Is there any point in learning math (on a personal level) if you don't really enjoy it?

>implying temporal/modal/fuzzy/... develops logic skills less than only one of those
>implying muh fizzbuzz in haskell develops abstract thinking more than ANT/AG/universal, homological algebra

cognitive improvement

>worst case vs best case scenario
>posts bait
Bruh

Faster algorithms.
Faster code.

JUST
POUND
MY
EUCLIDEAN
REAL
SPACE
MEME
DADDY

Please, demonstrate a program that requires more abstract thinking than basics of AG (which is mandatory class of pure math graduates, so worst case), let's say sheafification. Category theory isn't as demanding of your abstract thinking as you CS people like to think. Most people find even basic algebraic number theory more demanding.

You can meme a little git better than everyone else
You can impress some people (they will most likely use you for administration)

No. And programming itself isn't difficult or abstract, it's what you do with it that is. What you're doing is like me saying 1+ b = 2 isn't as abstract as (insert googled abstract computer science problem here.) Also, remember the focus is doing it for a hobby, not what you're required to do at school.

>Faster algorithms.
>Faster code.
Mathematicians, and people who think mathematically, generally write inefficient garbage. Computers are signal manipulators that just happen to be able to compute via that.

What can you do with a program that's abstract?
It's not like 1+b=2, you wrote programming is better for developing abstract thinking, i intentionally picked a language that has the most tools for abstraction and argued that even then programming isn't as abstract as math an average mathematician gets to use. No matter what problem in CS you pick, it will never be as abstract as even basic theorems of higher math.
I did math as a hobby before uni and got to homological algebra, which is plenty abstract, to the point that it's dreaded by applied mathematicians. Most hobbyists get to do at least some number theory (analytical), as that seems to be very popular area of math. Even that is more abstract than most of CS. A hobby mathematician will always develop his abstract thinking more than a hobby programmer.
Of course, since the OP doesn't like math, programming is good suggestion (maybe even the best), but it doesn't come close to replacing math in terms of developing these skills.

>No matter what problem in CS you pick, it will never be as abstract
Lol? CS isn't abstract at all, that's the point of it. It's literally about unraveling the nature of the universe, relative to computation. And therefore what computational machinery it allows to exist, and certain inherent tradeoffs that stem from a given system, and a certain approach to a task.

Tesla's statement about physicists wandering through equations and ultimately building something with no relation to the real world, seems apt here.

I didn't like math until I took calculus.

>CS isn't abstract at all
So how then, does it develop abstract thinking?
>Tesla's statement
Proved wrong by two most successful theories being products of "wandering through equations"
This cult of Tesla is about as laughable as the cult of Bohmian mechanics

It develops generalized thinking. Loosely, "lateral" thinking. Which does aid in abstraction, because obviously overarching generalized connections cannot be made without an abstraction to the most general case. But CS, at its core? Certainly not abstract. The abstraction is just a means.

>Proved wrong
Enjoy your Copenhagen horseshit.

The generalization proccess of mathematics is much more impactful though. Getting from peano axioms to real analysis is a delightful proccess that will have a profound effect on the way you think about whole applied math (CS including). And there are countless other endeavors that will make you see the world in different colors. While i've only achieved bachelor's degree in CS before switching to math, and there's plenty of CS i didn't explore, i've had very few of such impactful encounters while there (and most of them came from math subjects like linear algebra, where i noticed how it can be reformulated in terms of tensors, beautiful result and such a shame it isn't mentioned in most textbooks, as it helps you understand tensors).
You might dislike Copenhagen (a very strong trend among CS people), however ignorant that is, but what about GR? What problem do you have with that? Surely you know Einstein was a proponent of algebraic approach to math, rather than geometric or "intuitionistic", his relativity being just as much (arguably more so) a product of "wandering through equations" as QM. But whatever, neither of us is competent enough to tell the other which interpretation of QM is the right one. All i know is Copenhagen brought us QFT and QCD, both of which are used in condensed-matter physics to solve real-world problems, so as far as i'm concerned, Copenhagen seems alright.

No, considering that you don't really learn math at a fundamental level, you already have enough math/logic skills to do whatever you enjoy from birth.

You can get better at programming if you learn math, but if you don't enjoy it it's probably gonna be harder to learn.

no. if you don't have solid motivation, you're almost destined to fail

>Is there any point in learning math (on a personal level) if you don't really enjoy it?

buying stuff.
budgeting.
saving.
investing.
etc...