say statistics are uninteresting

>> No.7308847

>>7307497
>>7307420
>>7306412

where is computer sciences ?

>> No.7308856

>>7308847
the science in CS is logic

>> No.7308930

mathfags dont even study homology? kek, this is a required course for engineering

>> No.7308933

>>7308847

In the corner wearing a dunce hat

>> No.7309143

>>7308847
pure cs is over there with math

>> No.7309202

>>7308847
in the basement, jacking off to cartoon porn

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action