[alexs2602]

(Original post by Blutooth)
Suppose
, where a and b are coprime. Squaring both sides As 3 is not a square Let Thus a and b both have 3 as a common factor and are not coprime which is a contradiction.

That was aimed at see-are because I know, while incredibly easy for those who know how to solve, it would be incredibly hard to solve if you didn't. It's just something 99.999% of people would not think of, imo.

[Blutooth]

(Original post by alexs2602)
That was aimed at see-are because I know, while incredibly easy for those who know how to solve, it would be incredibly hard to solve if you didn't. It's just something 99.999% of people would not think of, imo.

I know but it's 3:30 and I was bored.

Also, is what you are saying that maths is hard until you have learned the standard techniques, at which point it becomes easy? Then it would seem a lot of maths (especially at undergrad), which is about applying standard techniques to semi-familiar problems, is not tremendously creative.

Mathematical research would be a completely different story, however .

[Blutooth]

(Original post by alexs2602)
That was aimed at see-are because I know, while incredibly easy for those who know how to solve, it would be incredibly hard to solve if you didn't. It's just something 99.999% of people would not think of, imo.

Personally, I think mathematical intuition is different from creativity, in an ordinary sense of the word.

Being a Platonist, I can't conceive how anything in mathematics can be original: You don't imagine algebra or calculus but rather you discover it. Wiles described learning maths as like being in a darkened room, and slowly catching fleeting glimpses of the objects around you till eventually you saw the room seemed illuminated. Those who are good at maths get sight of those glimpses quicker, or have a capacity to see more of the room than most can, or who know when to look at the right objects in the room, and when to turn away and explore a different part of this terrain.

Though I guess there'd probably be a correlation between mathematical creativity and everyday creativity, and maybe everyday creativity is more like mathematical crativity- even though with ordinary creativity there are many correct answers an certainly isn't just one darkened room.

[TRStemporaryusername]

(Original post by Blutooth)
Personally, I think mathematical intuition is different from creativity, in an ordinary sense of the word.

Being a Platonist, I can't conceive how anything in mathematics can be original: You don't imagine algebra or calculus but rather you discover it. Wiles described learning maths as like being in a darkened room, and slowly catching fleeting glimpses of the objects around you till eventually you saw the room seemed illuminated. Those who are good at maths get sight of those glimpses quicker, or have a capacity to see more of the room than most can, or who know when to look at the right objects in the room, and when to turn away and explore a different part of this terrain.

Though I guess there'd probably be a correlation between mathematical creativity and everyday creativity, and maybe everyday creativity is more like mathematical crativity- even though with ordinary creativity there are many correct answers an certainly isn't just one darkened room.

But surely in discovering new maths, one has to be somewhat creative in the methods employed. That's what I would refer to as mathematical creativity. Also, were some/all of the problem solving methods themselves discovered or created as a tool to discover new maths?

[stac4321]

(Original post by Kenocide)
Oh dear, you are very misinformed.

...law degree will obviously have the best career prospects for a career as a doctor, nurse or lawyer. But on the other hand, your career prospects are somewhat limited in the sense that you're stuck with a career in medicine or law...
As regards Law, both of these statements are just wrong. Someone with a law degree does not have the best prospects for a career as a lawyer because most top law firms (actively) recruit around 50% of their trainees from non-law degrees who then convert via the GDL. Equally, a law degree does not limit one's career prospects at all. It is an extremely difficult degree, a fact which I believe is recognised by most credible employers and leads to law graduates going into all variety of sectors and jobs.

Conversly, degrees such as English don't directly lead to a specific career, but the transferable skills are definetly valuable.
Use of the word 'conversely' here after you've just been talking about law degrees (among others) is laughable on account of the necessary implication that a law degree does not provide valuable transferable skills. I have no experience of an English degree but here are some of the transferable skills a successful law graduate will gain: logical reasoning skills; serious research skills; analytical skills; the ability to comprehend incredibly dense texts; effective written and probably oral communication skills; attention to detail; problem solving; ability to persuade; ability to work under pressure. Just off the top of my head. That list isn't a comparison to an English degree or any other degree for that matter, it's just a suggestion as to why you really shouldn't imply that a law degree doesn't offer a significant range of transferable skills.

My bad I had no idea about the law thing, so sorry I really am misinformed, I just randomly named a 'serious' degree that had some kind career associated with it, not knowing that it wasn't actually paticually associated with it.

And conversely was the wrong word - to clarify I didn't mean to say that the same skills can't be developed from a medical or law degree.

Are you a lawyer?

[Picture~Perfect]

(Original post by pepeeglesfield)
In this day and age, jobs are hard to come by, which degree do YOU think gives you the best chance in obtaining secure well paying job for the future?

Surely this is dependent on what you're interested in studying and what you would enjoy career wise. You shouldn't study a subject because you will get a well paid job at the end.
Why would you want to spend the rest of your life doing something unrelated to what you enjoy? A career is about doing a job you love.

[see-are]

(Original post by alexs2602)
I can tell you've never taken maths at degree level before. Otherwise you'd know that from the very beginning we're forced to use our creativity and intellect to solve problems. We aren't spoon fed the right answer. We have to solve problems using unorthodox methods. If you think maths doesn't require intelligence, creativity etc then prove something most mathematicians probably learn in their first week of their first year of uni without cheating. Prove (3)^0.5 is irrational.

I took maths at uni

[TheJ0ker]

(Original post by see-are)
Maths is an awful degree. It shows you are a conformist who is prepared to repeat mindless drills over and over just sticking to the formula or however you were spoon fed how to answer the question. You could be replaced by robots. It is intensely boring and pointless for the majority of people who don't use it in their careers outside of simple arithmetic. People who take maths show no creativity or flair and enjoy hiding behind the safety of a comfort zone created by the rigid axioms of maths like pythagoras' theorem . If I was ever in a position where I was employing people I would disregard all maths grads regardless of how good they seem otherwise because it just shows they are idiots that they wasted 3 years of their life on it. Although it does have good career prospects in general because I guess you do have to be committed and able to follow (some complex) orders to a tee which is what employers want - free thinkers are too risky.

Nice joke.

[alexs2602]

(Original post by see-are)
I took maths at uni

Liar.

[see-are]

(Original post by alexs2602)
Liar.

now that's just petty

[see-are]

(Original post by TheJ0ker)
Nice joke.

not a joke.

[TheJ0ker]

(Original post by see-are)
not a joke.

keep em coming my sides are splitting

[Smack]

People keep saying engineering. Let me wish you good luck finding a graduate engineering job without at least some previous experience. The only person I know who managed to get a graduate engineering job without any experience was incredibly lucky because the company were only recruiting from two universities and he basically pestered them every few days after the interview until they finally relented and gave him the offer, well after they gave out the rest of their offers to those who already had experience.

Yes it's a very employable degree but it's not like medicine with a near 100% graduate employment rate. I don't think it's better than any other numerical discipline for jobs outside engineering.

[see-are]

(Original post by TheJ0ker)
keep em coming my sides are splitting

You sir, are easily entertained. I'l give you that.

[Intriguing Alias]

(Original post by see-are)
I took maths at uni

Weird since you were asking about your GCSE Statistics exam being easy last month?

[Rainingshame]

(Original post by see-are)
Maths is an awful degree. It shows you are a conformist who is prepared to repeat mindless drills over and over just sticking to the formula or however you were spoon fed how to answer the question. You could be replaced by robots. It is intensely boring and pointless for the majority of people who don't use it in their careers outside of simple arithmetic. People who take maths show no creativity or flair and enjoy hiding behind the safety of a comfort zone created by the rigid axioms of maths like pythagoras' theorem . If I was ever in a position where I was employing people I would disregard all maths grads regardless of how good they seem otherwise because it just shows they are idiots that they wasted 3 years of their life on it. Although it does have good career prospects in general because I guess you do have to be committed and able to follow (some complex) orders to a tee which is what employers want - free thinkers are too risky.

the fact that the only rule you gave was the Pythagoras theorem shows how little you understand even A-level maths. If you had started A2 maths you'd understand that it not only do you have to remember rules bu then also have to adapt them to the questions placed in front of you. And to my knowledge you also have to prove how they work at Undergrad. I'm sure that this shows an ability to use your skills in an unfamiliar circumstances as well as an ability to lay an argument in a sequence of logical steps. I'm sure those are shown more than conformity and that they are valued more than the ability to follow orders to a tee. If they wanted that they'd hire hard working people right out of Year 11 rather than skilled undergraduates, it'd be much cheaper.

[see-are]

(Original post by Rainingshame)
the fact that the only rule you gave was the Pythagoras theorem shows how little you understand even A-level maths. If you had started A2 maths you'd understand that it not only do you have to remember rules bu then also have to adapt them to the questions placed in front of you. And to my knowledge you also have to prove how they work at Undergrad. I'm sure that this shows an ability to use your skills in an unfamiliar circumstances as well as an ability to lay an argument in a sequence of logical steps. I'm sure those are shown more than conformity and that they are valued more than the ability to follow orders to a tee. If they wanted that they'd hire hard working people right out of Year 11 rather than skilled undergraduates, it'd be much cheaper.

I chose it because it was one everyone would know...
Yeah memorising rules isn't exactly impressive and applying them to the very limited scope of questions that could come up is still just using the tools handed to you in the ways you were taught to. They basically do hire people from year eleven as they don't develop in any area other than following more and more complicated instructions . Maths is all a priori anyways anyone can work it out you don't need a degree in it

[Rainingshame]

(Original post by see-are)
I chose it because it was one everyone would know...
Yeah memorising rules isn't exactly impressive and applying them to the very limited scope of questions that could come up is still just using the tools handed to you in the ways you were taught to. They basically do hire people from year eleven as they don't develop in any area other than following more and more complicated instructions . Maths is all a priori anyways anyone can work it out you don't need a degree in it

And in languages, literature, creative arts your average students makes up new rules on the spot? The research mathematicians are creative as are those for music and engineering. The majority of these students absorb what they need to know and apply a limited number of skills to a goal set for them to accomplish. They are no more creative and different than maths. all that changes are the number of skills gained and their transfer-ability to what you'll be doing in a workplace.

[Intriguing Alias]

(Original post by see-are)
I chose it because it was one everyone would know...
Yeah memorising rules isn't exactly impressive and applying them to the very limited scope of questions that could come up is still just using the tools handed to you in the ways you were taught to. They basically do hire people from year eleven as they don't develop in any area other than following more and more complicated instructions . Maths is all a priori anyways anyone can work it out you don't need a degree in it

Dude, give up. We all know you haven't the slightest clue about university maths. If you've done a Maths degree then why did you post these in the past month:

(Original post by see-are)
oh skeen didn't read that bit
yeah i do politics it is ridiculously easy

(Original post by see-are)
I'm currently doing 2 Pre- Us and 2 A levels
Would defs recommend Pre -U if you have any questions you can message me

Now give up.

[roh]

(Original post by fletchdd02)
Exactly, the Government controls it and they're the ones trying to cut the costs of the NHS.

Yes, but blowing 237k on medical students you don't need seems a bit daft.
If they over train by double, so 20,000 rather than 10,000 (ish), they'll be paying 237,000,000 pounds per cohort more than they need to.

Given the NHS employs the vast majority of Doctors in the UK why not just cut salaries if they want to? After all Hippocratic oath means Doctors can't really go on strike. Theoretically it's very easy, if they cut all Junior Doctors salaries to 12k tomorrow there's not much they can do about it, they're only trained for one job and there's only one employer.

Politically however Doctors' salaries are close to untouchable as doctors are so popular (contrast to legal aid which they can, and have, slash and burn as they like because nobody really likes lawyers).

Also, the NHS is competing for the best of a very particular type of person (driven, willing to put in long hours, excellent results throughout education, scientific skill set etc.), earlier on in the process than 24-25, with companies offering much bigger salaries. For example if you have a hatful of A*s at GCSE, 4 As at AS in sciencey subjects and are willing to go through 15th Oct deadline and an interview, if you want money why not do a science at Oxbridge and go off to an FO IB job where you'll make a fortune?