/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9701433]

Why does everyone here constantly say that anything other then math is just "accumulation of knowledge" and "memorization". Is this just a stupid /sci/ gag or is there some actual truth behind it?

[Anonymous No.9701471]

>>9701433
Mathematics requires more spatial and logical reasoning than many other fields of study, and it is unique in its absolute nature: the answer to a problem is either right or wrong, and as such, stringing together a barely-coherent essay on subject x will not net a student a passing grade, nor will it net an academic a published paper.

[Anonymous No.9701490]

>>9701471
>the answer to a problem is either right or wrong
This is wrong. Refer to Gödel's First Incompleteness theorem.

[Anonymous No.9701510]

>>9701490
You know what I meant to say. Within an axiomatic system, certain things follow from other things, and the end result is a true/false outcome.

Why don´t you write that besserwisser-garbage on your exam paper, doofus.

[Anonymous No.9701517]

>>9701510
>You know what I meant to say
Maybe maybe not

>Why don´t you write that besserwisser-garbage on your exam paper, doofus
I definitely would if they made factually wrong statements

[Anonymous No.9702013]

>>9701433
it is a stupid sci gag

[The Lord No.9702097]

In fields other than math, one always has arbitrary resolution of inquiry where the inquirer says, "Well.. just ignore that," and replaces rigor with hand waving. They don't do that in math. Therefore math is more philosophically comprehensive than any other line of inquiry. It is perfectly comprehensive, and no other field is. In the other fields you just have to remember where that limit is that your peers will let it go when you say, "Just ignore that part."

[Anonymous No.9702137]

http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Poincare_Intuition.html

[Anonymous No.9702393]

>>9702097

How can you just "replace" rigor with hand waving? If you're doing something in physics, the physical world is your "law", you can't just hand wave because if you do, someone will quickly realize that what you're saying either doesn't advance anything forward, or doesn't work, as testing it will prove you wrong. Testing a concept in physics is exactly like looking at the laws that you have in math, and seeing if everything works. The only difference is that in physics, or any physical science, there is always a possibility of new things popping up.

>>9701471

A barely coherent essay is a barely coherent essay, a barely coherent essay shouldn't and really doesn't get through a publishing house in any field of science.

>mathematics requires more spatial and logical reasoning

How so? I can agree if we're talking about biology, but what about physics or chemistry? abstraction and spatial reasoning is incredibly important in those fields, and your ability in those two skills needs to be just as good as in math, at least that's what it seems.

>a problem is either right or wrong

Ok, yes. However, doesn't that just means that in math you're following laws and that's it? if we think of physics, you're ability to extrapolate and then test the idea is extremely important, as that's how you advance the field. I guess you could say the exact same thing for math, but that just makes both fields equal in this regard.

Also sorry if my tone seems aggressive, I'm just trying to reach a conclusion without having any real experience in science or math

[Anonymous No.9703108]

bump

[Anonymous No.9703499]

>>9702393
He was obviously referring to subjects that don´t involve mathematics, chemistry or physics.

[Anonymous No.9703509]

>>9702393
>abstraction and spatial reasoning is incredibly important in those fields, and your ability in those two skills needs to be just as good as in math, at least that's what it seems.
"That´s what it seems" is the key expression. Solving integrals by using esoteric substitutions is not what math boils down to; actually understanding multivariable, multi-dimensional concepts in math requires skills in spatial reasoning needed in no other field.

>However, doesn't that just means that in math you're following laws and that's it?
You make it sound easy. The fact of the matter is that the exact opposite holds true: because of the intellectual rigor present in mathematics, any advancements in the subject are bound to require more creativity than advancements in less rigorous fields.

> guess you could say the exact same thing for math, but that just makes both fields equal in this regard.
Proof-based reasoning differs vastly from empirical testing and extrapolating certain values from a graph. In mathematical proofs (the equivalent of discoveries in physics), approximations are not present and no empirical testing can be used; in essence, mathematics requires you to handle an abstract idea in your head and on paper in a symbolic or geometrical fashion, after which you are expected to put the pieces to gether into what is essentially a long line of statements that follow from one another in both directions (i.e. from the end of the proof to the beginning of the proof and vice versa).

In short, mathematics and physics (based on empirical evidence) are nothing alike, and require vastly different skillsets.

[Anonymous No.9703528]

>>9701510
Not really. You can be seeking something, for example the form of a solution. Or an algorithm to calculate. Most of a mathematical demonstration is not about showing that something is true, but finding a skewed way to do so.