Revisiting Mathematical Concepts in Physics: Is It Worth the Frustration?

  • Thread starter Thread starter paulo84
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the challenges of revisiting mathematics in the context of physics, particularly the confusion surrounding mathematical notation like f(x). The participant expresses doubts about their ability to contribute to physics as an amateur and questions whether their efforts are worthwhile. Responses emphasize the necessity of a solid foundation in mathematics, particularly algebra and trigonometry, before tackling advanced physics topics. Suggestions include utilizing online resources like Khan Academy and following a structured learning path through textbooks. The conversation highlights misconceptions about mathematical concepts, such as the nature of π and the importance of understanding basic algebraic principles. Participants stress that piecemeal learning is ineffective and advocate for a more systematic approach to studying math and physics. Overall, the thread underscores the importance of diligence and foundational knowledge in successfully learning complex subjects.
  • #31
can i just say, this is exactly what i was looking for when i meant learning by posting in the forums and getting replies!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
paulo84 said:
ok, i appreciate the point about imaginary numbers relative to square roots. a rational number can be expressed on a numberline, an irrational number cannot.
Both rational and irrational numbers are on the real number line.

paulo84 said:
i can't remember if a rational number can always be expressed as a fraction?
Bingo. That's how rational numbers are defined, as the quotient of two integers.

paulo84 said:
i can't remember if square root of 2 is irrational or not.
It's irrational.
 
  • #33
paulo84 said:
ok, i appreciate the point about imaginary numbers relative to square roots. a rational number can be expressed on a numberline, an irrational number cannot. i can't remember if a rational number can always be expressed as a fraction? e.g. i can't remember if square root of 2 is irrational or not.
  1. You can represent irrational numbers on a number line.
  2. A rational number is defined as a number that can be expressed as a fraction (ratio) of two integers.
EDIT: Redundant information given the above post.
 
  • #34
paulo84 said:
yes i know. it's just not so 'natural' after over 15 years out of maths.
Which is why you should put in some time reviewing algebra and trig before starting in on calculus and physics.

paulo84 said:
can i just say, this is exactly what i was looking for when i meant learning by posting in the forums and getting replies!
All we have done is attempt to correct a few of your deep misconceptions. This is really a terrible way to learn.
 
  • #35
.Scott said:
OK. So if you knew "a", the area of a circle minus the area of a square, and both the sides to that square and the radius of that circle were "r", then you could calculate pi with the equation you deduced.

i got the area of a circle mixed up with the area of a circle minus the area of a square in my head. i am very, very rusty.
 
  • #36
Mark44 said:
Which is why you should put in some time reviewing algebra and trig before starting in on calculus and physics.

All we have done is attempt to correct a few of your deep misconceptions. This is really a terrible way to learn.

i have found the most effective way for me to learn is by having a conversation with my teachers.
 
  • #37
paulo84 said:
i have found the most effective way for me to learn is by having a conversation with my teachers.
Speaking as someone who has taught college math for 20+ years, these "conversations" are far from effective in the use of the teachers' time, especially as you seem reluctant to do due diligence prior to the Q & A session.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes lekh2003, Vanadium 50, StoneTemplePython and 2 others
  • #38
are there situations in physics which use ##i## to represent one side of a square?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #39
Mark44 said:
Speaking as someone who has taught college math for 20+ years, these "conversations" are far from effective in the use of the teachers' time, especially as you seem reluctant to do due diligence prior to the Q & A session.
This is at least as big of an issue. @paulo84 you have to understand that we want our and our members' time to be productive too. You might be happy with the results (even though the rest of us agree these do not represent significant progress), but we're not paid personal tutors and even if we were, we'd set the curriculum and method, not you. So if you insist on this path, I'm afraid it's going to keep being problematic to us.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes Mark44
  • #40
I will try to adjust the frequency of my questions such that I'm asking less often, and do more reading.
 
  • Like
Likes Mark44 and berkeman
  • #41
paulo84 said:
I will try to adjust the frequency of my questions such that I'm asking less often, and do more reading.
You really need to get textbooks, read through them, answer atleast a few questions related to every topic, and use forums only when you come across something you do not understand. It will take months and months but that's the only way you're going to learn anything of use. Don't be a pseudointellectual. Once you get through algebra and precalc you could just go off of some college's degree program and work your way through the class list.
 
  • Like
Likes paulo84 and Mark44
  • #42
paulo84 said:
are there situations in physics which use ##i## to represent one side of a square?
I don't believe so. ##i## is the so-called "imaginary number," but it plays a significant role in electricity and electronics, particularly in AC circuits, and elsewhere in physics.
 
  • Like
Likes paulo84
  • #43
As a final note, I have enjoyed doing some of the (admittedly very basic) algebra in this thread, which makes me somewhat optimistic I can stick to reading maths, given that I do take pleasure in it.
 
  • #44
paulo84 said:
As a final note, I have enjoyed doing some of the (admittedly very basic) algebra in this thread, which makes me somewhat optimistic I can stick to reading maths, given that I do take pleasure in it.
If I can give you one last tip, stop trying to find an ulterior meaning in everything you are learning. Slow down and stop jumping to conclusions. It seems like you are on a wild goose chase. Just learn, don't ask. When you are done learning everything relevant, then you may ask.
 
  • #45
Honestly if you can't handle the criticism you've been given you wouldn't be able to handle the trials of learning anything. These people want to help you but you refuse it. You need to realize that becoming good at anything is hard, be it STEM, music, writing, or art. Anything worth pursuing is going to be difficult, and most if not all require some structured path of formal education.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes lekh2003
  • #46
Jayalk97 said:
Honestly if you can't handle the criticism you've been given you wouldn't be able to handle the trials of learning anything. These people want to help you but you refuse it. You need to realize that becoming good at anything is hard, be it STEM, music, writing, or art. Anything worth pursuing is going to be difficult, and most if not all require some structured path of formal education.
And while I'm on my mini tirade I want to add that trying to find shortcuts around learning math is an insult to the rest of us who spent countless sleepless nights studying hours of material, hundreds of cups of coffee, literal tears to get through out education.
 
  • Like
Likes lekh2003
  • #47
The OP is no longer with us. Time to close.
 
  • Like
Likes lekh2003

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 99 ·
4
Replies
99
Views
7K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
344
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 209 ·
7
Replies
209
Views
16K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
853