Given enough free time, can someone with a degree in math/who

>>8463342
Bump

>>8463342
Many mathematicians just casually get into other fields, start solving problems that have been avoiding solution for centuries like it was nothing, collect easy fields medals/honorary degrees and then go back to math.

Just look at Djikstra or Knuth. PhDs in math who one day slipped and when falling their heads hit a CS book that someone had left there, saw the title and immediately learned everything, then published algorithms and became famous, got books and honorary degrees and Knuth even got a comfy position at a top uni.

Or look at Cedric Villani. PhD in mathematics who one day was visiting a pre-school and saw a kid reading a book. He asked the kid 'Hey, what you reading boy?' and the 5 year old replied 'oh, just mechanics. Just some trivial stuff' and then Cedric immediately had dollar signs in his eyes. He casually walked into the field, started solving physics PDEs like it was nothing and then collected his EZ PZ fields medal.

It is literally that easy.

>>8463373
>Or look at Cedric Villani. PhD in mathematics who one day was visiting a pre-school and saw a kid reading a book. He asked the kid 'Hey, what you reading boy?' and the 5 year old replied 'oh, just mechanics. Just some trivial stuff' and then Cedric immediately had dollar signs in his eyes

My sides are in orbit

>>8463342
It amazes me how often engineers who get by just on solid math ability lack common sense or intuition about technical problems. Not saying that mathematicians can't easily transition to a field like engineering, but the most successful engineers (speaking mostly of mechanical engineers) make use of their guts above all else. Back in undergrad, I took a classical mechanics lab with a math major who was doing a physics minor. In one of our reports, she wrote something like: "this is because of the known fact that heavy objects fall faster than light objects." One of the brightest people I've ever met in terms of maths, but she really didn't have an ear to the ground when it came to practical system analysis.

Mathematical chemistry might be possible, but once you get into things like advanced molecular orbital/group orbital theory, a special kind of intelligence is required (mainly having the ability to conceptualize abstract, dynamic 3D regions of space in atomic systems).

>>8463384
>dollar signs in his eyes
Speaking of which, economics and finance (quantitative but non-scientific fields) are also possible choices for mathematicians genuinely believing in the 300k meme.

Everything mentioned in >>8463383 applies equally well there.

>>8463373
Yeah, if you got that kind of talent.

>>8463413
I see that as well, they lack creativity. They can't intuitively grasp the problems/designs of an actual working system.

I feel like they try to make math reality instead of describing reality with math and engineering can easily employ creative approximations.

On the other hand surprisingly many engineers have a second degree in applied math, especially systems/control theory guys.

>>8463800
What talent? Cedric got his PhD at the age of 25. He is a normal guy. The 'talent' meme is just believed by Barnett and his mom.

The thing is that a math education is objectively superior.

>>8463860
Kek.
>What talent? Cedric got his PhD at the age of 25.
That says nothing. PhD at age 12 is not a requirement to be talented.
>The thing is that a math education is objectively superior.
It has nothing to do with education, knowing math generally pays off.

You have brain damage.

You seriously made a thread asking if lower abstraction level gives you knowledge of other higher levels of abstraction.

Its like asking if you learn that a+b=c can you calculate 300+200