(Original post by Serpentine111)
Lol maths is a bit dumb if you're doing it for the sake of doing maths. In physics there's a reason you learn the mathematics  to apply it to situations in real life. If you do physics at university level there is A LOT of maths. Don't call physics "cancerous" just because you're doing bad in it and you're just mad.
If people never bothered being dumb and 'doing maths for the sake of maths' we wouldn't have publickey cryptography, certain aspects of engineering, general relativity, aspects of chemistry, physics and biology, some of the medical technology we have today, the extent analysis can be applied to certain areas of physics/finance through PDEs, and the list goes on.

 Follow
 41
 01022015 13:31

username1533709
 Follow
 104 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to username1533709
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 42
 01022015 13:35
(Original post by Serpentine111)
It is dumb if you maths for the sake of doing maths. Physics and engineering etc has revolutionised how we live, and of course those are based on mathematics, but you aren't gonna get much out of learning maths unless you apply it  which as far as I know, pure mathematicians don't.
Posted from TSR Mobile
applied maths uses mathematics learnt from pure maths anyway. We wouldn't have general relativity if it wasn't for pure mathematicians like Riemann and Lorentz.Pure maths is the most accurate form of science ever made by man, theres a reason maths is used heavily in physics. 
username1533709
 Follow
 104 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to username1533709
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 43
 01022015 13:36
(Original post by Serpentine111)
It is dumb if you maths for the sake of doing maths. Physics and engineering etc has revolutionised how we live, and of course those are based on mathematics, but you aren't gonna get much out of learning maths unless you apply it  which as far as I know, pure mathematicians don't.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Revolutions in Pure maths always have led to revolutions in Science.Look at how imaginary numbers and Hilbert space, which are purchasing mathematical concepts, have revolutionised physics. 
Gnomes&Knights
 Follow
 40 followers
 19 badges
 Send a private message to Gnomes&Knights
Offline19ReputationRep: Follow
 44
 01022015 13:36
(Original post by Noble.)
Actually, the real reason behind this is the fact that physics at GCSE and ALevel is taught far too qualitatively. ALevel Physics for me was 90% needing to memorise material and 10% of rearranging equations and substituting values into equations, which isn't representative of degree level physics.
Also, I'm not quite sure what you think (proper) maths involves if you've managed to separate 'maths skills' and 'theory and deep thought'.Last edited by Gnomes&Knights; 01022015 at 13:54. 
Serpentine111
 Follow
 3 followers
 8 badges
 Send a private message to Serpentine111
Offline8ReputationRep: Follow
 45
 01022015 13:37
(Original post by Noble.)
If people never bothered being dumb and 'doing maths for the sake of maths' we wouldn't have publickey cryptography, certain aspects of engineering, general relativity, aspects of chemistry, physics and biology, some of the medical technology we have today, the extent analysis can be applied to certain areas of physics/finance through PDEs, and the list goes on. 
 Follow
 46
 01022015 13:37
(Original post by Raymat)
I was talking about understanding concepts in physics and when and where to apply them in the exam. Maths skills is more about problem solving skills involve numeracy. 
Gnomes&Knights
 Follow
 40 followers
 19 badges
 Send a private message to Gnomes&Knights
Offline19ReputationRep: Follow
 47
 01022015 13:40
(Original post by Noble.)
At GCSE and ALevel 
username1533709
 Follow
 104 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to username1533709
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 48
 01022015 13:44
(Original post by Serpentine111)
Einstein had the theory first and then used mathematics to explain it, he wasn't just doing maths and happened to stumble across equation whilst he was doing maths for fun. People use mathematics to models things and have the theory and goal first. I do understand how mathematics is extremely important thanks, considering I'm doing a university degree in physics, no need to facepalm.
Posted from TSR Mobile 
 Follow
 49
 01022015 13:46
(Original post by Serpentine111)
Einstein had the theory first and then used mathematics to explain it, he wasn't just doing maths and happened to stumble across equation whilst he was doing maths for fun. People use mathematics to models things and have the theory and goal first. I do understand how mathematics is extremely important thanks, considering I'm doing a university degree in physics, no need to facepalm. 
Serpentine111
 Follow
 3 followers
 8 badges
 Send a private message to Serpentine111
Offline8ReputationRep: Follow
 50
 01022015 13:48
(Original post by Kadak)
Posted from TSR Mobile
Revolutions in Pure maths always have led to revolutions in Science.Look at how imaginary numbers and Hilbert space, which are purchasing mathematical concepts, have revolutionised physics. 
username1533709
 Follow
 104 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to username1533709
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 51
 01022015 13:53
(Original post by Serpentine111)
Yeah, imaginary numbers are useful in this world because physicists et al thought of how the area of mathematics could be useful. Mathematics were just like "omg this is cool" and continued to do maths with it (not sure if this is true but from the pure mathematicians I've met it wouldn't surprise me)
Posted from TSR Mobile 
Serpentine111
 Follow
 3 followers
 8 badges
 Send a private message to Serpentine111
Offline8ReputationRep: Follow
 52
 01022015 13:56
(Original post by Noble.)
That's alright, I've heard people studying (applied) maths at university say equally stupid things. The point is, in the vast majority of those things I listed they were initially studied in a pure way and was later applied to real world problems. In reality, only a tiny amount of problems are able to be studied/solved using current mathematical methods and the only likely way that this is going to be combated is via mathematical research and the development of new areas of mathematics. The idea that the 'mathematical toolkit' currently available is sufficient to solve even a fraction of the problems mathematicians/physicists would like to solve is pretty laughable. 
Serpentine111
 Follow
 3 followers
 8 badges
 Send a private message to Serpentine111
Offline8ReputationRep: Follow
 53
 01022015 13:58
(Original post by Kadak)
Yeah to be fair pure mathematicians want their maths to be useless, they like maths for the sake of maths.That's just what pure maths is all about,solving maths problems invented by mathematicians for mathematicians.
Posted from TSR Mobile 
 Follow
 54
 01022015 14:02
(Original post by Dalek1099)
To find the turning points you had to solve algebraic equations so you definitely did some Maths in a way a lot of Maths is Numeracy with letters, especially at A Level where it is extremely repetitive.Differentiating x^2 and x^3 exposed the general pattern(some people don't even get taught this far one person at the Cambridge Summer School did not know that definition of a derivative and had just been given the formulas I think at college) accepting that is good enough for me, I don't think in A2 you generally get taught proofs for most things like product and chain but I got taught them at the Cambridge Summer School.
The same is true of physics the A level involves little that is really interesting, because it doesn't teach that qualitatively. But it teaches enough of the principles that you can combine it with some maths and then do some actual physics. If you just learnt what's on the syllabus for either maths or physics, you'd probably be bored out of your mind.
A nice example is that you get taught Fermat's principle of least time when dealing with refraction, this gives you the principle from which you can derive important results, but you'd never be asked to show it in an exam because A level physics doesn't contain that much maths. 
username1533709
 Follow
 104 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to username1533709
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 55
 01022015 14:04
(Original post by Serpentine111)
Yeah, this exact reason is why I think it's a bit dumb to spend so much time learning things and not learning how to apply it. You're just doing maths for the enjoyment which is meh..
Posted from TSR Mobile
That's the point.Pure mathematicians enjoy maths for the sake of maths, they are the ultimate numberphiles.The more useless the maths, the better.Which is why mathematicians loved topology and hyperdimensions which was until recently only used by pure mathematicians.By my the shock they got when string theory led to a new development in low order topology😎 hehe. 
 Follow
 56
 01022015 14:05
(Original post by Serpentine111)
Nah it's alright, I know pure mathematicians (which I assume you are) are a bit defensive when their subject is scrutinised. I'm saying that if there were only pure mathematicians in this world and no physicists/engineers etc the world wouldn't be advancing the way it is, pure mathematicians don't apply the mathematics which is a bit pointless to me, but I guess I'm just quite a goalorientated person Sorry to break it to you, but I think that computers are more useful than pure mathematicians. 
Serpentine111
 Follow
 3 followers
 8 badges
 Send a private message to Serpentine111
Offline8ReputationRep: Follow
 57
 01022015 14:16
(Original post by Noble.)
I heavily prefer to study pure maths, but I have no intention on going into academia so no, I wouldn't call myself a pure mathematician. I don't disagree that you need physicists and engineers to properly take advantage of the mathematical content, but this is a bit of a circular discussion because if there weren't pure mathmos doing the hard work in the first place the physicists and engineers would still be busy scratching themselves. 
username1533709
 Follow
 104 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to username1533709
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 58
 01022015 14:18
(Original post by Serpentine111)
Nah it's alright, I know pure mathematicians (which I assume you are) are a bit defensive when their subject is scrutinised. I'm saying that if there were only pure mathematicians in this world and no physicists/engineers etc the world wouldn't be advancing the way it is, pure mathematicians don't apply the mathematics which is a bit pointless to me, but I guess I'm just quite a goalorientated person Sorry to break it to you, but I think that computers are more useful than pure mathematicians.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Computers aren't more useful than mathematicians. there's no point using a computer to calculations if you don't understand the underlying themes. Computers aren't going to solve the Riemann hypothesis. and the example of the Merten conjecture where a computer seemed to showed the conjecture was true but later proved false by mathematicians.Computers are only useful as mathematical models and not replacements for pure mathematicians. 
Serpentine111
 Follow
 3 followers
 8 badges
 Send a private message to Serpentine111
Offline8ReputationRep: Follow
 59
 01022015 14:19
(Original post by Kadak)
Posted from TSR Mobile
That's the point.Pure mathematicians enjoy maths for the sake of maths, they are the ultimate numberphiles.The more useless the maths, the better.Which is why mathematicians loved topology and hyperdimensions which was until recently only used by pure mathematicians.By my the shock they got when string theory led to a new development in low order topology😎 hehe. 
Ichiko N.A.B.
 Follow
 6 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to Ichiko N.A.B.
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 60
 01022015 14:22
(Original post by lerjj)
disagree. Physics would look very different if the universe weren't mathematical, but as long as it's predictable (not necessarily deterministic but at least so much so that you can draw a probability distribution), physics will always exist.
Mathematics encodes physics. If it didn't exist, physics would be less compact, but still there. (Oh, and maths relies on philosophy surely?)
In a way, Maths does depend on philosophy at least in for historical purposes. Our current sexagesimal system of telling time would not exist without religious philosophy.
This reminds me of a radio podcast I heard yesterday, it was about how the number zero would not exist if it were not for business and trading between the Eastern and Western World in the time of Babylonian and Greek mathematicians.
Maths would probably still exist without philosophy and trading, but I dare say it would be a fair bit more dull.
 Find people with the same A level options
 Whats the HARDEST ALEVEL subject your opinion
 What's Aerospace Engineering like?
 *MEGATHREAD*  The 'What Subjects Should I Do' ...
 What do you think is the HARDEST A LEVEL?
 Harris Westminster 2018 Offer Holders
 Most Respected And Least Respected ALevels
 Taking the supposedly 4 hardest ALevels
 What is the hardest Alevel?
 Which Subject Has The Most Annoying Students?

University of Warwick

University of Leeds

Physics with Astrophysics and Cosmology.
Loughborough University

Physics (including a Foundation Year)
University of Chester

Loughborough University

Durham University

Physics with Medical Physics (3 years)
University of Sheffield

Physics with Particle Physics & Cosmology (4 years)
University of Birmingham

University of Strathclyde

University of Leeds
We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.
 charco
 Mr M
 Changing Skies
 F1's Finest
 rayquaza17
 Notnek
 RDKGames
 davros
 Gingerbread101
 Kvothe the Arcane
 TeeEff
 The Empire Odyssey
 Protostar
 TheConfusedMedic
 nisha.sri
 claireestelle
 Doonesbury
 furryface12
 Amefish
 harryleavey
 Lemur14
 brainzistheword
 Rexar
 Sonechka
 TheAnxiousSloth
 EstelOfTheEyrie
 CoffeeAndPolitics
 an_atheist
 Labrador99
 EmilySarah00