Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #163800 > unrolled thread
| Started by | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-21 00:57 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-06-02 19:47 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 136 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-21 00:57 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 22:13 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-21 11:39 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? bert <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-21 13:23 -0700
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 22:36 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-24 18:00 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-24 20:27 +0200
Re: CS instead of math? Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-05-25 06:56 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-25 07:42 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-25 09:39 +0200
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-25 09:37 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-05-25 13:05 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 07:07 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@Last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-26 13:34 +0200
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-26 14:02 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 19:46 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-26 19:17 -0500
Re: CS instead of math? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-27 06:56 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 07:26 -0500
Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-25 14:40 +0200
Re: CS instead of math? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-25 16:19 -0300
Re: CS instead of math? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-25 16:15 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-25 22:29 +0200
Re: CS instead of math? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-25 21:19 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-05-26 16:34 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 07:04 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-26 13:28 +0200
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-26 14:06 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-26 18:57 +0200
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-26 18:19 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-26 18:35 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-05-26 22:05 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-27 15:33 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-27 15:40 -0300
Re: CS instead of math? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-26 14:43 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 11:03 -0500
Re: CS instead of math? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-26 16:27 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-26 17:52 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-26 16:22 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-31 17:27 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-31 20:06 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 21:08 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 07:17 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 05:31 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 11:56 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-01 16:00 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 17:15 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-01 19:28 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-01 17:42 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-01 13:03 -0700
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 17:05 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-01 12:48 -0700
Re: CS instead of math? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 17:34 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-02 07:50 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-02 10:37 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-02 12:33 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-02 12:08 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 08:17 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Andy Burns <feb2017-usenet@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-06-02 09:49 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Andy Burns <feb2017-usenet@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-06-02 14:09 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Andy Burns <feb2017-usenet@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-06-02 14:12 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-02 19:44 -0700
Re: CS instead of math? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-02 15:02 +0200
Re: CS instead of math? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 16:44 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 16:43 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 16:42 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-02 16:41 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 22:18 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-01 17:42 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-01 22:03 +0200
Re: CS instead of math? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-01 12:47 -0700
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 20:58 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 07:29 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-01 11:59 +0200
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 06:48 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 12:41 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 17:04 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-02 07:59 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 08:18 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 19:53 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 12:15 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-01 17:42 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-22 11:27 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 07:21 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-22 13:15 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 09:53 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-25 07:18 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-25 09:42 +0200
Re: CS instead of math? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-25 13:11 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-25 16:15 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-25 22:31 +0200
Re: CS instead of math? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-26 11:23 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-26 11:37 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-26 17:56 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-05-26 16:36 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 19:51 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-25 07:43 -0500
Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-26 17:55 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 07:14 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-27 17:40 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 18:46 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-31 17:28 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-31 16:09 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 21:07 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 08:58 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 05:48 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-01 12:06 +0200
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 06:46 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-06-03 16:05 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 20:49 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-06-04 22:29 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 12:27 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 17:07 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-02 08:12 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 19:56 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-03 09:17 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-01 13:20 -0700
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 17:10 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-06-02 13:57 -0500
Re: CS instead of math? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-06-02 17:43 -0300
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 20:08 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 20:05 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 10:38 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-03 11:41 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-09 05:49 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 19:58 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-17 03:35 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-02 19:47 -0700
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 19:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31b155fc93e681d098a1db@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164041 |
In article <ni7mo2$43n$1@Lazarus.situ.com>, sidd@situ.com says... > > In article <vk1g1d-df3.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>, > Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: > > > >Mathematics (the pure theory part) has also had an uncanny ability to > >have the solutions ready just in time for the practical need for it. > >E.g. Riemann and the relativity theory of gravity. > > well, levi-civita and tensor calculus, which einstein didnt use, and > had to reinvent Then there was Newton, who invented calculus to deal with the problems that arose from his physics. It was apparently time to calculus because Leibniz without such motivation developed it independently at about the same time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 07:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dqlkv7FqvhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #163955 |
"Questor" wrote: > On Sun, 22 May 2016 07:21:41 -0400, "J. Clarke" > <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> > wrote: >>In article <nhs1ca$cav$1@dont-email.me>, no.spam@thank.you.invalid >>says... >>> >>> "bert" <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> wrote in message >>> news:0c7d2fa2-021e-4ae1-b6d6-bc352dfa2a76@googlegroups.com... >>> > On Saturday, 21 May 2016 01:55:28 UTC+1, Questor wrote: >>> >> Should high school CS coursework be permitted as a substitute >>> >> for mathematics in college entrance requirements? Discuss. >>> > >>> > People who know something about CS, but not very much, usually >>> > think that CS is predominantly mathematical. People who know >>> > rather more are aware that CS skills are much more akin to >>> > language skills (especially classical) than to math skills. >>> >>> Perhaps logical skills expressed in the quasi-languages used to >>> program computers? >> >>The thing is, university math is all about proving theorems, not about >>solving problems. It's not aimed at anything practical--there's a >>separate area, "applied math" that is often taught by physics and >>engineering departments as a reaction to the refusal of mathematics >>departments to teach problem-solving skills. > > Utter bilge, and wrong in so many ways, it's hard to know where to start. > > Yes, there is "applied" and "pure" math. But it's wrong to say that pure > math > is all about proving theorems, or that it isn't about solving problems, > More > accurately, the problems of concern in pure math are of a different class > those in applied math. > > I was a pure math major, and I had to leave my field of study in large > part > because classes such as topology and advanced number theory at my college > were > cancelled due to insufficient enrollment. That school no longer offers a > degree > in mathematics. Courses in basic calculus, differential equations, > statistics, > and linear algebra are still offered, and as they are in most other > colleges, > they are taught by the mathematics department. > > Disdain for pure math only demonstrates an ignorance of mathematical > history. > Prime numbers, factoring, and divisability were all studied by number > theorists > for hundreds of years before their modern-day application to cryptography. > The mathematics of complex numbers, matrices, and quaternons were > developed > before any practical applications were discovered. It is a bit broad to > say > that the pure math of today is the applied math of tomorrow, but that has > happened repeatedly throughout history. Going back to the days when you still hoped to get a "pure math" degree. Did you expect to get a job or did you have independent means? If you needed a job, what did you hope to do? The only likely career that comes to my mind is to teach math.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 17:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <57473894.9757640@nntp2.rawbw.com> |
| In reply to | #163962 |
On Wed, 25 May 2016 07:43:06 -0500, "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: >Going back to the days when you still hoped to get a "pure math" degree. >Did you expect to get a job or did you have independent means? If you >needed a job, what did you hope to do? The only likely career that comes to >my mind is to teach math. Good question. You'll have to wait a couple of days until I have time to write a proper answer. Working in the actuarial department of an insurance company was another popular suggestion for math majors back in the day.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 07:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31b0a4899928a0e098a1d7@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #163955 |
In article <57455187.10218673@nntp2.rawbw.com>, usenet@only.tnx says... > > On Sun, 22 May 2016 07:21:41 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> > wrote: > >In article <nhs1ca$cav$1@dont-email.me>, no.spam@thank.you.invalid > >says... > >> > >> "bert" <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> wrote in message > >> news:0c7d2fa2-021e-4ae1-b6d6-bc352dfa2a76@googlegroups.com... > >> > On Saturday, 21 May 2016 01:55:28 UTC+1, Questor wrote: > >> >> Should high school CS coursework be permitted as a substitute > >> >> for mathematics in college entrance requirements? Discuss. > >> > > >> > People who know something about CS, but not very much, usually > >> > think that CS is predominantly mathematical. People who know > >> > rather more are aware that CS skills are much more akin to > >> > language skills (especially classical) than to math skills. > >> > >> Perhaps logical skills expressed in the quasi-languages used to > >> program computers? > > > >The thing is, university math is all about proving theorems, not about > >solving problems. It's not aimed at anything practical--there's a > >separate area, "applied math" that is often taught by physics and > >engineering departments as a reaction to the refusal of mathematics > >departments to teach problem-solving skills. > > Utter bilge, and wrong in so many ways, it's hard to know where to start. > > Yes, there is "applied" and "pure" math. But it's wrong to say that pure math > is all about proving theorems, or that it isn't about solving problems, More > accurately, the problems of concern in pure math are of a different class > those in applied math. > > I was a pure math major, and I had to leave my field of study in large part > because classes such as topology and advanced number theory at my college were > cancelled due to insufficient enrollment. That school no longer offers a degree > in mathematics. Courses in basic calculus, differential equations, statistics, > and linear algebra are still offered, and as they are in most other colleges, > they are taught by the mathematics department. > > Disdain for pure math only demonstrates an ignorance of mathematical history. > Prime numbers, factoring, and divisability were all studied by number theorists > for hundreds of years before their modern-day application to cryptography. > The mathematics of complex numbers, matrices, and quaternons were developed > before any practical applications were discovered. It is a bit broad to say > that the pure math of today is the applied math of tomorrow, but that has > happened repeatedly throughout history. I was a pure math major too, and unlike you I actually finished the degree (also physics and mechanical engineering--I understand all three approaches). The higher up you got the less interest there was in any kind of problem solving that was of any relevance to the real world. The tools mathematicians develop may be useful in the real world, but that event is mostly happy coincidence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 17:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5748866a.9280975@nntp2.rawbw.com> |
| In reply to | #164005 |
On Thu, 26 May 2016 07:14:06 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >In article <57455187.10218673@nntp2.rawbw.com>, usenet@only.tnx says... >> Disdain for pure math only demonstrates an ignorance of mathematical history. >> Prime numbers, factoring, and divisability were all studied by number theorists >> for hundreds of years before their modern-day application to cryptography. >> The mathematics of complex numbers, matrices, and quaternons were developed >> before any practical applications were discovered. It is a bit broad to say >> that the pure math of today is the applied math of tomorrow, but that has >> happened repeatedly throughout history. > >I was a pure math major too, and unlike you I actually finished the >degree (also physics and mechanical engineering--I understand all three >approaches). The higher up you got the less interest there was in any >kind of problem solving that was of any relevance to the real world. > >The tools mathematicians develop may be useful in the real world, but >that event is mostly happy coincidence. You apparently have failed to grasp that pure mathematics, much like pure research, is engaged in for its own sake. Anyone wishing to gain insight into the mindset of mathematicians should read "A Mathematician's Apology" by G.H. Hardy. (Note: the most popular printing includes a lengthy forward. Skip it, at least at first. Start right in with Hardy's text.) "A mathematician, like a painter or a poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas." -- G. H. Hardy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 18:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31b29843795fb7bc98a1dc@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164070 |
In article <5748866a.9280975@nntp2.rawbw.com>, usenet@only.tnx says... > > On Thu, 26 May 2016 07:14:06 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> > wrote: > >In article <57455187.10218673@nntp2.rawbw.com>, usenet@only.tnx says... > >> Disdain for pure math only demonstrates an ignorance of mathematical history. > >> Prime numbers, factoring, and divisability were all studied by number theorists > >> for hundreds of years before their modern-day application to cryptography. > >> The mathematics of complex numbers, matrices, and quaternons were developed > >> before any practical applications were discovered. It is a bit broad to say > >> that the pure math of today is the applied math of tomorrow, but that has > >> happened repeatedly throughout history. > > > >I was a pure math major too, and unlike you I actually finished the > >degree (also physics and mechanical engineering--I understand all three > >approaches). The higher up you got the less interest there was in any > >kind of problem solving that was of any relevance to the real world. > > > >The tools mathematicians develop may be useful in the real world, but > >that event is mostly happy coincidence. > > You apparently have failed to grasp that pure mathematics, much like pure > research, is engaged in for its own sake. I have quite grasped that. I do not understand why you think it is relevant. > Anyone wishing to gain insight into the mindset of mathematicians should read > "A Mathematician's Apology" by G.H. Hardy. (Note: the most popular printing > includes a lengthy forward. Skip it, at least at first. Start right in with > Hardy's text.) > "A mathematician, like a painter or a poet, is a maker of patterns. If his > patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made > with ideas." -- G. H. Hardy Interesting that you lump mathematics with painting and poetry. All are wortwhile endeavors but none of them put the probe on Jupiter or implement the Dividend Schedule.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 17:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <574dc979.9648864@nntp2.rawbw.com> |
| In reply to | #164078 |
On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:46:13 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >In article <5748866a.9280975@nntp2.rawbw.com>, usenet@only.tnx says... >> >> On Thu, 26 May 2016 07:14:06 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >In article <57455187.10218673@nntp2.rawbw.com>, usenet@only.tnx says... >> >> Disdain for pure math only demonstrates an ignorance of mathematical history. >> >> Prime numbers, factoring, and divisability were all studied by number theorists >> >> for hundreds of years before their modern-day application to cryptography. >> >> The mathematics of complex numbers, matrices, and quaternons were developed >> >> before any practical applications were discovered. It is a bit broad to say >> >> that the pure math of today is the applied math of tomorrow, but that has >> >> happened repeatedly throughout history. >> > >> >I was a pure math major too, and unlike you I actually finished the >> >degree (also physics and mechanical engineering--I understand all three >> >approaches). The higher up you got the less interest there was in any >> >kind of problem solving that was of any relevance to the real world. >> > >> >The tools mathematicians develop may be useful in the real world, but >> >that event is mostly happy coincidence. >> >> You apparently have failed to grasp that pure mathematics, much like pure >> research, is engaged in for its own sake. > >I have quite grasped that. I do not understand why you think it is >relevant. You seem irked by mathematicians who, quelle surprise, want to act like mathematicians and do mathematics. >> Anyone wishing to gain insight into the mindset of mathematicians should read >> "A Mathematician's Apology" by G.H. Hardy. (Note: the most popular printing >> includes a lengthy forward. Skip it, at least at first. Start right in with >> Hardy's text.) > >> "A mathematician, like a painter or a poet, is a maker of patterns. >If his >> patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made >> with ideas." -- G. H. Hardy > >Interesting that you lump mathematics with painting and poetry. It is not I who make the comparision, but G.H. Hardy. But his point is a valid one. More people are still taught geometric proofs first invented by the ancient Greeks than are exposed to their art or poems. >All are worthwhile endeavors but none of them put the probe on Jupiter or >implement the Dividend Schedule. It is beyond me why you would pursue a course of study for which you apparently have little appreciation, when you would rather send probes to Uranus or perform rote arithmetic. I would not judge either of those activities to be more worthwhile or laudable than trying to prove Goldbach's Conjecture.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 16:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <480562728.486417903.908676.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164172 |
Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote: > On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:46:13 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> > wrote: >> In article <5748866a.9280975@nntp2.rawbw.com>, usenet@only.tnx says... >>> >>> On Thu, 26 May 2016 07:14:06 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> In article <57455187.10218673@nntp2.rawbw.com>, usenet@only.tnx says... >>>>> Disdain for pure math only demonstrates an ignorance of mathematical history. >>>>> Prime numbers, factoring, and divisability were all studied by number theorists >>>>> for hundreds of years before their modern-day application to cryptography. >>>>> The mathematics of complex numbers, matrices, and quaternons were developed >>>>> before any practical applications were discovered. It is a bit broad to say >>>>> that the pure math of today is the applied math of tomorrow, but that has >>>>> happened repeatedly throughout history. >>>> >>>> I was a pure math major too, and unlike you I actually finished the >>>> degree (also physics and mechanical engineering--I understand all three >>>> approaches). The higher up you got the less interest there was in any >>>> kind of problem solving that was of any relevance to the real world. >>>> >>>> The tools mathematicians develop may be useful in the real world, but >>>> that event is mostly happy coincidence. >>> >>> You apparently have failed to grasp that pure mathematics, much like pure >>> research, is engaged in for its own sake. >> >> I have quite grasped that. I do not understand why you think it is >> relevant. > > You seem irked by mathematicians who, quelle surprise, want to act like > mathematicians and do mathematics. > > >>> Anyone wishing to gain insight into the mindset of mathematicians should read >>> "A Mathematician's Apology" by G.H. Hardy. (Note: the most popular printing >>> includes a lengthy forward. Skip it, at least at first. Start right in with >>> Hardy's text.) >> >>> "A mathematician, like a painter or a poet, is a maker of patterns. >> If his >>> patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made >>> with ideas." -- G. H. Hardy >> >> Interesting that you lump mathematics with painting and poetry. > > It is not I who make the comparision, but G.H. Hardy. But his point is a valid > one. More people are still taught geometric proofs first invented by the > ancient Greeks than are exposed to their art or poems. > > >> All are worthwhile endeavors but none of them put the probe on Jupiter or >> implement the Dividend Schedule. > > It is beyond me why you would pursue a course of study for which you apparently > have little appreciation, when you would rather send probes to Uranus or perform > rote arithmetic. I would not judge either of those activities to be more > worthwhile or laudable than trying to prove Goldbach's Conjecture. > > You want to try to keep the probe away from Uranus ;-) -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 21:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31b7ff684ce4a3c498a1ee@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164172 |
In article <574dc979.9648864@nntp2.rawbw.com>, usenet@only.tnx says... > > On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:46:13 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> > wrote: > >In article <5748866a.9280975@nntp2.rawbw.com>, usenet@only.tnx says... > >> > >> On Thu, 26 May 2016 07:14:06 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >In article <57455187.10218673@nntp2.rawbw.com>, usenet@only.tnx says... > >> >> Disdain for pure math only demonstrates an ignorance of mathematical history. > >> >> Prime numbers, factoring, and divisability were all studied by number theorists > >> >> for hundreds of years before their modern-day application to cryptography. > >> >> The mathematics of complex numbers, matrices, and quaternons were developed > >> >> before any practical applications were discovered. It is a bit broad to say > >> >> that the pure math of today is the applied math of tomorrow, but that has > >> >> happened repeatedly throughout history. > >> > > >> >I was a pure math major too, and unlike you I actually finished the > >> >degree (also physics and mechanical engineering--I understand all three > >> >approaches). The higher up you got the less interest there was in any > >> >kind of problem solving that was of any relevance to the real world. > >> > > >> >The tools mathematicians develop may be useful in the real world, but > >> >that event is mostly happy coincidence. > >> > >> You apparently have failed to grasp that pure mathematics, much like pure > >> research, is engaged in for its own sake. > > > >I have quite grasped that. I do not understand why you think it is > >relevant. > > You seem irked by mathematicians who, quelle surprise, want to act like > mathematicians and do mathematics. I don't give a crap what mathematicians do when they are not being paid to teach future physicists and engineers. But when they are being paid to teach future physicists and engineers, they should bloody well be teaching them what they need to know instead of a bunch of stuff that is interesting to mathematicians but irrelevant to those students. > >> Anyone wishing to gain insight into the mindset of mathematicians should read > >> "A Mathematician's Apology" by G.H. Hardy. (Note: the most popular printing > >> includes a lengthy forward. Skip it, at least at first. Start right in with > >> Hardy's text.) > > > >> "A mathematician, like a painter or a poet, is a maker of patterns. > >If his > >> patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made > >> with ideas." -- G. H. Hardy > > > >Interesting that you lump mathematics with painting and poetry. > > It is not I who make the comparision, but G.H. Hardy. But his point is a valid > one. More people are still taught geometric proofs first invented by the > ancient Greeks than are exposed to their art or poems. And they promptly forget those proofs as soon as they have passed the test. > >All are worthwhile endeavors but none of them put the probe on Jupiter or > >implement the Dividend Schedule. > > It is beyond me why you would pursue a course of study for which you apparently > have little appreciation, when you would rather send probes to Uranus or perform > rote arithmetic. Mostly because I had some free time in the schedule and no physics or engineering electives that fit. As for performing rote arithmetic, if you think that plotting interplanetary trajectories is "rote arithmetic" I suggest you try it. > I would not judge either of those activities to be more > worthwhile or laudable than trying to prove Goldbach's Conjecture. You insist on making value judgments. The point is not that any of these activities is "more laudable", it is that somebody paid to do one of them needs to have the skills relevant to doing that job, not to doing some other job. And by refusing to teach them how to solve problems, mathematicians deprive them of the skills needed to do any jobs but mathematics. But maybe we should just abolish any math-department requirement for scientists and engineers and instead have the relevant math taught by other scientists and engineers, since mathematicians have more important things to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 08:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160601085850.f4f3560d5fd61eac8b38f9cc@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #164201 |
On Tue, 31 May 2016 21:07:38 -0400
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't give a crap what mathematicians do when they are not being paid
> to teach future physicists and engineers. But when they are being paid
> to teach future physicists and engineers, they should bloody well be
> teaching them what they need to know instead of a bunch of stuff that is
> interesting to mathematicians but irrelevant to those students.
If they did that then when the time came that an obscure piece of
abstract mathematics provided the model that physics desperately needed
there would be no physicists aware of it and so able to have the insight
that moved the field forwards.
Yes most of it is irrelevant, but the one who remembers the bit
that isn't at the right time and sees where it fits gets the Nobel. We
should be doing everything we can to ensure that that person exists.
There is a large gap between mathematics as taught to (potential)
mathematicians and that taught to scientists and an even larger gap to that
for engineers. Mathematicians get the whole thing, scientists get the
stuff they need with some background and exposure to the wider world of
mathematical tools, engineers get the tools they need with a minimum of
background into the stuff phycisists use. This at undergraduate level.
At least that's how it was when I was at college, as a mathematics
student I looked at some of the "Mathematics for Natural Scientists" course
material and thought it very shallow, at least until I saw the engineer's
material.
The serious theoretical physicists were considered mathemeticians
though ("Department of Applied Mathematic and Theoretical Physics"),
their mathematics was well watered down from the airy abstractions of
the pure mathematicians in some ways but it was very rich in technique.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 05:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31b879647ca0df4798a1f5@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164212 |
In article <20160601085850.f4f3560d5fd61eac8b38f9cc@eircom.net>,
steveo@eircom.net says...
>
> On Tue, 31 May 2016 21:07:38 -0400
> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't give a crap what mathematicians do when they are not being paid
> > to teach future physicists and engineers. But when they are being paid
> > to teach future physicists and engineers, they should bloody well be
> > teaching them what they need to know instead of a bunch of stuff that is
> > interesting to mathematicians but irrelevant to those students.
>
> If they did that then when the time came that an obscure piece of
> abstract mathematics provided the model that physics desperately needed
> there would be no physicists aware of it and so able to have the insight
> that moved the field forwards.
The typical math requirement for a physics major is calculus with
differential equations and one additional elective, which is usually
filled by statistics.
In which of those courses is this physicist to be going to learn about
obscure pieces of abstract mathematics?
> Yes most of it is irrelevant, but the one who remembers the bit
> that isn't at the right time and sees where it fits gets the Nobel. We
> should be doing everything we can to ensure that that person exists.
So you're saying that Newton would never have come up with gravitation
if he had not taken a course in abstract mathematics so that he learned
about calculus? Sorry, but he invented calculus himself. And in what
undergraduate math class did Einstein learn about tensor analysis?
>
> There is a large gap between mathematics as taught to (potential)
> mathematicians and that taught to scientists and an even larger gap to that
> for engineers. Mathematicians get the whole thing, scientists get the
> stuff they need with some background and exposure to the wider world of
> mathematical tools, engineers get the tools they need with a minimum of
> background into the stuff phycisists use. This at undergraduate level.
Most schools do not have different courses at that level for math
majors, for engineers, and for physicists. They get one-size-fits-all
and the size that is given is offered is the one for math majors.
> At least that's how it was when I was at college, as a mathematics
> student I looked at some of the "Mathematics for Natural Scientists" course
> material and thought it very shallow, at least until I saw the engineer's
> material.
What school was this?
> The serious theoretical physicists were considered mathemeticians
> though ("Department of Applied Mathematic and Theoretical Physics"),
> their mathematics was well watered down from the airy abstractions of
> the pure mathematicians in some ways but it was very rich in technique.
Sounds like you went to Cambridge. I'm sure that Cambridge, as one of
the premier educational institutions in the world, does things a bit
better than the average state university.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 12:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <flo22d-d28.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #164218 |
In article <MPG.31b879647ca0df4798a1f5@news.eternal-september.org>,
J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <20160601085850.f4f3560d5fd61eac8b38f9cc@eircom.net>,
>steveo@eircom.net says...
>>
>> On Tue, 31 May 2016 21:07:38 -0400
>> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I don't give a crap what mathematicians do when they are not being paid
>> > to teach future physicists and engineers. But when they are being paid
>> > to teach future physicists and engineers, they should bloody well be
>> > teaching them what they need to know instead of a bunch of stuff that is
>> > interesting to mathematicians but irrelevant to those students.
>>
>> If they did that then when the time came that an obscure piece of
>> abstract mathematics provided the model that physics desperately needed
>> there would be no physicists aware of it and so able to have the insight
>> that moved the field forwards.
>
>The typical math requirement for a physics major is calculus with
>differential equations and one additional elective, which is usually
>filled by statistics.
>
>In which of those courses is this physicist to be going to learn about
>obscure pieces of abstract mathematics?
>
>> Yes most of it is irrelevant, but the one who remembers the bit
>> that isn't at the right time and sees where it fits gets the Nobel. We
>> should be doing everything we can to ensure that that person exists.
>
>So you're saying that Newton would never have come up with gravitation
>if he had not taken a course in abstract mathematics so that he learned
>about calculus? Sorry, but he invented calculus himself. And in what
>undergraduate math class did Einstein learn about tensor analysis?
They had to invent a lot. But they both had a big struggle with getting
the math right. Einstein sent out several requests for help when he was
embarking on general relativity sometime prior to 1910.
Maxwell did a lot for Einstein, because the same framwork could be
adapted for the start of his work on relativity, and then he was on to
the solution.
>> There is a large gap between mathematics as taught to (potential)
>> mathematicians and that taught to scientists and an even larger gap to that
>> for engineers. Mathematicians get the whole thing, scientists get the
>> stuff they need with some background and exposure to the wider world of
>> mathematical tools, engineers get the tools they need with a minimum of
>> background into the stuff phycisists use. This at undergraduate level.
>
>Most schools do not have different courses at that level for math
>majors, for engineers, and for physicists. They get one-size-fits-all
>and the size that is given is offered is the one for math majors.
>
>> At least that's how it was when I was at college, as a mathematics
>> student I looked at some of the "Mathematics for Natural Scientists" course
>> material and thought it very shallow, at least until I saw the engineer's
>> material.
>
>What school was this?
>
>> The serious theoretical physicists were considered mathemeticians
>> though ("Department of Applied Mathematic and Theoretical Physics"),
>> their mathematics was well watered down from the airy abstractions of
>> the pure mathematicians in some ways but it was very rich in technique.
>
>Sounds like you went to Cambridge. I'm sure that Cambridge, as one of
>the premier educational institutions in the world, does things a bit
>better than the average state university.
-- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 06:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31b88728f238af0798a1f8@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164219 |
In article <flo22d-d28.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>,
first@last.name.invalid says...
>
> In article <MPG.31b879647ca0df4798a1f5@news.eternal-september.org>,
> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <20160601085850.f4f3560d5fd61eac8b38f9cc@eircom.net>,
> >steveo@eircom.net says...
> >>
> >> On Tue, 31 May 2016 21:07:38 -0400
> >> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I don't give a crap what mathematicians do when they are not being paid
> >> > to teach future physicists and engineers. But when they are being paid
> >> > to teach future physicists and engineers, they should bloody well be
> >> > teaching them what they need to know instead of a bunch of stuff that is
> >> > interesting to mathematicians but irrelevant to those students.
> >>
> >> If they did that then when the time came that an obscure piece of
> >> abstract mathematics provided the model that physics desperately needed
> >> there would be no physicists aware of it and so able to have the insight
> >> that moved the field forwards.
> >
> >The typical math requirement for a physics major is calculus with
> >differential equations and one additional elective, which is usually
> >filled by statistics.
> >
> >In which of those courses is this physicist to be going to learn about
> >obscure pieces of abstract mathematics?
> >
> >> Yes most of it is irrelevant, but the one who remembers the bit
> >> that isn't at the right time and sees where it fits gets the Nobel. We
> >> should be doing everything we can to ensure that that person exists.
> >
> >So you're saying that Newton would never have come up with gravitation
> >if he had not taken a course in abstract mathematics so that he learned
> >about calculus? Sorry, but he invented calculus himself. And in what
> >undergraduate math class did Einstein learn about tensor analysis?
>
> They had to invent a lot. But they both had a big struggle with getting
> the math right. Einstein sent out several requests for help when he was
> embarking on general relativity sometime prior to 1910.
Note--he asked for help, he didn't use obscure abstract math that he
learned in freshman calculus.
> Maxwell did a lot for Einstein, because the same framwork could be
> adapted for the start of his work on relativity, and then he was on to
> the solution.
And Maxwell's Equations would have been covered in a physics curriculum,
not a math curriculum.
> >> There is a large gap between mathematics as taught to (potential)
> >> mathematicians and that taught to scientists and an even larger gap to that
> >> for engineers. Mathematicians get the whole thing, scientists get the
> >> stuff they need with some background and exposure to the wider world of
> >> mathematical tools, engineers get the tools they need with a minimum of
> >> background into the stuff phycisists use. This at undergraduate level.
> >
> >Most schools do not have different courses at that level for math
> >majors, for engineers, and for physicists. They get one-size-fits-all
> >and the size that is given is offered is the one for math majors.
> >
> >> At least that's how it was when I was at college, as a mathematics
> >> student I looked at some of the "Mathematics for Natural Scientists" course
> >> material and thought it very shallow, at least until I saw the engineer's
> >> material.
> >
> >What school was this?
> >
> >> The serious theoretical physicists were considered mathemeticians
> >> though ("Department of Applied Mathematic and Theoretical Physics"),
> >> their mathematics was well watered down from the airy abstractions of
> >> the pure mathematicians in some ways but it was very rich in technique.
> >
> >Sounds like you went to Cambridge. I'm sure that Cambridge, as one of
> >the premier educational institutions in the world, does things a bit
> >better than the average state university.
>
> -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sidd@situ.com (sidd) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 16:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nisnup$5h2$1@Lazarus.situ.com> |
| In reply to | #164219 |
In article <flo22d-d28.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: > >They had to invent a lot. But they both had a big struggle with getting >the math right. Einstein sent out several requests for help when he was >embarking on general relativity sometime prior to 1910. should have asked levi-civita, would have saved a lot of time not reinventing tensor caalculus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 20:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31bbef9470a61e5c98a20c@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164434 |
In article <nisnup$5h2$1@Lazarus.situ.com>, sidd@situ.com says... > > In article <flo22d-d28.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>, > Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: > > > >They had to invent a lot. But they both had a big struggle with getting > >the math right. Einstein sent out several requests for help when he was > >embarking on general relativity sometime prior to 1910. > > should have asked levi-civita, would have saved a lot of time > not reinventing tensor caalculus He did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sidd@situ.com (sidd) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 22:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nj02pt$62i$1@Lazarus.situ.com> |
| In reply to | #164449 |
In article <MPG.31bbef9470a61e5c98a20c@news.eternal-september.org>, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >In article <nisnup$5h2$1@Lazarus.situ.com>, sidd@situ.com says... >> >> In article <flo22d-d28.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>, >> Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: >> > >> >They had to invent a lot. But they both had a big struggle with getting >> >the math right. Einstein sent out several requests for help when he was >> >embarking on general relativity sometime prior to 1910. >> >> should have asked levi-civita, would have saved a lot of time >> not reinventing tensor caalculus > >He did. not until 1912 or 1913. He was unaware of Levi-CIvita's work from 1901, unti Grossmann told him see, e.g http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Zurich_Notebook/ sidd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 12:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160601122757.a4be18c208a3e7270a9bb10d@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #164218 |
On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 05:48:26 -0400 "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > So you're saying that Newton would never have come up with gravitation > if he had not taken a course in abstract mathematics so that he learned > about calculus? Sorry, but he invented calculus himself. And in what > undergraduate math class did Einstein learn about tensor analysis? No, I'm saying that they both would have had an easier time expressing what they had in their minds if they had known of a suitable language, instead they had to invent the language themselves - a rare talent. There are examples such as the application of group theory to quantum mechanics where the physicist was spared the necessity of inventing a branch of mathematics to do his work. > Sounds like you went to Cambridge. I did. > I'm sure that Cambridge, as one of > the premier educational institutions in the world, does things a bit > better than the average state university. From the sounds of it, quite a lot better, but I think the pattern is common in UK universities. The one size fits all courses sound more like the old UK A levels. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 17:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31b918a98869b6898a200@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164232 |
In article <20160601122757.a4be18c208a3e7270a9bb10d@eircom.net>, steveo@eircom.net says... > > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 05:48:26 -0400 > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > > So you're saying that Newton would never have come up with gravitation > > if he had not taken a course in abstract mathematics so that he learned > > about calculus? Sorry, but he invented calculus himself. And in what > > undergraduate math class did Einstein learn about tensor analysis? > > No, I'm saying that they both would have had an easier time > expressing what they had in their minds if they had known of a suitable > language, instead they had to invent the language themselves - a rare > talent. There are examples such as the application of group theory to > quantum mechanics where the physicist was spared the necessity of inventing > a branch of mathematics to do his work. So where would Newton get this "suitable language" given that calculus did not exist until he invented it? > > Sounds like you went to Cambridge. > > I did. > > > I'm sure that Cambridge, as one of > > the premier educational institutions in the world, does things a bit > > better than the average state university. > > From the sounds of it, quite a lot better, but I think the pattern > is common in UK universities. The one size fits all courses sound more like > the old UK A levels. Or most US universities.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 08:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160602081214.9a900eda9f2040df36c784a4@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #164289 |
On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:07:43 -0400 "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <20160601122757.a4be18c208a3e7270a9bb10d@eircom.net>, > steveo@eircom.net says... > > > > No, I'm saying that they both would have had an easier time > > expressing what they had in their minds if they had known of a suitable > > language, instead they had to invent the language themselves - a rare > > talent. There are examples such as the application of group theory to > > quantum mechanics where the physicist was spared the necessity of > > inventing a branch of mathematics to do his work. > > So where would Newton get this "suitable language" given that calculus > did not exist until he invented it? Someone else might have got it from Leibnitz if Newton hadn't got there first. Newton wasn't lucky enough to have the mathematics he needed available, neither was Einstein. Most other physicists have been more lucky and found the mathematics they needed already available - which is the observation this thread started with, and a good thing too because Newtons and Einsteins don't come by very often. > > From the sounds of it, quite a lot better, but I think the > > pattern is common in UK universities. The one size fits all courses > > sound more like the old UK A levels. > > Or most US universities. But A levels were the final (optional) two years of school not university. A maths A level would leave you with a grounding in calculus (not including PDEs), algebra (not beyond group theory) and statistics. Leaving university courses that required one to concentrate on the more specialised areas needed for their courses. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 19:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31ba91a63f2b24bb98a206@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164298 |
In article <20160602081214.9a900eda9f2040df36c784a4@eircom.net>, steveo@eircom.net says... > > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:07:43 -0400 > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > > In article <20160601122757.a4be18c208a3e7270a9bb10d@eircom.net>, > > steveo@eircom.net says... > > > > > > No, I'm saying that they both would have had an easier time > > > expressing what they had in their minds if they had known of a suitable > > > language, instead they had to invent the language themselves - a rare > > > talent. There are examples such as the application of group theory to > > > quantum mechanics where the physicist was spared the necessity of > > > inventing a branch of mathematics to do his work. > > > > So where would Newton get this "suitable language" given that calculus > > did not exist until he invented it? > > Someone else might have got it from Leibnitz if Newton hadn't got > there first. Newton wasn't lucky enough to have the mathematics he needed > available, neither was Einstein. Most other physicists have been more lucky > and found the mathematics they needed already available - which is the > observation this thread started with, and a good thing too because Newtons > and Einsteins don't come by very often. > > > > From the sounds of it, quite a lot better, but I think the > > > pattern is common in UK universities. The one size fits all courses > > > sound more like the old UK A levels. > > > > Or most US universities. > > But A levels were the final (optional) two years of school not > university. A maths A level would leave you with a grounding in calculus > (not including PDEs), algebra (not beyond group theory) and statistics. > Leaving university courses that required one to concentrate on the more > specialised areas needed for their courses. In the US high schools that teach calculus are rare and high schools that teach anything at all _well_ are almost nonexistent. American students first exposure to calculus is generally at the university level and there their first three semesters of math are spent learning how do do proofs, not how to solve problems. Now you can argue that some physicist somewhere is going to make some monumental breakthrough because he rote-memorized some proof from Freshman calculus if you want to, but I'm not buying it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web