|
On October 15 2010 15:52 Lemonwalrus wrote:
I would argue that Algebra is more useful irl than Geometry. But maybe my everyday life is different than the average person's, idk.
i would argue that algebraic geometry is more useful IRL than geometry or algebra, but maybe my life is different than the average person's, idk.
actually i lied, abstract algebra is probably more useful, my bad.
|
On October 15 2010 15:52 Lemonwalrus wrote:
I would argue that Algebra is more useful irl than Geometry. But maybe my everyday life is different than the average person's, idk.
Yea i guess that the average guy doesn't deal with vector spaces and triangularizations on a daily basis =D
|
On October 15 2010 15:26 Disregard wrote:
Discrete math for Computer Science/Engineering bleh...
I rather have my linear algebra with it's sexy matrices.
As for math in liberal arts. The ability to derive equations based off data and observations is integral to understanding how to keep yourself in a fiscally responsible situation. Although with encouraging the students into using critical thinking, which if one can think and ask questions and verify things all things critical to journalism which is in liberal arts or writing which is also in liberal arts. Even painting and graphic design all has roots with math. How do you know keep certain ratios and things known to be ascetically appealing., though statistics and science all which have strong roots in math.
If you ever were going to understand something not just do something math will help you =p
|
OP you need to learn how to write
|
i love analysis, and find zero usefulness in it when not doing it for the sake of learning. I think algebra is more fun, and more practical than geometry. The rationalization and decision making process one learns with proofs in geometry are one thing, but other than that the whole .. .. discipline? idk the right word, kind of lackluster.
LW, I would argue he is trying pretty hard, and its actually incredibly funny. :-p i love analysis, and find zero usefulness in it when not doing it for the sake of learning. I think algebra is more fun, and more practical than geometry. The rationalization and decision making process one learns with proofs in geometry are one thing, but other than that the whole .. .. discipline? idk the right word, kind of lackluster.
LW, I would argue he is trying pretty hard, and its actually incredibly funny. :-p
|
i love math
i wish i knew more of it.
|
I am a computer science student and I love math. That said, I think the more advanced stuff is not as important as people try to make it sound. Most people can do very well without linear algebra...
I'd like people to study more statistics though. Especially people from the "non-exact sciences".
|
I too love math, but am intimidated, since as i learn more, i learn about more i don't know.
Looking to get more into number theory, abstract algebra, and eventually topology at the moment... while doing my CS degree. (what i understand of cryptography is really neat).
|
i love math, loved the signal processing classes i took for ee, and loving the discrete math im reading in don knuth's taocp 
|
Mathematics is the language of the Universe.
|
On October 15 2010 16:22 Cube wrote:
I too love math, but am intimidated, since as i learn more, i learn about more i don't know.
Looking to get more into number theory, abstract algebra, and eventually topology at the moment... while doing my CS degree. (what i understand of cryptography is really neat).
Good taste .
About the part of your being intimidated, I think it's okay as long as you're enjoying it (personal experience from what I've seen). Sure you're going to see a lot of kids who can figure out p-adic langlands soon after high school (I have someone in mind ^^), but I also see plenty of late-boomers who do well in things like number theory.
I guess you know what you're getting into, but modern number theory is really nothing like classical/elementary number theory. You're going to have to learn a lot of algebraic geometry (especially those cohomology theories over fields beside the simple C, and all those grothendieck revolution stuff), representation theory, modular / automorphic forms (maybe not so much directly with modularity if you're working with shimura varieties), algebraic number theory (so, class field theory i guess), etc.. to name a few.
|
On October 15 2010 16:36 mieda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2010 16:22 Cube wrote:
I too love math, but am intimidated, since as i learn more, i learn about more i don't know.
Looking to get more into number theory, abstract algebra, and eventually topology at the moment... while doing my CS degree. (what i understand of cryptography is really neat). Good taste . About the part of your being intimidated, I think it's okay as long as you're enjoying it (personal experience from what I've seen). Sure you're going to see a lot of kids who can figure out p-adic langlands soon after high school (I have someone in mind ^^), but I also see plenty of late-boomers who do well in things like number theory. I guess you know what you're getting into, but modern number theory is really nothing like classical/elementary number theory. You're going to have to learn a lot of algebraic geometry (especially those cohomology theories over fields beside the simple C, and all those grothendieck revolution stuff), representation theory, modular / automorphic forms (maybe not so much directly with modularity if you're working with shimura varieties), algebraic number theory (so, class field theory i guess), etc.. to name a few.
i'm hoping to gain a basic understanding by taking university courses, and then work from there
|
United States10774 Posts
haha this op is clearly trying a little too hard to be a smartass. it is too bad that he can't hide his bad writing and grammar through thesaurus
|
On October 15 2010 16:39 Cube wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2010 16:36 mieda wrote:On October 15 2010 16:22 Cube wrote:
I too love math, but am intimidated, since as i learn more, i learn about more i don't know.
Looking to get more into number theory, abstract algebra, and eventually topology at the moment... while doing my CS degree. (what i understand of cryptography is really neat). Good taste . About the part of your being intimidated, I think it's okay as long as you're enjoying it (personal experience from what I've seen). Sure you're going to see a lot of kids who can figure out p-adic langlands soon after high school (I have someone in mind ^^), but I also see plenty of late-boomers who do well in things like number theory. I guess you know what you're getting into, but modern number theory is really nothing like classical/elementary number theory. You're going to have to learn a lot of algebraic geometry (especially those cohomology theories over fields beside the simple C, and all those grothendieck revolution stuff), representation theory, modular / automorphic forms (maybe not so much directly with modularity if you're working with shimura varieties), algebraic number theory (so, class field theory i guess), etc.. to name a few. i'm hoping to gain a basic understanding by taking university courses, and then work from there
Great! Hope you take the courses from actual number theorists!
|
The problem is the math they teach at school, not why maths is taught as school
|
mathematics is not so much a subject which you learn to learn information, its a subject where you learn how to think. I believe this is invaluable
|
On October 15 2010 16:50 OneOther wrote:
haha this op is clearly trying a little too hard to be a smartass. it is too bad that he can't hide his bad writing and grammar through thesaurus
The sad thing is, a lot of the replies are like that too.
People who would rather read equation-less books about string theory than learn any physics.
People who can tell you everything about what NP-complete means and yet couldn't solve a differential equation.
The "maths is so beautiful I am so smart" crowd are ruining it !!!
=/
|
On October 15 2010 14:57 kineSiS- wrote:sex... What is sex? Some define it to be a jumble of numbers with confusing orders of operations and tiring algebra... However, I'd like to put it more eloquently and define it in one word. sex is an art... However, it is necessary not to stray from the main point of contention that will be discussed today and for possibly many days and weeks from this point on. Why is sexematics in school? It's a waste of time some say, others argue its intriguing. Personally, I think sex is an important and essential subject within the school curriculum. It's a rudimentary subject that seems so simple when first discovered, like a book's first page, is actually complex and intricate with connections intertwined throughout the whole being that it is. First of all, it is necessary that we learn. By removing a subject from the school curriculum, it's obvious that we are learning less and therefore it is a detriment to our overall bank of knowledge. Secondly, it is useful in life. Everyday, sex is involved, the number of sections of the sidewalk on your block, or the intricate structure of the skyscraper you saw commuting to work... sex is a fundamental subject, and not only essential it is so much more than just a practicality. sex is art. Theories created by great minds enrapture young and budding students that wish to learn. Physics, Economics, so many more subjects revolve around sex or utilize sex in such a manner that it is vital. And to stop here, I wish to let my fellow people discuss this subject. I have discussed why sex is a necessity in order to localize the more broad and open question... Why do we have sexematics in school? EDIT: So I think I haven't made my question quite clear. Here's what I mean: Show nested quote +On October 15 2010 15:14 mieda wrote:
More clarification/verification please:
Do you mean how did sexematics enter liberal arts education historically? Or do you want to discuss "Why should we have sexematics in liberal arts?"
And maybe you left the question, "What do you think sex is?" intentionally vague and very open-ended just to get aimless first responses from people here. I assure you, if you leave the question "What is purpose of sex?" as it is, then you're going to get tons of trolling responses.
In order to set boundaries, and working in conjunction with Mieda, I ask this question.... How did sexematics enter liberal arts education historically?
If you lack the historical background in order to answer this question with comprehension and cognizance, then I also ask this...
Why should we have sexematics in Liberal Arts? I also would hope that a sort of quid pro quo would be established here, that the effort put into my response would be put into yours.
|
On October 15 2010 17:22 Turbovolver wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2010 16:50 OneOther wrote:
haha this op is clearly trying a little too hard to be a smartass. it is too bad that he can't hide his bad writing and grammar through thesaurus The sad thing is, a lot of the replies are like that too. People who would rather read equation-less books about string theory than learn any physics. People who can tell you everything about what NP-complete means and yet couldn't solve a differential equation. The "maths is so beautiful I am so smart" crowd are ruining it !!! =/
Funny, where do all these assumptions come from?
|
OP ...Uh.... no-one said you had to do maths in school? I didn't do maths in my senior years and still passed and went to university. Not doing maths does not allow me to enter some courses like science or engineering etc but its completely viable.
Anyways asking why they teach basic maths is the same as asking why we don't teach history for the sake of history anymore. Leaning historical dates is useless if children aren't taught the meaning of context and why those events happened. Society wants people to be able to think somewhat critically as well as independently and you need a curriculum that teaches logic and thought for that.
Of course I can only speak about my education though. But I imagine if you arent raised in some horridly backwards education system your experience would be similar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
