What area of mathematics do you have little to no interest in?

[Anonymous No.8112660]

What area of mathematics do you have little to no interest in?

[Anonymous No.8112665]

>>8112660

Statistics

https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/4lshg6/lpt_take_at_least_one_good_statistics_course/

[Anonymous No.8112669]

>>8112660
>having areas of mathematics you have little to no interest in.
having some you have more interest in is fine but if you have an area of mathematics you have totally no interest in yo might as well kill yourself .

[Anonymous No.8112673]

>>8112665
Try a course in stochastic processes anon.

[Anonymous No.8112676]

>>8112673
Thanks anon.

[Anonymous No.8112679]

Game theory.

Why is it even a thing?

[beige deport No.8112684]

>>8112679
So entry level college math teachers can tell students they know how to always win at the casinos and how they can teach you but only if register for the next class with the same teacher right now! (Yes this really happened)

[Anonymous No.8112686]

>>8112679
Markets

[Anonymous No.8112692]

>>8112665
the only valid answer and only if you're a mathematician .
if you're doing anything else its a must .

[Anonymous No.8112721]

Galois theory :^)

[Anonymous No.8112723]

>>8112660
Statistics and I'm not really into probabilties but maybe that's because of statistics.

I do like continous probabilities for some reason, dunno why

[Anonymous No.8112727]

>>8112723
Highschool detected.
But really, the statistics you see at highschool is really shallow, there's a much much bigger world to it.
See: >>8112673
There's a lot of good stuff in stats that very much require strong grounding in "pure".
Stochastic processes requires a good understanding of analysis and measure theory.
Markov processes, martingales, brownian motion are related and worth looking at.

[Anonymous No.8112935]

>>8112660
I find it highly disinteresting that we rely on a type of math that cant resolve 1 divided by 3

[Anonymous No.8112946]

>>8112679

its so important that the guy won nobel price so.

its how the "AI" deep blue won over Kasparov in chess actually

[Anonymous No.8112949]

>>8112935
Huh?

[Anonymous No.8112955]

>>8112935
0.3334

[Anonymous No.8113036]

>>8112946
There is no Nobel prize in economics. It was a prize added after Nobel died, "to honor his memory" or something like that. I know no source that claims that he ever wanted a prize in economics to even have his name on it.

[Anonymous No.8113060]

>>8112935

All your answers can be found with Rational Trigonometry.

[Anonymous No.8113080]

>>8113036

i actually never claimed that there was a nobel price in economy. but now i will.

Since you brought it up there is a nobel price in economy and thats the one he won. (even though he was no economist, those were the ones that first recognize the applications of his theory)

inb4 you personally do not believe in it for some autism reasons. its official and that's the truth i go with

[Anonymous No.8113084]

>>8112721
Seriously the biggest disappointment of my college years.

[Anonymous No.8113098]

>>8113080
No there isn't one.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/economic-sciences/

Read section "Not a Nobel Prize"

[Anonymous No.8113110]

>>8112660
foundational shit like logic, set theory, category theory, also anything that involves heavy use of integrals.

[Anonymous No.8113116]

>>8113084

Why? Outsized expectations?

Were you expecting to solve the universe, only to find a limited number of techniques and formulas, or somesuch?

Or was it something else?

[Anonymous No.8113161]

>>8112721
>>8113084
What's wrong with Galois theory?

[Anonymous No.8113162]

>>8112673
>>8112727
I feel like statistics is an interesting field, but the way it is taught to non-mathematicians makes it really awful.
I had one statistics course and it sucked.
I understood nothing, and I ended up memorizing various sentences about statistical models, qq plots etc. and regurgitated them on the exam for a pretty C.
Am I correct about applied statistics being shit or am I just a brainlet?

[Anonymous No.8113164]

>>8113162
regurgitating dumb-down light, "plug chug" versions of topics doesn't make them applied
it makes them shit

applied math done right is p cool

[Anonymous No.8113167]

>>8112679
Combinatorial game theory generalizes the real numbers to form the "surreal numbers".
Differential game theory generalizes optimal control to when there's multiple controllers.

[Anonymous No.8113170]

>>8112660
Number theory

[Anonymous No.8113177]

>>8112660
Used to be analysis because I thought analysis was so hard and algebra was easier.

Now it's algebra. I think basic algebra is essential but have no interest in going beyond that.
Analysis on the other hand just gets more and more interesting the more I learn.

[Anonymous No.8113179]

>>8113116
I'm not him but I agree. I was expecting a lot, viewing it as the pinnacle of algebra and hoping it would unlock all kinds of amazing new ways of looking at polynomials, etc.

[Anonymous No.8113183]

topology or anything that even smells of geometry

[Anonymous No.8113185]

>>8113179
>old, classical theory
>pinnacle of algebra
???
it does unlock an amazing way of looking at field extensions and polynomial rings in particular

[Anonymous No.8113191]

>>8112660
prime numbers

[Anonymous No.8113196]

>>8113162
That's a small field of statistics. Applied statistics isn't about that stuff at all and there's no way that a non-mathematician can take a course in "cool" statistics because you need firm grounding in other parts of maths first.
It's like learning how to count or learning the names of shapes and concluding that maths is shit. You've only seen a small area of statistics.

>>8113183
>topology
>geometry
What's wrong with these buddy?
Topology is a requirement for research, and if you don't like the arguments in your intro to geometry course (which I admit don't feel very solid), you can most definitely view geometry from a solid linear algebra point of view which your university should offer.

[Anonymous No.8113199]

>>8112679
It's very important in the military.

[Anonymous No.8113206]

>>8112660
Anything related to calc/analysis/shit algebra or graph analysis.

I like shapes and logic/riddle reasoning. Like your first proofs course or discrete mathematics.

[Anonymous No.8113211]

>>8113164
>>8113196
You're right, I should have used another description.
>because you need firm grounding in other parts of maths first.
How much is needed?

[Anonymous No.8113220]

Algebra. It makes my brain hurt.

[Anonymous No.8113234]

>>8113199
Really?

In what, their war simulations?

[Anonymous No.8113235]

>>8113211
For stochastic processes:
Analysis: you use the dominating convergence theorem and fubini's theorem quite a bit along with your usual notions of continuity, limits, convergence, uniform convergence, almost sure convergence etc etc.
Measure theory: Knowing what a measure is and as a bonus, what Fatou's lemma is should suffice for an intro course.
Linear algebra: You should be able to know the type of solutions that a system of linear equations has, so just the basics of linear algebra is good enough.
Differential equations: You should be able to solve first and second order difference equations.
If you want to go further into things such as Ergodic theory, then you should take a good look at the central limit theorem and the law of large numbers.
In terms of probability knowledge, you should know Bayes' Rule, conditional probabilities, being able to switch between expectation and probability easily, properties of expectation such as the tower property and linearity, and the basic binomial and bernoulli distribution.
So most of the probability stuff you would already have seen in your first year, the only things that you may have not seen is the tower property and independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables (I'm a maths student and it was my first time hearing of these, but they're understandable in 5 minutes).

That's all I can think of for now. There are small things too such as knowing how to interchange double summations and indicator functions, but I don't think that they're worth mentioning as being needed to know since you don't really need to be well grounded in maths to know those anyway.

[Anonymous No.8113240]

>>8113196
>view geometry from a solid linear algebra point of view

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

GEOMETRYTARDS GET AWAY, SHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

go compute your retarded homology groups and off yourself

[Anonymous No.8113244]

>>8113240
>trying to have a civilised discussion
>get bombarded with autistic screaming and memes
Try and be human will you anon?
Why do you hate geometry so much? You see plenty of it in metric spaces.

[Anonymous No.8113246]

>>8113244
because I hate that math (something that is essentially formalized philosophy and logic) and that is abstract gets tied down by one of its many many different forms (geometry)

geometry isnt a field. Its just a application of mathematics. An interpretation of it. Its okay to do geometry using math. Its not okay to do math with geometry.

As you can probably tell I loved abstract algebra and analysis but almost killed myself in topology

Its like how we use math to do statistics. We dont use statistics to do math. And the things that geometryfags try to do usually often end up perverting the field

[Anonymous No.8113258]

>>8113246
>Its okay to do geometry using math.
But that's exactly what we do. For your converse:
>Its not okay to do math with geometry.
I can see where you're coming from, but we don't use geometry that "seems right" or "seems like it makes sense" to justify things in maths. Rather, we use geometry that has already been made solid with maths, may it be through abstract algebra or analysis, and use that elsewhere. It's much nicer and quicker to use a geometrical argument that we've already justified rather than use the not so intuitive algebraic/analytical argument that already built the geometry.
I'm not seeing too much geometry in topology anon, how was your course set out?

[Anonymous No.8113280]

>>8113258
ok desu I dont hate topology or geometry that much

Its just one of my biggest pet peeves that borderlines autism w/ the general terminology.
(geometric argument vs geometric argument proven through analytical/algebraic means)

I was taught throughout my life by some retard who literally thought he could do math with geometry (e.g. everything had to obey rules similar to real life objects)

And when I found out they didnt. I just grew to generally hate the field.

>Its not okay to do math with geometry.
Unfortunately many do

[Anonymous No.8113285]

>>8112660
Number theory. I'd rather do stats than number theory. Also, ODE and PDE.

[Anonymous No.8113287]

>>8112665
Statistics isn't even math. You might as well call accounting math.

[Anonymous No.8113293]

>>8113285
>retard undergrad

[Anonymous No.8113298]

>>8113280
I'm so sorry to hear that shit experience anon, I wonder if you'll ever be able to rekindle some sort of love for those fields again. I totally sympathize with your case and there's a few areas that I wasn't too fond of due to bad lecturing in them. I kind of got over it through reading material on my own, but then I guess the question is on finding the motivation to pick up material by yourself and sit down and read it.

[Anonymous No.8113304]

>>8113293
Yep, number theory and DEs are for retarded undergrads.

[Anonymous No.8113320]

knot theory
i know it has produced results in other areas such as topological graph theory, but i just find knot theory itself boring t b h

[Anonymous No.8113335]

Complex analysis/complex geometry. Riemann surfaces are so god damn boring.

[Anonymous No.8113340]

>>8112660
Foundations bore the shit out of me. I recognize the importance of it but proving 1 > 0 just doesn't do it for me.

Synthetic geometry sucks too

>>8113335
>complex analysis
>boring
fite me irl fgt

[Anonymous No.8113342]

>>8112660
Large Cardinal Theory

[Anonymous No.8113367]

>>8113335
>complex analysis
>riemann surfaces
>boring

be this bait?

[Anonymous No.8113378]

>>8112660
>combinatorics

[Anonymous No.8113408]

>>8112660
anything not involving python/matlab coding
i hated my proofs and modern algebra courses

[Anonymous No.8113444]

>>8113162
econometrics is better from non stem people
same material just a bit easier

you would need a proofs and probability course for proper mathematical statistics

[Anonymous No.8113469]

>>8113408
>hated my proofs and modern algebra courses

You should kill yourself

[Anonymous No.8113508]

>>8112660
All areas, it is the only subject that I hate with vehement passion

[Anonymous No.8113523]

>>8112660
Analysis of PDEs, combinatorics

[Anonymous No.8113534]

>PDEs
>Statistics
>Complexity Theory
>Set Theory

[Anonymous No.8113552]

>>8113367
>>8113340
I'm just a real/functional analysis fag. The bad part of Riemann surfaces for me primarily stems from geometry as I just lose all interest when that comes into play. As for complex analysis, a lot of the arguments are just long-winded and boring. Occasionally nice proofs come out (e.g. Dixon's proof of Cauchy, Zalcman's proof of Picard), but on the whole I was just plain bored with a material. That being said, the results are nice.

I do actually like the proof that Riemann surfaces are second countable, though. The one I'm thinking of (from the Ahlfors and Sario text) is just basically some topology and harmonic analysis (a generalization of Dirichlet problem).

[Anonymous No.8113565]

Probably logic. Like logician level stuff.

[Anonymous No.8113584]

>>8112665

>not enjoying the in and outs of analyzing nigger crime rates and their test scores

wew

[Anonymous No.8113608]

>>8113287

>mfw they call accounting for mathematical-accounting in my country

[Anonymous No.8113626]

>>8113534
So you just sit around counting on your fingers and toes all day?

[Anonymous No.8113662]

>>8113626
nice canned line, faggot. those fields are shit.

[Anonymous No.8113677]

>>8112679
The video game industry is making a lot of profit.

[Anonymous No.8113679]

>number theory
>set theory
>logic
>statistics

Those are just so fucking boring.

[Anonymous No.8113691]

>tfw lost all interest in mathematics outside my specialization

I kinda miss being able to approach a completely unfamiliar field with excitement and wonder

[Anonymous No.8113693]

Boring topics are OK, but what are the most interesting topics in mathematics?

[H No.8113711]

>>8113246
>As you can probably tell I loved abstract algebra and analysis but almost killed myself in topology
(Modern-ish) algebraic geometry starts by taking a commutative ring and turning it into a geometric space. On a categorical level, this is just reversing the direction of morphisms, and is hence a purely algebraic process. You can even glue these affine scheme together into more genera; schemes in a purely algebraic way, using the functor of point viewpoint.
The idea that prime ideals = points came from analysis, namely the Gelfand representation.
A lot of complex algebraic geometry is very similar to complex analytic geometry, which is obviously very analytic in nature. You then have stuff like gauge theory, which has lots of geometrical and topological applications, but "feels" a lot more like analysis + group theory: physicists are pretty good at it, and they don't need analysis, just calculus, intuition, and a list of theorems in Lie theory.
It's very strange that you'd say you dislike formalised philosophy and logic but enjoy analysis and especially abstract algebra, which is much closer to pure logic than geometry. Indeed, I'd say I prefer geometry for that exact reason, it has much more "flavour" whereas algebra is very stale and purely logical. At the end of the day, though, they are inseparable.

[Anonymous No.8113720]

>>8113693
Fractals, yay!

[Anonymous No.8113722]

>>8113711
>The idea that prime ideals = points came from analysis, namely the Gelfand representation.
I always thought it came from taking the Nullstellensatz (maximal ideals correspond to points) and realizing that relaxing that a little gave a nicer category.

[Anonymous No.8113746]

>>8113246
dude do you even differential geometry ?

[Anonymous No.8113756]

>>8113246
>that is abstract gets tied down by one of its many many different forms (geometry)

You have clearly never studied any serious geometry.

[Anonymous No.8113757]

>>8113246
>As you can probably tell I loved abstract algebra and analysis but almost killed myself in topology
How do you even do any amount of serious analysis without topology

[Anonymous No.8113888]

Mechanics, it's so gross and tangible. Statistics and pure mathematics are just so nice and comfy in comparison.

[Anonymous No.8113971]

probability

[Anonymous No.8113984]

>>8113888
try this

http://www.amazon.com/Foundations-Mechanics-Ralph-Abraham/dp/0201408406

[Anonymous No.8115148]

Might as well try to get this trend going...

> Dislikes
Abstract Algebra, Number Theory (the algebraic ones and stuff applicable to computer science), and Combinatorics. Also some parts of geometry, stats, and probability irks me...
> Likes
Calculus, DE's, Analysis, Topology, and Set Theory (A lot of heavy uses of integrals; I like). Also I like logic, reasoning, and some philosophy (meta stuff too).

[Anonymous No.8115154]

Number theory.

[Anonymous No.8115157]

Probability, diff.eq, combinatorics

[Anonymous No.8115158]

>>8113304
actually yes unless they're taking that unironically their freshman year

[Anonymous No.8115161]

>>8113693

Double integrals.

[Anonymous No.8115175]

>>8112935
>>8113060
or duodecimal.

[Anonymous No.8115177]

>>8115175
1/3=0.4
sorry I dont know the formal way you guys present math

[Anonymous No.8115179]

>>8112660

all of it.

[Anonymous No.8115191]

>>8115177
You mean like this [math]\frac{1}{3} = 0. \dot{3}[/math]?

[Anonymous No.8115205]

>>8113693
>>8113378
Take your pedophile cartoons back to >>>/a/.

[Anonymous No.8115215]

>>8113098
r/til

[Anonymous No.8115246]

>>8115191
yea that looks right. or at least what i typically see

[Anonymous No.8115255]

>>8113116
>>8113161
The methods weren't that fun, and by the end of the year when we were discussing it, solubility didn't seem like a very interesting question anymore. We weren't introduced to any more juicy applications.

[Anonymous No.8115257]

>>8115246
Yeah that's fine, some people also write it as [math]\frac{1}{3} = 0. \overline{3}[/math].
Anyway, the point the guy was trying to make was "oh my god maths is garbage why do people believe that [math]1 = 0. \dot{3}[/math]" etc. but the fact is that decimal representation isn't unique so the equation is true.

[Anonymous No.8115267]

>>8113220
algebra is 12 year old tier anon

[Anonymous No.8115269]

Differential equations never were my thing.

[Anonymous No.8115270]

>>8112660
>What area of mathematics do you have little to no interest in?
Yes

[Anonymous No.8115775]

Logic and stats. Boring shit.

[Anonymous No.8115782]

>>8115267
>What is abstract algebra

[Anonymous No.8115804]

>>8112660
Algebra. It's just so incredibly boring and every application is only useful to autists and engineers. Seriously, who the fuck cares about the solvability of polynomials of degree five. It's literally a meme.

On the other hand I find category theory beautiful and enlightening. Of course, I mean pure category theory and not the babby shit algebraists do with it.

[Anonymous No.8115805]

addition

[Anonymous No.8115808]

Literally anything that doesn't deal with explicit answers. My autism always flared up in math when the answer was the log of whatever and the teacher was like "just approximate it to 2 decimals"

[Anonymous No.8115811]

>>8113584
Kek I forgot I was still on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.8115815]

>>8113304
why retarded?

THere are some pretty advanced de

[Anonymous No.8115817]

>>8115804
>fell for the category theory meme
>algebra is boring
>will never understand the beauty behind the Monstrous Moonshine

Why live anon?

[Anonymous No.8115822]

>>8115811

>I forgot I was still on /sci/ and not /pol/

ftfy

[Anonymous No.8115825]

>>8115822
>stop being racist on 4chan
Get outta here

[Anonymous No.8115826]

>>8113679
>>number theory
>>set theory
>>logic
lel this is literally the pièce de résistance
of mathematics

[Anonymous No.8115836]

>>8115825
>/pol/ humor is funny and original.
Get kekt.

[Anonymous No.8115844]

>>8115817
>Monstrous Moonshine
Do I look like am autist to you?

[Anonymous No.8115846]

>>8115836
>humor magically becomes unfunny and unoriginal as soon as I perceive it as racist
fag

[Anonymous No.8115855]

>>8115836
>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.8115871]

People saying abstract algebra don't have their heads on straight. That's where real mathematics begins.

[Anonymous No.8115883]

>>8115871
>real math
It's babby math, anon. It's also incredibly dull. The only people interested in it are autists who think polynomials are the coolest concept in math.

[Anonymous No.8115894]

>>8115817
>>8115804
Category theory is awesome. I used to hate algebra too, but after discovering Category theory it motivated me to learn the basics of algebra at a deeper level.

[Anonymous No.8115908]

Can't wrap my mind around probability. Takes me 5x longer to learn anything from combinatorics for example but stuff like diffeqs come to me much easier. :~;

[Anonymous No.8115927]

>>8115836
m'redditor narwahl brother

[Anonymous No.8115958]

>>8115927
>>8115855
>>8115846
There are funny and original racist jokes. Unfortunately none of theme exist on /pol/, they are the reddit of 4chan.

[Anonymous No.8115966]

>>8115958
Professional memer at your service, m'lady!

[Anonymous No.8115969]

>>8115966
lol, the /pol/ users at my university are basically this guy. One of them actually makes that awful "reee" squeeling noise unironically.

[Anonymous No.8115971]

>>8115969
>I literally know /pol/ users at my university

*tip*

[Anonymous No.8115976]

>>8115969
Sure it is redditard ;)

[Anonymous No.8115977]

Probability
Statistics
Computational mathematics
Logic
Model Theory
Combinatorics
Graph theory
Number theory

[Anonymous No.8115986]

>>8115971
It's hard not to spot them anon. Not only do they spout memes in public but they talk about /pol/ threads and yell out "triggered" whenever someone irl is offended by a racist/sexist/edgy comment.

>>8115976
>implying

[Anonymous No.8115992]

>>8115986
> but they talk about /pol/ threads and yell out "triggered" whenever someone irl is offended by a racist/sexist/edgy comment.
Sure it is sjwtard...sure it is ;)

[Anonymous No.8115996]

>>8115825
>>>/global/rules/3

>You will not post any of the following outside of /b/: Trolls, flames, racism, off-topic replies, uncalled for catchphrases, macro image replies, indecipherable text (example: "lol u tk him 2da bar|?"), anthropomorphic ("furry") or grotesque ("guro") images, post number GETs ("dubs"), or loli/shota pornography.

>racism

summershitters sure are cancer

[Anonymous No.8115999]

>>8115996
Thats quite racist. Please stop posting

[Anonymous No.8116011]

>>8115999
>using words you don't understand

4chan is an english language imageboard

[Anonymous No.8116014]

>>8116011
Thats just sexist. Please check your privilege.

[Anonymous No.8116019]

[Anonymous No.8116023]

>>8116014
oh that's right i forgot you can only regurgitate memes

godspeed /b/ro, enjoy your stay

[Anonymous No.8116024]

>>8116019
> everyone
I love when sjwtards use "everyone" ironically as if you social rejects are some sort of majority. But you live in your tiny bubbles so it makes sense.

Please stop trying to speak on behalf of /sci/ already trigglypuff. Don't you have a blogpost to shit out ?

[Anonymous No.8116027]

all of it

I fucking love science but I hate math. Through watching lots of youtube videos I understand quantum mechanics, string theory and relativity. I just don't care about the math.

[Anonymous No.8116030]

>>8115992
>>8115999
>>8116014

[Anonymous No.8116032]

>>8116027
Please be kidding.

[Anonymous No.8116043]

>>8116019
lol, 3 years later and /pol/esmokers are still only capable of posting about black people IQ.

>>8116024
>spazzing out over a picture from 2013.

[Anonymous No.8116044]

>>8116019
this is 100% true tbqh. Having a containment board where they can fling their shit at each other is fine, hell, it's the premise of this site as a whole, but shitposting everywhere else has gotten really annoying. Mods have to step it up.

[Anonymous No.8116049]

classical number theory was just mathematicians beating each other off over pointless grade-school-tier puzzles while they waited for algebra to be invented

go ahead, prove me wrong

[Anonymous No.8116057]

>>8116049
>go ahead, prove me wrong

Most algebra was invented to do number theory, and then later algebraic geometry, you retarded undergrad

[Anonymous No.8116097]

As a student in computer engineering I have found all math I have encountered as useful.
So I guess the best answer to this would be topology, the only subject I find cool which I have not yet mastered on undergrad level.(I wont even have a course in it).

[Anonymous No.8116100]

>>8116043
>>8116044
> redditard cries about crossboarding
lmao

[Anonymous No.8116149]

>>8116100
>doesn't realize that /pol/ is the most complained about containment board on 4chan.
rofl

Moot actually posted in the thread where pic related was posted and the next day he turned /pol/ into cuckold central.

[Anonymous No.8116157]

>>8116149
> mentioned = complained
SJWtard logic right there. Why are you in a website that you're not even invited or welcome ? You know nobody wants you here right ?

[Anonymous No.8116163]

>>8116149
> /v/, /i/ and /lit/
what the fuck. I know /v/ is popular amongs manchildren but whats up with /i/ and /lit/ ?

[Anonymous No.8116176]

>>8116100
> typical poltard
> doesn't even have the literacy to read the rules

[Anonymous No.8116183]

>>8116157
It's impossible to talk about /pol/ outside it's own board without shitposting.

I've been on 4chan since 2004. It's the stormcancer that didn't arrive until 2006, and they only came because of the Hal Turner raids (they thought 4chan was a liberal website). This is also why they infected our /new/s board (internet is srs bsns, rite guise?) and moot had to kill it. /pol/ was literally created as a containment board.

gb2/pol/

[Anonymous No.8116184]

>>8112660
>having NO interest in any field of mathematics.

If you're a mathematician, you should be ashamed. I've found every class I took throughout grad school interesting, go to colloquium every week and have yet to come across a subject I don't find fascinating. I'm just sad I can't study them all, so I just study what I'm best at. Feels bad.

[Anonymous No.8116187]

>>8116176
>>8116183

If you respect containment zones so much, then what the fuck are you doing here in the first place you dumb hypocrite retards ?

shitpost in your containment site, there is no board for you on 4chan.

>>>/r/eddit

[Anonymous No.8116201]

>>8116187
Reddit got sick of SJWtards and their racist/sexist buzzword spams and kicked their asses out. They are trying to lay their eggs on 4chan but they keep getting BTFO everywhere.

[Anonymous No.8116314]

>>8116187
I've never used that site. However I do remember that the original reason we hated them was because they were cancerfags who couldn't into memes (just like /pol/).

It's only the newfigs at /pol/ that tried to prop up a shit site as a symbol in their reverse social justice war on the internet.

Cancerous newfigs like you belong on /pol/
>>>/pol/

>>8116201
>internet is srs bsns you guise
top zoz

[Anonymous No.8116328]

>>8116187
Fuck off /pol/tard, we know you're the same /pol/ shitter that gets triggered and spams the word 'SJWtard' over and over again

This is you, faggot.

[Anonymous No.8116372]

>>8116176
I brought up the global rules on /mu/, which devolved into me being accused of being anti-white racist and attempting to censor all opinions which personally offend me. Allegedly enforcing rules against trolling and crossboard shitposting is equivalent to not allowing anyone to share negative opinions about music. These people are ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.8116689]

All of it. I wish i was into it but when i sit down with a book i lose interest. Stats is interesting only because it has to do with experimental design and strengthening my arguement.

[Anonymous No.8116853]

>>8113246
You will have to accept that geometry and algebra are intimately related. Hell, most finite groups are constructed as symmetry groups of topological spaces. You can try to do algebra in 'the abstract' but you will not come up with new ideas if you don't work out a bound down example.

Just this week I found a correspondence between the deformation theory of certain modules and the homotopy type of curves. Without a geometrical intuition I would never be able to have found it.

Algebra is geometry, deal with it nerd.

[Anonymous No.8116857]

>>8116328
> Literally posts SJW-tier image replies
> lol whoever calls me SJW must be pol

Back to your shithole you autistic SJWtard. You have no place in this board.

>>>/trash/

[Anonymous No.8116866]

>>8116187
You are really coming off as an edgy 17 year old, fyi.

[Anonymous No.8116872]

>>8116866
> resorts to projecting
low

[Anonymous No.8116889]

>>8116872
>CTRL+F "SJW"
>8 results
>all (you)

[Anonymous No.8116897]

>>8116889
> mutliple people want my sjwtarded ass out og here
> must be samefagging
> i-i swear guys im not a sjwtard shitposter

go away sjw. nobody wants you here.

[Anonymous No.8116912]

numerical analysis
perturbation theory

[Anonymous No.8116917]

>>8116897
Nah, it is just you. Nice try.

[Anonymous No.8116931]

>>8116917
back to your shithole you desperate sjwtard
>>>/trash/

[Anonymous No.8116947]

>>8116931
This board is /sci/ Science & Math, I didn't know SJW was your least favorite branch of math? Personally I have little interest in analysis, I'm interested in abstract algebra and comparability theory, and mathematical logic.

[Anonymous No.8117078]

goddamn it /sci/. how does least favorite maths thread become this circlejerk bullshit

[Anonymous No.8117192]

>>8116931
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.8117466]

nothing i think

[Anonymous No.8118572]

>>8112935

[Anonymous No.8118582]

>>8113287
Retard detected

stick to AP stats highschooler

[Anonymous No.8118585]

>>8113183
>geometry

U wut m8

Geometry always manages to blow my mind every once in a while but perhaps thats just my background in graphic design talking

[Anonymous No.8118589]

>>8112660
Any pure math tbqh, especially algebra/topology/geometry/logic. it's sheer autism. As an undergrad I actually wanted to go to grad school for it. Glad i grew out of that phases.

[Anonymous No.8118593]

>>8113196
I enjoyed the crap out of my coursework in mathematical statistics.

[Anonymous No.8118596]

>>8113287
Surely this is a troll. Nobody can be this stupid for real.

[Anonymous No.8118615]

>>8118596
I think it is just a highschooler who just read about gaussian distribution.

t. computer engineeer that found stochastic stastistic very useful.

[Anonymous No.8118617]

Topology. I know it has MANY uses but it bores me to fucking death.

[Anonymous No.8120234]

>>8112935
Triggered

[Anonymous No.8120242]

>>8118593
Sounds nice, never had coursework in maths before besides a second year essay.
What did you have to do?

[Anonymous No.8121298]

>>8113342
Hah, you're the same V=L militant as always, aren't you.

[Anonymous No.8121410]

>>8112660
Abstract Algebra

[Anonymous No.8122888]

>>8113342
I wonder, do you think that there exists an absolute set of constructive reals? Because even among models of V=L, [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] is not absolute. The set of constructible reals depends on how high up the ordinal ladder one's universe goes.

[Anonymous No.8123412]

>>8112727
I'm actually at a university. Worst math class so far.

[Anonymous No.8123748]

>>8113110
engineer detected

[Anonymous No.8123772]

>>8123412
Our uni has a field medalist in the topic so the course is great here.

[Anonymous No.8123990]

>>8122888
>constructible reals

that word; I don't think it means what you think it means

[Anonymous No.8124017]

>>8118617
topology by itself is a little silly to study. but order theory is effectively a special case of topology; and topology is most interesting when it carries "data" of some sort, like the Zariski topology, or is a stone space. There have been treatments of modal FOL which use sheaves (in this case, local homeomorphisms) as their models, in a sense. Point set topology by itself is dry and silly, but I think these other things are fun and are the real point of doing topology.

>>8115883
>be me: can do model theory, category theory, topos theory/sheaf theory, algebraic geometry/commutative algebra, group theory, linear algebra, ...

>sheepishly agrees that galois theory and polynomials over fields are still my favorite things

>>8115804
wtf would you do with category theory minus all algebra. Many of the foundational concepts in category theory are totally algebraic (monadic functors, abelian categories/derived categories, homology, exactness, adjoints). do you just sit around figuring out when epimorphisms are preserved or something?

I can not give a shit about stats or computability theory. I will take categorical logic over symbol manipulating dry shit any fucking day. I used to think I hated analysis, but i guess its actually fine just kinda one-note.

[Anonymous No.8124041]

>>8112660
Category theory because I hate the community and number theory because it is so damn autistic

[Anonymous No.8124100]

>>8123990
I know perfectly what it means. My phone corrected one instance of the word "constructible" to "constructive", but that's it.

Let me give you a simple proof of the non-absoluteness of [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] even among models of V=L; i.e. different models of [math]V=L[/math] can have different notions of what a real number is.

Let [math]\alpha[/math] be the least ordinal such that [math]L_\alpha \models [/math] ZF+"V=L", and let [math]\gamma[/math] be the second least ordinal with this property. Then because [math]L_\gamma \models ``L_\alpha \models [/math] ZF+"V=L" [math] " [/math], we can take in [math]L_\gamma[/math] a countable Skolem hull of [math]L_\alpha[/math] and Mostowski collapse it to a countable transitive model [math]N[/math] of ZF+ "V=L". But by Gödel's condensation lemma, [math] N = L_\beta [/math] for some [math]\beta[/math]. But because [math]\alpha[/math] was the unique ordinal less than [math]\gamma[/math] with the property that [math]L_\alpha \models [/math] ZF + "V=L", we have that [math]\beta = \alpha[/math]! Therefore [math]\alpha[/math] is in fact countable in [math]L_\gamma[/math]. But then, in particular, [math]\mathbb{R}^{L_\alpha} \subsetneq \mathbb{R}^{L_\gamma} [/math], as the former is countable in the latter.

Thus we have two different transitive models of ZF + V=L that have different notions of [math]\mathbb{R}[/math]. So the set of constructible reals is not an absolute notion.

This is what I meant by that the set of constructible reals depends on how high up the ordinal latter one goes. One may think one found it by going high enough to find a model of ZF + V=L and looking at what it thinks is [math]\mathbb{R}[/math], but if one then goes even higher, one will realize there are even more constructible reals.

[Anonymous No.8124139]

>>8112660
It is hard to discern for me. Whenever I feel like there is an area of mathematics that I dislike, I learn more about it and find that it is actually really cool. For me, Mathematics in general is something you can only appreciate if you dig a little bit.

I at first thought Statistics was stupid and boring until I took a decent course in it from a prof who likes Mathematics more than Statistics itself. She convinced me Statistics does belong in Math. I still must say though, I find it less interesting than other areas.

With that said, I found Numerical Analysis to be incredibly dull albeit I'm aware I took a mediocre undergrad class in the subject. It was actually cool to learn about where Simpsons rule and the Trapezoid rule came from.

I don't really care about graph theory either but that is just because I don't like drawing graphs, not that I don't find the content interesting. Same case with that where my Discrete Mathematics course was a bit too light on the theory for the comp sci students.

[Anonymous No.8124160]

>>8124139
>I don't really care about graph theory either but that is just because I don't like drawing graphs
I don't think you know what graph theory is about anon

[Anonymous No.8124405]

>>8124139
>I don't really care about graph theory either but that is just because I don't like drawing graphs
ffs, you made me spit coffee on my monitor.

[Carbon No.8124444]

>>8112679
Yep
2/10
+1 for making people actually bite

[Anonymous No.8126599]

Came here expecting people to have zero interest in my field, and was right.

To me, the most repelling fields are popular choices thereof: PDEs and numerical analysis.

[Anonymous No.8126652]

my little brain can't into stochastic tbqh famalam

>>8112673

[Anonymous No.8126670]

>>8124100
the standard meaning of "constructible real" is the subfield of the constructible numbers, in the sense of can be constructed with a straightedge and compass - i.e. the reals which sit in some field which is in a tower of quadratic extensions over Q. I might be misinterpreting you, and this is what you are talking about, but this is the standard meaning of this term.

Source: first 10 hits on google have this meaning

[Anonymous No.8126683]

>>8126670
That is correct as its standard meaning in general mathematics. However, I was initially responding to >>8113342, whose image indicates he believes in the Axiom of Constructibility from set theory. In set theory, there is a notion of a constructible set, and as a real number is formally a set, there is therefore a notion of a constructible real. So >>8113342 would have known perfectly well that I was referring to this niche definition of "constructible real".

[Anonymous No.8126687]

>>8126683
ah I see; thanks; replies don't always show up on phone so I was confused. now I have something to read about; although I think axiomatic set theory might be one of those fields i also can't care abt.

[Anonymous No.8126712]

Undergrad here, just a disclaimer.

"No interest in" is a bit harsh, but I enjoy algebra and topology the most, algebraic topology being what I'm studying next semester, analysis I don't particularly enjoy. I just find it extremely counterintuitive, and I didn't enjoy the problems we would be assigned (Show this power series converges everywhere except a set of measure zero, construct a function that takes any open interval to the entirety of R), but think I'm going to need to learn differential equations theory though if I want to do any meaningful amount of geometry.

[Anonymous No.8126747]

>>8126687
I think that the aspects of set theory that non-logicians would find most interesting are its applications to independence results in general mathematics. For instance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehead_problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_space_(topology)#Normal_Moore_space_conjecture

As you can see, axiomatic set theory is actually imperative for mathematics as a whole: it is necessary to prove independence results in fields ranging from algebra to topology, and many others. Without it, mathematicians would spend forever trying to prove or disprove things like the Whitehead Conjecture, and never realize that both are impossible.

[Anonymous No.8126760]

>>8126747
>I think that the aspects of set theory that non-logicians would find most interesting are its applications to independence results in general mathematics

Reminds me of how many times I've seen Zorn's Lemma invoked to prove various shit all over math.

[Anonymous No.8126767]

>>8126712
>construct a function that takes any open interval to the entirety of R
This is an interesting problem, I'll have to think of that

[Anonymous No.8126799]

>>8126760
Zorn's lemma happens to be equivalent to the Axiom of Choice.

I happened to post >>8124601 yesterday of a list of standard "obvious" results that are actually unprovable without Zorn's lemma.

Most surprisingly, note that without the axiom of choice, it is actually possible for [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] to be a countable union of countable sets. If this were true, the theory of Lebesgue measure would fail totally.

On the other hand, it may be desirable for every subset of [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] to be Lebesgue measurable (which is false under the hypothesis of choice); it turns out this desirable "regularity result" is a consequence of the Axiom of Determinacy. The Axiom of Determinacy actually gives many very nice regularity results (though which are incompatible with Choice), and as a contender to Choice is actually preferred in Recursion Theory.

[Anonymous No.8126821]

>>8126760
Zorn's lemma happens to be equivalent to the Axiom of Choice.

I happened to post >>8124601 yesterday of a list of standard "obvious" results that are actually unprovable without Zorn's lemma.

Most surprisingly, note that without the axiom of choice, it is actually possible for [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] to be a countable union of countable sets. If this were true, the theory of Lebesgue measure would fail totally.

On the other hand, it may be desirable for every subset of [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] to be Lebesgue measurable (which is false under the hypothesis of choice); it turns out this desirable "regularity property" is a consequence of the Axiom of Determinacy. The Axiom of Determinacy actually gives many very nice regularity properties (though which are incompatible with Choice), and as a contender to Choice is actually preferred in Recursion Theory.

[Anonymous No.8126863]

>>8126821

Something is wrong with your statement on lebesgue measure.

It should still work without axiom of choice.

[Anonymous No.8126939]

>>8126863
It is clear that if [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] is a countable union of countable sets, then nothing is Lebesgue measurable.

If you pay very close attention in the proof of the existence of even the standard Borel measure, you will see that it uses a very weak fragment of the axiom of choice called the Axiom of Dependent Choice.

[Anonymous No.8126946]

>>8112660
anything where you cannot draw a shitty diagram to understand whatever your doing