Should I Become a Mathematician?

[rootofunity]

Hi, I am new here. I have my masters in Math and would like to renew my independent study of physics. The question is where to start. I have an older version of University Physics by Hugh D. Young, Roger A. Freedman, which is undergraduate calc based physics. But since math wise my understanding of math is a bit more advanced should I start at a higher level? And if so where? Sorry for jumping into an ongoing conversation. Still getting the hang of things.

 

[JasonRox]

forgive me if i am over sensitive, but the following message was so insulting to me i decided to leave the forum:

from russ_watters:


russ_watters is Online:
Posts: 13,297
You have received an infraction at Physics Forums
Dear mathwonk,

You have received an infraction at Physics Forums.

Reason: General Warning
-------
That's not a forum for editorializing or challenging people's motives. If you don't have anything useful to contribute, stay out.
-------

This infraction is worth 1 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2019454
creating bombs to kill people is cool? please think about your options. there might be something out there with a better impact on the world.


to be honest, you don't need me. this forum is going extremely well. best wishes!

I'd definitely rather see russ_watters gone

I was making a "come back" to PF, but to see mathwonk gone and matt_grime gone (haven't seen him) then I'm out too.

Cheers!

 

[Bourbaki1123]

Darn. We're losing our math community one at a time...What happened to matt grime?

 

[rootofunity]

Although I am not a Phd in math I am a newer user with a solid math background :D

 

[Cod]

How important is it to be part of a professional organization (AMS, MAA, etc.)? Does membership provide any benefits when pursing graduate study and/or a career in a mathematics-related field?

 

[mrb]

Since mathwonk is no longer here, it might be better for people to ask questions in their own thread; there's no point in stuffing more posts in this thread.

 

[fabletls]

Hell no. Maths and economics majors know jack about maths either pure or applied. Economists struggle to add up, never mind do maths properly (including applied maths).

If you're going to be a good applied mathematician then you'll be able to do Apostol and the purer stuff: you might not see the utility of it a great deal at times, but you will be able to do it, and it might well come in useful later.

Economists struggle to add up what? I realize this is 4 years over due, but this is just ignorant and non nonsensical. If they're math , in addition to econ, majors, how is it that they 'know jack' about maths? Aren't mathematicians supposed to have sense than to make vapid generalizations like this?

There are plenty of math and econ majors who take rigorous math courses in line with those math majors would take. And there are plenty of economists with solid math backgrounds who are more than capable of 'adding up and doing maths properly.' Good thing most mathematicians don't possesses such unwarranted disdain towards economists.

 

[Deep water]

Euler, Abel, Gauss, Galois, Weierstrass, Eisenstein, Riemann, Dirichlet, Roch, Hilbert, Klein, Ramanujan, Erdos, Serre, Milnor, Wiles, Thurston and all other greats were born as human like us. I believe they are never bored in Math. That's why they are great. I think their love for Math made them great. One of my teacher said (about me), "You can not learn Math as you do not love Math. If you love, go to library and read any book to start learning"

 

[Phyisab****]

There is more of a continuum than a binary decision, either loving math or not. I have a love/hate relationship with math that would blow away (insert example that I can't think of a good example here).

 

[Deep water]

Until November 2009 I didn't think about becoming a mathematician. I was interested in Physics, Electronics and Computer science. However, I learned basics of Calculus, Analytical geometry, Mechanics, Discrete Math, Algebra, Trigonometry myself. I found learning Math does not actually depend on your motivation rather your attraction or dedication to it. I think one can be a mathematician if he/she wants to be one. examples are Banach, Poincare, Ramanujan

 

[uman]

Learning math certainly depends on your motivation...

 

[JYouker]

MATHEMATICAL NEUROSCIENCE

Math is what I like to do. My desire is to apply it to solve real-world problems, especially in neuroscience. It's too bad that I am just an average student, GPA-wise, so I may not stand out from the rest, when it comes time to find a job in this field. So, I am wondering what kind of opportunities there are, for me. My guess would be that the only positions in mathematical neuroscience are for the very successful students, because, it seems like a small and new field. Also, since a graduate degree will increase my chances of finding a job, is it possible to get accepted to a grad school with a GPA below 3.0? Lastly, are undergraduate courses in biology, physiology, and neuroscience required, or can I major in math/comp sci and pick up the biology, later? Alas, if someone can show me towards some more information (articles, websites, etc) in this field, that would help, too.

THanks,
-Joe

 

[TMM]

I know a guy who does statistical mechanics of the brain. Stat mech is a very mathematical branch of physics, you might find it interesting. Beyond that I don't know much.

 

[mrb]

Joe,

I don't know how many replies you will get here; it would make a lot more sense to start your own thread about this topic. Even then, I'm not sure anyone on this forum knows much about mathematical neuroscience specifically.

Here's what I can tell you:
* Often a PhD is more or less necessary to do real work in a math or science field. I imagine mathematical neuroscience is the same, so yes, you will probably need grad school.
* One often hears that 3.0 is the absolute cutoff for admission to grad schools (and really, they want much better than that. Anything under 3.5 is going to raise eyebrows. If you want to demonstrate you can handle grad school, why aren't you getting As in undergrad?). If you still have time, GET BETTER GRADES. If not, this may be a problem, and you may have to jump through some hoops to get where you want to go.
* Regarding if you need a bio background: I can only tell you what I know about Bioinformatics. In that field, I was told that it was highly desired that a student from a math/CS background had taken at least the intro course sequence in Bio, and preferably more. But even that wasn't necessary; this grad program would admit people with no bio background at all.
* Talk to a professor in the field. If your school has a program in this field, email a professor and ask if you can talk to him for a few minutes. This will get you a lot better answers than anyone here will probably be able to tell you.

 

[sudarshanabcd]

i think it is purely personal choice.
i personnaly prefer pure mathematics , though i am intersted in physics.
but the thing is that i tend to like logically learned things.
i hate differential equations as they are full of techniques,but calculus is beautiful
i think calculus , geometry and algebra should be taught in one stretch & not separately , as they are closely interrelated ,and help us solve problems more effectively

 

[mathwonk]

try arnold's ordinary differential equations book. it will change your opinion of diff eq. I promise. best wishes.

 

[sudarshanabcd]

is there any sight for free download of arnold's ordinary differential equations.?

 

[DrummingAtom]

Wait a second... mathwonk is back? Welcome back mathwonk, I enjoy your posts.

 

[andyroo]

I'm majoring in pure mathematics. Although I'll probably just complete course work for both applied and pure mathematics.

 

[thrill3rnit3]

try arnold's ordinary differential equations book. it will change your opinion of diff eq. I promise. best wishes.

mathwonk's back??

 

[Gib Z]

Mathwonk is back?

 

[quasar987]

Hi mathwonk, glad to hear from you!

 

[manlyman62]

Hello!
In regard to becoming a better mathematician, is there a good book I can read on proofs themselves? Or is proving mathematical theorems a skill you should pick up by simply doing it?

 

[thrill3rnit3]

^ How to Prove It by Velleman is a good book for proofs

 

[Chris11]

I want to be a mathematician. Math is the most exciting academic disipline possible.

 

[radou]

Although I don't have a degree in math, mathematics is one of my favorite hobbies. We had 4 math courses on our faculty of civil engineering (which consisted of a rough "section" through basic single and multi-variable calculus, linear algebra, and probability, along with some mathematical physics - all laid out in a pretty much non-rigorous manner, mostly without proofs etc.), and I took 2 linear algebra courses on the Mathematical department of our Faculty of natural sciences - sadly, I didn't have time for more, although I'm sure I would go and study math for real if I had the time and the money.

So, the only option is self-study, which I've been practicing for a long while, but it's a bigger challenge since you are forced to think your way through more intensively, and explore and try out a considerable number of textbooks and lecture notes (most found on-line), all written in their own style, and every one of them not necessary suitable for every one of us and for every level of "pre-knowledge".

Since I took linear algebra, I believe I have grasped some basic concepts related to this fundamental topic. On the other hand, I had to go through the basics of calculus on my own, and, although it may only be my impression, I find calculus a bit more difficult in general.

The last 2 months I am going through a set of lecture notes about metric spaces and topology - one found at the University of Dublin, and the other two found on the department of math of my university. I also downloaded problems to solve, since there is no sense in going through theory without solving problems. I find the subject interesting and challenging.

Also, I intend to go through some functional analysis.

To sum everything up, self-learning mathematics requires a lot of time and dedication, but if you really enjoy it, I believe it's worth the effort.

 

[Chris11]

Hey, there is a fairly old and REALLY CHEAP book out there on real AND functional analysis. It's published by dover. I have it, and it's pretty good, except for one of the exercises it asks you to prove that conjecture (unsolved to my knowlege) that there is no aleph number between aleph 0 and aleph 1. Anyways, it's worth the dime (about 12 Canadian). Good luck with your adventure! Also, for some inspiration, it's important to notice that some of the most significant mathematicians have been 'amatures,' with the most notable being piere fermat! So, I think that actual formal education is overrated--especialy if your self motivated and passionate about the subject.

 

[radou]

Hey, there is a fairly old and REALLY CHEAP book out there on real AND functional analysis. It's published by dover.

Could you point out the author and exact title?

 

[Chris11]

Absolutely. It is called "Introductory Real Analysis." It was written by A.N. Kolmogorov and S.V. Fomin. It's a translation.

 

[radou]

Thanks a lot, just looked at its preview of contents at Amazon, seems to cover a wide range of topics.

 

[radou]

Also, one thing I would like to point out - unfortunately, I started to practice this just recently - it seems tremendously useful to try to do proofs by yourself before going through them, since it develops your way of reasoning, and it automatically makes you review all the definitions/results you went through before and which you need for a certain proof. This is probably mentioned at some point before in this thread, but it's simply too huge to go through.

 

[Chris11]

Yeah, that's important. It's also important to make up problems for yourself to solve, although, sometimes, you end up 'making up' a well known and unsolved problem. I thought that the probability of what I now know to be called a (1,o) matrix to be invertible was an origanal problem. It wasen't, and people have been trying to solve it for a long time. Another good source for mathematical devolement are math contest-type problems. An exellent source of such problems is the art of problem solving website; google it and you'll find it.

 

[hunt_mat]

One topic that tends to be left out of maths degrees is integral equations. differential equations are done to death but integral equations tend to be used as example in functional analysis courses.

Mat

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

One topic that tends to be left out of maths degrees is integral equations. differential equations are done to death but integral equations tend to be used as example in functional analysis courses.

Mat

In the FA courses which I have taken we mainly show that for an integral equation there exists a unique solution.

To find the solution you need to take derivatives anyhow.

 

[hunt_mat]

Not really, I bought a few books on integral equations and if that were the case then no one would even mention them. There are methods which don't take derivatives.

Mat