Are Physicists better math puzzle solvers than mathematicans?

[Pleonasm]

This might appear absurd but concidering that math students are so preoccupied with acquring a deeper understanding of mathematics, most of the undergraduate exams are actually not problem solving math per se, but actually "proof of concept" type of excercises (quite different from solving puzzles).

By contrast, physicists and engineers are mainly preoccupied with problem solving math, applying it to a set of circumstances.

Is there any validity to the claim by some that mathematicans have a deeper understanding of math but that phycisists are generally superior problem solvers ( at least undergraduates)?

 

[Mark44]

This might appear absurd but concidering that math students are so preoccupied with acquring a deeper understanding of mathematics, most of the undergraduate exams are actually not problem solving math per se, but actually "proof of concept" type of excercises (quite different from solving puzzles).

I doubt that what you're saying about undergrad math exams is true. As someone who taught college-level math for 20 years, virtually all of my exams at the level of calculus and above had at least some applied problems. Very few were of the sort "prove that ..."

By contrast, physicists and engineers are mainly preoccupied with problem solving math, applying it to a set of circumstances.

Is there any validity to the claim by some that mathematicans have a deeper understanding of math but that phycisists are generally superior problem solvers ( at least undergraduates)?

You'll have to provide better evidence to convince me that this is true.

 

[mfb]

How you would quantity problem-solving skills without saying which type of problem?

 

[Vanadium 50]

This is sufficiently vague that I don't think it can be answered. Maybe it can be used to start fights, but that's about all.

 

[Pleonasm]

How you would quantity problem-solving skills without saying which type of problem?

I am NOT restricting it to any problem other than that which does not relate to proof of concept. It was a universal claim by a PHD in engineering physics that physicists and engineers are better equipped to handle novel problem solving, simply because mathematicans at undergraduate level mainly train proof of concept and verbal examinations.

 

[BvU]

Goes to show a PHD doesn't protect one from producing stupid remarks

dr BvU

 

[Pleonasm]

Goes to show a PHD doesn't protect one from producing stupid remarks

dr BvU

Why is it stupid? If everything physicists occupy themselves with (especially string theorists) is applied math, while math students can work on anything ranging from proof of concept, statistics (fairly basic math relatively speaking) and economics, doesn't it make sense that physicists would have superior training for novel problem solving?

 

[StoneTemplePython]

It isn't clear to me what string theory has to do with this person's background in engineering physics.

If this person is a physicist, I would think there is an eye towards testability and evidence.

How would you propose to test this conjecture (assertion)? Or how would you propose to uncover evidence in its favor or not?

 

[Pleonasm]

It isn't clear to me what string theory has to do with this person's background in engineering physics.

I used string theory as an example to sharpen the argument further, simply because string theory is widely concidered to have the most difficult math possible in physics.

We could test the hypothesis by having thousands of PHD*s in theoretical physics (for argument sake) competiting with math graduates in novel problem solving, to investigate whether there is a substantial difference between the groups success rate. That is, does the applied math in physics tell the tale against proof of concept math graduates who understand deeper but spend less time problem solving.

Their respectives scores in basic math is inseparable, judging by the GRE data, as expected...

 

[Pleonasm]

As far as I see it, you are committed to one of the two propositions: A) proof of concept math abilities overlap with novel problem solving or B) More time spent on novel problem solving does not equal better performance on novel problem solving (=??).

I only see A) as a tenable position, but highly questionable.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Why is it stupid? If everything physicists occupy themselves with (especially string theorists) is applied math, while math students can work on anything ranging from proof of concept, statistics (fairly basic math relatively speaking) and economics, doesn't it make sense that physicists would have superior training for novel problem solving?

Statistics is not necessarily fairly basic math -- there are many areas of statistics research (e.g. wavelets, topological data analysis, etc.) which can be highly advanced mathematically.

Look up some of the research of people like, say, David Donoho at Stanford (you can search for some of his more recent works on Arxiv).