What is more impressive to you? A) To prove a new theorem in

>>7659159
>B) To find/prove a new theory in physics that explains a lot of things and thus has applications that would be very useful

>>7659159
>B) To find/prove a new theory in physics that explains a lot of things and thus has applications that would be very useful
This is the most significant, can't argue with that.

The 4 are important but I would still go for B

>>7659159
As a Chemical Engineer who has accomplished I'd say A) just because it's so rare for a theorem that is both novel and useful to be developed even considering a conservative connotation of "useful".

>>7659236
>accomplished C)*
Although not "chemical compound", composite.

B or D honestly, maybe D edges out if it was something in the medical field.

A has a potential to be more impressive, however often in maths it takes a few hundred years for the use of the theorem to become apparent

>>7659159
A is dumb. Mathmatics is only useful in conjunction with a physical science, otherwise it is just numerical circle jerking. D is dumb cuz it is just a specialized form of chemistry. And C is dumb because chemistry relies on physical phenomenon. The only useful science is physics, everything else is just a subset of physics, or exists to aid in our understanding of physics

>>7659159
>C) Proving the mechanism for a chemical reaction or creating a chemical compound that has applications that would be very useful

Because then you can make better pharmaceuticals, fertilisers, etc, at a lower cost; improving general well-being around the world

Though it would probably go
1) C
2) B&D
3) A

>>7659159
>And for students or people with degrees of science, is your major the same as your answer?

Biomedical science

>>7659265

if i had the gif of the spinning fedora, I'd post it right about now.

File: geometricallybrah.jpg (265KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1440x1080px

>>7659265
>Numerical circle jerking

Daily reminder that without mathematicians exploring "different geometries", also known as curved space, there would have been no revolution in physics in the last century. You would all keep doing newtonian tier physics.

>the only useful science is physics
Nice fedora my friend.

>>7659265
You must be at least 18 to post on this site.

>>7659159
As a mathematician I'm most interested in A, but B is also just as impressive to me if not more so. For me examples would be The Poincare Conjecture and General Relativity.

>>7659286
>Daily reminder that without mathematicians exploring "different geometries", also known as curved space, there would have been no revolution in physics in the last century. You would all keep doing newtonian tier physics.
Both SR and QM, and therefore QFT, are independent of curved geometries.

>>7659299
>What is General Relativity

>>7659299
SR depends on flat geometry, mainly the pythagorean theorem, which is math. And quantum mechanics depends completely on wave-functions which include complex numbers. Without mathematics we'd have no way of explaining anything.

>>7659299
With more research I found, with regards to QM, and therefore QFT:

>such as infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces and operators on these spaces. Many of these structures are drawn from functional analysis, a research area within pure mathematics

Are QM dependencies on mathematics. In other words, without these branches of mathematics existing, QM and therefore QFT wouldn't exist either.

All I'm trying to say is that Physics has a limiting factor, and that is mathematics. You cannot explain a theory that requires theorems that have not been proven. And believe me, a fingerless man can count with his fingers the amount of physicists that are also qualified to do rigorous mathematical proofs.

>>7659304
>Without mathematics we'd have no way of explaining anything.
>you're whole field of study is literally a tool invented to explain a superior discipline

>>7659308
Functional anal is considered pure math?

>>7659310
Take a couple of step backs and look at your argument.

Chemist says:
>Without Physics we'd have no way of explaining anything
>Your whole field of study is literally a tool invented to explain a superior discipline

Biologist says:
>Without chemistry we'd have no way of explaining anything
>your whole field of study is literally a tool invented to explain a superior discipline

Psychologist says;
>Without biology we'd have no way of explaining anything
>your whole field of study is literally a tool invented to explain a superior discipline

Social "Scientist" says:
>Without psychology we'd have no way of explaining anything
>your whole field of study is literally a tool invented to explain a superior discipline

And so on.

I think the hierarchy of superiority is the other way around, pal. And if not then you have to accept that a sociologist does superior science than a physicist.

>>7659308
>rigorous mathematical proofs
Physicists don't care about rigorous mathematics. Look at the history of the Dirac delta function; it had no rigorous mathematical structure but all the physicists were perfectly fine using it. A similar argument exists for Feynman path integrals. The reason for this is that physicists are not interested in deductive mathematics and merely need a tool that allows them to make quantitative predictions.

B is the most expansive on the list and thus the most impressive for simply doing the most shit. Everything else on the list is rather small and highly focused, while the physics theory is supposed to cover a wide range of phenomena. In reality, physicists don't work on such expansive fields. They work on small, specific problems the same as C would have a chemist working on synthesizing and characterizing a single compound.

>>7659159
>prove a new theory
One does not "prove" a theory, fgt pls

>>7659304
>>7659308
I didn't say math wasn't important, that would be retarded. Was just saying curved geometry isn't important in all of the 20th century revolutions in physics, just GR.

>>7659317
no. those are different scientific disciplines, studying different type of natural phenomena. math is not a science. its a formal set of rules that are used to facilitate in scientific endeavors.

>>7659317
That hierarchy is a meme to begin with, at least for every purpose other than circlejerking. You can't reduce chemistry to physics, biology to chemistry, etc, because the complexity involved might as well make it as if they were independent between each other

>>7659373
English, motherfucker. Learn it, then post.

>>7659399
Sorry

>>7659236
Definitely this. New useful math theorem coming out, holy fuck get the presses rolling, new biology/chemistry/whatever shit, oh great the 50th one this month. Even though either of the last two would have more immediate important effects, applications of the math theorem could go further than any depending on what it is