/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10998456
argumentating when?

>>10954993
back to >>>/s4s/

>>10940960
Time is continuous, not stochastic.

Guys, if you would be a stranger on earth or an alien, what would you wonder about?
a friend of mine got this question in school and he cant answer it x)

>>3517633

I agree with you.

The dilemma here is that, by definition, a set contains N members which can be arranged in any pattern. As such, there's no way we can actually say that
>>3517599
is mathematically viable. If there was an additional constraint to it, say that the set {x, n} is NOT equal to {n, x}, then we could probably come up with a proof of some sort.

Given the 'commutativity' of sets, it's impossible. Brute forcing seems like the viable way to go, albeit very messy. What you could do is try to manipulate the subsets of your original set. We'll call your original set A.

>>2934647

It's respectable, don't listen to them. There's nothing wrong with a Masters. Normally, people who go for the Masters enjoy the rewarding experience of their field, but aren't prepared for the long haul of a PhD track(that typically takes between 4 and 6 years; sometimes more). Other people do it just to secure a really good position. Some enjoy the Masters because it allocates them time to explore another field of their subject; that's how I am. For example, one can be interested in both Geometry and Algebra, and tackle both fields independently in their respective degree track. Example: I like both of the aforementioned subjects, so my Masters Thesis could be in something dealing with Geometric Group Theory and my PhD in Differential Geometry.

More than half of the people on /sci/ don't know what they're talking about and pig-headed themselves. Don't listen to them. Talk to an adviser, too.

>>2934522

>PDEs

that's a PDE?....

Also, go to Khan Academy. Good stuff there; great explanations.

>>2934515

No. Spivak's Calculus is far too advanced for a beginner. He should start out with something lighter like James Stewart's Calculus.

Protip for everyone: Spivak is a very rigorous introduction to Calculus and, by far, considered amongst instructors to be a very sleek introduction to analysis. Only someone who has taken proofs can hope to get through Spivak.

>>2934473
>>2934464

ChemGuy, you know way too fucking much, bro.

>>2930746

I'm still studying Mathematics, but I'm a Mathematics tutor. Also, I've decided to take some applied math classes next semester so I can apply to some corporate places. After that, I may apply to Grad School and take it from there. I'm also a T.A. for a High-School program, but it's nothing constant.

Like I said, I do Mathematics because I love it. I don't do it for monetary gain. If someone does it for monetary gain, then they're taking a moderate risk. Mathematics isn't an obvious career choice like engineering; it can be a hit-or-miss. It's typically why most math majors minor in CompSci or double-major in that field. I don't love CompSci that much to dedicate that time into it. In fact, apart of me detests it. It's too rigid for me.

>>2930711

Thoroughly.

And, the undergraduate = another word for the first four years of your University education until you acquire your degree. Once you acquire your B.A. or B.S., you're deemed a Graduate. Sometimes, it takes people longer to complete their undergraduate degree; other people, less. Depends on the person, the University system and the curriculum.

Also, this is how it typically is in an American University:

First set of classes(typical in a math major curriculum):

Calculus I, II, III, ODE( Ordinary Differential Equations )

Second set:
Introduction to Mathematical Logic/Proof Theory, Abstract Algebra, Linear Algebra/Modern Algebra, Geometry, Analysis(maybe), Probability(maybe).

Third set(high junior/low senior level):
Continuation of Abstract/Linear/Modern Algebra, Continuation of Analysis, Complex Variables, PDE(partial differential equations), Probability.

Fourth set(high senior):
Grad classes, more or less. Finishing up strong with Differential Geometry, Stochastic Probability, Time Series(if applied mathematics), maybe seminars in your field of interest.

>>2930669

I disagree. Although I hold a very mild interest in computer science, there's a distinct difference between them. Furthermore, Mathematics still contains an absurd amount of intuition and coerces people to utilize their raw intellect. While logic is a very strong structure(set theory, mathematical logic, et cetera), you must be able to see certain qualities within certain mathematical structures to make a concise conclusion. A good portion of the recently solved conjectures weren't solved from logic alone -- it helped tremendously -- but the mathematicians saw something that the others didn't. Fermat's theorem, while seemingly extremely simple, tied into other higher-dimension mathematics which wasn't even thought of/created at the time the conjecture was made. Wiles had the foresight to identify the mathematics, connect it together in a nice fashion and produce what's referred to as an 'elegant proof.' I think only about seven or eight people in the world truly comprehend the proof; it takes a very rigorous mind to even get through the first 20 pages, I'm assuming.

Have you ever heard of the term, "Ars gratia artis?" It roughly translates to art for art's sake. Mathematics is a subject which doesn't necessarily beget you an enormous amount of fame, nor does it guarantee you an extraordinary amount of funds. If an individual makes the concise choice to major within the field, then it is only because he/she loves it with immense passion. I chose to major in the field because I absolutely love it; it's the one subject I can always fall back upon if I feel distressed in my personal life or something is troubling me. Mathematics is not only soothing to my mind, but to the soul.

As far as the studying goes? Well, it depends on the subject. Undergraduate Mathematics in the American curriculum is taught backwards; that is, everything you learn in the beginning is analyzed once more on another level as you get deeper in your curriculum. For example, in Calculus, you're given the opportunity to utilize algebraic/mathematical laws at your leisure and that's it. This is why some mathematicians here call the Calculus series, at best, "plug-n-chug" classes. After you pass that series, you begin to comprehend the true basis/foundation behind mathematics. You're forced to prove fundamental laws, see the logic behind them, manipulate only a handful of axioms to prove what you need, et cetera. It's difficult at times, but extremely rewarding if that's what you like(I like it, so it's rewarding).

>>2808875

Fuck, that was brutal.

Not saging out of spite; just nothing to contribute.

But, damn was that brutal.

>>2808898
>>2808955
>>2808961

Correct.

>>2808922
>>2808933
>>2808939

Samefaggin' like a madman.

>>2808911

Pure preference. I RREF is too much of a hassle for me numerically, but it's solid if someone is diligent enough to keep track of all of the small potential mishaps.

>>2796027

fucking score.

>>2796016

man cannot rid himself of irrationality, nor can he rid himself of emotion lest he is under severe psychosis.

try learning how to simply control/manipulate your emotion and suppress it as best as possible. don't destroy it/get rid of it.

>>2795855

Fuck you. I'm going to College for fun and money, primarily.

It's fun because
a) I love Mathematics and find it fun/exhilarating.
b) Place to learn MORE Mathematics.
c) Competition against people in the field I love.
d) DAT MATHS.

I mean, yes..I also go to pave the way for my future, meet hot bitches, money, etc ...

But, really; why would anyone go into PURE MATHEMATICS without actually enjoying it to a high degree?

>>2795772

I live a few blocks from my campus. As a Mathematics major who hangs out in the areas where my fellow math/physics majors are, I can assure you that they would absolutely wipe the floor with a good portion of /sci/.

Awesome-as-fuck Chemistry guy is absolutely phenomenal, though. I've yet to see someone know so much about Chemistry at that level and with such virtuosity. Some professors are like that, but not much. I doubt most of /sci even knows what I'm talking about, though. For those who need me to jog their memory, he's the guy who talks like this:

no you need to do
this equation and separate


the blahblahblah.

Etc.

>>2795654

He's right. Most of /sci/ is pretty pathetic and somewhat arrogant for no real reason. Josef, Chemistry-Awesome-as-Fuck Guy, EK(as much as I despise the broad), neurology-tripfag and probably a few other nameless anons actually know their shit. The rest of you guys run up threads about 2*1-3 and bicker about the answer. If you're not doing that, then you're going on and on about some absurd topic which begins with the question, "Why does the moon not crash into the earth?" If it's not THAT secondary option, you guys are discussing some bullshit which involves intelligence/IQ. That will undoubtedly devolve into a discussion on race and all the storm//new/fags will come out of hiding.

To answer your question, OP, most people are idiotic. See proof here: >>2795559

Yes, because FUCK Ramanujan.

>>2766534
>>2766533
>>2766529

No need to be fucking cruel. Jesus Christ, you guys.

Maybe it's because I don't go on 4chan much anymore, but fuck; you guys are so god damn mean. Damn.

-3x^(-2) y^5

=>

-3y^5/x^2

-8a^3 is just -8a^3.

The rule is: a^-n = 1/a^n. If the negative sign is in front of the number, then no harm/no foul. You're good.

Further examples:

xy^-3 => x/y^3.

(xy)^-3 * z = z/(xy)^3.

Etc, etc.

Read more. I'm being very serious, too.

Read relatively difficult/troubling books to test your comprehension skills. I believe you when you say that you've no qualms in reading, but as a fellow mathematics major, that's what I did. I had the same problem and I just started to read voraciously. It's actually how I became enthralled with Philosophy because I began reading older texts and, believe it or not, that can actually help.

Mathematics, for the most part, hasn't changed in regards to language. The terms are still the same and everything will be very similar. Furthermore, for my Analysis II class, I usually read the notes at home because I rarely comprehend what the professor is attempting to convey in class. Most of us(math majors) do that, so don't fret. I've yet to meet a single math major who can say, ''yes i comprehend absolutely everything in this class 100% as the prof. teaches.'' People who usually say that either a) know the work beforehand or b) lying.

When I took ODE, I could follow along almost effortlessly because I knew the information already. It wasn't that hard.