What's the Difference B/n Applied vs. Pure Maths?

AI Thread Summary
Applied mathematics focuses on practical applications in fields like science and engineering, while pure mathematics is concerned with theoretical concepts and proofs without immediate real-world applications. The distinction is not rigid, as applied mathematicians often develop new mathematical theories based on practical needs, and pure mathematicians create foundational tools that applied mathematicians utilize. In academic settings, math degrees may encompass both areas, with some institutions offering specializations or requiring coursework in pure, applied, and statistics. The perceived difficulty varies, with pure mathematics often considered more challenging, but this is subjective. Ultimately, the distinction arises from differing priorities: pure mathematicians prioritize correctness and theoretical exploration, while applied mathematicians emphasize utility and real-world problem-solving.
SF49erfan
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
What's the Difference B/n Applied vs. "Pure" Maths?

Hello. I'm a soon-to-be new university student and am taking this summer to learn all I can about various subjects, majors, and career opportunities.

I've been reading up a little bit this week on math majors and have come across what seems to be a distinction between "applied" and "pure" math. I'm wondering if anyone might know what these two terms are referring to and why there is this distinction?

And, lastly, if a person goes to college to study math, would their degree literally say "pure math" or "applied math," or would it just be a math degree? I never realized there was this difference until now.

Oh, and one last thing. Is there any difference in terms of which is harder and also which one is best for using in real life?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hey AAAmelia and welcome to the forums.

It is hard to pin-point the exact differences but in general applied mathematics is stuff that is used for applied purposes (science, engineering, modeling, prediction/fore-casting) while pure is not used for applied purposes.

Typically what happens is that pure mathematicians prove things and the applied people take the proofs and use the results to do whatever it is they need to do.

In short, pure mathematicians build the tools and the applied people use them for real life purposes.

The distinction though is not as clear cut because there is over-lap and applied mathematicians do create new mathematics out of the needs of their work and this is why I say it isn't as clear cut as this.

In terms of what is harder, I would learn towards pure mathematics but it depends on you as well.

In my country, you have to study pure mathematics, applied mathematics, and statistics in a math degree. You can specialize in either (or get a double major), but you still need familiarity of all three areas at some level.

The degree name depends on the university: some may call it a science degree, others a math degree. This doesn't matter though because names are names.

The reason for the distinction is just the use: pure mathematicians and applied mathematicians focus on different things and have different priorities and goals in mind.

The pure mathematician cares more about the mathematics being right and working: the applied mathematician is going to care more about the ability to predict/fore-cast or explain some real life phenomena.

The person that makes the hammer doesn't care about building the house: that's the carpenters job and as long as the hammer works, the carpenter doesn't care about how the hammer was made either.
 
TL;DR Summary: I want to do a PhD in applied math but I hate group theory, is this a big problem? Hello, I am a second-year math and physics double major with a minor in data science. I just finished group theory (today actually), and it was my least favorite class in all of university so far. It doesn't interest me, and I am also very bad at it compared to other math courses I have done. The other courses I have done are calculus I-III, ODEs, Linear Algebra, and Prob/Stats. Is it a...
I’ve been looking through the curricula of several European theoretical/mathematical physics MSc programs (ETH, Oxford, Cambridge, LMU, ENS Paris, etc), and I’m struck by how little emphasis they place on advanced fundamental courses. Nearly everything seems to be research-adjacent: string theory, quantum field theory, quantum optics, cosmology, soft matter physics, black hole radiation, etc. What I don’t see are the kinds of “second-pass fundamentals” I was hoping for, things like...

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
10K
Replies
29
Views
2K
Back
Top