- #31
SW VandeCarr
- 2,193
- 77
DiracPool said:
You divide a mathematician by a physicist and you get a sum?
What is the point of studying maths at a very high level?
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the purpose and value of high-level mathematics, with participants expressing various viewpoints. Some argue that advanced mathematics primarily serves as a tool for fields like engineering and physics, while others highlight its intrinsic beauty and aesthetic appeal as valid motivations for study. There is a debate about the rationality of mathematicians, with some suggesting that their passion borders on obsession, while others assert that most mathematicians are ordinary individuals who engage with math for its intellectual stimulation. The conversation also touches on the future applicability of pure mathematics, noting that while some research may seem irrelevant now, it could become crucial later, as evidenced by historical examples where mathematical concepts later found significant applications in physics and other sciences. Overall, the dialogue emphasizes both the practical and philosophical dimensions of mathematics, advocating for its appreciation beyond immediate utility.
You divide a mathematician by a physicist and you get a sum?
- #32
- 22,169
- 3,327
SW VandeCarr said:
Yeah, what he said makes no sense. That's why I said the answer was a philosopher, cause they tend to not make sense.
- #33
collinsmark
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 3,443
- 3,422
Here is this week's Abstruse Goose. It seems somewhat relevant to this thread. When I first saw (the strip) yesterday, I wasn't going to post it here. But today? Oh, what the heck.
Impure Mathematics
[Source: http://abstrusegoose.com/504]
[With mouse-over: There is no branch of mathematics, however abstract, which may not someday be applied to the phenomena of the real world --- Nicolai Lobachevsky]
Impure Mathematics
[Source: http://abstrusegoose.com/504]
[With mouse-over: There is no branch of mathematics, however abstract, which may not someday be applied to the phenomena of the real world --- Nicolai Lobachevsky]
Last edited:
- #34
VertexOperator
- 79
- 0
micromass said:
collinsmark said:Impure Mathematics
lololol
- #35
DiracPool
- 1,242
- 515
This sounds like a good argument NOT to study mathematics. Darn, just when I was starting to enjoy differential equations.
- #36
AlephZero
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 6,983
- 299
SW VandeCarr said:
True story about the difference between a mathematican working as an engineer (me!) and a physicist who really wanted to be a mathematian (my boss).
I had written the specifcation for putting some new gizmo into a finite element analysis code, full of details of numerical integration, how to evaluate Jacobians, etc.
It came back from my boss with the comment "You could make this a lot shorter by <insert half a page of divs, grads, curls, and double and triple integrals here>"
So I sent a note back saying "OK, but if this is a spec for a computer program, how would you actually write the code"?
The answer: "You do it your way, of course".
- #37
ilmareofthemai
- 16
- 1
jgens said:
Agree!
I recently read A Universe in Zero Words, a book about the history and influence of important equations (if you want some examples of crazy mathematicians, read the chapter about the types of infinities-the outcome for a couple of those mathematicians, i.e. Godel, was not so great) and developed a strong appreciation for mathematics, especially geometry. A great read.
Also, as someone else mentioned, math and physics sometimes develop at different rates, and the math Pauli needed was already developed, etc. For more examples, read Euclid's Window, a book about the major mathematical revolutions and their connections with physics. Is mathematics inherent, or a construct? It has to do with the definition but maybe we'll never know...It has already been proven that math can't be proven (Universe in Zero Words)!