unpopular math opinions thread
- Home
- Board: /sci/ - Science & Math
- Reading: unpopular math opinions thread
We respect your right to privacy. You can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Your cookie preferences will apply across our website.
Combinatorics (or algebra or pretty much anything) is way more interesting than anything to do with analysis
>>7975920
This isn't an unpopular opinion
>>7975930
Apparently at my math department it is considering 80% of courses are analysis
>>7975920
Pure math is for ultra-spergs
>>7975920
math is unpopular in and of itself
Nah, that's fair.
Calculus is a waste of life for anyone not interested in physics. Would've rather had 3 courses of set theory, graph theory, probability...pretty much anything else.
I did learn how to juggle multiple things that I don't know or care about, without getting anything less than a B in any of them though. If I can do that, I like to think that I can handle mostly anything in academia.
>>7976011
Only by people who are too dumb for it, which is 99% of the population
>>7976073
>People too dumb for it
>99% of the population
So you mean only the remainder 1% of sperg lords?
>>7976000
In any math department 80% of courses are analysis.
Analytic combinatorics is a beautiful marriage of the two fields. Can't we all just get along?
Most math beyond undergrad is just intellectual wankery
>>7976606
same wit hmath xDDDD
>>7975920
Infinite sets dont exist
>>7975920
Convince me that combinatorics is cool. I find most of discrete mathematics to be dull (other than the applications to algebra).
>>7976614
I just like counting things...
>>7976612
Do you consider the natural numbers a proper class?
>>7976612
>abstractions aren't really real
>>7975920
There's no such thing as "proof" by contradiction
>>7976614
Combinatorics is used extensively in high level poker play. It's a battle of math for money, that's about as exciting as it gets.
>>7976757
All proofs by contradiction or just positive proofs? I ask because in intuitionist logic you just get rid of double negation elimination but still have negation introduction. So for instance you can still do
>Suppose P
>...
>(contradiction)
>Conclude not P
But you can no longer do
>Suppose not P
>...
>(contradiction)
>Conclude not not P
>therefore P (double negation)
I definitely agree that double negation is bullshit and positive proofs by contradiction are bullshit but I don't see anything wrong with negative proofs by contradiction.
