Can Mediocrity and Proofs Co-Exist? Physics Major Asks

  • Thread starter mathsciguy
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proofs
In summary, the physics major is undecided about whether to continue in the field or go into math or applied math. He has some experience with the material and was able to pass the midterm and final exams but feels like he could have done better if he knew more about the proofs. He is hoping for more help from others in the field.
  • #1
mathsciguy
134
1
I'm a physics major a bit of inclination to mathematics. The semester just ended, and I didn't particularly have a bad one. It's just I had a really mediocre grade after the semester, I'm a bit disappointed since while I'm busy reading through the proofs it seems it didn't really do me much good to make my grades better.

I'm actually planning to go in either applied or pure math, or if I'm sticking in physics I'd go into the more theoretical route. I wonder if all those proofs are going to pay off later?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
mathsciguy said:
I'm a bit disappointed since while I'm busy reading through the proofs it seems it didn't really do me much good to make my grades better.
Maybe I'm reading into that line too much but there's your problem. Math is about doing problems, not reading about the solutions.
 
  • #3
Well yeah I guess you kinda nailed it. I know how to do most of the problems, I'm quite familiar that it's gotten quite boring. It's just that I don't want to mindlessly do the problems without at least having the familiarity of why they work or how the maths is constructed that way, hence why I keep reading the proofs as much as I can.

Now, come the examination day, I'm equipped with a few practice problems that I did. When I look at the paper, most of it seems doable but for some reason I just miss out some stuff that end up stripping me off some credit.

It seems that I know what my problems are and the thread is more like a 'rant thread' but I could sure appreciate more insights that anyone is willing to give me, especially the math guys.
 
  • #4
mathsciguy said:
Well yeah I guess you kinda nailed it. I know how to do most of the problems, I'm quite familiar that it's gotten quite boring. It's just that I don't want to mindlessly do the problems without at least having the familiarity of why they work or how the maths is constructed that way, hence why I keep reading the proofs as much as I can.

Now, come the examination day, I'm equipped with a few practice problems that I did. When I look at the paper, most of it seems doable but for some reason I just miss out some stuff that end up stripping me off some credit.

It seems that I know what my problems are and the thread is more like a 'rant thread' but I could sure appreciate more insights that anyone is willing to give me, especially the math guys.

Math is a lot different (and better) than what you see in calculus. If you like proofs, take more proof-based math classes. Do two years of calc and then take real analysis. That's the beginning of real math. Some people say it's harder; but for a lot of people it's easier, because for the first time everything makes sense from the ground up. And it's all about the proofs.

So I'd say that if you like math, try not to be put off by calculus.
 
  • #5
I've still got some calculus left for me. I'd be sure to study analysis after the calc series.
 

FAQ: Can Mediocrity and Proofs Co-Exist? Physics Major Asks

Can mediocrity and proofs co-exist in science?

This is a complex question that requires a nuanced answer. In general, mediocrity and proofs do not co-exist in science. Scientific research is based on rigorous experimentation and the use of empirical evidence to support theories and hypotheses. This means that mediocrity, or average or mediocre work, is not accepted in the scientific community. However, this does not mean that all scientific work is perfect or flawless. Scientists are human and can make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to minimize errors and constantly strive for accuracy and excellence.

Can a physics major succeed with mediocre grades?

While having good grades is important for a physics major, it is not the only factor that determines success. Other qualities such as critical thinking skills, problem-solving abilities, and passion for the subject are also important. Additionally, internships, research experience, and strong letters of recommendation can also play a significant role in a physics major's success. Therefore, while mediocre grades may make it more challenging, it is still possible for a physics major to succeed with other qualities and experiences.

Are there any examples of mediocre scientific discoveries?

It is difficult to determine what qualifies as a mediocre scientific discovery, as the significance of a discovery can vary depending on the context and the impact it has on the scientific community. Additionally, even if a discovery may seem mediocre at first, it may lead to more groundbreaking discoveries in the future. Therefore, it is not productive to label a scientific discovery as mediocre, as all discoveries contribute to the advancement of knowledge and understanding.

How does the scientific community ensure that mediocrity does not exist in research?

The scientific community has various mechanisms in place to ensure that mediocrity does not exist in research. This includes peer-review processes, where experts in the field evaluate the quality and validity of scientific research before it is published. Additionally, scientific conferences and collaborations allow for ideas and research to be shared, critiqued, and improved upon. The pursuit of excellence and the continuous questioning and challenging of existing theories and ideas also helps to prevent mediocrity in science.

Can mediocrity be beneficial in science?

While mediocrity is generally not accepted in scientific research, it can serve as a starting point for further exploration and improvement. In some cases, a mediocre result may lead to more innovative and significant discoveries in the future. Additionally, the process of trial and error is a crucial aspect of the scientific method, and some level of mediocrity may be necessary in order to refine and improve scientific theories and experiments. However, it is important for scientists to strive for excellence and avoid settling for mediocrity in their work.

Similar threads

Programs Is it too late for me to get into Physics?
Replies
8
Views
2K
Is it possible to switch from physics to maths after undergrad?
Replies
2
Views
1K
How can you study physics well at UG level?
Replies
4
Views
1K
Admissions Grad School Decisions for the Mediocre
Replies
9
Views
2K
Double majoring in electrical engineering and physics
Replies
22
Views
1K
Studying Sophomore Undergrad Feeling Hopeless
Replies
9
Views
1K
Courses Should I withdraw from a class?
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
Any advanced physics students/academics that have failed?
Replies
32
Views
5K
Courses Is Pure Mathematics required to be a top-tier Physics student?
Replies
6
Views
2K
Admissions What are my chances of getting into a competitive physics PhD program?
Replies
7
Views
386

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top