Engineers are subslaves to scientists

>pyramids
>productive

Define productive, is placing greater strain on scarce resources productive?

>math undergrad thinks he knows shit about actual math research
literally every engineer learns the same college math you have learned so far
All the useful algorithms have been finished in the 70s.

>but what about muh string theory
literally as useless as contemporary math

using resources more efficiently is not placing a greater stain

Yes, a great exercise for tens of thousands and a bunch of giant pyramids to stare at for thousands of years.................................................................................................................................................................................................

Productive meaning generating dollars, plenty of them most favourably

>Productive meaning generating dollars
This is why the Rothschilds control the planet.

Generating money just inflates the market.
What are you smoking?

Would the more efficient method be used to maintain the same level of consumption or will the rate of use increase (more of an issue with the lifestyle of quantity that many people try to attain for unknown reasons).

that's philosophy, not science

All right. Let's do something. Start a google doc. We'll all write a report on puffins together.

Why would it not fall under ecology, in terms of interactions between the biotic and abiotic environments?

I'll vote for a math board if you answer my question:

Actually this board should be called "degrees" because that's the only thing you talk here.

yo u got porngifs saved to ur computer. that says everything about u that i need 2 know. begone gay number man

There is no porn in that gif you retard.

Holy shit.

Also

>yo
>u
>u
>i
>2
>begone

Please make a mathfag board and rid this board of the excessive underage trolling cancer.

>literally every engineer learns the same college math you have learned so far
Does your uni double as a fucking massage salon? How bad can an undergrad curriculum get before it can no longer legally be named math?

>are own board
>are
You're not one of us OP

Ehhhhh actually I'm taking a class in category theory and I'm an undergrad. Do engineers really do this? (Hint: go fuck yourself)

Yes!, we need our own board.
Finally lets build a wall. (Let the engineers build it.)

Let them build it from the other side, so that when they finish, they and their unimaginative, penury maths can't come in.

Are own board? LMAO thank god this isnt an english board LOL

I do love this bitching so damn much

You know it's a man right?

Ill be his subslave

And mathematicians are subslaves to politicians

:^)

She got a bit too fat, a real shame.

Indeed there is an important wasted brainpower here, pretty sad that it isn't used.

w-we have a math general t-thread on sosach..

>literally every engineer learns the same college math you have learned so far
engineers don't learn much past a third semester in math
plus some classes they take are watered down for them

"usefulness" in this context is a codeword "useful to corporate/authoritarian overlords." if we all lived on farms and did math when we weren't farming (see unabomber), we'd all be well nourished and psychologically healthy, no wars, no diet related health problems, an luddite intellectual utopia

The usefulness of math is not in knowing all the "useful" algorithms invented.
In fact you can't even be a good engineer if all you do is memorize algorithms or whatever you're using.

The purpose of deriving stuff regardless whether we talk about math/physics/engineering is simple; you will have an in-depth understanding of what you do. You will know how it behaves.
Apart from this math gives you the tools to make your own algorithm (if we stay at your example) and properly reason about it, know how it behaves.
In fact math gives you the tools to reason about everything, it gives you the ability to model anything.

You can put some shit together by simply thinking "let's put this together" or you can design a system to work within; making your shit properly designed with proper reasoning behind it.

(Of course there are very talented people who can design something by just looking at it and they see it all, but even they are "enhanced" by knowing more math.)

It's disheartening that eng., once a great field, now became filled with individuals who care *only* about money and who choose eng. because it sounds cool.

Also, a bsc degree is not a degree. (Yes, I'm exaggerating.) Anyone who is near average or just slightly above average will need more than a bsc degree to learn actual shit. For engineering msc is the minimum, unless of course you're insanely talented as I said before then you not necessarily need it. For physics they say msc/phd is the minimum; phd is the usual.

Yes, a minority does, if they're interested. Eng. is also very broad/complex. The ed. system just fails to teach it properly, however those interested will learn it.

Not everyone strictly adheres to the courses they need for their degree. This applies to mathfags as well, if you're interested in some applied stuff for example circuits why don't you take a few courses or learn about it in your free time?

Before any of you ask, yes, I'm a Comp. Eng. with heavy EE focus.

>a whole containment board for 0.999=1 and other numberphile memes
I'd fund it

I like your b8. It pretty much sums up the mathematicians on this board's attitude.