Do physicist uses pure maths or applied maths?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the use of pure versus applied mathematics by theoretical physicists. Participants explore the distinctions, applications, and implications of each type of mathematics in the context of theoretical physics and related fields.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the sharp distinction between pure and applied mathematics, suggesting that physicists use whatever mathematics is necessary, including inventing new mathematics.
  • Others argue that theoretical physicists frequently utilize abstract concepts from pure mathematics, such as differential geometry and algebraic topology.
  • There is a suggestion that the intention behind using mathematics—whether for theoretical or practical purposes—may define its classification as pure or applied.
  • One participant expresses a personal view that referring to dimensionable concepts indicates the use of applied mathematics.
  • A participant shares their experience that university courses in theoretical physics often cover necessary mathematics in a simplified manner, advocating for the study of pure mathematics to better understand concepts.
  • Another participant raises a related question about the use of pure versus applied physics by engineers, indicating a broader context of the discussion.
  • One participant seeks advice on whether to pursue pure or applied mathematics in relation to their double major in theoretical physics, indicating a practical concern about educational choices.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the relationship between pure and applied mathematics, with no consensus reached on which is more relevant to theoretical physics. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach for students in the field.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that definitions of pure and applied mathematics may vary, and there are unresolved assumptions about the nature of mathematical application in physics.

matttan
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Do Theoretical physicist uses pure maths or applied maths?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What's the difference between using pure or applied maths? When you use math for something that's not math, you apply it... Also, theoretical physicists use quite a lot of differential geometry and algebraic topology which most certainly are nothing but big bunches of theorems and abstract ideas.

I would assume that every physicists uses the Pythagorean theorem and it is part of pure maths...
 
There's no sharp distinction between pure and applied math. Physicists use whatever math they need to, and invent new math if it hasn't already been invented.
 
... and sometimes even if it has.
 
Physicist apply pure math :)
 
will.c said:
... and sometimes even if it has.

A la Newton?
 
Pure/Applied math arn't very distinct in material, only intention of what you are doing.
 
by the meaning of the terms "pure" & "applied", which one do you think is used to uses?
 
It seems that as soon as you refer to dimensionable things, it's not pure math, but has been instead...applied.

(But that's just me. Wishing words to have meaning.)
 
  • #10
The real question is - do engineers use pure or applied physics?
 
  • #11
Mentallic said:
The real question is - do engineers use pure or applied physics?

Most don't remember either. OK, so it's applied--when used.
 
  • #12
erm its because I want to do a double major in theoretical physics and mathematics and the university offers either pure mathematics or applied mathematics. So I am confuse which one to take to compliment theoretical physics. Any suggestions as to which mathematics(pure/applied) is more related to theoretical physics so that I could make the right decision?
 
  • #13
At least at my uni courses in theoretical physics usually covered in hand-waving fashion the math that was required. Thus, taking pure maths helps understand the concepts. In my opinion pure maths is really the only thing worth taking. If you get the pure maths well, the applied side is usually pretty trivial to just pick up when you need it. However, this comes from someone going into Ph.D. studies in maths...
 
  • #14
Phrak said:
It seems that as soon as you refer to dimensionable things, it's not pure math, but has been instead...applied.

(But that's just me. Wishing words to have meaning.)

That makes sense.

n = 3

Heh.
 

Similar threads

Pure Math vs Applied Math for AI/ML
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
Admissions Applying to a PhD in Pure Math with an undergraduate degree in physics
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
6K
Programs Pure maths or applied maths as a second major to physics
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Programs "Back door" into physics for a math major
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Courses Preparation for an applied math career
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Going from pure math to applied math
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
How Can a Math-Loving Physics Student Excel in Mathematical Physics?
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
PhD in theoretical physics and a PhD in Pure Maths at an old age
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Studying Applied math or pure math? + Stats
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Applied Math PhD candidate but I hate group theory
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K