Economics > Maths Watch

This discussion is closed.
Johan C
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#61
Report 12 years ago
#61
(Original post by coughsyrup)
I don't consider myself in an argument with you - you haven't actually said anything relevant to the debate on maths vs. economics and if you have, I accidentally missed it. You started with the personal derogatory, I'm not sure why, I assume you're having a joke, that's what this seems to be about. What was wrong with what I said about maths versus economics and the history of the symbiotic relationship between mathematical theory and its fields of application? Did you read that? I have no "beef" with you, by the way.
Lol no worries man, I meant more along the lines of Goodfella. And yeah, the Ben Bernanke joke was an attempt at being humorous.
0
President_Ben
Badges: 13
#62
Report 12 years ago
#62
(Original post by coughsyrup)
It's good when you are a little more perceptive. Maxwells's 4 equations (of electromagnetism... I'll let you in on that one) are tough in 3D. They reduce to one equation in 4D. Practically every engineer or physicist sweats over the 4 equations but the reduction to such elegance and simplicity is really beautiful. Such properties could exist in the hypothetical love equation - the reduction of such a wonderful feeling into elegant form. Some equations really mean something. Perhaps if your head wasn't so far up your own arse that it had got past the sigmoid colon you would get the point occasionally too.
Still missed the point. The content that Maxwell's equations express has nothing to do with the human condition or humanity.

LBC - developing something that can do something, is not the same as being able to explain that something in that context of 'being human'. We're rationalising rather than rational beings.
dsch
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#63
Report 12 years ago
#63
(Original post by President_Ben)
Still missed the point. The content that Maxwell's equations express has nothing to do with the human condition or humanity.

LBC - developing something that can do something, is not the same as being able to explain that something in that context of 'being human'. We're rationalising rather than rational beings.
No, I haven't. I'm saying some equations have inherent value. Some are elegant; and convey big ideas. The value is related to what they describe... to see an equation explaining love would be exciting - the equation is the essence of what it describes. I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this and it is a long way off track.
0
CityMonkey
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#64
Report 12 years ago
#64
Lol, Goodfella you're the most pathetic person I've met on this forum. I don't give a **** if I don't get into IB, I got other ambitions too. IB isn't the centre of my life, I ain't gonna lose sleep or think my life is over if I don't get in, especially if it means I might have to work with tossers like you. Its not the only way to make money. Anyway, what makes you think I care what you have to say about my potential prospects with IBs?

You don't know **** about me, I've already been offered an internship by a major BB (Citigroup), they offered to fly me over to Hong Kong but I rejected them to do something else I wanted to, and this is just after my 1st year of the degree.

So **** what you think.

<edit>

No thanks to the mods for deleting my posts where I've clearly only defended myself from provocation. Why can't you delete other posts that have proved provocative aswell? Why is it that you delete mine only? The moderation policy should be reviewed.
0
ajaj
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#65
Report 12 years ago
#65
(Original post by LBC213)
Simple search for "mathematics of emotions" on google:

http://users.actcom.co.il/typographi...%20emotions%22
http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/de...%20emotions%22

What are emotions? By products of electrical and chemical signals in the body, changes in the chemistry of the brain (itself a organ which functions on the basis of electrical signals). What underlies those? Mathematics. Artificial intelligence (including the "generation" of emotion given stimulus from the environment) is not as far away, or as pie in the sky, as you might think.
well am sure you did notice that I put in the `at present' disclaimer in... maybe in future we will be able to fully explain every thought (rational or irrational), but until we reach that stage we can't say for sure whether it will ever be fully attainable.

... and could you please explain the link between emotion/irrationality and AI.

<edit>

ok I just read abit from one of those webpages and I get the link now.. still seems rather far fetched to me though.
0
ajaj
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#66
Report 12 years ago
#66
(Original post by LBC213)
Lol, Goodfella you're the most pathetic person I've met on this forum. I don't give a **** if I don't get into IB, I got other ambitions too. IB isn't the centre of my life, I ain't gonna lose sleep or think my life is over if I don't get in, especially if it means I might have to work with tossers like you. Its not the only way to make money. Anyway, what makes you think I care what you have to say about my potential prospects with IBs?

You don't know **** about me, I've already been offered an internship by a major BB (Citigroup), they offered to fly me over to Hong Kong but I rejected them to do something else I wanted to, and this is just after my 1st year of the degree.

So **** what you think.

<edit>

No thanks to the mods for deleting my posts where I've clearly only defended myself from provocation. Why can't you delete other posts that have proved provocative aswell? Why is it that you delete mine only? The moderation policy should be reviewed.
geez listen to yourself.
0
henryt
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#67
Report 12 years ago
#67
I forgot something:
Economics > Maths

0
President_Ben
Badges: 13
#68
Report 12 years ago
#68
(Original post by coughsyrup)
No, I haven't. I'm saying some equations have inherent value. Some are elegant; and convey big ideas. The value is related to what they describe... to see an equation explaining love would be exciting - the equation is the essence of what it describes. I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this and it is a long way off track.
No, you have. Mathematics does not convey everything about everything. That is the point...
CityMonkey
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#69
Report 12 years ago
#69
Alright, I've said what I've wanted to say on this thread. If you guys still want to hold the view that, for the simple, ridiculous reason that "maths can't explain everything", "economics > maths" then you are entitled to your views. It makes no difference to me, though it might help, if you intend to get past those precious 1st round interviews at Goldman, that you try taking your head out of your arse.
0
shady lane
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#70
Report 12 years ago
#70
(Original post by LBC213)
Alright, I've said what I've wanted to say on this thread. If you guys still want to hold the view that, for the simple, ridiculous reason that "maths can't explain everything", "economics > maths" then you are entitled to your views. It makes no difference to me, though it might help, if you intend to get past those precious 1st round interviews at Goldman, that you try taking your head out of your arse.
I made it to final rounds for Goldman last year, and I'm neither an economist nor a mathematician (although I'm closer to the former). And I made it past a student doing an MSc in Financial Mathematics. Hmm...maybe it's because being pompous and obnoxious is seen as negative. Try taking that lesson...
0
Roll-The-Dice-And-Win
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#71
Report 12 years ago
#71
I think we are diverting from the main topic here, if Economics > Maths for investment banking. Maths is a much more challenging degree than Economics and in my opinion if you can crack maths at an undergraduate level, you can crack economics very easily. Thats why for example the Msc Finance at Tanaka largely takes engineering, maths and physics students. They are just far more able to tackle advance financial concepts such as stochastic calculus and ito process. At the end of the day, both degrees are quantitative enough to pursue a career in investment banking for front office roles such as trading and derivatives. We all have our own preferences and a degree you hold is only a small part of your application as there are more important factors such as your personality, interests, work experience and ECs.
0
President_Ben
Badges: 13
#72
Report 12 years ago
#72
(Original post by LBC213)
"maths can't explain everything", "economics > maths"
Are two very different opinions.

Thats why for example the Msc Finance at Tanaka largely takes engineering, maths and physics students.
Or the Economics students aren't needing to do a MSc to get the job they want... a third of the Economists at UCL are in a banking internship and about that are doing one in the Big 4 (numbers for Big 4 a bit less reliable).

Very few who want to get into finance fail to do it. Economics courses are uniquely full of students who are very finance/city-centric.


You can see a similar effect in LSE, where Econ or not, a gargantuan proportion of the students make it to the City.
shady lane
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#73
Report 12 years ago
#73
(Original post by President_Ben)
Very few who want to get into finance fail to do it. Economics courses are uniquely full of students who are very finance/city-centric.


You can see a similar effect in LSE, where Econ or not, a gargantuan proportion of the students make it to the City.
Hah...for the social scientists in the room...this is known as signaling
0
President_Ben
Badges: 13
#74
Report 12 years ago
#74
(Original post by shady lane)
Hah...for the social scientists in the room...this is known as signaling
Have to explain it carefully to the mathmos who don't cover any of this kind of stuff explicitly
henryt
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#75
Report 12 years ago
#75
(Original post by President_Ben)
Have to explain it carefully to the mathmos who don't cover any of this kind of stuff explicitly
I think this is another owl moment...
:rolleyes:
0
Realist101
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#76
Report 12 years ago
#76
both degrees are great and you couldn't really lose out doing either, but LBC is right because with maths it affects all areas of life. so it is greater than economics. but both are still good either way.
0
ajaj
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#77
Report 12 years ago
#77
(Original post by LBC213)
"maths can't explain everything", "economics > maths"
Hang on a minute... Bens just alerted me to something here... is that comma meant to represent a 'therefore'?? If so then we have seriously got our wired crossed.... I certainly didn't make the deduction or indication that statement 1 leads onto statement 2 (I think statement 2 is such nonsense its not worth discussing) when I made the comment that maths can't explain emotion at the present.
0
Jan
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#78
Report 12 years ago
#78
you're comparing apples and pears..the two degrees develop different skills and abilities, and more often than not, you'd have very similar candidates applying for those degrees..if you disregard the very best of cambridge (and partially imperial, oxford and warwick) mathematicians, I think that the difference in raw mathematical ability of mathmos and economists starting reading their degree isn't as significant as one might think..

what does differentiate between them is very often what I call an 'intellectual curiosity about pure mathematics'..I've met relatively few people who'd stand a very good chance if they applied to oxbridge/imperial/warwick for maths given their raw mathematical ability, they however chose not to because they weren't interested enough in the abstract nature of a mathematics degree to do it for 3 years at least. some applied for physics/chemistry/engineeering, some for economics, mostly because they needed to apply their maths to something real..

what I'm trying to say is that those degrees develop different skills, and so you can't compare them; secondly, while mathematicians should be able to understand the foundations of econometrics very quickly, econometrics is only a part, albeit an important one, of economics as a science..

therefore, the fact that mathematicians can understand econometrics relatively quickly doesn't make economics easier or worse since there are other skills which cannot be acquired so quickly by a mathematician; for one, 'thinking like an economist'/having a real 'insight of an economist' is something which, despite leading to mathematicial formulae and methods later on, cannot be reduced to mathematics initially.

economics > maths? false.
economics < maths? false.
economics <> maths? true.

get on with your life; don't waste time by such a pointless argument.
0
CityMonkey
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#79
Report 12 years ago
#79
(Original post by President_Ben)
LBC - developing something that can do something, is not the same as being able to explain that something in that context of 'being human'. We're rationalising rather than rational beings.
If AI can faithfully reproduce human emotions that means that they have been mathematically quantised and there exists an algorithm to explicitly explain a certain emotion, for example "love". What else do you exactly want? The basis of human emotions and thoughts are basically chemistry and electricity, and while I don't claim to know much about this topic of emotions, those 2 subjects are heavily underlined by mathematics.

(Original post by Shady lane)
I made it to final rounds for Goldman last year, and I'm neither an economist nor a mathematician (although I'm closer to the former). And I made it past a student doing an MSc in Financial Mathematics. Hmm...maybe it's because being pompous and obnoxious is seen as negative. Try taking that lesson...
Ok, if we are comparing personal acheivements, lets go down that route shall we. I made it to final round UBS academic sponsorship, to get to which I had to write a 5000 word essay on an economic subject. When I got there, everyone there was told that out of the 1000 applicants, we were part of the last 30. In essence, I beat hundreds of economics students, many which would have come from Oxbridge, LSE, Warick and UCL. I found out about the sponsorship from an economics student at Cambridge as it happens, he didn't make it past the application stage.

And if we are taling about internships, I've just finished my 1st year and have already been made an offer by a bulge bracket, and offered to be flown over to Hong Kong to work at their office there. Lets put this into context: I'm NOT an economics student. Try taking a lesson from that...

(Original post by President_Ben)
Are two very different opinions.
With that quote you've just taken what I said in that post completely out of context. The quote suggests that I was saying that your arguement was wrong because you say maths can't explain everything and so that the notion that "economics > maths" is true, when quite clearly, I didn't.

Or the Economics students aren't needing to do a MSc to get the job they want... a third of the Economists at UCL are in a banking internship and about that are doing one in the Big 4 (numbers for Big 4 a bit less reliable).
Neither are other grads. The majority of people I know getting into IB from my course (Physics) is straight through the undergrad, not the Finance MSc, and certainly this is what I see from other non-Economics courses.

The point Mussy1234 was making is that if you look on the majority of MSc Finance admissions websites, it quite clearly says they look for highly quantitative individuals (maths/physics/engineering). This requirement is not about careers or any other crap you seem to think, it is about the fact that whether the people who enrol onto those courses are capable of coping with the content that is being taught on the course. What does it tell you when MSc Finance courses prefer maths, physics and engineering graduates? I'd like to see a Maths MSc advertise as "preferring" economics students. Find me one, Benjamin, and I will duly eat my hat.

Very few who want to get into finance fail to do it. Economics courses are uniquely full of students who are very finance/city-centric.
Yes thats true, so what does that tell you about the fact that more ecnomics students get into IB? The candidate pool is larger, so of course that is the consequence. Have you been paying attention in those statistics classes Benny boy? :rolleyes:

You can see a similar effect in LSE, where Econ or not, a gargantuan proportion of the students make it to the City.
Yes, again, a lot of people enter who enter LSE every year enter with the hope that its connections to industry and reputation of sending many people into the City will get them a front office banking position. You can argue that a lot of courses in LSE are geared towards that purpose. In Oxbridge there is a strong culture (stronger than at other unis) of students going into further education/academia, and Imperial is a science only university, hence the majority of grads that enter the university enter with the aim of going into a science career.

(Original post by ajaj)
geez listen to yourself.
Mate, if another forum user had spoken to you like Goodfella did to me, you would get pretty pissed off too. I like to think I contribute something to this forum, but when you have people like Tortle and Goodfella, who both combined don't add as much as I do to this forum, come on and say everything I was talking was absolute rubbish because I don't work in IB and basically started to make personal attacks on me, I'm sorry but I don't regret the words I used. I'm all up for reasoned debate, and actually that was what I was doing if you look at my early posts on this thread, but if people want to take personal shots at me, then I ain't a fool who likes to stay quiet.

Its ok, I know why it is it resolved into a personal attack on me, some poeple failed to see past their own nose, felt threatened that what I was actually saying made some sense, and while not having a reasoned arguement to say anything back, decided best to make cheap shots.
0
Drogue
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#80
Report 12 years ago
#80
(Original post by Shujinko)
To become an Economist you are required to have a Economics Degree.
No you don't, my tutor has a maths degree, then went straight to an econ PhD. Some of the tutors even have maths PhDs. The same isn't true the other way around, no maths tutor would go from an econ degree to a maths PhD or fellowship.
0
X
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

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (281)
27.6%
No (737)
72.4%

Watched Threads

View All