Planetarion Forums

Mirai · 31 Jul 2003, 15:36

Wish me luck.

Gotta get a C+ or I fail the class...

:\

Hudre · 31 Jul 2003, 15:38

Cheat.

Or study. You did study?

MrL_JaKiri · 31 Jul 2003, 15:39

Maths is easy.

Mirai · 31 Jul 2003, 15:43

MrL, stop being gay.

at0mic.c0w · 31 Jul 2003, 15:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Mirai
MrL, stop being gay.

Don't tell me to stop
Tell the rain not to drop
Tell the wind not to blow
Cos you said so, mmm

Deathjam · 31 Jul 2003, 17:24

its Maths u butt****er

acropolis · 31 Jul 2003, 17:46

maths is pointless.

What math problems do you have that can't be solved easily on a computer? Obviously there is plenty of room for research in math, but if you aren't interested in that there isn't a point.

queball · 31 Jul 2003, 17:50

Quote:

Originally posted by acropolis
maths is pointless.

What math problems do you have that can't be solved easily on a computer? Obviously there is plenty of room for research in math, but if you aren't interested in that there isn't a point.

Computers aren't particularly capable at solving problems stated in words, or at applying maths to real-world situations in general. What is learnt is the structures and relationships. The actual algerbraic and analytical techniques are just for fun.

MrL_JaKiri · 31 Jul 2003, 19:17

Quote:

Originally posted by acropolis
maths is pointless.

What math problems do you have that can't be solved easily on a computer? Obviously there is plenty of room for research in math, but if you aren't interested in that there isn't a point.

I think you'll find it's quite impossible to prove things on a computer that don't just come down to number crunching.

Try proving the Riemann Hypothesis on a computer and you won't get very far.

Zither · 31 Jul 2003, 19:20

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

Try proving the Riemann Hypothesis on a computer and you won't get very far. [/b]

I can try proving it in my head but won't get very far :-)

MrL_JaKiri · 31 Jul 2003, 19:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Zither
I can try proving it in my head but won't get very far :-)

You'd get further than you would on a computer!

acropolis · 31 Jul 2003, 19:32

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
I think you'll find it's quite impossible to prove things on a computer that don't just come down to number crunching.

Try proving the Riemann Hypothesis on a computer and you won't get very far.

It's a research question though, and, as I said above, I see math as perfectly valid for those who would like to be mathematicians. My old professor actually did a Riemann hypothesis paper (he proved that the zeros were all to one side of like 2/3 or somesuch like that).

For the rest, it falls along with, say, the poetry of Yeats, which has it's own beauty, but is not functional.

MrL_JaKiri · 31 Jul 2003, 19:40

Quote:

Originally posted by acropolis
It's a research question though, and, as I said above, I see math as perfectly valid for those who would like to be mathematicians. My old professor actually did a Riemann hypothesis paper (he proved that the zeros were all to one side of like 2/3 or somesuch like that).

For the rest, it falls along with, say, the poetry of Yeats, which has it's own beauty, but is not functional.

That's about as valid as saying that 'Oh, that Einstein fellow, nice ideas but WHAT ABOUT THE REAL WORLD'.

Using the same example, the Riemann Hypothesis is linked to a rather interesting problem in Quantum Mechanics (electron shells and the like).

Advanced mathematics turns up EVERYWHERE in physics.

Marilyn Manson · 31 Jul 2003, 19:42

Every home should have a Jakiri.

Ragnarak · 31 Jul 2003, 19:48

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Advanced mathematics turns up EVERYWHERE in physics.

he's right

MrL_JaKiri · 31 Jul 2003, 19:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Ragnarak
he's right

That's why physics is so GREAT.

acropolis · 31 Jul 2003, 20:05

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
That's about as valid as saying that 'Oh, that Einstein fellow, nice ideas but WHAT ABOUT THE REAL WORLD'.

No it's like saying "learning relativity is probably useless unless you are either interested or are actually going to be working in physics."

Obviously that someone understands relativity is important, but for most people understanding relativity is not at all important. This is clearly true because they don't.

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Using the same example, the Riemann Hypothesis is linked to a rather interesting problem in Quantum Mechanics (electron shells and the like).

Advanced mathematics turns up EVERYWHERE in physics.

You are misreading me.

After all my special topics, special functions, etc. classes, only the simplest and most useless models in advanced physics classes (quantum 2 and up) could be done on paper. All the rest was back to a computer. Certainly very high level maths were in play, but I didn't get to play

From time to time in research in, say, physics or chemistry, you come across an area where you need to do some truly high level math because that area hasn't been worked out yet. But at this point, what you are doing is research in pure math, which goes back to my original point.

MrL_JaKiri · 31 Jul 2003, 20:07

Your point appeared to be claiming that mathematics research is pointless.

You can't change your argument by saying 'No, that's not a use! Just because you use research from mathematics in it doesn't make mathematics research useful!'

acropolis · 31 Jul 2003, 20:11

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Your point appeared to be claiming that mathematics research is pointless.

no no no No No NO NO NO NO!

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
You can't change your argument by saying 'No, that's not a use! Just because you use research from mathematics in it doesn't make mathematics research useful!'

Mathematical research is useful.

Mathematics is useful for those who do mathematical research.

Mathematical research is done mostly by mathematicians; and occasionally by physicists and chemists.

Most people aren't mathematicians or physicists or chemists.

For most people, math is useless unless they like it simply because of aesthetic qualities.

PS: I apologize if my initial post didn't make my stance clear. I tried to note that maths research was an exception to my general case, but it may have been vague.

MrL_JaKiri · 31 Jul 2003, 20:19

That's just the same point rephrased.

Without mathematics research we wouldn't have, say, computers or lightbulbs or what have you.

Your point appears to be the equivilent of saying 'Pfft electrons! I'm not interested in them! What have they ever done for me!'

cnaw · 31 Jul 2003, 20:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Hudre
Cheat.

Or study. You did study?

I’ve always wanted to figure out a way to write all the formulas on contact lenses. I bet I could make a fortune selling those. Of course someone probably already has a patent on them. =/

acropolis · 31 Jul 2003, 20:28

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

Without mathematics research we wouldn't have, say, computers or lightbulbs or what have you.

This disproves my statement "Mathematical research is useful." somehow?

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Your point appears to be the equivilent of saying 'Pfft electrons! I'm not interested in them! What have they ever done for me!'

If I was, say, a grocer, I could say that and it would not affect my quality of life at all.

But I'd be wrong.

My point was that if I was a grocer, I could go out and learn what those wonderful little electrons do for me. And it would not change my quality of life at all.

MrL_JaKiri · 31 Jul 2003, 20:31

Quote:

Originally posted by acropolis
This disproves my statement "Mathematical research is useful." somehow?

Usually, giving a counter example to a definite statement disproves it.

Nodrog · 31 Jul 2003, 20:31

Quote:

Originally posted by acropolis
maths is pointless.

What math problems do you have that can't be solved easily on a computer? Obviously there is plenty of room for research in math, but if you aren't interested in that there isn't a point.

Kurt Godel wants a word.

MrL_JaKiri · 31 Jul 2003, 20:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
Kurt Godel wants a word.

He's Bach there. And I can't think of a pun for Escher.

acropolis · 31 Jul 2003, 20:38

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Usually, giving a counter example to a definite statement disproves it.

So you just proved that mathematic research is not useful?

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
Kurt Godel wants a word.

Are you saying that Godel didn't do research in math?

MrL_JaKiri · 31 Jul 2003, 20:40

Quote:

Originally posted by acropolis
So you just proved that mathematic research is not useful?

I was taking your statement to refer to a condensed version of your point, which was 'Mathematics research is useless except as an intellectual persuit.'

MrL_JaKiri · 31 Jul 2003, 20:41

Quote:

Originally posted by acropolis
Are you saying that Godel didn't do research in math?

Read post, understand post, reply to post is usually the sequence of events to try and perform dear.

acropolis · 31 Jul 2003, 20:43

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
I was taking your statement to refer to a condensed version of your point, which was 'Mathematics research is useless except as an intellectual persuit.'

1. Mathematical research is always useful.

2. Mathematics is useful for doing mathematical research.

In my post I put research down as the exception to the general principle.

Mirai is not doing mathematical research, and from the tone of his post I surmised he would never do maths research.

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Read post, understand post, reply to post is usually the sequence of events to try and perform dear.

I understood him (for once).

He doesn't understand me

I'm misunderstood.

MrL_JaKiri · 31 Jul 2003, 20:50

Doing mathematics is inherently useful as it encourages a logical thought structure.

queball · 31 Jul 2003, 20:52

Quote:

Originally posted by acropolis
My point was that if I was a grocer, I could go out and learn what those wonderful little electrons do for me. And it would not change my quality of life at all.

Maths would certainly raise your quality of life, just as any art does. Maths rocks, you faggot, go **** men, you wouldn't wanna be concerned with something mathematical like population growth would you.

Grocery is an old profession. To the extent that grocers exercise their freedom and creativity, they do use maths - any self-employed person manages their own accounts and applies arithmetic to money generally, estimates risks and uses statistics generally, uses abstract models of stock flow, etc. You haven't replied to my previous post - it doesn't particularly matter if someone uses software or not, the details of symbolic manipulation are not the sum total of mathematics.

acropolis · 31 Jul 2003, 20:55

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Doing mathematics is inherently useful as it encourages a logical thought structure.

Unfortunately, all I hear is chicks bitching about guys that are too logical.

Other great places for math are doing your budget, checkbook, financial planning, etc. but those are all just type numbers into a computer and let it do the work now.

It wasn't that many years ago that computers couldn't do symbolic integration, so until recently being able to do symbolic integration was necessary for engineering.

acropolis · 31 Jul 2003, 20:58

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
Computers aren't particularly capable at solving problems stated in words, or at applying maths to real-world situations in general. What is learnt is the structures and relationships. The actual algerbraic and analytical techniques are just for fun.

I don't think you claim the process of translating english (or one of the lesser languages) into an equation was actually math. Perhaps their is a word for that - metamathematics, or soemthing. Anyway, once you have the equation, math definitely begins, but from then on a computer can do everything. Obviously the output requires interpretation, but once again you've left math.

I'll be off

MrL_JaKiri · 31 Jul 2003, 20:59

Women tend to have a much more logical thought structure than men.

acropolis · 31 Jul 2003, 21:01

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Women tend to have a much more logical thought structure than men.

where are the moderators when people start spouting off their sexist tripe!

PS: I agree.

MrL_JaKiri · 31 Jul 2003, 21:02

Quote:

Originally posted by acropolis
I don't think you claim the process of translating english (or one of the lesser languages) into an equation was actually math. Perhaps their is a word for that - metamathematics, or soemthing. Anyway, once you have the equation, math definitely begins, but from then on a computer can do everything. Obviously the output requires interpretation, but once again you've left math.

Mathematics isn't just about equations. For a start, there's inequations

ps.

Censor evade again. I dare you*.

*Will ban you if you do.

queball · 31 Jul 2003, 21:07

Quote:

Originally posted by acropolis
I don't think you claim the process of translating english (or one of the lesser languages) into an equation was actually math. Perhaps their is a word for that - metamathematics, or soemthing. Anyway, once you have the equation, math definitely begins, but from then on a computer can do everything. Obviously the output requires interpretation, but once again you've left math.

That word's taken. Metamathematics is what Godel and his lot did.

Ok, well that's exactly what I'd call maths. The original academic/practical distiction was just capitaloclassist oppression. I agree that studying a subject devoid of context is pointless for some more particular context but that's hardly a surprise. Any creative discipline has room for abstraction.

acropolis · 31 Jul 2003, 21:15

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
That word's taken. Metamathematics is what Godel and his lot did.

Ok, well that's exactly what I'd call maths. The original academic/practical distiction was just capitaloclassist oppression. I agree that studying a subject devoid of context is pointless for some more particular context but that's hardly a surprise. Any creative discipline has room for abstraction.

I actually prefer it in the context-free.

Once you've solved it there, the same logic can be applied to any number of situations, potentially appearing to be completely unrelated.

PS: who gave JakIrI banning powers?

Nodrog · 31 Jul 2003, 21:15

Quote:

Originally posted by acropolis
I don't think you claim the process of translating english (or one of the lesser languages) into an equation was actually math. Perhaps their is a word for that - metamathematics, or soemthing. Anyway, once you have the equation, math definitely begins, but from then on a computer can do everything. Obviously the output requires interpretation, but once again you've left math.

I'll be off

computer derived proof of fermats last theorem plz

MrL_JaKiri · 31 Jul 2003, 21:17

Quote:

Originally posted by acropolis
PS: who gave JakIrI banning powers?

Getting the capitalisation wrong on my name counts as censor evasion from now on.

acropolis · 31 Jul 2003, 21:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
computer derived proof of fermats last theorem plz

While it is possible that someone would come across the proof for fermat's last theorem while they were using math for a non-research purpose (perhaps while doing taxes?), I find it just as unlikely as having the computer print off random characters.

I repeat that I find mathematics research to be useful.

Nodrog · 31 Jul 2003, 21:42

Quote:

Originally posted by acropolis
While it is possible that someone would come across the proof for fermat's last theorem while they were using math for a non-research purpose (perhaps while doing taxes?), I find it just as unlikely as having the computer print off random characters.

I repeat that I find mathematics research to be useful.

What is your point then?

queball · 31 Jul 2003, 21:57

Quote:

Originally posted by acropolis
I actually prefer it in the context-free.

Once you've solved it there, the same logic can be applied to any number of situations, potentially appearing to be completely unrelated.

PS: who gave JakIrI banning powers?

That's not exactly what I meant by context. If you solve a problem for some need real or imagined and generalise the result it's useful and in context.

If your job is purely a service job, and you know just what you have to do and there isn't any room for making theories about the job, researching statistics would be pointless. Mathematics would be out of context. If you're a robot doing a stupid job you don't need to know anything.

The software people have is always incomplete, there are always new applications of mathematics for any decent job, applications that no-one has thought of. Spreadsheets are popular because they are general; the user is still the one doing the modelling. There are more specific utilities to account for tax or balance ingoing and outgoings but there's still plenty of jobs in accountancy. And accountants need maths just like engineers.

Say you're into economics, or genomics, or something. There might be rules written by others that say to take various expressions, put them together and integrate. And you could do that all in Maple. But if you're a researcher, you need to know the mathematical concepts to be able to formulate those rules. Maths isn't introverted - it's useful not just for research into mathematics but research into anything. Anyone doing useful, intellectual, creative work needs maths. If you're just following rules then you don't.

acropolis · 31 Jul 2003, 22:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
What is your point then?

25 years ago, no matter what you did in life you needed some level of ability in math.

As mentioned, taxes and stuff.

With computers, we are now at a point where an engineer could get away with not being able to add 1 + 1 (I know many near this point).

Obvioulsy this line of thought doesn't apply to research of any kind. That's all good **** (no censor evade so he doesn't ban me).

That's my general outline.

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
That word's taken. Metamathematics is what Godel and his lot did.

Ok, well that's exactly what I'd call maths. The original academic/practical distiction was just capitaloclassist oppression. I agree that studying a subject devoid of context is pointless for some more particular context but that's hardly a surprise. Any creative discipline has room for abstraction.

It's funny and interesting* that when I argue with other people, it usually turns out to be over semantic issues, and when I argue with you it usually ends up being definitional.

*May be neither funny nor interesting.

MrL_JaKiri · 31 Jul 2003, 22:39

I know of many mathematicians who can't add 1 and 1. (Well, not quite that bad, but are terrible at mental arithmatic)

Proteus · 31 Jul 2003, 22:41

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
I know of many mathematicians who can't add 1 and 1. (Well, not quite that bad, but are terrible at mental arithmatic)

I never learnt my times tables. \o/

queball · 31 Jul 2003, 22:41

acropolis · 31 Jul 2003, 22:44

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
2

yes, but can you honestly claim that between reading that post and posting your answer you didn't use a computer?

thought so.

queball · 31 Jul 2003, 22:48

Quote:

Originally posted by acropolis
yes, but can you honestly claim that between reading that post and posting your answer you didn't use a computer?

thought so.

But what allowed me to recognise it as a simple arithmetical problem?

Nodrog · 31 Jul 2003, 23:11

Quote:

Originally posted by acropolis
25 years ago, no matter what you did in life you needed some level of ability in math.

As mentioned, taxes and stuff.

With computers, we are now at a point where an engineer could get away with not being able to add 1 + 1 (I know many near this point).

Obvioulsy this line of thought doesn't apply to research of any kind. That's all good **** (no censor evade so he doesn't ban me).

Mirai does computer science iirc.

Also, mental arithmetic != 'maths'