<p>"As far as hot engineering chicks, many of the hot ones are in ChemE."</p>
<p>Whoo! But hey guys stop talking about the engineering girls like we're a bunch of lookers ourselves. There are just as many mutant guys as girls. The saying goes, "Guy Engineers: The odds are good but the goods are odd." And btw, Cindy Crawford was a ChemE. And I hear a damn good one at that. Can you imagine having her in your class.</p>
<p>Btw, The hottest girl I have ever met was a chem major. Just thought I'd throw that out there.</p>
<p>I've once read this paper, but could not really understand it. Now this paper is not a 'great' mathematics paper and there's possibility that the lack of neccesary foundation fails me to understand it better. But take a look and see if you can understand it with engineering math background.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Erm...any proof of that? Not sure I get the validity of that as an argument...at all...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It was not purported as an argument, I simply tried to explain the different nature of difficulty in maths and engineering. Of course it's extremely difficult to <em>innovate</em> Viterbi's algorithm, but it's not extremely difficult to <em>understand</em> it.</p>
I've once read this paper, but could not really understand it. Now this paper is not a 'great' mathematics paper and there's possibility that the lack of neccesary foundation fails me to understand it better. But take a look and see if you can understand it with engineering math background.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now that is just the point isn't it? You only perceive math to be harder because your background is in engineering and not in theoretical math. </p>
<p>Just as easily I can pull out a chapter out of a virtual work textbook and a mathematician wouldn't get the physical/engineering applications at all without some outside guidance.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To give you an example: you can understand a complicated engineering theorem if someone is there to guide your flow of thinking, in contrast you may not be able to understand a math concept even if Eric Demaine is there with you for 24 hours.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Someone with a strong engineering background but a weaker theoretical math background will necessarily have an easier time understanding engineering proofs/concepts than math concepts.</p>
<p>Again, this just reflects your particular strengths and weaknesses</p>
<p>I dont see the argument here. math is just plain harder. not necessarily as a major because that can vary, but as a subject it's not even debatable. the foundation of physics is math and the foundation of engineering is physics. engineers use math on a daily basis, math they find most convenient, when was the last time you saw a mathematician rely on engineering to develop a new theorem or sort out a proof? The more fundamental something is, the more conceptually difficult because that's where the framework is laid, and that's where looms most of the uncharted territory. of course anyone from any area of study can pull out of a string of technical terms and super-difficult concepts that have yet to be explored to satisfaction. but even you admit yourself, the more difficult a concept in engineering, the closer it comes to theoretical math. there, you may have an idea what it's like to study mathematics.</p>
<p>now the world needs its engineers as it needs its mathematicians, and not all mathematicians would make great engineers, but far fewer engineers would make great mathematicians.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I dont see the argument here. math is just plain harder. not necessarily as a major because that can vary, but as a subject it's not even debatable.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So you admit that yourself engineering may be harder than math as a major. Which has been my point. Now what you seem to be trying to get across is that "conceptually" math is harder than engineering.. Which I don't agree with either.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but even you admit yourself, the more difficult a concept in engineering, the closer it comes to theoretical math. there, you may have an idea what it's like to study mathematics.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My point is that it is impossible to extricate the two. They are two sides of the same coin. Engineering is fundamentally based on theoretical math. Engineering classes don't delve into the theory as much as a mathematician would but all those "engineering" equations-- Navier-Stokes, Conservation of Momentum, Hamiltonian Mechanics, Lagrangian Mechanics, the Principle of Virtual Work..etc when you look at them up close are nothing more than theoretical mathematical formulations.</p>
<p>For this reason, you can't say that conceptually math is harder to understand than engineering.. The approaches taken in standard classes may be different but as to which one is more conceptually difficult to understand, the theoretical side of engineering is just as hard.
This is why I have trouble with statements such as "Physics and Math are INHERENTLY harder than Engineering." Clearly, such a statement is false.
That would be like saying lions are cats, but tigers aren't. </p>
<p>And that is just one side.. The theoretical side. If you take into account the practical side of engineering which incorporates that said theory into practice... There is no contest. Flight, particularly spaceflight still downright amazes me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
theory as much as a mathematician would but all those "engineering" equations-- Navier-Stokes, Conservation of Momentum, Hamiltonian Mechanics, Lagrangian Mechanics, the Principle of Virtual Work..etc when you look at them up close are nothing more than theoretical mathematical formulations
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
And you say this isn't "hard" to understand theoretically? LOL!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't want to sound condescending, but that Navier-Stokes equation is indeed not hard to understand theoritically. I remember learning it in my freshmen year as it's similar to some equations in electromagnetic engineering.</p>
<p>They are actually basic equations that are required to solve many engineering problem with constraints, they are used as common tools in mechanical engineering and fluid engineering, they are not even a subject of study in graduate level; they are more like logarithmic book for pre-high school.</p>
<p>Look, I guess you are not able to perceive it differently due to your less experience in academia. But why don't you approach your jet propulsion professors and ask him the question. Why can't you visualize that Math concept are often abstract and hard to understand, while difficulty in engineering is much more related to practical constraints. As an analogy, we know that golf and marathon are both 'hard' sports, but their difficulty is different in nature. Everyone can run, but it's hard to bear running for a long time, in contrast, if you don't have the skill you could hardly swing and make the ball jump.</p>
<p>Now let me ask you this, why top physicists and mathematicians are relatively more famous than top engineers?</p>
<p>
[quote]
just as easily I can pull out a chapter out of a virtual work textbook and a mathematician wouldn't get the physical/engineering applications at all without some outside guidance.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Given the same knowledge of the terms (e.g. function operator in maths and white noise in engineering), it's easier for mathematicians to understand engineering book than vice versa. Don't believe it?, ask your professors. :)</p>
It was not purported as an argument, I simply tried to explain the different nature of difficulty in maths and engineering.
You did? All I saw was a baseless statement of negligible merit and no foundation. Golfing and marathon analogies don't exactly sway me, either. As for who is more well known, I suppose that would make being a talk-show host or a fictional yellow cartoon character harder than engineering, math, or physics?</p>
<p>
[quote]
All I saw was a baseless statement of negligible merit and no foundation
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Difficult or Easy, <em>is</em> a subjective matter. When we are arguing on a relatively subjective plate, it's hard to refer to numerical proof; the best we can do is canvassing each other's experience and asking people whose professions are in related fields.</p>
<p>Your cynical comments are really uncalled for, why don't you give your full of merit statement and solid foundation eh..</p>
<p>
[quote]
As for who is more well known, I suppose that would make being a talk-show host or a fictional yellow cartoon character harder than engineering, math, or physics?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>People with positive and constructive thinking will think the reason behind their fame instead of comparing Einstein and Mickey Mouse.</p>
<p>Sensationalist examples involving big words and del operators and subscripts and partial differentials is really only scary for people who've never encountered the stuff before. it certainly won't scare a mathematician. they've seen far worse.</p>
<p>I remember being intimidated by this before taking E+M:</p>
<p>Honestly, EE is only difficult because of how hard the exams can get. They make the exams difficult in the low level ee courses “like circuit analysis” and the TAs more than often, suck when it comes to lab help. The work load is immense too. If you put enough time into it though, do the homework, whatever, you shouldnt have a problem at least passing the intro weed out courses. But your life is gonna suck come mid semester until basically the finals. Also, you have to love electrical engineering to major in it. I hate it and have only taken 2 ee courses and if you dont have a passion for it, the workload gets that much more terrible.</p>
<p>This is precisely the attitude that discourages women from majoring in engineering. The women who do major in engineering and are genuinely interested in the major do not care whether you find them ‘hot’. In fact, they would prefer you not to even contemplate the question of how ‘hot’ they are or aren’t. ‘Hot’ or not, they don’t want special treatment and would prefer you not to allow gender and appearance to overshadow intellect.</p>