Maths and Further MathsWatch
Partial Differentiation uses the curly, roundback dz/dy and dz/dx instead of the classic dy/dx. Thats the only name I can think of for partial differentiation and I'm the biggest fan of calculus bar none. Hence my username, the greatest man that ever lived and gave the world calculus along with leibniz.
I agree but Newton's my top scientist because he thought different about things, he went into unknown terroritory like Galileo, Eratosthenes and Copernicus. Yeah leibniz did use dy/dx, Newton used "X" with a dot on top of it. There are lots of all time greats but I think Newton is the greatest, he's in the top 3 Greatest Mathematicians and top 3 Greatest Physicists of all time. Has any read his mathematical paper, The Principia? The maths inside it is mind blowing, and to think he didn't even have a calculator. Thats a true great, not like stephen hawkings and his telescopes and computers, Newton made his own telescope, and he did all this while most of England had the plague.
Thats a true great, not like stephen hawkings and his telescopes and computers, Newton made his own telescope, and he did all this while most of England had the plague.
... Did he discover the basis of maths and physics?
...Did he use his own knowledge of maths instead of a Calculator?
And I really dont see how the calculator comment is in any way relevant - most mathematics is done without calculators as they are only useful really to speed up arithmetic and to give approximations for things such as pi, logarithms etc
most mathematics is done without calculators as they are only useful really to speed up arithmetic and to give approximations for things such as pi, logarithms etc
the fact that he didnt have a calculator does not make his acheivement any more or less great - most of his theorems and indeed most mathematics has very little to do with numbers.
"I'd like to know how you can find the fundamental theorem of calculus with a calculator. Simply answer: You Can't."
Youre almost arguing against yourself there - the point is Stephen Hawkings should not be considered a worse mathematician because he is sensible enough to do long trivial calculations on a calculator rather than spend a long time working them out in his head or on paper - but he should be considered a great mathematician/physicist because he has explored new ideas and aided our understanding of the universe
Lastly - do you think Newton did calculations in his head out of choice, to demonstrate his great mathematical ability? no, he did because he had to and if he were alive today and had the option of using a calculator he obviously would
ps and by the way i think ur username must break some law. u cant just BE isaac newton
Also euler and fermat developed these ideas as well as many others. iwould say newton should be more highly regarded as a physicist than a mathematician because although his contribution to mathematics is significant, it cannot match that of the true mathematical greats such as euler, diophantus, lame, galois etc
i disagree totally with you. first of all physists wouldnt get things done without the fundamentals of mathematics. what would they do without the elliptic integrals or other special functions. what would they do if the exponential function wasn not defined. physists didnt break the cyphers during the war. mathematicians did. I had this argument with one of the students doing physics at imeprial. she said mathematicians are fialed physiest. but i said physissts are failed mathematicians. Although with all the respect to physics as a branch of science. i regard physics as a SUBSET of Mathematics.
Biologists think they are bio-chemists,
Bio-chemists think they are chemists,
Chemists think they are physical chemists,
physical chemists think they are physists,
physisists think they are god
and God thinks hes a mathematician.
Maths is merely a communicating tool in physics (so physics is no subset of maths.) It’s a bit like comparing grand ideas and the bigger picture (physics) and writing it down neatly with a pen (maths).
I don’t think maths people are failed physist or the other way round. I think mathematicians with their pedantic nature are confined to a little space making sure all the details are correct; physists look at the bigger picture (the cosmos!) are don’t get hung up over finer details! Would a mathematician ever have the courage to propose what theoretical physists do???
you comment about rigour of mathematicians. thats the best part. what would science be if we didnt know what 2+2 was. what would science be if we didnt know the intergfral of squarert(x^2 - 1) . we cant assume eveything to be correct just because a small part of it is correct. if we did then all the misfortunes and the accidents of space shuttles would be blamed on us.
i think the rigour of mathematics is the thing that makes it beautiful. without rigour there is nothing. mathematics is an absolute perfection. Physics will never achieve that. How many models of universe and space and time and light and all the other things has be overthrouwn and proven to be wrong. i dont think physisixt will ever explain universe perfectecly. while mathematicians explain the mathematical universe abosuly to perfection even to infinity. Hilbert defined varous types of infinity. there are infinity which are greater than others. You get results so astounding and beutiful . you never dream of getting tha in physics. i think theoritical physics is a mess like my teacher said. 1/3 chaege?? what the hell. they are making stuff up to explain. not expalining the stuff.
its not true that mathematics can be of none practical vaule. Take the example of the famous 4 colour problem. How many colours does it take to colour a map without having adjcent areas being of the same colour. This saves map makers time and money.
I am not that passionate about maths to call it beautiful! But I think einstein did once say that all laws should be beautiful and symmetrical (I don’t really know what that means) so I think I’ll be better of switching my argument slightly: it pays to be ‘experimental’ rather than slog thru maths:
For your information there has been evidence for the existence of quarks (with fractional charges) by deep inelastic scattering. EVIDENCE. Infact the standard model is near complete, if the Higgs boson (Higgs- an example of your physist) is found and this will have profound consequences because it will change our view of the universe. Surely this is more profound then worrying about rigour.
Your first sentence perfectly explains why mathematics are sooo pedantic. Its obvious that 2+2=4. In fact it reminds me of the Matrix: “you only believe what you want to believe”.