Interested in physics, but find math boring.

[deRham]

The only usefulness I am talking of is of course to distinguish terminology. Unless you find the means of distinguishing to be flawed itself of course.

Your definition, the usefulness criterion, however would make pure mathematics a quasi form of physics. By this i mean that we (our minds) being physical entities would derive a series of applications of relervance to our world, so our mathematics is derived from physics, as presumably our brains emerge from the laws of physics.

A large part of my answer involved that philosophy doesn't qualify as mathematics to me, even the rigorous branches assuming only the basic logic.

I like to distinguish these things because it highlights the limitations of the perspective provided by the field unto certain questions. By following one trail, unless one can hope to satisfactorily tread far on many other trails in the process, it's safe to say one is limiting oneself in a sense in terms of what specifically one is going deep into.

But ultimately this stuff is about quenching intellectual appetite. What it all means to the individual in terms of any "truth" is quite a personal thing, and is understood quite internally.

Which is why in the end, I think picking a path and sticking to it is fine.

We can go in circles forever - say mathematics ultimately explains all that we can hope to gather about the external world, and that conversely, the laws of physics govern everything that happens to us. Where does that leave us? Basically going in circles.

The truth of the matter is whether we are physicists or mathematicians depends a lot on how we think. I hardly can say I have a lack of interest in physics and what's going on with it. But the way I think is still the way I think, and it depends what one wants to spend a lot of time on.

 

[Functor97]

The only usefulness I am talking of is of course to distinguish terminology. Unless you find the means of distinguishing to be flawed itself of course.



A large part of my answer involved that philosophy doesn't qualify as mathematics to me, even the rigorous branches assuming only the basic logic.

I like to distinguish these things because it highlights the limitations of the perspective provided by the field unto certain questions. By following one trail, unless one can hope to satisfactorily tread far on many other trails in the process, it's safe to say one is limiting oneself in a sense in terms of what specifically one is going deep into.

But ultimately this stuff is about quenching intellectual appetite. What it all means to the individual in terms of any "truth" is quite a personal thing, and is understood quite internally.

Which is why in the end, I think picking a path and sticking to it is fine.

We can go in circles forever - say mathematics ultimately explains all that we can hope to gather about the external world, and that conversely, the laws of physics govern everything that happens to us. Where does that leave us? Basically going in circles.

The truth of the matter is whether we are physicists or mathematicians depends a lot on how we think. I hardly can say I have a lack of interest in physics and what's going on with it. But the way I think is still the way I think, and it depends what one wants to spend a lot of time on.

Very nice response. I agree with your assesment of philosophy being distinct from mathematics. I guess what i was trying to point out was that while its great for mathematicians to explore whatever they want, whatever they find beautiful or interesting, as Animals, desiring servival it is going to relate somehow to perceived reality. That is why, imo, so much pure mathematics ends up being "useful" in physics. Our mathematics developed to fit with any perceived reality.

 

[deRham]

^ Although that mathematics can also be "useful" in computer science, etc as well. For example, the idea of group theory in mathematics is interestingly simple - a group captures symmetries. Now perhaps at one point, we noticed symmetries in what we identify as the physical world. But perhaps we identified symmetries in the emotional world, or some philosophical world. Who knows, right?

How about measure theory? Well, we can say that integration was developed with lots of physical motivation, yet what about probabilistic applications? Sometimes such applications are conducted very much not with physics in mind. Yet they still involve the same intuition of adding stuff up according to some limiting behavior.

I really can't emphasize enough it depends how one thinks, and what one wishes to spend a lot of time doing. Can you really stand the idea of not understanding Einstein's equations to the fullest you can some day? For some people, the answer is yes, as long as they get to fiddle with most of the mathematics involved for a long time, without ever thinking about what Einstein was thinking.

If going into theoretical subjects, it's best, I think, to do what is most inspiring to you. If you do that, I think you'll strike the balance and learn all of what you want to in time. If string theory is inspiring to you, do it. You may never solve the problems aimed by it, but you'll think about the right things, and probably learn a fascinating blend of disciplines.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I hated all Math until I took Calculus. I learned more algebra/trig/advanced algebra THROUGH Calculus I because it was so interesting.

That's interesting. It sounds a lot better than studying something for the sake of something else.

I think I got a much better understanding of Math through studying Physics. What does everyone here think of doing that?

Surely it won't make me any WORSE at Math by doing that. Right?

 

[Functor97]

^ Although that mathematics can also be "useful" in computer science, etc as well. For example, the idea of group theory in mathematics is interestingly simple - a group captures symmetries. Now perhaps at one point, we noticed symmetries in what we identify as the physical world. But perhaps we identified symmetries in the emotional world, or some philosophical world. Who knows, right?

How about measure theory? Well, we can say that integration was developed with lots of physical motivation, yet what about probabilistic applications? Sometimes such applications are conducted very much not with physics in mind. Yet they still involve the same intuition of adding stuff up according to some limiting behavior.

I really can't emphasize enough it depends how one thinks, and what one wishes to spend a lot of time doing. Can you really stand the idea of not understanding Einstein's equations to the fullest you can some day? For some people, the answer is yes, as long as they get to fiddle with most of the mathematics involved for a long time, without ever thinking about what Einstein was thinking.

If going into theoretical subjects, it's best, I think, to do what is most inspiring to you. If you do that, I think you'll strike the balance and learn all of what you want to in time. If string theory is inspiring to you, do it. You may never solve the problems aimed by it, but you'll think about the right things, and probably learn a fascinating blend of disciplines.

Once again another very inspiring post.
I am curious though, wouldn't a differential geometer be able to understand Einstein's theory with a little bit of study of physical reasoning? I mean to me (and i am only an undergrad) it seems that the hurdle in say general relativity is more mathematical than physical. Had Riemann lived longer, would he have constructed his own theory of relativity from differential geometry?
I have heard it is easier for a pure mathematician to understand theoretical physics, than for a theoretical physics to understand some fields of pure mathematics...

 

[Super Kirei]

This may be a dead thread; but maybe the OP will read this. If you want to do physics, find out where the physics majors hang out in your school and try to make friends. Next thing you'll want to do is test into or out of calculus. There is no speed limit to learning if you adopt an aggressive attitude. Math (not advanced research stuff, but every day school stuff) is easy when presented correctly. The whole "math is hard" thing is a faulty shibboleth intended to cow you in submission. What really happened is that you missed out on learning some essential concept at some point and now doing math is like playing chess without knowing all the rules. So you're forced to get by through memorizing board positions and trying to recreate the moves you've seen other players make. Stop being dependent on others and take responsibility for the contents of your mind. I suggest the book Precalculus Mathematics in a Nutshell by George Simmons. If you have trouble getting through it, I'm sure the people on this forum and your new physics major friends will be more than happy to help you out.