Thread replies: 16
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
File: 1488414498185.png (3MB, 3318x1817px) Image search:
[Google]
3MB, 3318x1817px
Is there a single great mathematician worth mentioning to prove Mathematics > Physics course?
We already know Physics has a higher bachelor IQ of around 135 IQ points in the US, at least 5 points higher than a math retard. We also know that all those Mathematicians that we hear about on Math classes were actually Physicists: Newton, Euler, Gauss, Laplace, Euclid, Archimedes, Leibniz, Lorentz, Poincaré, Neumann and so on. And there is not a single pure mathematician that gets his way in these kids books. There is also the fact that Math bachelors are almost 1:1 male:female, meaning ~it attracts femboys~ it relies on gender monomorphism, thus it very likely works through similarities and dogmas within the group and not on independent semantics, nor on specialization, nor on general outsiders' positive criticism. It's value is basically memed through academia by a bunch of idiots like engineers and teachers, and maintained by probably a lack of competition. The monomorphism contrasts against the male prevalence on the supposed 'ancient pure mathematicians", who we were actually Physicists all along.
All that said, I would like to express how much I love mathematicians, and generally STEM students, that I like spending time with their syntactical performances and jokes. I specially like people who are good with number processing and sentential logical thinking.
>>
>>8762380
why is matrix multiplication the way it is? what does the pattern symbolize? what does multiplying two matrices do? what is a matrix? I mean, I remember that you can use it to describe polynomials and linear algebra objects but what does, let's say, a simple 3x3 matrix mean? a simple matrix with integers
>>
>>8762390
square matrices are linear transformations from a vector space to itself
>>
>>8762394
thanks, I've yet to start studying linear algebra at uni and I wasn't aware of that information
>>
File: 1487898143668.png (323KB, 439x283px) Image search:
[Google]
323KB, 439x283px
>>8762380
>Euclid was a Physicist
>>
>>8762380
>Is there a single great mathematician worth mentioning to prove Mathematics > Physics course?
It's not a competition.
>>
>>8762400
>model space all the way to Newton, define mass
>write Phaenomena, kickstarting hellenistic astronomy
Yeah, sure, he was a pure mathematician *wink*
>>
>>8762390
Matrix multiplication is composition of linear maps
>>
Physics brainlets use nothing more than maths that was developed like 200 years ago, so it's pretty obvious who's better
>>
People actually had physical phenomena for mathematical motivation back in the day. Not like now.
>>
File: ops.meme_.nba_-1024x768.jpg (99KB, 1024x768px) Image search:
[Google]
99KB, 1024x768px
>>8762431
>Not like now
>>
>>8762380
actually, all physicists are mathematicians, so your question is trivial
>>
>>8762443
Not trivial since I'm talking about """PURE""" mathematicians vs physicists, or more exactly, math bachelors vs physics bachelors.
But yeah, all physicists are mathematicians but not all mathematicians are physicists, so the former contains, is above in knowledge/intelligence compared with, the latter.
>>
Why are physicists on average slightly smarter than mathematicians if mathematics is more abstract than physics? Is it circunstatial (i.e. the samples studied are biased by the historical context or by chance towards physicists) or does it prove that there is something else more important than how hard what you're studying is to make you smarter?
>>
>>8762380
you are automatically low IQ for furthering this pointless cause
>>
Only a <140 IQ brainlet would care whether a Maths course is > then a Physics one.
Thread posts: 16
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3