He thinks Biofags (which we all know are totally retarded) should know manifold theory, group theory and differential geometry KEK.
Does he overestimate the IQs of biologist?
>I agree to some extent with you, but not totally. Complex numbers clarify trig, Fourier series and oscillations a great deal and it's a shame not to use this. This is the same as the fact that linear algebra and stat are clarified (for some people anyway) by the abstract idea of vector spaces. The basic techniques of PDE theory are being used more and more and involve a lot of analysis. The one more advanced topic in biology that I have encountered is in the modeling of shapes. This theory goes back to the biologist D'Arcy Thompson but recently has brought in manifold theory and differential geometry. And in genomics, some very sophisticated combinatics are used. Groups do enter through groups of symmetries but, as you guessed, this is much more central in physics. Modeling with polynomials is a borderline topic: this is often not useful with degrees higher than two. Splines tend to be more effective.
>My guess is that the main problem for biologists is that being phobic about math may be a big obstacle to mastering some new theoretical approach.
http://www.neverendingbooks.org/can-one-explain-schemes-to-hipsters
http://www.dam.brown.edu/people/mumford/blog/2014/Grothendieck.html
As someone who was already well versed in Differential Geometry&Topology and Algebra at the undergraduate level. I still had study through somewhere between 30-50 pages of statements and proofs of important results in commutative algebra before I could even understand the definition of a Scheme.
Grothendieck's work will never be understood by the public. Just don't even try.
>>8039458
>Differential Geometry&Topology and Algebra at the undergraduate level
Just to clarify, only the Algebra part was at the undergraduate level.
>>8039458
The definition of a scheme shouldn't surprise you anymore if you studied how varieties work, brainlet.
Forget trying to explain math to biologists. Are there any good resources for mathematician to learn these physics, chemistry and biology?
I am looking for something like "Physics for Mathematicians", "Chemistry for Mathematicians", etc. I have a hard time understanding these subjects because the presentation of the material is not coherent in the sense that there is no story being told. It's just a presentation of a bunch of disparate topics. It's a lot easier for me to understand math books because things are clearly defined up front and every proposition follows from prior results.
Probably the lack of good definitions is my main problem with biology, chemistry or even physics.
>>8039431
It's called biomathematics or theoretical biology but mainstream biologists don't want to touch it so they leave it to mathematicians with an interest in bio to do it.
>>8039472
Did I say it surprised me?
>>8039473
>I have a hard time understanding these subjects because the presentation of the material is not coherent in the sense that there is no story being told. It's just a presentation of a bunch of disparate topics.
I feel you. Spivak made a "physics for mathemaicians" a while back (in his characteristic style, of course) that might be worth checking out for classical mechanics. Springer's "quantum mechanics for mathematicians"is also good. Most of the time QM/Qchem is introduced as a handful of postulates and then only afterwards shown to explain/predict various observations in their historical context, so those are worth your interest.
Protip: If you've studied linear spaces at the level of Shilov and Kolmogorov/Formin, you're already halfway done. You could always get Szabo/Ostlund's modern quantum chemistry (electronic structure of molecules) which is quite mathematically rigorous and serves as a "theory" complement to most practical books on computational chemistry nowadays. It's technically graduate level so you can brag to all your friends how you picked up a grad text in a different field and had no trouble
I would love it if a current longstanding problem in biology is solved by a mathematician and biologists are too stupid to understand how he solved it.
>>8039529
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lander
Finished top 10 in Putnam. Got PhD in math. Won MacArthur Fellowship. Now teaches Bio at MIT. He was my prof the intro to bio class a while back. I wouldn't have even taken that class if it wasn't an institute requirement, but now I'm kind of glad I did.
>>8039537
Did he apply some hardcore concepts from coding theory to achieve the HGP or was he just a smart guy in general and used more mundane math?
>>8039431
do you really think someone with 100 IQ couldnt actually learn that?
did you forget again that is in the toilet bowl of math, alongside all other undergraduate maths, which people of even 90 IQ can learn pretty easily?
sorry, i guess everyone wants to feel like a math genius every once in a while
>>8039537
How did get learn bio? Was he self taught?
I never understood how people could get PhD's in one field then decide to study something else and be recognized as a figure in that other field without going back to school.
>>8039713
I don't know exactly with Eric Lander, but that Wikipedia article says he met someone in genomics and started collaborating with them. I think this is usually how people get into fields they didn't study in school.
For example, if you read Alan Guth's book, he talks about how he was never interested in cosmology until he met someone who was working in it convinced him to work on stuff together.
Still pretty amazing that lander was first author on that HGP paper though.
>>8039719
Cool guy thanks for pointing him out. Never would have came across him (different anon than one you replied to).
Bio btfo
>>8039431
>implying that mathematicians and statisticians are used in biology.
