>I still use Excel for scientific data analysis and charting
I'm an engineer and I have a job
Engineers should be the only ones who are allowed to call themselves mathematicians. By definition you are not a professional if you are not paid to do something in the field. Engineers who sell their software using their algorithms, services, product patents etc. are actual professionals applying math to earn a living.
By constrast you are not paid directly to publish an academic paper. At most you are paid directly to be a faculty member. You are allowed to call yourself a TEACHER, nothing more.
>>7975485
I used Excel a few weeks ago to plot some data from a simulation that we had to do in the Programming course and when the proffesor saw that I plotted it in Excel he said "If I were the Dean, I would have expelled you right now" (he's the Pro Dean)
>>7975485
What else are you gonna use?
>>7975485
I don't care so much to know science or math, I'm more interested in what I can do with it.
>>7975501
I know an engineer and I don't think he is even able to divide 23 by 4.
Giving him the name of a mathematician would be insulting any true mathematicians out there.
>>7975581
Division is just plugging and chugging, it has nothing to do with doing actual mathematics.
>>7975585
It's the basics
>>7975593
It's not mathematics.
You're just putting numbers into a formula.
>>7975581
>divide 23 by 4
Answer is 23/4, silly kid.
>>7975501
>By constrast you are not paid directly to publish an academic paper. At most you are paid directly to be a faculty member. You are allowed to call yourself a TEACHER, nothing more.
I don't understand how you've come to this conclusion. Publishing is part of the duties of a faculty member. That's like saying you weren't paid directly to throw a football; at most you are paid directly to be on the team.
>>7975581
>I know an engineer and I don't think he is even able to divide 23 by 4.
It's about 46/8, senpai.
dawkins is one of the great scientific geniuses of our time
>>7975627
>I don't understand how you've come to this conclusion.
I wish to bait, therefore that post.
doing a BSc or MSc for that matter is completely retarded unless you are very talented (you're not) and going to do a Phd in which case you should've already got your BSc by 20 years old maximum. Engineering is a far superior degree.
>>7975545
I like your professor
>>7975652
I don't.
>>7975684
Well, nothing's wrong with it. It gets the job done, but it's a really shitty program for scientific data analysis. I only used cause I had nothing else that could plot data installed on my laptop at that time, and it's a bit of a pain in the ass to use it and to get the info you need. Gnuplot it's much nicer.
>>7975648
Source on the original picture that this originated from? I've seen it before I think it was a black woman and man. But I lost it and can't find it again
>>7975545
Don't worry anon. Most professors have their heads so far up in their ass that they'll never survive in industry anyway.
>>7975594
that is mathematics, spergtron
>>7975594
That's still a part of mathematics, you disgusting autist.
>>7975485
The undisputable reality of anthropogenic global warming
people enjoying biology
>>7975485
Excel fucking blows. All of my lab data (spectrophotometry, gas-chromatography-mass spec.) get emailed to be in Excel format.
people enjoying chemistry
>>7975716
>nothing's wrong with it
>but it's a really shitty program
>It gets the job done
>>7975485
That's nothing, I used to work for a company that did data analysis for other companies, Excel and VBA was the most sophisticated software I had to use. Apparently that's the same all over the industry.
>>7976212
>taking things out of context
Yeah, there's nothing wrong with Excel, it's just not aimed at science people. If you are some sort of office drone, it's perfect for you. Sure, you can also do science related stuff in it, if you are a total masochist and refuse to use anything else, from gnuplot to R and fucking Root
>>7975684
Full disclosure, I have a very old version of excel so perhaps modern versions have greater precision or somesuch. But I've noticed that after about 15-20 decimal points or so, it just starts spitting out zeroes. This suggests to me it's a low-precision software fine for financial analysis, calenders, "back of envelope" stuff etc, but not rigorous scientific computer analyses. Also depending on what you're doing, you are obliged to understand your own software, soup to nuts, and for both practical reasons and general principles, this entails some sort of free/open software having source code that can be easily reviewed.
>>7975485
>centrifugal force is present
>>7975585
Division doesn't exist.
You multiply by its inverse
>>7976301
Excel uses floating point with only 15 sig figs, and the way they convert their numbers to binary for storage can really fuck with your calculations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeric_precision_in_Microsoft_Excel#Accuracy_and_binary_storage
>>7975485
Interstellar was shit.
>>7975485
0 = arcsin(x)
x = k*pi, k = int
Oh, also,
[math]\frac{\mathrm{d} }{\mathrm{d} x}sin(x)=\frac{\pi}{180}\cos(x)[/math]
;^)
>>7975485
>implying this is the exception, not the norm
>>7975581
>He doesn't use exact fractions
