Well, "taking away the ignorance out of a person" is more or less what education does.
If, after you have been educated about your false beliefs, you are still just as confident of them --- then you are indeed truly, truly stupid.
Quantum Chaos Theory
- Thread starter becomingagodo
- Start date
Well, "taking away the ignorance out of a person" is more or less what education does.
If, after you have been educated about your false beliefs, you are still just as confident of them --- then you are indeed truly, truly stupid.
All right, I'll call your bluff.
At what point does the function -2x^3 + 3x^2 - 2x + 7 acheive a local maximum?
Or here's a slightly harder one. If you have a capacitor with capacitance C and internal
resistance R, driven by a voltage source V, the equation for the charge Q at time t is
R(dQ/dt) + Q/C -V = 0
Assuming that at t=0, the capacitor is empty (Q=0), how long will it take to fill the capacitor halfway up?
Please solve these problems without using calculus.
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
So it was a joke. Just like your claim the the Riemann Hypothesis had been proven was a joke. Well, at least you're safe now - I think you've bottomed-out on credibility.
You don't like calculus, yet you don't have a clue about what calculus is.
Once again, you have neither the basis for, nor the right to, an opinion on that subject. You haven't earned it.
Calculators! Wonderful tools for those who know how to do the math manually; excuses not to learn for those who don't. If you can't do it manually, you don't know it, and are likely not to recognize mistakes when they are made.
I wonder why people are still offering and taking calculus classes if actually doing calculus is so 'last week'.
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
No one, apart from you, has suggested that any of them are idiots.
This is a difficult problem that has challenged mathematicians of the first water for many years. Its proof or disproof is of great importance to mathematics, for many works of mathematics assume that the RH is true.
We don't even know if it possible, theoretically, to prove or disprove it. It may, for example, be true but not provable (Goedel strikes again).
You think that math is the only thing worth studying, and you don't even like calculus? Do you have any idea how pervasive calculus?
Oh, go on, I'd like to see your "tricks" to solve calculus problems without calculus.
This isn't the first time you've mentioned some "trick" to math. Now, I'm very much near the beginning of my mathematical journey here, but I think the more experienced mathematicians on here would agree with me that reliance on "tricks" is sloppy, and defeats much of the purpose of studying math in the first place.
Thing
...now with added haecceity!
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2005
- Messages
- 510
For anyone who actually cares, here's a survey of Quantum Chaos, though not without maths.
http://www.phy.bris.ac.uk/people/berry_mv/the_papers/Berry163.pdf
More by the same author here:
http://www.phy.bris.ac.uk/people/berry_mv/publications.html
http://www.phy.bris.ac.uk/people/berry_mv/the_papers/Berry163.pdf
More by the same author here:
http://www.phy.bris.ac.uk/people/berry_mv/publications.html
Jimbo07
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,518
Do tables count as 'tricks?'
And MATLAB is lazy...
What? Only 27 integrations-by-parts for this question? Hand me that pencil...
becomingagodo
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2007
- Messages
- 695
Use a T4 calculator
I haven't read that book, I'm planning to read the book about next year.
New maths, the way forward.
Archimedes and Ramanujan relied on tricks. The point of maths is not to be a robot.
Everyone assumes it is true, I think Turing was the first person to try and disprove it. Isn't maths mean't to be objective.
How would the Riemann hypothesis be a paradox, I reckon their is proberly a simple disproof of the Riemann hypothesis however mathematician are just looking to prove it. Well, I am not hearing that RH is going to be disproven soon.
Nobody likes calculus, if you did you would be a freak of nature.
Oh? Why is this relevant? Answer the problems drkitten posed without calculus or withdraw your utterly ridiculous statement that everyting can be solved without calculus.
Jimbo07
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,518
Use MATLAB
A different book for max/min problems? That's not calculus in 20 minutes, that's calculus in 20 years!
I've always wondered: what is 'New math,' anyway? Can anyone summarize?
So THAT'S the point of math... I was wondering.
When your 'reckoning' leads to a publishable disproof, let us know!
Nice! A succinct summary of a high school junior's attitude looking at next year's schedule...
"New Math" is an overly formal approach to teaching elementary school mathematics that was popular in the United States about forty years ago. Instead of starting from arithmetic, it tried to follow the Russell-Whitehead-Bourbaki approach and start from set theory and logic.
It wasn't especially successful, in part because Mrs. Entwhistle of Jefferson Hills Elementary never learned set theory or logic, so how do you expect her to teach it?
Here's Wikipedia's take.
Last edited:
becomingagodo
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2007
- Messages
- 695
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Calculus-An...8743113?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188509543&sr=1-6
Lazy, you picked the book with the least pages in it. Well, Complexity I am dissapointed.
Okay I withdraw my claim.
That concepts are more important then being a machine. You know reasoning instead of rote memory.
At a guess, the same way Chaitin's theorem is. Oh,.... you probably don't know that one, either.
becomingagodo
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2007
- Messages
- 695
I hardly see the comparison between Chaitin's theorem and RH. As I don't see the connection between Berry Paradox and RH.
Jimbo07
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,518
Meh... I liked drk's answer better...
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
BAGO:
You can't use a calculator effectively if you don't understand the math behind it.
A lot of calculus is knowing how to use the tools that calculus offers on the specific problem you are trying to solve. Without substantial experience, you won't have gained the judgement you'll need to use the calculus effectively.
You won't find a calculator that will do everything that you need to do.
If you haven't read a book, why are you recommending it?
Calculus is foundational in mathematics. You won't be able to evade it if you wish to learn mathematics.
So you think there is a 'new mathematics' that you can jump to without learning the foundations of mathematics?
Which tricks did Archimedes and Ramanujan rely upon? Be specific.
Ramanujan came up with some astonishing results, and I doubt that many people have a clue as to how he arrived at them. That does not mean he used 'tricks'. I don't think that he left many traces of how he came up with result.
You ask if math isn't supposed to be objective. That depends on what you think 'objective' means. True? Consistent with reality? Something that you agree with? I don't think that your question has meaning.
Who said anything about 'paradox'? A statement's being true but not provable does not make it a paradox. This is something that a person who claims to know Goedel's work should know - it pertains to the heart of his most celebrated result.
Many mathematicians do not think that the Riemann Hypothesis is true; many think that it is. There have been many attempts to prove it and many attempts to disprove it. None have been successful. A proof or disproof may indeed be simple once it is found, but finding it has proven to be very difficult.
For any sufficiently complex mathematical theory, there are statements that are true (theorems) but can not be proven to be true within that theory. The mathematics that we use (incorporating second-order predicate logic) is sufficiently complex to have this property. Sometimes, we can prove that a statement is in this category of unprovable theorems.
Sometimes, we can prove that, within a theory, a true statement is unprovable.
Many people like calculus; some think is it beautiful. Many have devoted their lives to its development. It is one of the most useful things that humans have devised / discovered.
Why do I get the feeling that you will find anything that requires any work to be beneath you?
You can't use a calculator effectively if you don't understand the math behind it.
A lot of calculus is knowing how to use the tools that calculus offers on the specific problem you are trying to solve. Without substantial experience, you won't have gained the judgement you'll need to use the calculus effectively.
You won't find a calculator that will do everything that you need to do.
If you haven't read a book, why are you recommending it?
Calculus is foundational in mathematics. You won't be able to evade it if you wish to learn mathematics.
So you think there is a 'new mathematics' that you can jump to without learning the foundations of mathematics?
Which tricks did Archimedes and Ramanujan rely upon? Be specific.
Ramanujan came up with some astonishing results, and I doubt that many people have a clue as to how he arrived at them. That does not mean he used 'tricks'. I don't think that he left many traces of how he came up with result.
You ask if math isn't supposed to be objective. That depends on what you think 'objective' means. True? Consistent with reality? Something that you agree with? I don't think that your question has meaning.
Who said anything about 'paradox'? A statement's being true but not provable does not make it a paradox. This is something that a person who claims to know Goedel's work should know - it pertains to the heart of his most celebrated result.
Many mathematicians do not think that the Riemann Hypothesis is true; many think that it is. There have been many attempts to prove it and many attempts to disprove it. None have been successful. A proof or disproof may indeed be simple once it is found, but finding it has proven to be very difficult.
For any sufficiently complex mathematical theory, there are statements that are true (theorems) but can not be proven to be true within that theory. The mathematics that we use (incorporating second-order predicate logic) is sufficiently complex to have this property. Sometimes, we can prove that a statement is in this category of unprovable theorems.
Sometimes, we can prove that, within a theory, a true statement is unprovable.
Many people like calculus; some think is it beautiful. Many have devoted their lives to its development. It is one of the most useful things that humans have devised / discovered.
Why do I get the feeling that you will find anything that requires any work to be beneath you?
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
You fool. The introductory book that I learned from (second edition, not seventh) was written in 1972. I started my calculus sequence in 1974. The book I used had 900 pages of text and problems.
I neither know nor particularly care how long current calculus texts are. It is meaningless to compare these books by their lengths - what matters is which topics are covered, the quality of the presentation, and the number and quality of the problems.
Just being picky, I didn't pick the book - the mathematics department did.
I'm 'dissapointed', too.
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
Since you don't understand any of the three, even superficially, I'm not at all surprised.
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
This is the recipe for becoming a pretentious and useless person.
First of all, you are a machine - a biological machine. So am I.
At least one of us has the ability to learn and reason.
You need knowledge, rote memorization, reason, and creativity. Fancying yourself a 'concepts' guy won't wash.
You skip like a stone across an ocean of knowlege, thinking that you have mastered the ocean when you are merely wet.
becomingagodo
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2007
- Messages
- 695
This is making me too angry, I will post in a weeks time when I have learnt calculus, bye for now.
On another note, Complixity do you believe in mathematical intuition? As I suspect you don't, being a fan of Turing.
On another note, Complixity do you believe in mathematical intuition? As I suspect you don't, being a fan of Turing.