What area of mathematics do you have little to no interest in?

Statistics and I'm not really into probabilties but maybe that's because of statistics.

I do like continous probabilities for some reason, dunno why

Highschool detected.
But really, the statistics you see at highschool is really shallow, there's a much much bigger world to it.
See: There's a lot of good stuff in stats that very much require strong grounding in "pure".
Stochastic processes requires a good understanding of analysis and measure theory.
Markov processes, martingales, brownian motion are related and worth looking at.

I find it highly disinteresting that we rely on a type of math that cant resolve 1 divided by 3

its so important that the guy won nobel price so.

its how the "AI" deep blue won over Kasparov in chess actually

Huh?

0.3334

There is no Nobel prize in economics. It was a prize added after Nobel died, "to honor his memory" or something like that. I know no source that claims that he ever wanted a prize in economics to even have his name on it.

All your answers can be found with Rational Trigonometry.

i actually never claimed that there was a nobel price in economy. but now i will.

Since you brought it up there is a nobel price in economy and thats the one he won. (even though he was no economist, those were the ones that first recognize the applications of his theory)

inb4 you personally do not believe in it for some autism reasons. its official and that's the truth i go with

Seriously the biggest disappointment of my college years.

No there isn't one.

nobelprize.org/nomination/economic-sciences/

Read section "Not a Nobel Prize"

foundational shit like logic, set theory, category theory, also anything that involves heavy use of integrals.

Why? Outsized expectations?

Were you expecting to solve the universe, only to find a limited number of techniques and formulas, or somesuch?

Or was it something else?

What's wrong with Galois theory?

I feel like statistics is an interesting field, but the way it is taught to non-mathematicians makes it really awful.
I had one statistics course and it sucked.
I understood nothing, and I ended up memorizing various sentences about statistical models, qq plots etc. and regurgitated them on the exam for a pretty C.
Am I correct about applied statistics being shit or am I just a brainlet?

regurgitating dumb-down light, "plug chug" versions of topics doesn't make them applied
it makes them shit

applied math done right is p cool

Combinatorial game theory generalizes the real numbers to form the "surreal numbers".
Differential game theory generalizes optimal control to when there's multiple controllers.

Number theory

Used to be analysis because I thought analysis was so hard and algebra was easier.

Now it's algebra. I think basic algebra is essential but have no interest in going beyond that.
Analysis on the other hand just gets more and more interesting the more I learn.

I'm not him but I agree. I was expecting a lot, viewing it as the pinnacle of algebra and hoping it would unlock all kinds of amazing new ways of looking at polynomials, etc.

topology or anything that even smells of geometry

>old, classical theory
>pinnacle of algebra
???
it does unlock an amazing way of looking at field extensions and polynomial rings in particular

prime numbers

That's a small field of statistics. Applied statistics isn't about that stuff at all and there's no way that a non-mathematician can take a course in "cool" statistics because you need firm grounding in other parts of maths first.
It's like learning how to count or learning the names of shapes and concluding that maths is shit. You've only seen a small area of statistics.

>topology
>geometry
What's wrong with these buddy?
Topology is a requirement for research, and if you don't like the arguments in your intro to geometry course (which I admit don't feel very solid), you can most definitely view geometry from a solid linear algebra point of view which your university should offer.

It's very important in the military.

Anything related to calc/analysis/shit algebra or graph analysis.

I like shapes and logic/riddle reasoning. Like your first proofs course or discrete mathematics.

You're right, I should have used another description.
>because you need firm grounding in other parts of maths first.
How much is needed?

Algebra. It makes my brain hurt.

Really?

In what, their war simulations?

For stochastic processes:
Analysis: you use the dominating convergence theorem and fubini's theorem quite a bit along with your usual notions of continuity, limits, convergence, uniform convergence, almost sure convergence etc etc.
Measure theory: Knowing what a measure is and as a bonus, what Fatou's lemma is should suffice for an intro course.
Linear algebra: You should be able to know the type of solutions that a system of linear equations has, so just the basics of linear algebra is good enough.
Differential equations: You should be able to solve first and second order difference equations.
If you want to go further into things such as Ergodic theory, then you should take a good look at the central limit theorem and the law of large numbers.
In terms of probability knowledge, you should know Bayes' Rule, conditional probabilities, being able to switch between expectation and probability easily, properties of expectation such as the tower property and linearity, and the basic binomial and bernoulli distribution.
So most of the probability stuff you would already have seen in your first year, the only things that you may have not seen is the tower property and independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables (I'm a maths student and it was my first time hearing of these, but they're understandable in 5 minutes).

That's all I can think of for now. There are small things too such as knowing how to interchange double summations and indicator functions, but I don't think that they're worth mentioning as being needed to know since you don't really need to be well grounded in maths to know those anyway.

>view geometry from a solid linear algebra point of view

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

GEOMETRYTARDS GET AWAY, SHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

go compute your retarded homology groups and off yourself

>trying to have a civilised discussion
>get bombarded with autistic screaming and memes
Try and be human will you user?
Why do you hate geometry so much? You see plenty of it in metric spaces.

because I hate that math (something that is essentially formalized philosophy and logic) and that is abstract gets tied down by one of its many many different forms (geometry)

geometry isnt a field. Its just a application of mathematics. An interpretation of it. Its okay to do geometry using math. Its not okay to do math with geometry.

As you can probably tell I loved abstract algebra and analysis but almost killed myself in topology

Its like how we use math to do statistics. We dont use statistics to do math. And the things that geometryfags try to do usually often end up perverting the field

>Its okay to do geometry using math.
But that's exactly what we do. For your converse:
>Its not okay to do math with geometry.
I can see where you're coming from, but we don't use geometry that "seems right" or "seems like it makes sense" to justify things in maths. Rather, we use geometry that has already been made solid with maths, may it be through abstract algebra or analysis, and use that elsewhere. It's much nicer and quicker to use a geometrical argument that we've already justified rather than use the not so intuitive algebraic/analytical argument that already built the geometry.
I'm not seeing too much geometry in topology user, how was your course set out?

ok desu I dont hate topology or geometry that much

Its just one of my biggest pet peeves that borderlines autism w/ the general terminology.
(geometric argument vs geometric argument proven through analytical/algebraic means)

I was taught throughout my life by some retard who literally thought he could do math with geometry (e.g. everything had to obey rules similar to real life objects)

And when I found out they didnt. I just grew to generally hate the field.

>Its not okay to do math with geometry.
Unfortunately many do

Number theory. I'd rather do stats than number theory. Also, ODE and PDE.

Statistics isn't even math. You might as well call accounting math.

>retard undergrad

I'm so sorry to hear that shit experience user, I wonder if you'll ever be able to rekindle some sort of love for those fields again. I totally sympathize with your case and there's a few areas that I wasn't too fond of due to bad lecturing in them. I kind of got over it through reading material on my own, but then I guess the question is on finding the motivation to pick up material by yourself and sit down and read it.

Yep, number theory and DEs are for retarded undergrads.

knot theory
i know it has produced results in other areas such as topological graph theory, but i just find knot theory itself boring t b h

Complex analysis/complex geometry. Riemann surfaces are so god damn boring.

Foundations bore the shit out of me. I recognize the importance of it but proving 1 > 0 just doesn't do it for me.

Synthetic geometry sucks too

>complex analysis
>boring
fite me irl fgt

Large Cardinal Theory

>complex analysis
>riemann surfaces
>boring

be this bait?

>combinatorics

anything not involving python/matlab coding
i hated my proofs and modern algebra courses

econometrics is better from non stem people
same material just a bit easier

you would need a proofs and probability course for proper mathematical statistics

>hated my proofs and modern algebra courses

You should kill yourself

All areas, it is the only subject that I hate with vehement passion

Analysis of PDEs, combinatorics

>PDEs
>Statistics
>Complexity Theory
>Set Theory

I'm just a real/functional analysis fag. The bad part of Riemann surfaces for me primarily stems from geometry as I just lose all interest when that comes into play. As for complex analysis, a lot of the arguments are just long-winded and boring. Occasionally nice proofs come out (e.g. Dixon's proof of Cauchy, Zalcman's proof of Picard), but on the whole I was just plain bored with a material. That being said, the results are nice.

I do actually like the proof that Riemann surfaces are second countable, though. The one I'm thinking of (from the Ahlfors and Sario text) is just basically some topology and harmonic analysis (a generalization of Dirichlet problem).

Probably logic. Like logician level stuff.

>not enjoying the in and outs of analyzing nigger crime rates and their test scores

wew

>mfw they call accounting for mathematical-accounting in my country

So you just sit around counting on your fingers and toes all day?

nice canned line, faggot. those fields are shit.

The video game industry is making a lot of profit.

>number theory
>set theory
>logic
>statistics

Those are just so fucking boring.

>tfw lost all interest in mathematics outside my specialization

I kinda miss being able to approach a completely unfamiliar field with excitement and wonder

Boring topics are OK, but what are the most interesting topics in mathematics?

>As you can probably tell I loved abstract algebra and analysis but almost killed myself in topology
(Modern-ish) algebraic geometry starts by taking a commutative ring and turning it into a geometric space. On a categorical level, this is just reversing the direction of morphisms, and is hence a purely algebraic process. You can even glue these affine scheme together into more genera; schemes in a purely algebraic way, using the functor of point viewpoint.
The idea that prime ideals = points came from analysis, namely the Gelfand representation.
A lot of complex algebraic geometry is very similar to complex analytic geometry, which is obviously very analytic in nature. You then have stuff like gauge theory, which has lots of geometrical and topological applications, but "feels" a lot more like analysis + group theory: physicists are pretty good at it, and they don't need analysis, just calculus, intuition, and a list of theorems in Lie theory.
It's very strange that you'd say you dislike formalised philosophy and logic but enjoy analysis and especially abstract algebra, which is much closer to pure logic than geometry. Indeed, I'd say I prefer geometry for that exact reason, it has much more "flavour" whereas algebra is very stale and purely logical. At the end of the day, though, they are inseparable.

Fractals, yay!

>The idea that prime ideals = points came from analysis, namely the Gelfand representation.
I always thought it came from taking the Nullstellensatz (maximal ideals correspond to points) and realizing that relaxing that a little gave a nicer category.

dude do you even differential geometry ?

>that is abstract gets tied down by one of its many many different forms (geometry)

You have clearly never studied any serious geometry.

>As you can probably tell I loved abstract algebra and analysis but almost killed myself in topology
How do you even do any amount of serious analysis without topology

Mechanics, it's so gross and tangible. Statistics and pure mathematics are just so nice and comfy in comparison.

probability

try this

amazon.com/Foundations-Mechanics-Ralph-Abraham/dp/0201408406

Might as well try to get this trend going...

> Dislikes
Abstract Algebra, Number Theory (the algebraic ones and stuff applicable to computer science), and Combinatorics. Also some parts of geometry, stats, and probability irks me...
> Likes
Calculus, DE's, Analysis, Topology, and Set Theory (A lot of heavy uses of integrals; I like). Also I like logic, reasoning, and some philosophy (meta stuff too).

Number theory.

Probability, diff.eq, combinatorics

actually yes unless they're taking that unironically their freshman year

Double integrals.

or duodecimal.

1/3=0.4
sorry I dont know the formal way you guys present math

all of it.

You mean like this [math]\frac{1}{3} = 0. \dot{3}[/math]?

Take your pedophile cartoons back to .

r/til

yea that looks right. or at least what i typically see

The methods weren't that fun, and by the end of the year when we were discussing it, solubility didn't seem like a very interesting question anymore. We weren't introduced to any more juicy applications.

Yeah that's fine, some people also write it as [math]\frac{1}{3} = 0. \overline{3}[/math].
Anyway, the point the guy was trying to make was "oh my god maths is garbage why do people believe that [math]1 = 0. \dot{3}[/math]" etc. but the fact is that decimal representation isn't unique so the equation is true.

algebra is 12 year old tier user

Differential equations never were my thing.

>What area of mathematics do you have little to no interest in?
Yes

Logic and stats. Boring shit.

>What is abstract algebra