unpopular math opinions thread
You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math
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).
>>7976610
>>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.