Mathematical Nerds?

[hellocat 308]

Hi everypony,

 

I'm going to try to make this short... I still have a lot of work to do tonight and it is already past 2 in the morning. I am certain that this thread, which I have aptly named "Mathematical Nerds?" will turn into a bit of a rant for some, while those who aren't quite as mathematically inclined (not that that's a bad thing, I am quite jealous of the writers, artists, etc. in the crowd!) may look at with disgust, but after certain consideration I have decided to see to it's conception. As such, a brief explanation of the sole purpose of this thread is in order: This thread is to enable those of you who have quite nerdy, mathematical lives, to vent about the irritations that one might come across when discussing mathematical concepts in one's daily life. It also is to discuss mathematics at any level, or share any opinions on the matter (ie. do you like math? hate it? etc.)

 

Don't feel a need to read my huge rant below btw. it's full of irritation and frustration, and not much that is good. But if you want to read it, please do Some of you may have some similar stories too.

 

Without further ado, let me begin with the first (and perhaps only) rant on the matter...

 

The discussion begins to a point my freshman year of college while happily walking back to my dormitory. I overhear the kids in front of me talking about some mathematical concepts, which I believed to be related to my multivariable calculus class or perhaps my course on differential equations. Anyway, my ears perked up being the math nerd that I am and to my horror this was what I overheard: "... and then you just use Yuler's method for...". I don't quite recall what the actual topic of the conversation was, but I presume something like that. Regardless, the students butchered Euler's name. For those of you who don't know, Euler is pronounced "Oiler", not "Yuler", and this, I'm sure, a source of great discomfort for professors in mathematics and related fields. Considering Euler is one of the greatest and most influential mathematicians ever, it's rather shocking to hear his name pronounced as such at the collegiate level, let alone a prestigious technical institute, where it seems Euler's name comes up in almost every class offered.

 

Now, fast forward a couple years, and we get to my Junior year of college. I look at one of my homeworks, which asks me to take the Jacobian of a quaternion. This baffled me at the time (and still does to some degree... Never quite grasped quaternions), so I asked a friend who was enrolled in a computer graphics course and is, as such, exposed to quaternions on what I would imagine a near daily basis. She looks at it and says, "Oh, yeah, I mean I know what a quaternion is, but a Jacobian of a quaternion? That doesn't make any sense. I know what a Jacobian is, but you can't take a Jacobian of a quaternion." To that I ask, "Do you know what a Jacobian is?" "Yeah, of course. It's like that 'r' and such that you multiply when doing coordinate transformations." Table flip. Sure, Jacobians are useful for coordinate transformations. Also, it might be partially my own fault for not clarifying, but the problem, which just said to "find the Jacobian of the quaternion" should have made it clear that it referred to the Jacobian matrix, not the Jacobian determinant. I believe this to be an example of mathematical incompetence of a rather annoying sort; the assumption that because one understands a single use case of a concept, or has seen a term thrown around by a couple equations or a term, that one fully understands the concept at a deep level. I don't mind a lack of mathematical knowledge. I know that there is a lot that I don't know myself, and I also don't feel I actually understand most of what I can blabble off. But what does get to me is the cocky attitude that one understands the concept fully, when one has clearly only seen its use in a limited scope.

 

Alright, I just wanted to get that off my chest, and I'd like to open the floor up to all sorts of interesting mathematical discussion

[Oblivion 20,265]

I aplogize, I'm simply to tired to read all that, I will say though I am beyound aweful at math, to me 1 + 1=pie , and you don't wanna know what 5 times 5 equeles....Okay, maybe not quite that aweful, still pretty bad though!

[Techite Sparkle 354]

All I have to say is respect these people. Or it will bite you in the butt when you find a job in the future and they end up being your boss xD...

[Moss 95]

I like math when I get it,but hate how easy it is to forget some of the basic principals and such if you are not currently practicing that particular area of math,which makes me frustrated.

[caramba2654 601]

I need to learn as much Math as possible ASAP. I mean, I'm into coding and there's some stuff that require lots of different mathematical concepts. Well, mostly because I'm making a (very simple) 2D game, and it involves matrices. If even a simple game needs matrices to work, then the more complicated games should need a little bit more, right?

[Commander Urdnot 2,680]

I only recently realized that math was ruined for me by the educational institutions I was forced to attend when I was growing up.

 

It wasn't math that I hated, it was the educational institutions trying to rewire my brain that I hated.

 

I'm trying to reteach myself math skills, to give math a fair chance, and to make up for the shitty public school education I received.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Commander Urdnot

[lomk 20,663]

I am an accounting major. You might think that involves a lot of math, but in reality, the most advanced math we use in accounting programs is doing statistics in MS Excel. But if you're an aspiring accountant, you won't even use that in your career. Accounting is mostly puzzles. Deciding which revenues and expenses go through which accounts and making sure that Assets = Liabilities + Equity while staying lawful and ethical about it. The most math we use in pure accounting is your basic stuff you can do on a non-scientific calculator. And I can usually do stuff in my head. 

 

Like 164 × 500 = 82,000

 

I do that stuff in my head by taking the 2 zeros off of 500 to make it 5. That's easier to work with. To multiply by 5, divide by 2 then add a zero. Half of 164 = 82. Add a zero to make it 820. Then put the 2 zeros you took off of 500 back on to 820 and you end up at 82,000. I can do all that in my head about twice as fast as anyone can punch it into their calculators.

 

But yeah, that's about as advanced as math gets in accounting.

 

When it comes to numbers that involve more than one nonzero number, though, I'm not as quick. I couldn't do 164 × 516 in my head. lol I could still estimate it to be around 82,000 by rounding 516 down to 500. 

 

I guess the best approach to this is to break 516 down to make this equation

164 × 500 + 164 × 10 + 164 × 3 × 2

= 82,000 + 1,640 + 492 × 2

= 83,640 + 1,000 - 16 (I rounded 492 to 500, doubled it, and doubled the difference between 492 and 500 to come up with 16)

= 84,640 - 16 (because taking 16 from 84,640 was easier to work with than adding 984 to 83,640)

= 84,624

 

As you can see, it's a far more involved process. I'm much better off working with my calculator on that kind of stuff But if there's only one nonzero number, I'm golden lol

Edited December 16, 2013 by ~Sadistic Luna~

[AnonyPoni 564]

Meanwhile, I have a C in calculus

 

 

I have to confess, I read Euler in my head as Yuler XD