mathgeeko said:
Thanks again for your replies guys.
@chiro: Thank you for your welcoming words. I do think that math occupies a big place in my life, whether it is reading a lot about it, making up my own problems or trying to find patterns in series of number I randomly encounter. What more could you suggest for me to get a more "mathematician-like" way of thinking about math?
Just a disclaimer: I'm still a student studying, so with that in mind here are my suggestions:
There is as you probably well know, different types of math. I think it would be wrong to say that these are disjoint from one another, but none the less they have a different focus in mind from the other kinds.
With any kind of math you can focus on the mechanics of what you are doing, the philosophy of what you are doing, and how the assumptions of your methods help explain these in the context of your field.
With probability and statistics you are typically trying to make sense of data and use techniques to come up with an inference that will aid you in making a decision based on the data.
Now a lot of the introductory stuff is based on is using a variety of techniques to get make an inference based on specific likelihood calculations in which you use that to help make a decision.
But on the other side like every area of math you have the assumptions and the whole machinery behind the techniques that helps analyze things in the context of those assumptions.
With the standard techniques, the main idea is based on each sampling distribution working on the basis of a large number of samples, which is what the central limit theorem uses.
A scientist that doesn't understand this may end up using the tools with wrong assumptions (like a small number of samples) and make an inference that is completely out of whack.
It's the same sort of situation for other math.
I guess what I am trying to say is that you need to figure out a specific area and then figure out the perspective you want to "hone" into. But to do this you need to have a good basic groundwork of "essential math" (Calculus sequence, differential equations, linear algebra, some analysis, applied math, and intro statistics) and then go deep into some area.
When you go deep into an area you will soon learn not only the current mathematical machinery and "why it works" (as opposed to how), but also have an idea of the area you want to go into. If for example you wanted to work in an applied setting, your perspective would be very different than if you wanted to work in a more theoretical based perspective.
The other thing is to be aware of the environment you are working in and who you are working "for". If you're for example an applied statistician you will probably be working for people that don't have the same command of mathematics that you do and the expectations will be different than if you were a researcher working in some obscure form of abstract pure math. The difference in audience means that part of your job as a statistician will mean that your communication skills will be different and something like that becomes a crucial skill.
There may be crossover, especially when people in an applied field update their knowledge to stay on top of their game, (and if they are working in a profession, it might be required both to keeping their accreditation and for legal purposes). In this case the blur between theory and applied can become blurry.
So the bottom line of this point is to get some kind of solid understanding about the whole of what is involved with a particular area. It's not just about math: it involves a whole host of issues that need to be considered and made aware of to help you make an informed choice.
Regardless of what area you choose to go into, being a mathematician is no different than other career: you choose an area and get your hands dirty. With that requirement considered and other things being equal, I wouldn't consider a researcher in an abstract field be more or less of a mathematician than a statistician that actively applies mathematics in the same manner in the context of a proper career. They both think about maths, and most importantly they both do maths. If you think about something without doing it at all, you are just a philosopher. Also note that I find a lot of great philosophers in a particular field, are people with a detailed history in that field (example, Kurt Godel for Logic).
One piece of advice for you in terms of "mathematical thinking": always question the assumptions and understand what they mean. This is universal for every form of mathematics and is pretty much the basis for understanding and reasoning in science. If you understand assumptions, you will know what it describes (and subsequently what its limitations are), and also what it does not describe. As a result you will be able to understand what situations it works in, and more importantly ones in which it does not. One thing never fits all, and in mathematics this is more profound than you realize.