<p>some would disagree that physics is an expression of mathematics. It is a sort of separate though very intimately connected field. It is indeed somewhat bizarre that math has worked to well in modelling the universe.</p>
<p>[The</a> Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences](<a href=“http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html]The”>http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah I think that people who say stuff like this have a misunderstanding of the goals of both disciplines. It is more like mathematics is an incredibly useful tool for describing how the world works.</p>
<p>Perhaps you misunderstood what I said by taking that quote out of context. Notice the line before, I made your exact argument by saying, “The field of mathematics is kind of the end all be all of science since it can <strong>describe</strong> and predict (whether we know how to or not) any process in all the other sciences.” Of course the goals are different in the two majors. For a simple example, that’s why a PhD in math doesn’t get to play with billion dollar lasers. But essentially, there is nothing in the world that cannot be modeled or described ultimately by mathematics. That’s why everything else is some sort of expression of mathematics… It helps to read things in context before opening your mouth.</p>
<p>Snap.
…</p>
<p>could mathematics have predicted your overblown response to my post???</p>
<p>I’ll nitpick your post even more. Normally, I wouldn’t be such a baby about this, but your response pretty much invited it. The idea that mathematics can predict any process in the sciences is pretty silly. </p>
<p>One can’t hope to understand how the world works by sitting in a room doing mathematics. Yeah, you could argue that some (maybe a lot? i’m not that familiar with the subject) advances in physics were due to looking at implications of the current theory and later investigating them in experiment. But these theories are only expressed with mathematics and aren’t math themselves.</p>
<p>Cool it, you two. No more looking for reasons to argue.</p>
<p>Pure mathematics pioneers areas of application. Without abstract algebra, there would be no general relativity. Without Ramanujan’s exploits in pure math, there would be no modern crystallography. </p>
<p>Anyone concerned with the “ultimate goal” of mathematics is probably a “philosophy of math” major and is considered a pansy within the field (unless the person is in mathematical logic, in which case he is considered a god). This is what a grad student tells me, anyway.</p>
<p>As for the original question:
As a potential pure math major, my understanding is that pure math is harder than engineering, for the average student. This shouldn’t deter you from either field though. Just do what you like.</p>
<p>no need to cool it here. im pretty cool right now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>uhhh it is likely (i say likely because i’m not even close to being familiar with any of those subjects) that they’d still be there. it is just that they wouldn’t have certain math results to rely upon or an elegant framework to sit in.</p>
<p>Yes, which is what I meant. </p>
<p>And if not you, then the other guy. I don’t want this dumb argument to continue.</p>
<p>well it’s not at all close to what you typed booya</p>
<p>silence_kit 1
subroutine 0</p>
<p>To be fair, general relativity requires group theory. Einstein needed the likes of Emmy Noether to work out the abstract algebra. Plus, my mention of “modern crystallography” encompasses your sentiments perfectly.</p>
<p>These technicalities aside, I hope my point is clear to everyone.</p>
<p>“But essentially, there is nothing in the world that cannot be modeled or described ultimately by mathematics.”</p>
<p>dude… this is what I was saying was not necessarily true. I even posted a link. I mean, isn’t it sort of weird (and unreasonable even) that math has proven to be so useful in modeling the world?</p>
<p>The reason I called you out is that, you said physics is to math what chemistry is to physics. That is certainly wrong. From physics, you should in principle be able to generate the laws of chemistry (a priori). But it is not true that you should be able to generate the laws of physics from math (a priori). That’s why physics use experiment as its ultimate arbiter of truth, and why physics never claims to actually hold truth in its palm as mathematics does.</p>
<p>by the way he was quoting me, not you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>dang i should have just written that instead of all my words. you can’t arrive at fundamental physical principles by doing a math problem. </p>
<p>physicists don’t just dream up stuff and then poof! it becomes established theory.</p>
<p>err i meant </p>
<p>mathematicians don’t just dream up stuff and then poof! it becomes established physical theory.</p>
<p>But you were quoting my post. If I thought you were the ignorant one I would have called you out, but your reply had some intellectual value without the contest attitude that’s running rampant on this forum between engineers / physicists / mathematicians.</p>
<p>Besides, I pretty much acknowledged the position that pure math can’t come up with physical laws by saying, “It can describe and predict (whether we know how to or not) any process in all the other sciences.” There is a reason why I included “whether we know how to or not”, because logically you can’t create a new physical law from a mathematical theorem (which I never said). My point was that mathematics is expressed through all other sciences, not that all other sciences are somehow innately subject to pure mathematics… I tend to look at it this way. The relationship between math and science is somewhat like that of the linux or dos operating systems and the graphical user interface on a computer. The formal language and commands are meaningless to most people and it would be absurd to think that physics could be learned through studying only math. The physics is what we see, and if we observe the physics (or the graphical user interface) enough, we can start to see how math (or the formal operating system language) defines the tangible processes. It is not as if I said math gave birth to physics. The general point I was trying to get at was that physics cannot be expressed without mathematics. It can be observed on its own, but not expressed.</p>
<p>i don’t see why you need to get so angry. i’m having fun here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>uh this is a terrible analogy. you aren’t going to gain insight into the linux kernel by staring at your desktop background.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>yeah it could. it would be very awkward and imprecise, I imagine, but it could be done. i think some philosopher at one time reformulated the laws of physics by avoiding math. i’ll post a link to it when i find it.</p>
<p>I’m not angry. This isn’t a matter of anger. It is simply a matter of reason.</p>
<p>I don’t want to come across as a jerk, because I’m actually not angry… On the other hand, with regard to my analogy we’re both right… I should have been a little more clear. A person should know a little basis in linux or dos, but they need not to be an expert. If they test the graphical user interface (or do physics experiments) they can use their basic knowledge of the formal commands (or mathematics) to make connections and describe how things work… It’s probably a better analogy if we use programming language such as c, java, or matlab etc… I’m actually doing this kind of research right now in CT scan simulation software that is designed with a programming language I’ve never used before, so I know it can be done… By curiosity, what major are you?</p>
<p>im EE 2 the bone</p>
<p>Well, since you’re an engineer I like you. Haha. That may be childish reasoning on my part, but then again, it may too late for that after our drawn out debate. Haha… In any case, way to be an engineer.</p>