Why would anyone (with a talent) decide a career in pure mathematics over theoretical physics when theoretical physics...

Not really, the prediction of the positron by Dirac is in itself a lot more interresting than shit like proving that a 2D torus can be mapped into 3D while preserving the distances and things like that.

Not to mention that the mathematical community is kinda shit since they attacked people like Dirac and Heaviside for their maths (dirac function, modern vector calc use) because they didn't deem it "formal or rigorous enough" despite it working within the context of their field very well.

It's a different style of thinking. Theoretical physics is more about examples and intuition, and you can't always make things rigorous. In math you have more freedom and the terms are always clear, even if the intuition isn't.

applied mathematics is the best of all because it has the joociest problems

These dudes are working on the joossyest , sexiest problems in the business
statslab.cam.ac.uk/~rrw1/or/here.html
statslab.cam.ac.uk/~rrw1/research/unsolved.html

>theoretical physics
>many universes
>string theory landscape 10^500 possible universes
>Universe is a hologram
>Universe is a Simulation
>We've been visited in the past....
>tensors
>ancient astronaut theory
>dirac delta ""function""

>>>\x\

underrated post

>IMG_7557_John_Malkovich.jpg

/thread

Physical reality problems is for brainlets.

samefag

>become physician
>get fame and money by your state
>become arrogant
>be a faggot that thinks math is boring, while using basic principles without giving them value
Ok I stop joking around. Pure math generalizes everything and the things you prove may look hillarious and nonsensical in the real world, but in fifty years someone will realize that your paper brilliant and can be used on something completely different, because you created somthing really abstract. (Then he steals your credit and gets the nobel prize in physics or economy, while you died poor). Theoretical physics just restricts the requirements. I would say everyone should do what he likes the most. You like your steak juicy? Maybe another person likes a well-done steak.

oh, I forgot
>who doesn't like 100% pure meth?

You guys really need to look into the role of Dynasty and Philosophy t b h.

Only with a strong cohesive family unit with upright morals will bring about the immortality that fame seekers and nihilists discuss.

If a man truly is moral and virtuous, his dedication to family and preparing the next generation will immortalize his character for thousands of generations.

The name will be forgotten, but his spirit and attitude will be undying.

The career chooses for you, bud. You don't choose your career. If you're smart enough to "see" the richness of the worlds pure mathematics provides, you don't hesitate 1 sec.

If you're not gifted enough, you'll choose physics (more or less theoretical).

And the less gifted choose engineering and stuff.

Pure mathematics is the story of the unknown heroes, that provided us with a tool, to understand basically everything.

What the fuck is wrong with the dirac delta and tensors?

Really don't think there's a gap in intelligence between mathematicians and theoretical physicists desu, seeing as a lot of the time it's the physicist that develops new mathematics to describe the observed phenomena. Such a myth that pure math is some holy wellspring that physicists all sip from to survive.

>more interesting and juicy
/thread

>fair pay
>name that's remembered

reasons for the weak minded normies to come into the glory that is mathematics

>tensors
actual math

this

>what are tensors?
>oh, they're just objects that transform like tensors
>.......how do tensors transform?
>like this

[eqn]\bar{F}^{i_{1}\dots i_{n}}_{{j_{1}\dots j_{m}}}=\sum_{i_{1}}\dots\sum_{i_{n}}\sum_{j_{1}}\dots\sum_{j_{m}}F^{i_{1}\dots i_{n}}_{{j_{1}\dots j_{m}}}\prod_{k=1}^n \frac{\partial\bar{x}^{i_{k}}}{\partial x^{i_{k}}}\prod_{l=1}^m \frac{\partial x^{j_{l}}}{\partial \bar{x}^{j_{l}}}[/eqn]

man you fuckers have to be kidding me, there is far better definition in modern multilinear algebra, but physicists cling to the "it transforms like {insert horrendous formula}" definition as if they still dwelt in 1905.

A (p,q) tensor on V is a multilinear map of p copies of V* and q copies of V to the base field.

Wow that was hard. Good job physicists.

The 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 is actually a a staple of string theory. It pretty much fails without it.

That result was verified for making correct predictions in some quantum hall experiments.

It's actually used for a normalization of the vacuum energy.

except that's not the same thing. what is talking about is what a mathematician might call a "tensor field"

What do you think of Evola?

Don't espouse bull shit like that and call it "philosophy." It's shit like this why no one takes philosophy seriously anymore.

But you can really work in both at the same time. Right now theoretical physics is so close to geometry that one can work as either a pure mathematician or a physicist under the same rubric. Now if you mean why would you choose something like non representation theoretic combinatorics over geometry/physics then I guess the more computer science applications types can answer that. But otherwise there really isn't the major distinction your question implies. Look at the works of Beilinson, Drinfeld, Frenkel, Lepowsky, Huang, Paugnam, Costello, Gwilliam, Francis, and even Deligne, and you'll get a sense of what I mean.

How is theoretical physics close to geometry?

general relativity
gauge theories
topological QFT
topological condensed matter systems
geometric quantization
deformation quantization
string theory
etc.

Yeah then just set [math]V = {T_x}M[/math] and assign the map pointwise. Or equivalently, take a section of [math]{T^*}{M^{ \otimes p}} \otimes T{M^{ \otimes q}}[/math].