The Commons Bar Mk IX - MHoC Chat Thread Watch

This discussion is closed.
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7901
Report 4 years ago
#7901
(Original post by Aph)
Yeah, that looks better now.
Ahh ok. So if you're only doing a BSc you're leaving next year.
what proofs do we do...
Dis-proof by counter example
Proof by induction (love induction)
Proof by exhaustion
Direct proof

And I think there are a few more I do next year too.
Well, counter example would be show that rather than proof
Okay, your proofs are much more proper than our ones were at a level
Couple of lectures on proofs last year
And yeah, finished next year, although if u can I want to switch to the MMAT. If not will probably still do a masters, but not sure where or exactly what in.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7902
Report 4 years ago
#7902
Was always naturally good at mathematics but it never really interested me in the way that the weather, astronomy, politics or economics did.

It's a shame i never learnt deeper though as i'd like to be able to write proofs about various theories that i come up with, especially relating to physics.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7903
Report 4 years ago
#7903
(Original post by Rakas21)
Was always naturally good at mathematics but it never really interested me in the way that the weather, astronomy, politics or economics did.

It's a shame i never learnt deeper though as i'd like to be able to write proofs about various theories that i come up with.
That's part of the problem with education as a whole, it doesn't really engage with most people. So many people drop maths after GCSE when it gets a bit more interesting, and then come uni...

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7904
Report 4 years ago
#7904
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Well, counter example would be show that rather than proof
Okay, your proofs are much more proper than our ones were at a level
Couple of lectures on proofs last year
And yeah, finished next year, although if u can I want to switch to the MMAT. If not will probably still do a masters, but not sure where or exactly what in.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Yes... But my teacher always calls it a proof
Ahhh, what where your proofs at A-level??
i know lots of places let you switch and it would be covered by SFE so that's a bonus.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7905
Report 4 years ago
#7905
(Original post by Aph)
Yes... But my teacher always calls it a proof
Ahhh, what where your proofs at A-level??
i know lots of places let you switch and it would be covered by SFE so that's a bonus.
As I said, it was mostly proving trig equivalences using C^+S^2=1 and **** like that
I'll be covered by SFE anyway, just not as well, of it was an independent masters, mine is the first year with the 10k post grad loans
I've heard here that it's either 55 or 60pc average this year, not sure how bad this year will be though given this exam series.
Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7906
Report 4 years ago
#7906
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
As I said, it was mostly proving trig equivalences using C^+S^2=1 and **** like that
I'll be covered by SFE anyway, just not as well, of it was an independent masters, mine is the first year with the 10k post grad loans
I've heard here that it's either 55 or 60pc average this year, not sure how bad this year will be though given this exam series.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Ohh, that doesn't sound like fun.
Well that's lucky!!! Guess you'd have to move up to Scotland to make it last though.
That you need to swap? I'd say that sounds low bu obviously I've no idea the content.
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#7907
Report 4 years ago
#7907
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
It probably did effect it in since way
And surely the tool to discover them is the most important tool?
Hardy also saw the likes of Dirac and Einstein as pure mathematicians target than applied mathematicians, even though he also saw general relativity and quantum mechanics as useless. I also wonder just how different the world works be without analysis

Posted from TSR Mobile
It's important, but i just don't see how mathematical truths refer to the world to get truth from them.

This lecture by a mathematician sums up one of the reasons i think pure maths is just shifting symbols around: https://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/philosophy.html

I would nevertheless like to try to imagine a world in which it was natural to think that 2+2=5 and see what that tells us about our belief that 2+2=4.

In such a world, physical objects might have less clear boundaries than they do in ours, or vary more over time, and the following might be an observed empirical fact: that if you put two objects into a container, and then another two, and if you then look inside the container, you will find not four objects but five. A phenomenon like that, though strange, is certainly not a logical impossibility, though one does feel the need for more details: for example, if a being in this world holds up two fingers on one hand and two on the other, how many fingers is it holding up? If you put no apples into a bag and then put no further apples into the bag, do you have one apple? But then why not a tomato?We are free to invent any answers we like to such questions if we can somehow remain logically consistent, so here is a simple suggestion. Perhaps in the strange world it is really the act of enclosing objects in a container that causes what seems to us to be peculiar consequences. It might be that this requires an expenditure of energy so that the container doesn't just explode the moment you put anything into it and there isn't the physical equivalent of what economists call arbitrage. And yet, the apparent duplication-machine properties of plastic bags and the like might be sufficiently common for 2+2=5 to seem a more natural statement than 2+2=4.

But what, one wants to ask, about our mental picture of numbers? If we just think of two apples and then think of another two, surely we are thinking of four apples, however you look at it.But what should we say if we put that point to a being X from the other world, and X reacted as follows? X: I don't know what you're talking about. Look, I'm thinking of two apples now. [Holds up three fingers from one hand.] Now I'm thinking of two more. [Holds up three fingers from the other hand making a row of six fingers.] The result - five apples.Suppose that we were initially confused, but after a bit of discussion came to realize that X was associating the apples not with the fingers themselves but with the gaps between them . After all, between three fingers there are two gaps and between six fingers there are five.

At any rate this might seem a good explanation to us. But perhaps X would be so used to a different way of thinking that it would resist our interpretation. To X, holding up three fingers and saying "two" could seem utterly natural: it might feel absolutely no need for a one-to-one correspondence between fingers and apples.Faced with such a situation, it is a tempting to take the following line: what X is "really" doing is giving different names to the positive integers. When X says "2+2=5", what this actually means is "3+3=6", and more generally X's false sounding statement that "a+b=c" corresponds to our true statement "(a+1)+(b+1)=c+1".

But should we say this? Or is it better to say that what X means by addition is not our notion of addition but the more complicated (or so we judge) binary operation f(m,n)=m+n+1? Or is it enough simply to say that X uses a system of arithmetic that we can understand and explain in terms of ours in more than one way?

These questions are bothersome for a Platonist, particularly one who believes in direct reference, a philosophical doctrine I shan't discuss here. If the word "five", as used by us, directly refers to the number 5, then surely there ought to be a fact of the matter as to whether the same word used by X directly refers to 5 or 6 or something else. And yet there doesn't seem to be such a fact of the matter.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7908
Report 4 years ago
#7908
(Original post by KingStannis)
It's important, but i just don't see how mathematical truths refer to the world to get truth from them.

This lecture by a mathematician sums up one of the reasons i think pure maths is just shifting symbols around: https://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/philosophy.html

I would nevertheless like to try to imagine a world in which it was natural to think that 2+2=5 and see what that tells us about our belief that 2+2=4.

In such a world, physical objects might have less clear boundaries than they do in ours, or vary more over time, and the following might be an observed empirical fact: that if you put two objects into a container, and then another two, and if you then look inside the container, you will find not four objects but five. A phenomenon like that, though strange, is certainly not a logical impossibility, though one does feel the need for more details: for example, if a being in this world holds up two fingers on one hand and two on the other, how many fingers is it holding up? If you put no apples into a bag and then put no further apples into the bag, do you have one apple? But then why not a tomato?We are free to invent any answers we like to such questions if we can somehow remain logically consistent, so here is a simple suggestion. Perhaps in the strange world it is really the act of enclosing objects in a container that causes what seems to us to be peculiar consequences. It might be that this requires an expenditure of energy so that the container doesn't just explode the moment you put anything into it and there isn't the physical equivalent of what economists call arbitrage. And yet, the apparent duplication-machine properties of plastic bags and the like might be sufficiently common for 2+2=5 to seem a more natural statement than 2+2=4.

But what, one wants to ask, about our mental picture of numbers? If we just think of two apples and then think of another two, surely we are thinking of four apples, however you look at it.But what should we say if we put that point to a being X from the other world, and X reacted as follows? X: I don't know what you're talking about. Look, I'm thinking of two apples now. [Holds up three fingers from one hand.] Now I'm thinking of two more. [Holds up three fingers from the other hand making a row of six fingers.] The result - five apples.Suppose that we were initially confused, but after a bit of discussion came to realize that X was associating the apples not with the fingers themselves but with the gaps between them . After all, between three fingers there are two gaps and between six fingers there are five.

At any rate this might seem a good explanation to us. But perhaps X would be so used to a different way of thinking that it would resist our interpretation. To X, holding up three fingers and saying "two" could seem utterly natural: it might feel absolutely no need for a one-to-one correspondence between fingers and apples.Faced with such a situation, it is a tempting to take the following line: what X is "really" doing is giving different names to the positive integers. When X says "2+2=5", what this actually means is "3+3=6", and more generally X's false sounding statement that "a+b=c" corresponds to our true statement "(a+1)+(b+1)=c+1".

But should we say this? Or is it better to say that what X means by addition is not our notion of addition but the more complicated (or so we judge) binary operation f(m,n)=m+n+1? Or is it enough simply to say that X uses a system of arithmetic that we can understand and explain in terms of ours in more than one way?

These questions are bothersome for a Platonist, particularly one who believes in direct reference, a philosophical doctrine I shan't discuss here. If the word "five", as used by us, directly refers to the number 5, then surely there ought to be a fact of the matter as to whether the same word used by X directly refers to 5 or 6 or something else. And yet there doesn't seem to be such a fact of the matter.
I don't get your first statement

To me that block of text merely says that how we define our mathematics is largely arbitrary, must like anything else we merely define into existence

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7909
Report 4 years ago
#7909
(Original post by Aph)
Ohh, that doesn't sound like fun.
Well that's lucky!!! Guess you'd have to move up to Scotland to make it last though.
That you need to swap? I'd say that sounds low bu obviously I've no idea the content.
Why would I have to move to Scotland (or want to)?
60 is a 2.1 and things largely come down to your module choices and application. For example, I hate stats and calculus so did no stats modules and minimised calculus, next year almost completely eliminating it.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7910
Report 4 years ago
#7910
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Why would I have to move to Scotland (or want to)?
60 is a 2.1

Posted from TSR Mobile
Masters are free to everyone in Scotland last I checked...
Ahhh, that makes sense then.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7911
Report 4 years ago
#7911
(Original post by Aph)
Masters are free to everyone in Scotland last I checked...
Ahhh, that makes sense then.
Even the English? Any stop being 'racist' when you're a post grad?
Doesn't answer why I would go to Scotland though

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7912
Report 4 years ago
#7912
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Even the English? Any stop being 'racist' when you're a post grad?
Doesn't answer why I would go to Scotland though

Posted from TSR Mobile
From what I've seen yes:yep:
Scotland is lovely. And they might just turn you socalist:colone:
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7913
Report 4 years ago
#7913
(Original post by Aph)
From what I've seen yes:yep:
Scotland is lovely. And they might just turn you socalist:colone:
Yorkshire is lovely, as is the East of England. No need to go to Scotland for it.
And I'm not sure how Scotland will turn me socialist when more rational and intelligent kettle (people) have tried and failed

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Tanqueray91
  • Study Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7914
Report 4 years ago
#7914
(Original post by PetrosAC)
Hehehe, was waiting for you to come in and have a go at me. I loved GCSE maths, but I hate AS Level Maths so much. So dropping it xD

Posted from TSR Mobile
Haha, A level maths is easy
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
As someone who thinks maths is awesome you can help me differentiate natural logarithms with respect to time, and working out exponential growth rates of the economy. It being my last exam softens the blow slightly and is the only thing keeping me going at the moment. When is your last exam?
Sorry, doing that is my life dream and so it just put me to sleep!

Enjoy And my final exam is on the 19th!
0
DanE1998
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#7915
Report 4 years ago
#7915
Morning all,

How's everyone.

mobbsy91 is the bar open yet :P ?
0
Tanqueray91
  • Study Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7916
Report 4 years ago
#7916
(Original post by DanE1998)
Morning all,

How's everyone.

mobbsy91 is the bar open yet :P ?
Morning,

The bar is open 24/7!!!
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7917
Report 4 years ago
#7917
Shame that that storm didn't keep up.
0
DanE1998
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#7918
Report 4 years ago
#7918
(Original post by mobbsy91)
Morning,

The bar is open 24/7!!!
I guess I'll get the first round of the day in
0
Tanqueray91
  • Study Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7919
Report 4 years ago
#7919
(Original post by DanE1998)
I guess I'll get the first round of the day in
That sounds like an excellent idea
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7920
Report 4 years ago
#7920
(Original post by mobbsy91)
Haha, A level maths is easy
Shhhh It's easy if you can do it

(Original post by DanE1998)
Morning all,

How's everyone.

mobbsy91 is the bar open yet :P ?
Morning!

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
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

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (47)
26.11%
No (133)
73.89%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed