Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Useless math

  1. Jun 21, 2004 #1
    For the experienced scientists and educators, what are the most useless math topics from a practical standpoint. I would list my favorite:

    1. Polynomial long division. If the numerator and denominator don't factor, what is the use of performing the long division?

    I know of only one -- to find the leading order behavior of a rational polynomial. But who would care about that other than a theoretical physicist or chemist?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 21, 2004 #2
    I dunno. Sometimes if you have a polynomial you can spot one factor real easy, but the others are hard to find. It becomes easier if you divide through by the factor you've found.
     
  4. Jun 22, 2004 #3
    i think it applies more readily when the numerator is of signifigantly higher order and a simple factor is hard to remove visually. also, checking work for removing a factor from a larger order polynomial.

    younger kids are taught to write out the whole part seperate and not to have a higher order on top. also, i believe, that some kids cant complete squares easily, so they need to use polynomial long division to get the +d-d part as a -d remainder. but i dont do that, so i cant remember why they taught it to me specifically.

    basically its just used to convert improper rational expressions as a proper rational expression plus a polynomial. id suppose its hand for integration using ln x and u'/u formations, since the top is reduced to an order less than the denominator. i still like trying to find factors and completing the square just by looking, but i can see how some kids dont.
     
  5. Jun 22, 2004 #4
    Rather than a specific subject, I'd like to nominate the generic set of all problem solving techniques where students are taught something incredibly overspecialized simply to solve one certain class of problem.

    For instance, "mixture" problems. (John has two containers of punch. One is 5% juice, the other is 10% juice. How much of each should John mix together to get a 10-liter solution of 7% juice?) Rather than using these problems as general examples of how to describe and solve mathematical relationships involving percentages, students are frequently taught to set up specialized grids that include the given information, and then compute the missing information using the pattern of the grids. Essentially, rather than being taught problem solving skills, students are taught yet another step-by-step process to follow, without understanding why it works or how they could develop a similar process on their own for a different sort of problem.

    I can understand why this would be appealing to math teachers - anyone can learn a process through repetition and reproduce it on demand, given sufficient practice, but teaching someone a concept is harder. Still, I think it's a disservice to students to do it that way.

    Also - unrelated to the previous point - quaternions are a subject that will be of no use to most people, even in the sciences, although they do produce elegant solutions to certain problems.
     
  6. Jun 22, 2004 #5

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    the geometry of the quaternions (and related divisiona algebras over C) looks like it will be of use in theoretical physics.
     
  7. Jun 22, 2004 #6

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Is:

    [tex]\frac{x^2 +12x +30}{x+7}[/tex]

    analytic at x = -7 ?

    can the singularity be removed?

    I rest my case.
     
  8. Jun 22, 2004 #7

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    you probably ought to have chosen a better example where -7 was a root of both top and bottom with unknown multiplicity.
     
  9. Jun 22, 2004 #8

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    A very practical application: if P(x)/(x-a)= Q(x)+ r (r is the constant remainder) then
    P(x)= Q(x)(x-a)+ r so P(a)= r. Any computer scientist knows that calculating r by (synthetic) division is faster than evaluating P(a).
     
  10. Jun 22, 2004 #9
    Good catch, Halls. I had forgotten some of these applications (although I think few students will ultimately need to know them).

    RE: " Essentially, rather than being taught problem solving skills, students are taught yet another step-by-step process to follow, without understanding why it works or how they could develop a similar process on their own for a different sort of problem."

    Here! Here! I noticed these techniques cropped up with the onset of new math, and I find them abominable. Why not just reason it out? Sure it's hard, but math is hard.
     
  11. Jun 22, 2004 #10
    Polynomial division is good for curve sketching too. Try finding a slant asymptote (if necessary) without long division.
     
  12. Jun 23, 2004 #11
    Functions and relations have got to be down there. Calling a function a subset of a relation is all that was about IIRC. Pretty stupid if you ask me. But i guess math people like formalizing things.

    I wasn't impressed with at least half of the discrete math i've taken thus far.

    edit: ooh, i gotta go back to calculus two for this one. Rotating things about an axis to calculate surface area and volumes. It's much faster and easier, and works for all conditions, if you do it via triple integration and everything.

    edit2: Now that i remember way back to calculus 2, i remember 1/2 of it was trivial integration techniques. Trivial in the sense that they were very limited in uses. Most of the time nowadays i try to use maple/matlab to calculate things. I seriously doubt anyone still remembers those ways of integrating those nasty partial fractions (or something like that) using triangles and trig.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2004
  13. Jun 23, 2004 #12

    Math Is Hard

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Hey! Leave me outta this! :rofl:
     
  14. Jun 23, 2004 #13

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Although it pains me to say it Goalie ca, many mathematicians do not think of relations in terms of subsets ("orbits" would be my view of them), but that notion you dislike is useful for computer science, certainly for some langauges. You define the relation as ntuples, then evaluate expressions on entries in the elements. So is.father.to( , ) is a list of father child pairs, and one can call functions such as father.of( ).

    But then there is the other reason for defining functions in terms of sets. If you don't, what are they? Letting one of the many secrets out of the bag, they way you're taught about functions for most of your life is mathematically unsound. One needs only look at the number of questions I see written by supposedly good mathematicians that ask something like is the function 1/x from R to R continuous everywhere. It isn't even a function from R to R.
     
  15. Jun 23, 2004 #14

    Zurtex

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Surely the writers of such programs as matlab do...

    I'm only very much at the start of my mathematical life and am at the moment revising such integration techniques. But the way I always see it is rather than having a set problem and a set solution is that you have a logical problem and you need to try and find a logical solution, thus getting in the mind frame for solving any particular problem.
     
  16. Jun 23, 2004 #15

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I dunno, I can do a lot of those integrals from Calc 2 faster than it would take to fire up a computer and run Mathematica.

    And, sometimes, knowing a technique can be important even if you never use it; for instance, I've seen theorems in my Complex Analysis and Algebra courses whose proofs would be totally mystifying if you didn't understand partial fractions.
     
  17. Jun 23, 2004 #16

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    On the contrary, many mathematicians do. Mathematicians prefer to have a variety of ways of thinking about the same concept.
     
  18. Jun 23, 2004 #17

    krab

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    ... and theoretical physicists and chemists do what? Useless stuff?
     
  19. Jun 23, 2004 #18
    Chances are its useless math if 5 years from now you'll never use it again.

    I mean, all math is usefull, in some way or another, but who the hell cares about most of that stuff. Maybe its the engineer in me, but I mostly just wanna learn the math i can need and use and get the idea where it came from so i can derive things and understand it. I'm not one for pointless details, particularly techniques for solving stuff that my calculator can do!
     
  20. Jun 23, 2004 #19

    Janitor

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    When I was in high school, multi-function hand-held calculators were becoming available for something less than a king's ransom. My math teacher, Mrs. W., must have been well past the age at which a public school teacher can retire, but she hung in there for some reason. She diligently taught us how to take square roots using some process that I have forgotten, other than it was laid out on paper kind of like the way you do long division. I have never had a moment when I cursed myself out for having forgotten that technique.
     
  21. Jun 23, 2004 #20

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I've had a few occasions where I was very annoyed I couldn't remember how to do a square root by hand. :frown:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Useless math
  1. Potentially useless (Replies: 4)

  2. Is Math Useless? (Replies: 80)

  3. Is Pure Math Useless? (Replies: 33)

Loading...