Why do you like your chosen math field?

  • Thread starter Thread starter andytoh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on personal preferences in various fields of mathematics, particularly topology, differential topology, set theory, and differential geometry. Participants express a preference for geometric and visual aspects of these fields, finding them more intuitive compared to the abstract nature of group theory and ring theory. There is a recognition that enjoyment of a math field may not correlate with proficiency, as some participants excel in areas they do not enjoy. The appeal of smoothness and continuity in certain mathematical concepts is highlighted, contrasting with the perceived complexity and "ugliness" of calculus and differential equations. Overall, the conversation reflects a deeper exploration of the reasons behind individual preferences in mathematical disciplines.
andytoh
Messages
357
Reaction score
3
I like topology, differential topology, set theory, differential geometry. But I ask myself why, and I can't give a good answer.

I know that I like abstraction and proofs, but yet I don't like group theory and ring theory, which are quite abstract and deals mainly with proofs. Perhaps I like dealing with derivatives, and hence my preference for differential topology and differential geometry. But yet I don't like differential equations or plain calculus. Do we like something just because we are good at it? Not in my case. I got my highest grade in group theory, ring theory, and number theory, all of which I don't like. Perhaps it's a genetic thing? I don't think so. So what is it then? And why don't I like group theory and ring theory? I don't know.

Can someone explain why you have chosen your math field?
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
well i think i alsoiked your chosen fields because of the geometric and visual aspect. also they involve smoothness and continuity, whidch are evry intuitive things to me, unlike finte reasoning in group theory, and the ugliness of the way calculus is often aught.

the older i get the more fields i like. it helps to teach them and learn them better.

if you want to enjoy diff eq, instead of those books like boyce and diprima, read arnol'd.
 
mathwonk said:
well i think i alsoiked your chosen fields because of the geometric and visual aspect. also they involve smoothness and continuity, whidch are evry intuitive things to me, unlike finte reasoning in group theory, and the ugliness of the way calculus is often aught.

hmmm... I think you explained it pretty well. I like visual, geometric, continuous, and smooth objects. Group theory, ring theory, and number theory lacks the continuity and smoothness that I lust for. Differential Equations and calculus are too ugly in the sense that there is too much analytic calculation for my taste. I think I got it now.
 
I used to hate algebra, until I learned some algebraic geometry, which made it seem much more down to Earth to me.
 
i also began to l;ike algebra more afgter learning algebraic geometry. IN AG, one l;earns to vieew every ring as the ring of functions on some geometric space. this adds a lot to the intuition of the dioealas tructure of the ring, i.e. ideals become like (functions vanishing on) subvarieties of the geometric variety.
 
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top