Mathematics is really fucking cool.

On June 18 2014 00:18 Dingodile wrote:
I heard mathematic is boring because is too monotonous.
two earned bachelor and one with master in mathematics, but then in their job has nothing with mathematics thus they are teacher now in physic, informatic etc^^ (declined a job at airplane Lufthansa etc).
I know a girl (from my class, she was the by far the best in mathematics) stopped mathematics after 4th semester, "Its boring, just stupid numbers".

On June 18 2014 00:21 ]343[ wrote:
<3

Take some topology next! (Personally I didn't like point-set stuff thaaat much, since certain people convinced me that algebraic topology is the only nice thing out there... but it's really nice!)

Also take some number theory and combinatorics classes; they're really interesting even at an introductory level

@dingodile: numbers?? that ain't math

I heard mathematic is boring because is too monotonous.
two earned bachelor and one with master in mathematics, but then in their job has nothing with mathematics thus they are teacher now in physic, informatic etc^^ (declined a job at airplane Lufthansa etc).
I know a girl (from my class, she was the by far the best in mathematics) stopped mathematics after 4th semester, "Its boring, just stupid numbers".

the biggest downside on doing a math class is that you have to do a math class.
its pretty cool otherwise

On June 18 2014 00:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Automatic 5 stars for the title.

+ Show Spoiler +

I agree with everything you said. The hard part is motivating students who aren't in a math, science, or engineering field... getting everyone else interested

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.

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 +

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 +

On June 18 2014 00:29 emythrel wrote:


At University level most mathematics uses letters not numbers ;p

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

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?

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.

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

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 term

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

On June 19 2014 03:23 sOda~ wrote:


Formally 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.

Rarely do people write numbers like this; just dealing with the notation is pretty horrible. 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.

For example, the notation π = 3.1415... means that π is the equivalence class of the Cauchy sequence (3, 3.1, 3.14, 3.141, 3.1415, ...)

On June 19 2014 04:32 zksa wrote:
^ this isn't understandable if you never taken a real analysis class. I mean, you kind of have to know what rational numbers and cauchy sequences are.



Why doesn't it ''exist'' theoretically?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...

On June 19 2014 07:01 fmod wrote:
I really don't like set theory. I wish people wouldn't insist on using it for every freaking thing. That's why I shy away from the more abstract maths, though I really enjoy applied mathematics.

On June 19 2014 05:55 radscorpion9 wrote:


But I want to understand something clearly. Does this mean there is no such thing as a single 'number' in R? It sounds like the whole thing is quite deceiving, and rather than dealing with numbers we are in fact dealing with sets of sequences that (either explicitly or not) converge to those values, with the operations between sets defined on the wiki page entitled "construction of the real numbers".

Then I spent an hour trying to understand this statement from the same wiki page:



Equivalence is only defined between Cauchy sequences, so I don't even understand how they can cavalierly interchange a sequence with a single number and continue on talking as if its not a big deal. If I apply your explanation and state that the decimal expansion of pi is in fact represented by a Cauchy sequence, then that makes sense; but here they seem to be saying that "representation" and "equivalence" are the same thing!

On June 19 2014 07:27 corumjhaelen wrote:
Edit : also fuck categories, especially because doing a course on them doesn't occure to any teacher, but using it is no problem.

On June 19 2014 08:06 sOda~ wrote:



thats because a course on category theory would have anyone in the audience clawing out their eyes; i've never found anything quite as boring.

On June 18 2014 02:04 GeneralStan wrote:
Interesting to me that you're Real Analysis and Abstract Algebra in your first year. At my University you generally don't take that level of math until third year.

Also as an engineering/physics type, I"m going to go ahead and pass on Math classes aimed at Math majors.

One thing I've noticed about the mathematician's classes is that they have to prove everything. They also focus on edge cases and boundaries and try to break their own theorems. That's all well and good, and somebody has to do it.

But I view mathematics as a tool. Give me the formulae, tell me they work, and I'm more than happy to believe you

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 +

On June 19 2014 08:08 corumjhaelen wrote:

Obviously, but taking more than 30min to introduce the vocabulary might be good.
In the same spirit my algebric geometry teacher said that specialists of category theory were doing intellectual masturbation. I guess we're always that for someone :p

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 +

On June 21 2014 08:00 KingAlphard wrote:
Cool to read, I'm starting university in september and I'll be pursuing a Math degree. I love everything about math but I also understand why most people hate it or find it boring.
It's hard to explain for me why I like math so much.
It's also the pleasure of proving whether something is true or not (proofs). Analysing situations with a logical method which ensures you that what you find out is right if you proceed correctly. That's not something you can do in real life because everything is subjective.
Another thing I love about math is fantasy. Most people think that since everything in math is "necessary", that means there is no imagination involved. Nothing more false than that. There are always multiple ways to find the solution of a problem (or a proof) and you can have fun looking for the more simple, "elegant" or different one.
Then the next step is applying math to reality which is also extremely interesting. Here though, you will always be making mistakes because reality is always different (even if slightly) from math. Nonetheless, it gives great satisfaction when you solve a practic problem with methods that other people would think they are "just useless abstract formulas".

On June 18 2014 00:47 obesechicken13 wrote:
Nice try maths professor!