/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7262898

A "softer" science, but still a science.

>>7253314
And all the time they show such fucking movies and comics and stuff, so that everyone thinks this would be reality.

>>7234828

>>7163525
you forgot the pic, anon.
ftfy

>>7150847
there are different kinds of intelligence, ect. ect.
someone who is used to handling the logic and straightforwardness of math can seriously struggle with elementary parts of other majors, like dealing with mass memorization in medicine, or the illogical exceptions and lack of proof in chemistry/physics.

I do, however, think of these things in terms of purity. Just because mathematics is more pure than physics doesn't mean that physics is easier than mathematics, or vice versa.

>>7092560

Math is the basis of the universe, necessary in every other science. Is it possible to suck at math yet be a good scientist? If so how?

Not looked down upon by everyone

>>6829195
Physics isn't the only thing math can describe. Simple fact is that math is more abstract than physics or any other science.

ITT: /sci/ humor

If a mol of moles is digging a mol of holes, what do you see?
A mol of molasses.

>>6671931

Pure science vs Applied science. Discuss.

Do you people like to brag about how pure your field is?

Is it to make yourself feel better about the fact that you have nothing else going on in your life?

Regards,
Former academic

>>6201730
It clearly goes from level of purity down to levels of shittity.

Random question that I would just like answered and then this thread can die.

Can ANY two right triangles form a square/rectangle?

Am I the only math undergrad who hates physics? I can't stand it. I find it cold and uninspiring.

Thoughts?

>>6066165
>It isn't.
Of course it is.

>Drawing baseless metaphysical conclusions
Nobody fucking does this except the retards you see on /x/.

Stop making bullshit up because you have no argument and are too stupid to understand how neurons work.

>based on brain pictures
top fucking lel

I guess gaba subunits and action potentials are just "brain pitksures XD"

god dammit I've never met a retard as big as you, seriously

Go back to your SOFT SCIENCE.

>Where did you pull that number out of your ass?
No, just type into google "psychology bullshit" and you'll see for yourself.

Countless loads of them don't even believe in human nature/instincts.

>>6066170
>No, it is fairly easy to show that as complexity increases, computation power needed to model that complexity increases at a far more rapid rate.
So? Do you know how powerful computers are going to be in 40 years from now?

We will eventually be able to simulate a brain.

Also "we won't be able to fully understand it using our tools" is not an argument.

>>5986380
>worst branch of science
What...Chemistry? You trolling or what?

>>5986382
>HPLC
Well, I doubt it is just HPLC...I mean a BS-level chemist can be an expert in that. She may mean mass spectrometry or chromatography in general.

Maybe I'm just retarded, but where is the justification for the following statement?

Since <span class="math">\alpha = [/spoiler] sup <span class="math">\{f(x): x \in [a,b]\}\,[/spoiler], we have
for every <span class="math">\epsilon > 0[/spoiler] there is <span class="math">x \in [a,b]\,[/spoiler] with <span class="math">\alpha - f(x) < \epsilon[/spoiler].

Thanks for the help.

Bump