EPTMathematics is really fucking cool. - Page 2
| Blogs > zksa |
|
McRatyn
Poland901 Posts
| ||
|
quirinus
Croatia2489 Posts
 | ||
|
zksa
11 Posts
On June 18 2014 03:48 Poo wrote: I just finished my BSC in math& bio and would echo what the op said about mathematics being super cool - albeit challenging at points. As generalstan mentioned it's pretty weird you're doing real analysis in first year though (is it an intro class?). Personally I've never enjoyed those kinds of math courses and have preferred less logic and more applied math in my degree. For me, math is kind of cool as a major since you do have some flexibility with what areas you prefer. Employment is kind of rough, but the major also opens some doors to alternative schooling post-graduation. Overall not a terrible choice imo and enjoyable. Probably an introduction? We used this book: http://www.amazon.com/Elementary-Analysis-Calculus-Undergraduate-Mathematics/dp/1461462703 | ||
|
wingpawn
Poland1342 Posts
But at least, we have this: + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
zksa
11 Posts
On June 18 2014 06:08 wingpawn wrote: Not. That. Cool. The world in which 0.9999999999... equals 1 doesn't even make sense. But at least, we have this: + Show Spoiler + http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Yt9moC-peM Holy shit, that was fucking hilarious. Day9 is a hero. | ||
|
PassionFruit
294 Posts
On June 18 2014 06:08 wingpawn wrote: Not. That. Cool. The world in which 0.9999999999... equals 1 doesn't even make sense. But at least, we have this: + Show Spoiler + http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Yt9moC-peM Just think of the decimal as a representation of a fraction. .3 repeating is 1/3. .9 repeating is 3 x 1/3. Ergo, one. | ||
|
Yorbon
Netherlands4272 Posts
On June 18 2014 04:20 XDJuicebox wrote: Just wait, bro. Just wait. It only gets better from there. And once you take Topology, get a coffee mug that says "doughnut " on it and watch the Hitler dub where Hitler learns Topology. Also, Complex Analysis, Number Theory, Combinatorics all will gove you some pleasure it sounds like haha hahaha, that dub almost makes me want to learn topology. Never heard of it before, thanks. | ||
|
calh
537 Posts
| ||
]343[
United States10328 Posts
I'm not sure I can corroborate the above claim that 90% of mathematicians need measure theory (though certainly many do), since I don't think algebraists need it quite so much? But I'm biased because I arbitrarily decided not to take much analysis :/ And hm, I guess those are a bit advanced for first year of university, though I'm not sure how European unis work (do you study basically one thing the whole time? In the US I had to take all these non-math classes  ) Still, it's a great foundation and you can take the truly interesting (and truely difficult!) graduate-level courses soon | ||
|
hasuprotoss
United States4611 Posts
On June 18 2014 00:29 emythrel wrote: At University level most mathematics uses letters not numbers ;p Paragraphs not just letters | ||
|
zksa
11 Posts
On June 18 2014 09:44 ]343[ wrote: Hitler Learns Topology is one of the more excellent videos of that genre I'm not sure I can corroborate the above claim that 90% of mathematicians need measure theory (though certainly many do), since I don't think algebraists need it quite so much? But I'm biased because I arbitrarily decided not to take much analysis :/ And hm, I guess those are a bit advanced for first year of university, though I'm not sure how European unis work (do you study basically one thing the whole time? In the US I had to take all these non-math classes ) Still, it's a great foundation and you can take the truly interesting (and truely difficult!) graduate-level courses soon Yeah, we study one thing the whole time. I took an extra programming class and economics class as well tho. I'll get measure theory in my 3rd year. | ||
|
Fighter
Korea (South)1531 Posts
| ||
|
Entertaining
Canada793 Posts
| ||
|
calh
537 Posts
On June 18 2014 18:14 Fighter wrote: Studying pure mathematics sounds so incredibly interesting. I'd love to go back to school for that, but I'm curious what career prospects you math majors have (I'm sure it's great though). What kind of jobs do you guys go into? And are they highpaying? Most of my friends went in to banking and finance, but the hours are looooooooong so keep that in mind. Most computing companies will also take mathematicians in a heartbeat, but I think a better alternative may be going into biotech - lots of math needed there and the work sounds exciting. | ||
|
Otolia
France5805 Posts
 | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43542 Posts
On June 18 2014 23:26 Otolia wrote: Look at these peasants not knowing what to do with their "knowledge" ... Come to the dark side, mathematicians, embrace Physics, the only true reason Math exists ! For just calculus, sure. But: http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html Also, you remind me of this smug physicist  ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ceGT4W8.png) | ||
|
wingpawn
Poland1342 Posts
Biologist: "They breeded! They breeded!" Statistician: "Nope, it's just a measurement error." Mathematician: "If one more person gets into there, the house will be empty." | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
On June 18 2014 06:39 PassionFruit wrote: Just think of the decimal as a representation of a fraction. .3 repeating is 1/3. .9 repeating is 3 x 1/3. Ergo, one. I think if you were being consistent, you would have to deal with the same problem in asserting that 0.33333... equals 1/3. Since 0.333... is an infinitely long number, I think the problem is that you can't actually imagine the "complete" number, so you can never really say at any point that it is equal to 1/3, because the sequence by definition will never terminate. Infinity after all is *not* a number, so I would expect that an infinite series of 3's after the decimal would not be a number either. So equating that to a real number like 1/3 is problematic. edit: I think it might be best to consider 0.333... as being an equivalent way of writing (in shorthand) the limit of some function like f(x) = 1/x as x --> 3; something which is never reached by the definition of limit. edit 2: Actually I think it makes things confusing again, because of course the limit has to exist, and if its an infinitely long series of numbers, then technically there is no limit *that you can write in decimal form*. The only limit that exists is the precise fractional form. Okay so basically I really dislike the decimal expansion...I think the concept of infinity makes things a bit wonky at times; from my linear algebra class I know this is not the first time mathematicians have had some issues with using infinity in arguments. But maybe I just need to revise my strict understanding of what a real number can and can't be; though it seems strange to me that you can equate a number to an "object" like 0.333... which does not even exist theoretically. But anyway; to the OP, I also like math and I kind of wish I was completely devoted to it but I worry that my brain is not up to the challenge . I hope it turns out to be your passion over the long term | ||
|
Mafe
Germany5966 Posts
On June 18 2014 23:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: For just calculus, sure. But: http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html Also, you remind me of this smug physicist And then you get to study mathematical logics and/or set theory and start feeling that it might be a circle instead of a line. At least that's what happened to me. | ||
|
sOda~
United Kingdom441 Posts
On June 19 2014 00:42 radscorpion9 wrote: I think if you were being consistent, you would have to deal with the same problem in asserting that 0.33333... equals 1/3. Since 0.333... is an infinitely long number, I think the problem is that you can't actually imagine the "complete" number, so you can never really say at any point that it is equal to 1/3, because the sequence by definition will never terminate. Infinity after all is *not* a number, so I would expect that an infinite series of 3's after the decimal would not be a number either. So equating that to a real number like 1/3 is problematic. edit: I think it might be best to consider 0.333... as being an equivalent way of writing (in shorthand) the limit of some function like f(x) = 1/x as x --> 3; something which is never reached by the definition of limit. edit 2: Actually I think it makes things confusing again, because of course the limit has to exist, and if its an infinitely long series of numbers, then technically there is no limit *that you can write in decimal form*. The only limit that exists is the precise fractional form. Okay so basically I really dislike the decimal expansion...I think the concept of infinity makes things a bit wonky at times; from my linear algebra class I know this is not the first time mathematicians have had some issues with using infinity in arguments. But maybe I just need to revise my strict understanding of what a real number can and can't be; though it seems strange to me that you can equate a number to an "object" like 0.333... which does not even exist theoretically. But anyway; to the OP, I also like math and I kind of wish I was completely devoted to it but I worry that my brain is not up to the challenge . I hope it turns out to be your passion over the long termFormally the reals are the completion of QQ with respect to the "usual" absolute value (the arch. one). Thus when you talk of a real number you are really talking of is a cauchy sequence of rational numbers modulo the equivalence: (a_n) ~ (b_n) iff (a_n-b_n) converges to zero. The decimal representation of a real number is a throwback to this definition; the real number with decimal expansion a_0.a_1a_2 a_3 .... corresponds to the sequence of rational numbers a_0, (a_0a_1) / 10, (a_0a_1a_2) / 100, .... . As mentioned this representation is not unique but its a reasonably good (mostly) canonical way writing down expressing a concrete real number. | ||
| ||
