Should a physicist learn math proofs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter andytoh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physicist Proofs
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on whether physicists should learn mathematical proofs, particularly in the context of advanced fields like general relativity and quantum field theory. While some argue that understanding proofs is essential for deeper comprehension and innovation in physics, others contend that memorizing mathematical results is sufficient for practical application. The time spent on learning proofs may delay progress in grasping complex theories, leading to a debate on the balance between rigorous understanding and efficient learning. Ultimately, the necessity of proofs varies depending on the physicist's focus, with theoretical physicists potentially benefiting more from a solid mathematical foundation. The consensus suggests that while proofs may not be strictly necessary, they can enhance understanding and problem-solving skills in physics.
  • #61
mathwonk said:
absolutely, a physicist who does not learn math proofs, his belly button falls off. and chikldren laugh at him when he walks down the street with his best girl.

Fantastic! That sounds like something you say when you are tripping. Or atleast something i'd say.

I love you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
The mathematics part of physics shouldn't be just to learn how input the right values and find the magical answer. Some level of understanding is crucial, even though it might not be full proofs, but a general or brief knowledge of the area in terms of derivation. Does a rock climber need to understand his gear to be a successful rock climber? Not really, but if he does, it might come in handy.
 
  • #63
We've gotten a lot of mixed opinions. I believe the following is the MINIMUM mathematical rigour requirement of all physicists who use mathematical tools on a regular basis:

A physicist needs not study the proofs of mathematical theorems that he uses, but he MUST be able to (better yet, actually do it) prove the basic properties of each mathematical tool that he uses.

For example, if a physicist uses Lie groups, he must be able to prove that GL(n,R), C-{0}, products of Lie groups, etc... are indeed Lie groups. If he uses homotopic functions, he must know how to prove that homotopic functions form equivalence classes, that compositions of homotopic functions are homotopic, that the fundamental group is in fact a group under composition of homotopy equivalence classes, etc...

These elementary results are not difficult and by being able to prove them, the physicist will get a stronger feel for what the mathematical tool really is and how it works. This is the minimum proving requirement for physicists in my opinion, and such basic proving skills will make the physicist better in his usage of the mathematical tools.
 
Last edited:
  • #64
complex philosophy, i get the impression we may be kindred spirits. or perhaps that you are holed up in a conservative religious school where rampant lunacy is outlawed. hang in there buddy, there is fun to be had in math land. as to tripping, this is not recommended by artificial means, math provides many outlandishly delightful journeys.
 

Similar threads

Replies
32
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K