Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by IdiotsOpposite, Jan 30, 2012.

1. ### uppiDeity

Joined:
Feb 2, 2007
Messages:
4,574
Sorry, I can't recommend anything. The course material and even the textbook I read on the subject was in German.

Yes, constructs are not necessarily applicable, but it is quite hard to find any mathematical construct that has not yet been used (or abused) for some application outside of pure mathematics.

This careful reasoning about convergence is exactly what physicists usually don't bother with. Until proven otherwise we just assume it converges and go right ahead. If we notice along the way that it doesn't, we try another approach, but as long as a technique works we don't care much about proving that it is applicable.

2. ### Leoreth心の怪盗団Moderator

Joined:
Aug 23, 2009
Messages:
33,455
Gender:
Male
Location:
Leblanc
Got the joke only after you pointed it out. Oh my.

New question: do you have a favourite math joke?

Joined:
Apr 4, 2007
Messages:
21,810
Location:
Liverpool, home of Everton FC
What's purple and commutes?

An Abelian grape.

4. ### RashiminosFool Prophet

Joined:
Feb 1, 2006
Messages:
6,717
Location:
The Border.
Are there any non-abelian food groups?

Joined:
Apr 4, 2007
Messages:
21,810
Location:
Liverpool, home of Everton FC
Hot cross product buns?

6. ### pi-r8Luddite

Joined:
May 1, 2006
Messages:
2,457
Location:
Babylon
At the risk of a huge over-generalization, I would say that physics requires more creativity, while mathematics requires more rigor.

7. ### Akkon888한국 사람

Joined:
Mar 20, 2009
Messages:
358
Location:
서울
RPN or in-fix?

8. ### uppiDeity

Joined:
Feb 2, 2007
Messages:
4,574
I wouldn't say that physics requires more creativity. I think you need quite some creativity to think of a new proof. I would rather say that physics requires the ability to approximate, to determine which terms are important and which can be neglected.

Without simplifying a problem by dropping the irrelevant effects, you don't get very far in physics. So you have to leave behind the mathematical rigor and focus on the important part while ignoring the unimportant. To distinguish these is one of the main skills of physicists.

In mathematics the quest for absolute proofs does not allow for approximations, so you have to be rigorous and cannot just drop unimportant terms. Almost proving a theorem does not count for anything.

Joined:
Mar 10, 2007
Messages:
2,718
Location:
America.
I looked up RPN and am honestly surprised anyone speaks of that with a straight face.

10. ### SpiritWolfWarlord

Joined:
Mar 14, 2006
Messages:
255

What's your survival strategy for real analysis? It has a nasty tendency to break people.

Joined:
Mar 10, 2007
Messages:
2,718
Location:
America.
My strategy - figure out what book I'm assigned, and read every chapter of it before the class begins.

Twice.

12. ### pi-r8Luddite

Joined:
May 1, 2006
Messages:
2,457
Location:
Babylon
Sure, I agree. But don't you think that being able to "bend the rules" like that is a form of creativity? Not to mention the creativity involved in designing good experiments.

13. ### azzaman333meh

Joined:
Apr 9, 2005
Messages:
22,877
Location:
Melbourne, AUS Reputation:131^(9/2)
Why are statisticians so much better than mathematicians?

14. ### gangleri2001Garbage day!!!

Joined:
Sep 30, 2007
Messages:
3,918
Gender:
Male
Location:
Caldes de Montbui, Großkatalonien
I don't know if is it me that I'm stupid or that the concept is really hard to get. You see, an operator's arity is a concept easy to get for the most common forms of it (nullary, unary and binary), but it's hard to get when you reach ternary level. I assume that ternary operators work pretty much like a transistor, but what about quaternary or other n-ary operators? And what about a multary (that accept many arities)? I cannot imagine operators like these but maybe you can enlighten me.

15. ### uppiDeity

Joined:
Feb 2, 2007
Messages:
4,574
Of course it is a form of creativity. But I also consider the ability to apply the rules in new ways to get a new proof a form of creativity. So I wouldn't say one group is more creative than the other.

16. ### IntegralCan't you hear it?

Joined:
Apr 12, 2007
Messages:
4,021
Location:
Boston, MA
I shivered when I saw that picture.

No lie.

--

The good way to read Rudin:

Start at page one. Read until you come to the word Theorem. Do not read the proof. Prove it yourself. Or at least try. If you get stuck read a line or two until you see what to do.

Thrust, repeat.

If you make it through the first six or seven chaptors like this then there shall be no power in the verse that can stop you. Enjoy graduate school. You half way there.

17. ### AtticusDeityRetired Moderator

Joined:
Aug 20, 2006
Messages:
3,666
Location:
Helsinki, Finland
Rudin isn't probably the easiest book to read as the first one on the subject. I'd recommend Avner Friedman's Foundations of Modern Analysis, which is a bit simpler.

Of course it's given that you don't read math books. You must try proving things yourself.

18. ### RashiminosFool Prophet

Joined:
Feb 1, 2006
Messages:
6,717
Location:
The Border.
You've had a calculus course. Some of the material will be familiar, but now you have to deal with the why.

(Actually, if you've had a discrete math course where proofs were done, you already have a good beginning).

Joined:
Apr 4, 2007
Messages:
21,810
Location:
Liverpool, home of Everton FC
Analysis isn't hard, it's just weird applying rigour to topics which previously haven't required it.

You can always post in my maths thread in sci/tech if you want help.