Maths Uni Chat Watch

MrShifty
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#5101
Report 8 years ago
#5101
(Original post by IrrationalNumber)
From what I can tell from final year options at Warwick, measure theory is infinitely more useful.
It depends on where you're going with it. Measure theory is very useful in analysis, probability, ergodic theory, etc. but algebraic geometry is a major and 'deep' subject in abstract algebra and I'd probably say that it touches upon more (pure) than does the former.
0
reply
v-zero
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#5102
Report 8 years ago
#5102
(Original post by assmaster)
Well, I always thought of it this way: if you were were second past midday, you're in the afternoon. This is why the whole minute of 12:00 at midday is counted as pm.
Similarly, at one second past midnight, you are in the morning. So the whole minute of 00:00... etc. However, no way am I arguing with Wikipedia.

This sentence cries out for a penis joke.

And in other news, I'm going back up to Durham tomorrow. Woooo.
It is never measurably exactly midday, or midnight, or any time - the limit to Planck time takes care of that. That's even neglecting the fact that relativistic effects will have their way with all objects, clocks included, making an argument about the absolute nature of pm and am rather futile when the entire assumption that time is absolute is flawed...
0
reply
jj193
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5103
Report 8 years ago
#5103
V-Zero'd.
0
reply
Oh I Really Don't Care
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#5104
Report 8 years ago
#5104
(Original post by v-zero)
It is never measurably exactly midday, or midnight, or any time - the limit to Planck time takes care of that. That's even neglecting the fact that relativistic effects will have their way with all objects, clocks included, making an argument about the absolute nature of pm and am rather futile when the entire assumption that time is absolute is flawed...
I am surprised you considered it worthy of note.

It is hardly a shock that using something as 'connected' and 'dense' as the real line for modelling things in reallity is both going to have a serious amount of philisophical thought and difficult justifications.

One large one would be that all of the basic SI units are considered to be discrete. So why the hell is it we still model things via derivitives etc when ultimately it would be pointless? Simply due to the fact that the accuracy of our interpretation of the reslut suffices for the job at hand.
0
reply
v-zero
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#5105
Report 8 years ago
#5105
(Original post by DeanK22)
I am surprised you considered it worthy of note.

It is hardly a shock that using something as 'connected' and 'dense' as the real line for modelling things in reallity is both going to have a serious amount of philisophical thought and difficult justifications.

One large one would be that all of the basic SI units are considered to be discrete. So why the hell is it we still model things via derivitives etc when ultimately it would be pointless? Simply due to the fact that the accuracy of our interpretation of the reslut suffices for the job at hand.
I did not say that its use was wrong, only that arguing over inherently misleading models is rather fruitless.
0
reply
Simplicity
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#5106
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#5106
(Original post by assmaster)
Well, I always thought of it this way: if you were were second past midday, you're in the afternoon. This is why the whole minute of 12:00 at midday is counted as pm.
Similarly, at one second past midnight, you are in the morning. So the whole minute of 00:00... etc. However, no way am I arguing with Wikipedia.
I don't know why you wouldn't just say it's 12 when its midday. I never actually use pm or am, as that would be silly in most circumstances seeing as its obvious if its day or night. Wikipedia is always wrong.

(Original post by v-zero)
It is never measurably exactly midday, or midnight, or any time - the limit to Planck time takes care of that. That's even neglecting the fact that relativistic effects will have their way with all objects, clocks included, making an argument about the absolute nature of pm and am rather futile when the entire assumption that time is absolute is flawed...
This is all speculation. Without a theory of everything, I don't see how you can conclude time isn't absolute in very small scales. Assumptions are still assumptions i.e. assumptions of relativity.

On a unrelated note. Does any lecturer give out sweets and stuff? last year the mechanics lecturer gave out £1s for correct anwsers. This year QM lecturer is giving out mars bars, however I don't eat mars bars.
0
reply
My Alt
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5107
Report 8 years ago
#5107
(Original post by v-zero)
It is never measurably exactly midday, or midnight, or any time - the limit to Planck time takes care of that. That's even neglecting the fact that relativistic effects will have their way with all objects, clocks included.
Oh, you're so cool.
0
reply
Oh I Really Don't Care
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#5108
Report 8 years ago
#5108
(Original post by v-zero)
I did not say that its use was wrong, only that arguing over inherently misleading models is rather fruitless.
Exactly my point.
0
reply
jj193
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5109
Report 8 years ago
#5109
(Original post by Simplicity)
On a unrelated note. Does any lecturer give out sweets and stuff? last year the mechanics lecturer gave out £1s for correct anwsers. This year QM lecturer is giving out mars bars, however I don't eat mars bars.
They are grooming you, never accept sweets from strangers.
0
reply
v-zero
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#5110
Report 8 years ago
#5110
(Original post by Simplicity)
This is all speculation. Without a theory of everything, I don't see how you can conclude time isn't absolute in very small scales. Assumptions are still assumptions i.e. assumptions of relativity.
So what you're saying is that light knows how fast you, and everything else is going, and also considers all masses and other energies present, and makes an informed decision as to whether the situation should be treated relativistically or classically? Really?

Just because classical mechanics is a good approximation does not mean that the universe is turning a blind eye.


(Original post by DeanK22)
Exactly my point.
Well, if you wish to iterate...
0
reply
Oh I Really Don't Care
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#5111
Report 8 years ago
#5111
(Original post by v-zero)
Well, if you wish to iterate...
It is apparent that using something as rich as the real line is going to be problematic when we try to interpret an occurence in reality from some real numbers simply due to the nature of things in reality, and also because we believe alot of things are not continuos.

Your post merely - also weakly - paraphrased this which I deemed quite comical as many know this and it acted nothing more than a humurous and worthless snippet that also seemed pointless to point out (pun intended) - when inquired upon the hour and minutes of the evening one would hardly retort with such a barage of nonsense as to why it is not precisely 12 pm and thank Planck.
0
reply
Simplicity
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#5112
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#5112
(Original post by jj193)
They are grooming you, never accept sweets from strangers.
She only gives mars bars to the smart students, I will never know what its like to get given a mars bar by a lecturer.


(Original post by v-zero)
So what you're saying is that light knows how fast you, and everything else is going, and also considers all masses and other energies present, and makes an informed decision as to whether the situation should be treated relativistically or classically? Really?

Just because classical mechanics is a good approximation does not mean that the universe is turning a blind eye.
No I'm saying something like this could be true http://www.newscientist.com/article/...html?full=true

why assume special relativity is correct below plank length?

On that point, particles do show EPR effect. Its not a big assumption that every particle has some sort of information about every other partcle, espically when everything was once really tiny.
0
reply
v-zero
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#5113
Report 8 years ago
#5113
(Original post by DeanK22)
It is apparent that using something as rich as the real line is going to be problematic when we try to interpret an occurence in reality from some real numbers simply due to the nature of things in reality, and also because we believe alot of things are not continuos.

Your post merely - also weakly - paraphrased this which I deemed quite comical as many know this and it acted nothing more than a humurous and worthless snippet that also seemed pointless to point out (pun intended) - when inquired upon the hour and minutes of the evening one would hardly retort with such a barage of nonsense as to why it is not precisely 12 pm and thank Planck.
It w hardly nonsense, but fine. I only intended to point out the futility in any such argument. Which is more blue - light blue or dark blue? Write your answer on the back of a postage stamp and sent it off to war.
0
reply
v-zero
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#5114
Report 8 years ago
#5114
(Original post by Simplicity)
She only gives mars bars to the smart students, I will never know what its like to get given a mars bar by a lecturer.



No I'm saying something like this could be true http://www.newscientist.com/article/...html?full=true

why assume special relativity is correct below plank length?

On that point, particles do show EPR effect. Its not a big assumption that every particle has some sort of information about every other partcle, espically when everything was once really tiny.
Nothing can be empirically said below Planck length, I am of the Feynman view that 'below Planck length' simply doesn't exist. The Universe is discontinuous.
As for action at a distance... if we are to reinvent the ether for the sake of conversing particles, we will first need some evidence of any such behaviour. Currently we only have electron spin, and there's probably something else going on there.
0
reply
jj193
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5115
Report 8 years ago
#5115
planks.
0
reply
SimonM
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5116
Report 8 years ago
#5116
Heading back to uni today. Looking forward to seeing my mystery room...
0
reply
Slumpy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5117
Report 8 years ago
#5117
(Original post by SimonM)
Heading back to uni today. Looking forward to seeing my mystery room...
Mine was pleasantly surprising, hope yours is equally so!
0
reply
SimonM
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5118
Report 8 years ago
#5118
(Original post by Slumpy)
Mine was pleasantly surprising, hope yours is equally so!
Hmm... I'm not particularly optimistic at the moment.
0
reply
around
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5119
Report 8 years ago
#5119
I can't really stand up in half of my room for this year. Oh well.
0
reply
v-zero
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#5120
Report 8 years ago
#5120
Why are you all living in?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • Cranfield University
    Cranfield Forensic MSc Programme Open Day Postgraduate
    Thu, 25 Apr '19
  • University of the Arts London
    Open day: MA Footwear and MA Fashion Artefact Postgraduate
    Thu, 25 Apr '19
  • Cardiff Metropolitan University
    Undergraduate Open Day - Llandaff Campus Undergraduate
    Sat, 27 Apr '19

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (481)
37.76%
No - but I will (98)
7.69%
No - I don't want to (88)
6.91%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (607)
47.65%

Watched Threads

View All