>Women can't do Sci-

noether can she

Criminally underrated

Seriously though, why doesn't anyone talk about her? Whenever people try to name female scientists, they can only think of Curie.

>>8803332
Curie was unique not only because of her work, but also because she was a Polish immigrant in France, a frontline nurse in WW1, and died rather ironically of radium poisoning.

Noether was just a hard-working researcher and teacher, she never wanted recognition for herself.

I find it kinda strange that both of these women were really "humble" and did not seek glory, while it seems some guys like Heisenberg and the like were extremely full of themselves (rightly so.)

>>8803332
>why doesn't anyone talk about her? Whenever people try to name female scientists, they can only think of Curie.


Because Curie did stuff that can easily described in a popsci sense.

Noether's Theorem, even in the simple form of "Continuous Symmetries <=> Conserved Currents", is not easy to express from a popsci point of view.

Also the rest of her work was in Commutative Algebra and such, and I don't see popsci types carrying about how nicely behaved Noetherian Rings are.

>>8803475
This.

>>8803475
Once again, Chemistry > Physics

>>8803486
She was a mathematician, not a physicist.

>>8803475
>tfw abstract algebra is practically unknown to the general public

How do we make abstract algebra popsci-friendly?

>>8803506
I think you literally can't. It's possibly the only area of mathematics to suffer from that.

>(real) Analysis
Zenon's paradox and the like
>Complex Analysis
Dude imaginary numbers lmao + gazillon of applications in physics
>Linear Algebra
Matrix!!! And also used a lot in CS/Programming
>Number theory
Primes are like weed
>Topology
KNOTS
>Probabilities and stats
Already popsci also by definition

But we can't make any of these about abstract algebra, strangely

The closet I have is an old book who uses mankind as a set and has quick "exercises" such as :
>Show that in set of mankind, X is the sibling of Y is a relation of equivalence
>Show that in the set of mankind, X is an ancestor of Y is a relation of order

>>8803506
Well basic group theory as symmetries of classical geometric objects would work.

Commutative Algebra maybe from the perspective of algebraic geometry, but probably not considering all the interesting stuff you get from working over general rings doesn't translate well.

Galois Theory? Probably not, maybe elementary aspects through basic geometry.

Homological Algebra? Definitely not

>>8803524
>I think you literally can't

You can explain modular arithmetic to a high schooler using a clock as an example. Groups aren't that bad either, if you stick to more geometric examples like the dihedral group. You could even get into group actions.

Granted those aren't the deepest topics, but it's just popsci. If numberphile can get people excited about fucking primes, surely we can find some way to give some sex appeal to simple structures.

>>8803562
I think binary relations and how math is constructed from that might be the best bet. Though maybe it's not strictly speaking Abstract Algebra. I wouldn't know, I'm an engineer.

>>8803524
rubiks cube?
>DUDE groups LMAO

>>8803332
Marie Curie's scientific contributions are old and busted now, when talking about women in science.
Rosalind Franklin is the new hotness now.

>>8803331
underated

>>Women can't do Sci-
Noether was a mathematican

>>8803506
>>8803524
>>8803536
>>8803562

"ALGEBRA IS BURBLE"
-John Nash

An exception doesn't deny a trend though. I agree, we shouldn't really deny the acces to higher education to anyone based on things like gender, but I believe we will observe that things don't go 50/50. It's not that they literally can't, but there are other factors besides societal pressure as to why few women want to deal with abstarct shit. Not trying to trigger biologists, but it's far more likely for womeb to end there because it's more sociable.

>>8803623
>take picture of DNA
>don't know how to interpret it
>literally argue against the correct interpretation (double helix)
>fast forward to present day and the common opinion is the Nobel was "stolen" from you

File: maryam-mirzakhani.jpg (32KB, 800x400px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 800x400px

>a woman will never win a Fields med-

File: wdyq00.jpg (1MB, 2025x3000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2025x3000px

>a woman will never help put astronauts into spa-

File: julia robinson.jpg (39KB, 640x321px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 640x321px

>a woman will never contribute to a solution of one of Hilbert's proble-

>>8805034
WE

>>8805034

>replaced by a 1960's era brick computer immediately after

ask yourself how critical their job was

>>8803506
tell them that quintics are insolvable
i'm sorry but if that doesn't interest them they're fucking retarded

>>8805033
cute.

>>8805040
WUZ

>>8803341
>died rather ironically of radium poisoning

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

>>8805072
ASTRONAUTS

File: SHIEEETT.jpg (35KB, 225x382px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 225x382px

>>8805104
N SHIIEEETT

>>8803341
>and died rather ironically of radium poisoning
How the fuck is that ironic in any way?

>He was a soldier, and rather ironically died after being shot in combat
You see how stupid that sounds?

File: 555.jpg (15KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 600x375px

>mathematics
>a science

>>8805185
Math (particularly algebra) is ideas engineering. Mathematicians are engineers.

>>8803524
>>8803536
>>8803562
>>8803572
This actually sounds kind of interesting, but I'm fairly ignorant when it comes to higher mathematics. What other skills would I need to begin reading about this?

File: 9781402021862.jpg (14KB, 264x400px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 264x400px

>>8803536
>Galois Theory? Probably not, maybe elementary aspects through basic geometry.
but there's already a basic galois theory book that was made for high school students...

http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~aar/papers/abel.pdf

>>8805060
all quintics and higher are solvable tho

>>8805187
>Sex (particularly anal penetration) is body engineering. Engineers are engineers.

File: Hedy-Lamarr1.jpg (562KB, 1984x2326px) Image search: [Google]

562KB, 1984x2326px

>>8803325
I find the lack of Hedy Lamarr on this thread disturbing

>>8805194
Who is VI Arnold and why do I want all hias books?

File: 200px-Vladimir_Arnold-1.jpg (12KB, 200x292px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 200x292px

>>8805270
>Who is VI Arnold
probably one of the top 5 russian mathematicians

>why do I want all hias books?
because he loved teaching and writing

>>8805198
Galois and Abel both proved that you cannot find a general formula for all nth degree polynomials above, but not including, order 4. This is what people reference when they say they are "unsolvable".

>>8805060
Unsolvable by radicals you mean

>>8803341
>>8803332
Curie's husband did all the thinking, he was a cuck though and wanted to promote the false song of female intellectualism. Behind every "FAMOUS" female scientist was a brilliant yet bashful cuck.

>>8803506
>How do we make abstract algebra popsci-friendly?
We don't. Fuck off

>>8803341
>died rather ironically of radium poisoning
That's not ironic at all

>>8805544
agree. Plus it proves she was a Brainlet.

Number of eminent female scientists: about 5.

Number of eminent male scientists: hundreds.

>>8805541
Luckily, Watson and Crick didnt fall prey to this.

>Franklin takes photo she cant understand
>Watson and Crick take this photo and make sense of it to understand the structure of DNA.
>Watson and Crick rightfully get the credit.
>Modern cucks try to paint Franklin as some kind of forgotten messiah.

>>8803524
What about numerical analysis? No memes here!

>>8803524

Are you joking? Abstract Algebra IS the "popsci" of math. People just can't take modern algebra's dick out of their mouth. I can't read a single fucking paper without seeing a trail of bourbaki's cum wiped all over the page. People cannot stop talking about fucking groups and homological algebra and fucking exact sequences and higher categories. NO ONE in math talks about probability or analytic number theory because because you can *actually* be wrong. You know how easy it is to completely bullshit a paper in modern algebra? Why do you think algebraic topology is so popular? Because it's hard? Rofl. There's nothing deep about abstract algebra it's literally math for fucking english majors.

>>8805036
Thanks for the nightmare.

>>8806002
>NO ONE in math talks about probability or analytic number theory because because you can *actually* be wrong
are you a freshman?

>>8805244
Who is this spunk tank

>>8806014
>he thinks I went to college

I swear literally the dumbest people go to school. NO fuckwit I'm a NEET with no life who lives on arXiv and enjoys mocking grad students who can only parrot things they read in their precious textbooks because they can't think for themselves. What do you do?

>>8806042
i'm a grad student at a school that has a probability group and a number theory group that regularly has seminars about analytic number theory

i don't know where you got the impression that probability and analytic number theory are somehow dead fields, they're both incredibly active

>>8806050
>reading comprehension

I said morons are flooding into algebraic topology departments because algebra is easy to bullshit your way through and that it was the popular science of mathematics. I didn't say no one was studying ant or probability, I said it was harder to bullshit since it's easier to be wrong. Well, unless you're peter clark. But fuck that guy. Christ I have to spell everything out?

>>8806059
can you link some 'bullshit' algebra papers?

you sound very unaware of how mathematics works

File: nomizi.jpg (107KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 640x640px

>>8806059
>>8806072
well?

>>8806072

You sound like the millionth grad student who will say the same exact things and reacts the same exact way. You don't know how predictable you are unless you're on the outside. I'm well aware that they teach you that mathematics "is" a "social activity" and that it "is" about "concepts" and not calculations. A common misconception is that proofs have anything to do with justification, or that anything in math needs to be justified to begin with. This is where you get fruitless debates and senseless constructions from that no one fucking cares about. All of this is impulses from lawyers and the children of lawyers flooding mathematics departments each generation. Fuck hilbert, fuck klein, fuck noether, fuck weierstrass, fuck grassmann, fuck stone, fuck both weils, fuck leibniz- leibniz can definitely go fuck himself, fuck everyone except gauss and euler and and archimedes and the italians and fermat wasn't so bad. The need for classification is another non-mathematical impulse you get from the children of professionals who can only think in taxonomies and are visual-spatially utter-fucking-retard. What do you have left? How do real mathematicians think? Hard to tell these days. So much has been corrupted by our obsession with "mathematical" logic and set theory and algebra that figuring out what is and isn't *actual* mathematics is almost fucking impossible. Do you know how much time I spend translating papers into something that is meaningful, only to be totally fucking underwhelmed and let down by how meager the actual substance of the paper was? Do you not realize how obsese and superficial mathematics is right now? Modern mathematics and modern mathematical education is a disgrace. Stick to the ancients, gauss, and the russians. Avoid the french like-the-fucking-plague except laplace and poincare and definitely avoid Americans who will literally think and say whatever anyone tells them to think and say.

>>8806123
i dont see a single link in this wall of text so i stopped reading after the first sentence

do you really not have a single example of a 'bullshit' algebra paper after all those posts you made?

pathetic

try again

>>8806126
>i dont see a single link in this wall of text so i stopped reading after the first sentence

If you were capable of reading to begin with.

>>8805060
> quintics are insolvable

x^5=0

x=0

where is my fields medal

File: 14873085674212.jpg (107KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 640x640px

>>8806133
>You know how easy it is to completely bullshit a paper in modern algebra?
remember when you said this?

still waiting on one of these papers

>>8806136

Throw a dart.

>>8806002
>NO ONE in math talks about probability or analytic number theory

you do realize that one of the 4 most recent fields medalists works in stochastic PDEs.

File: 1488795049423.jpg (18KB, 300x412px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 300x412px

>>8806140
you're the one who sits around all day on the arxiv and have gone through these papers

'throw a dart' sounds an awful lot like a non-arguement to me

are you a NEET because no grad school would accept you?

File: 8c3.jpg (146KB, 496x496px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 496x496px

>>8806123
>>8806059
>>8806042
>>8806002
>NEET talking shit about what actual professionals do

How about you give us an example of what you think is bullshit in modern algebra instead of talking out of your ass?

>>8806146

I never finished high school.

Here's a better fluff test: Find me a paper that can't be reduced to a few simple statements about polygons in the plane.

Take as long as you want. I got all day.

>>8806152
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.3724.pdf

your turn

File: 1484857134864.jpg (55KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 640x360px

>>8806152
you're the one making claims about papers being bullshit, you don't get to back this up by asking to find some paper fitting other criteria

how about offering a paper that can be reduced to a few simple statements about polygons in the plane, and listing those statements?

why do you keep backtracking?

>>8806154
>manifolds can't be represented by polygons in the plane

H-i-l-a-r-i-o-u-s

>>8806162
is that the only word you understood?

File: 1488515675390.png (607KB, 466x650px) Image search: [Google]

607KB, 466x650px

>>8806162
>all manifolds can be represented by polygons in the plane
well this is news to me...

>>8806171

Did you understand ANY of it or did you just see a wall of jargon and some cute diagrams and think "WOW DEEP MAN."?

>>8806182
at this point you should stick with being a NEET and going nowhere near math departments unless you want to embarrass yourself

>>8806162
How would you represent a Klein bottle using polygons?

>>8806182
yes i understood most of the first few pages, although i freely admit i didn't read the entire thing. however, you're the one who claimed that any algebraic topology paper could be reduced to "a few simple statements about polygons in the plane". if you really believe that, then you should be able to demonstrate it for this paper, rather than distracting from the main issue by making unfounded and irrelevant accusations.

>>8805999
Numerical analysis is the science of approximation (unless I'm mistaken). So it can easily be memed.

>>8806154
> Except for dimension 126 this resolves a longstanding problem in algebraic topology
Dimension 126

>>8803524
Is that book by any chance Birkmann Klotz's Linear Algebra and Analytic Geometry?

File: 4D Solve.webm (3MB, 500x556px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x556px

>>8803586
Dude dimensions lmao

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGguwYPC32I&

>>8805053
>implying that wouldn't have happened if they had all been men

>>8806018
Actress and inventor of the technology that is the basis of Bluetooth and wifi.

>>8806872
No he's not implying it.

>>8803325
>no Grace Hopper
Damn I know you guys hate /g/ but you gotta admit Hopper is a badass.

>>8805210
10/10

File: kkkkj.png (92KB, 678x421px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 678x421px

>>8803325
>OP is not a fa-