/mg/ - Math General

Fumika edition.

What are you studying today?
Are you working on a problem?
Do you have something to share?
Please feel welcome to talk about it!

Other urls found in this thread:

warosu.org/sci/thread/S8418462
ams.org/journals/tran/2009-361-06/S0002-9947-09-04929-0/S0002-9947-09-04929-0.pdf
rose-hulman.edu/mathjournal/archives.php)
stat.berkeley.edu/~mathsurv/ejournals.html
forumgeom.fau.edu/
library.msri.org/books/Book31/files/cannon.pdf,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_mathematics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_mathematics#History
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Hey, does anyone remember that guy who made a group study on probabilistic robotics (or something like that)? I was wondering if someone participated and if the experience was worthwhile. It'd be cool to maybe gather and work through some textbook about an interesting topic (I have some in mind, but I'd like to hear other proposals first).

>probabilistic robotics
Do you mean topological robotics?

I'm talking about this warosu.org/sci/thread/S8418462

Algebra night tonight :)

But user, it's Friday! Aren't you going to accept Stacy's invitation to the Diff Geo party at Chad's place? It's not every week that his parents have to attend a conference in Reykjavík.

What a cute girl. What's her ethnicity? What is she reading?

Just here to shitpost. Don't mind me.

Here's a very interesting paper about the computational limitations of calculating the maximum interval in an initial value problem for an ODE
ams.org/journals/tran/2009-361-06/S0002-9947-09-04929-0/S0002-9947-09-04929-0.pdf
Pretty interesting desu. It also has a lot of references to other works on computability of ODEs.

>preparing to move
>haven't read one page of math this week

inb4 the thread is deleted again because one of the mods is a physishit Nazi who hates anything pure.

>tfw packing

Nice image by the way, I'm going to edit it with a mathematics textbook later today (I need to do my groceries now). I'll be back in 2-3 hours. Leave suggestions for what maths book you'd like in the image.

...

...

general

This book seems erotic.

But the category of 2D HQFTs is equivalent to the category of semisimple graded Frobenius algebras.

Do you expect the freshmen in /mg/ who don't know the relation between math and physics to even know what an algebra is?

No but I expect them to stfu about things they don't understand like the good mannered slaveboys they are.

>Physics
Kill yourselves.

Back to your containment thread, retards

>Physics
Wrong thread.
see

>Physics
Wrong thread.

Anyone wanna talk about Phyiscs?

Anyone wanna talk about physics while eating dogs?

>...and here's our son's room, he's quite the little mathematician

>Physics
Wanna talk about Phyiscs? I Just bought some dogs for us to eat too!

>tfw no satisfactory definition of mathematics

>physics
Yeah! Let's talk about that.

is the reason you can throw in or exclude the Y variable willy-nilly that the distribution without Y is a perfectly fine distribution, it might just not be a distribution we know, so we need to use the joint one with Y (to find the marginal one without Y)

"Mathematics is the study of mathematical structures" is a perfectly satisfactory definition.

>robotics
This is the math general. Feel free to discuss engineering topics anywhere else.

Even in fifth grade we were told that any definition using the word which is being defined is bad.

Nah, you're just a brainlet. "Mathematical structure" is prior to "mathematics". Mathematics is precisely that which is the study of mathematical structures, which may be defined in such a way that does not invoke mathematics which is a posterior term. For example, you may define a mathematical structure as "an object whose essential properties are exhausted by its formal definition" after which you may go on and extricate "object", "essential property" and "formal definition" if you feel so inclined.
A certain degree of 'nesting' is inevitable in any language. Sooner or later you reach a 'definitional bottom' where it is impossible to avoid circularity. Fortunately, "mathematics" is nowhere near that bottom.

It is the same as saying "physics is the study of physical phenomena". Physical phenomena are prior to physics. They exist even when you do not study them.
It is the same with mathematics. Hopefully even a physishit brainlet like you will get it now.

This depends on the definition of mathematical structure which was not satisfactorily defined in the last thread.

It's still unclear whether there exists an object whose essential properties are not exhausted by its formal definition.

>It's still unclear whether there exists an object whose essential properties are not exhausted by its formal definition.
It couldn't be farther from unclear. You are such an object. The claim that there exist objects whose essential properties are not exhausted by their formal definition is equivalent to the fact that the map of a territory is not the territory itself.

>You are such an object.
What is an example of one of my essential properties that does not follow from my formal definition?

What is unclear is whether there exist [math] abstract [/math] objects whose essential properties are not exhausted by their formal definition, which is why defining mathematics as "the study of abstract objects" is most likely over-general/defining "too much".

The fact that you exist in a material sense. This cannot follow from any formal definition, otherwise unicorns would be made real by a sufficiently thorough formal definition, which I would assume anyone here would deem absurd (but then again, you never know, given how many brainlets seem to gather in these threads).

>physishit
Don't be mean please, I have not taken a physics class past highschool.

And while you are probably right that "mathematical structure" is before "mathematics", I was more taking about the definition not being all that complete if you don't go on and define what "mathematical structure" is.

If I would respond with that definition to any person asking me what mathematics is, the question what "mathematical structure" is is inevitable, I they wan't to understand mathematics.

It is nonetheless the most correct way to go about it. Read the rest of the posts. (Redditposting is rude too by the way. Don't expect people to be polite to you when you don't play by the house rules.)

>It is nonetheless the most correct way to go about it.
I was not arguing that.

>Redditposting
Not once in my life have I ever posted anything on reddit.

>house rules
written where?

They are unwritten rules. You may or may not have been to reddit (you may or may not be lying about it) but you are, regardless, inserting too much whitespace in your posts.

>written where?
"written by whom?" would be a better question. And I'll answer it - by God, which is to say by Me.

As promised, made the OP more salient to mathematics. Grudgingly using this suggestion since no other mathematics books was offered. Hope you like it user.

That's a great edit, thanks for taking my suggestion

So says the idiot who thinks Furstenberg's proof that there are an infinite number of primes has nothing to do with infinite sets.
>Can't you prove Euclid's theorem with topology? You don't even need to appeal to infinities lmao
I've yet to see you say non-retarded shit whenever you opine on something I'm familiar with, so I have reason to doubt you know what you're talking about whenever you vomit your TQFTs and all the other garbage.
I even remember someone a few threads back saying that they don't reply to your posts because you either write things that follow from definitions or write nonsense, something like that, I can't be bothered to find the post and quote it directly.

So, yeah:

>The fact that you exist in a material sense. This cannot follow from any formal definition
What counts as a formal definition? Can I be defined by 'the person born in [specific hospital room] at [date and time of birth]'?

No, no, it's not nonsense bro you just don't have the physical """""intuition""""" to understand that!
Besides, mathematicians crying about rigour are hypocritical because they consider conditional proofs valid.

What's not rigorous about a conditional proof?

I was being sarcastic. That's the sort of dumb shit 2huposter pulls out of his ass.

Thanks for completely missing the point of the post user, but I guess no one here actually wants to do any maths, so instead they opt to cry endlessly about barely nonexistent physics posts.
I wouldn't even care if they provided original mathematical content, it's not that fucking hard. Anyone who has a passing interest in maths should be able to at least start a discussion about a mathematical topic they like, like linking papers/articles/open problems/interesting theorems/etc...
I know not everyone here is a PhD student or something, but there are some journals (like this one rose-hulman.edu/mathjournal/archives.php) which are geared towards undergrads, with articles made by other undergrads. They're usually pretty cool and explain everything from the basics, I really recommend it.
Here there are more online journals stat.berkeley.edu/~mathsurv/ejournals.html
Here's one about classical Euclidean geometry because I'm a sucker for it forumgeom.fau.edu/
There's also this very nice introductory article to Hyperbolic Geometry (I still haven't finished it, but it's good so far) library.msri.org/books/Book31/files/cannon.pdf, and there are others still.

>Thanks for completely missing the point of the post user
...which is?

>I was wondering if someone participated and if the experience was worthwhile. It'd be cool to maybe gather and work through some textbook about an interesting topic

Where can I obtain the necessary physical intuition to make rigorous proofs?

Assuming anything that is not proven (except axioms lol) cannot yield a proof. Any mathematician thinking otherwise is an idiot.

Right and wrong. Those mathematicians that dislike the supposed "lack of rigor" in physics should also reject statements proven assuming generalized RH/CH.

I'm pretty sure you quoted the wrong post.

And how does that have anything to do with math?

>What does doing math have to do with doing math?

In case anyone is confused, this is pasta, and the source is a dumb conversation between the 2huposter and another physishit: &

>engineering
>doing math

>Hey, did any of you do that engineering related thing? Do you think it'd be worthwhile to do it with a math topic?
>lol user, engineering is not math

Nothing you've said points to starting a similar program in mathematics. The only thing you posted is an apropos about an engineering (robotics) conference.

...

Do what with a math topic? Construct mathematical equivalents of robots? Go to conferences? Do even you know, you semen slurper?
Bunch of weasels who treat this thread as a clubhouse where you dump anything that pops into your head because "lol math is cool I like math too bros we use mock theta functions in physics and check out my path integrals dude, by the way there's this robotics club this guy made I heard about, are you in it?".

Piss off.

I'm building a numerical model to examine seed dispersal in marine environments...

I'm currently thinking of a novel way to calculate wind speed and direction for surface currents atm. So I'm thinking of using real time data to create two weibull distributions so that the dispersal influenced by surface currents is somewhat realistic.

1.- Pick a math topic (for example, diff geo, maybe something more concrete)
2.- Pick a textbook about said topic
3.- Work through said textbook and give each other help if necessary
Gee, that was hard to understand.

The initial post is very vague.
>work through some textbook about an interesting topic
Well excuse me for not being exactly sure about what topics are interesting to you when you spent the entirety of that post writing about a robotics reading club. You could've just as well read that as a suggestion to start a manga reading club.

If I mentoined that robotics guy at all is because it's the only example I know of someone doing this sort of thing in Veeky Forums. I didn't mention that the topic was meant to be a math one because I thought that was a given since we're on /mg/, but I guess I should have specified anyway.

>I didn't mention that the topic was meant to be a math one because I thought that was a given since we're on /mg/
Yes, /mg/, which has been in total disarray for the last few threads because more and more of us are annoyed that so many posts are only tangentially related to math. Here's a perfect example:

Not math. Feel free to post this elsewhere.

great thread so far!

Well, if you're creative you could suggest ways to numerically represent wind...

Geez, asked to share a mathematical problem, and it's brushed off. You want me to write it out or something?

Not math? :O Omg, Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeese

Okay guys, I recently went to stay at a hotel with 3 friends, it was on a Sunday.
The room costs $60. We each put down $20 on the counter, but there was a $5 Sunday discount, so the guy at the desk put 5 $1 bills on the counter, we each took 1 and gave the remaining 2 as a tip to the guy.
When we got to the room we did the math.
We each paid $19 dollars + the $2 tip.
19 x 3 = 57 + 2 = 59.
Where is the last remaining dollar?

Simulating some natural phenomenon is not a maths problem. Just because you use maths doesn't make it into one.
If you want to talk about numerical approximations in and of themselves, feel free to do so. [math] That\ \mathbb{is} [/math] math.
(Of course, there's a chance you're only fishing for (you)s, given the formatting of your post.)

>We each paid $19 dollars
No you didn't.

It's 50/50.
Either you have the dollar in a pocket you haven't checked yet, or you don't.

>Just because you use maths doesn't make it into one.
Did I miss the 'pure math general, nothing applied is allowed' sign on the way in?

"Applied math" is not mathematics.

We each put down $20 and got $1 back, hence $19

>"Applied math" is not mathematics.
What else could it be but math?

Please be bait.

Of course "applied math" is not mathematics. "applied math" simply doesn't exist.

>applied
Don't mention that word here, trust me on that...

>with 3 friends
>We each put down $20
>The room costs $60
You got scammed

>"applied math" is not mathematics

see

>Don't mention that word here, trust me on that...
I don't see any 'applied math' general, where am I supposed to mention it if not here?

It seems a better fit than the other threads

I am just warning you that mentioning the a-word will lead into autistic discussion you do not want to have.

"applied math" doesn't exist. From this simple fact it follows that "applied math" isn't math.

>"applied math" doesn't exist. From this simple fact it follows that "applied math" isn't math.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_mathematics

>Applied mathematics is a branch of mathematics

>I don't see any 'applied math' general
Why not create one then? We don't discuss fairy tales in this thread.

this is the last time I will warn you DO NOT MENTION THE A-WORD

>Why not create one then? We don't discuss fairy tales in this thread.
see

Calling a dog a camel doesn't make it into one.
Just because the term "math" appears in after "applied" doesn't mean you're talking about mathematics.

Wikipedia is, as with many other things, wrong on this subject.

What are some good resources to study Applied Math?
I want to do some research in it in the future.

>Just because the term "math" appears in after "applied" doesn't mean you're talking about mathematics.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_mathematics#History
>Historically, applied mathematics consisted principally of applied analysis, most notably differential equations; approximation theory (broadly construed, to include representations, asymptotic methods, variational methods, and numerical analysis); and applied probability.
When did any of these become non-mathematics?