[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 23 KB, 288x499, 1311472952767.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3931135 No.3931135 [Reply] [Original]

>doing abstract algebra
>prove formally that 2 + 1 = 3
>my face when hipster math

>> No.3931140

>numbers

You still in elementary school?

>> No.3931139

fucking hipsters indeed

I mean doesn't it totally depend what you choose the symbols to mean? I ain't got time for this shit. I have gay sex to have.

>> No.3931143

babby's first math

>> No.3931151 [DELETED] 

>mfw I never learned proofs, in primary, high school, or 1st and 2nd year math....

>mfw I am a 3rd year engineer.

>> No.3931167 [DELETED] 

>>3931151
>2 years of college math
>no proofs.

nigger, what are you doing?

>> No.3931178

>>3931167
>>3931167
They don't do proofs in engineering, do they?

>> No.3931184

>>3931167
ENGINEERING
FUCKING AUSTRALIA
THEY NEVER TEACH BASIC PROOFS
YOU GET TO UNIVERSITY AND THEY JUST THROW COMPLEX PROOFS AT YOU, SAY YOU DONT EVEN NEED THEM AS LONG AS YOU REMEMBER THE FORMULAS, THEN YOU NEVER LEARN ANYTHING, EVERY ENGINEER IS A TRAINED MONKEY

>> No.3931189

>>3931167
Same here, but physics. No proofs to be found.

>> No.3931194

>>3931189
what's a proofs?

>> No.3931201 [DELETED] 
File: 55 KB, 881x715, homo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3931201

>mfw this book had proofs, and it's written for homosexuals.

>>3931189
Not even going to bother with analysis?

>> No.3931219

>>3931167
He had to start at precalc, then do all the calculus series, and linear algebra. Altogether, that could be like two years.
It's typical for engineers to not have taken any calculus in high school.

>> No.3931238

>>3931201
I would like to get into more theoretical math, topology in particular, but the most advanced class I need to take for my BS is Partial Differential Equations. I figure the math will come as I go into graduate school.

>> No.3931261
File: 8 KB, 475x87, homo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3931261

>>3931201
oh man, I forgot how funny this book was.

>> No.3931325

>>3931184
This, except USA. You usually have to take a math minor.

>> No.3931345

>>3931184
And that why physics-mech engineering dual major master race

>> No.3931355

2=(1)(2)
2/2=1
1*2=1*1+1*1
1*1=1
2=1+1
3=2+1
3=(1+1)+1
3=3*1
therefore 3=3 and 2+1=3.

>> No.3931360

Wouldn't you normally define 3 as 2+1?

>> No.3931370

>>3931360
I wouldn't

>> No.3931374

>can't prove something
>call it hipster math

>> No.3931391

>>3931219
>2011
>not getting 5 on AP Calc test

>> No.3931397

>>3931135
OP, you may feel like this is 'hipster math' but actually the reason you're doing it is to develop your understanding of group theory, which underlies quantum mechanics and all of chemistry. If you want to do theoretical work in either field you need a good understanding of group theory (there's a lot more to it than your abstract algebra 1 class is leading you to believe, obviously.)

2+1=3 stuff for its direct use comes in more in number theory, and believe it or not this stuff is actually pretty useful as well. Without being able to prove 2+1 = 3 by Peano axioms you would have no chance of understanding cardinality and ordinality.

Furthermore, how is this more or less useful than learning integration by parts and L'hospital's rules? Neither is useful at all in its own right if you don't want to simply be doing 'hipster math'. In short OP, you need to get your head out of your arse and realise that your first few baby steps into mathematical education (undergrad) aren't going to be teaching you anything more than the tools you need to further that education. Stop being such a child.

>> No.3931464

>>3931360
yes
2 + 1 = S(2) = S(S(S(empty set))) = 3
but that isn't anything you'd do in abstract algebra. In algebra, you'd just take 2 + 1 = 3 as a fact.

>> No.3931470

>>3931135
If you're in abstract algebra, then that's not a formal proof.
Do it from axioms, bitch!

>> No.3931479

>>3931374

Holy balls....I don't think he means hipster math as in actual hipsters geniuses....

He means hipster math as in math that he has never heard of.

Get it....never heard it....as in obscure....which hipster....aww fuck all of you

>> No.3931484

>>3931238
I'd advise you to take real and complex analysis, analysis and abstract algebra if you have any intentions of graduate school in mathematics. You'll be too hard pressed trying to catch up otherwise - It'd be like going into PDEs without having done fractions and decimals.

>> No.3931491

>>3931484
I intend to go to graduate school for Physics.

>> No.3931504

>>3931479
You've never seen a hipster before, have you? Its a blatant insult directed at the content of his abstract algebra class. He's one of those faggots who can't see the point of actually understanding mathematics, and just wants to play dodge-em-equations and rock'n'sock'n'calculus

>> No.3931510

>>3931491
Ah that's okay then. Those classes still wouldn't hurt if you can find the space in your schedule. A lot of the things that probably seem obscure in your physics classes will have the cloud lifted.

>> No.3931531

>>3931470

Surely that would depend on which field/group you're in.

Which OP failed to specify.

>> No.3932010

http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/groups.htm

>With fewer students of advanced physics, and worse-prepared students at that, this material is becoming less and less known, a definite reversal of the trends of the 60's. No one pays people to do group theory or quantum mechanics. In modern mathematics departments, it seems as unfashionable as complex variables (another field that is too difficult these days). The really hard work that is required to master quantum electrodynamics also seems beyond today's students and tomorrow's faculty.

Learn group theory - be a decent physicist.

>> No.3932015

>>3931531
If it's axiomatic, then it's objectively formal.

>> No.3932028

>>3932010
Sounds to me like some pathetic circlejerking physicist who can't understand why irrelevant subfields are giving way to more interesting and practical areas of inquiry, like topology.

>> No.3932119

>>3932028
Sure topology is great and all, but so is group theory. With regards to the quote, I'm a third year and at my university its normal to do both complex variables and group theory... I assumed that was the ||.|| (ba-dum-dum 'tss)

>> No.3932209

>>3932119
Huh. I'm also in my third year at university in physics, and we haven't done either of those things. I'm starting to think it's just because we have shitty math requirements in our program, though... hope I'm not fucked going in to grad school.

>> No.3932654

>>3932209
Oh sorry, I should have clarified, I'm in a maths degree. Most physics people don't do group theory here either, though I think most of them do complex variables.