Engineer: We’re going to assume this division by zero is negative and all others are positive. Why? Because that’s going to give us a real solution and not a multiple of i, that’s why.
@@drigondii Storytime: So we were working on those square roots in my Calculus class, and we noticed the teacher was only grabbing the positive solutions, without explanation. So one of us asked why he wasn't adding anything to explain the negative solutions. He looked calmly to us and said: "you're environmental engineers. If you grab the negative solution, it means the river is going uphill". We all nodded in shame.
My physics teacher explained us the difference between a mathematician and a physicist. Imagine both are at a traffic light, the mathematician will wait until the traffic light indicates he can cross the street and he will even check whether all cars are stopped, and he will arrive safely at the other end. On the other hand, the physicist won't even look at the traffic light and will directly cross the street, if he arrives safely, it means the traffic light was likely to be green and if he doesn't, it means it wasn't green.
ab ab LIES! WITHOUT MATH THERE WOULD BE NO PHYSICISTS! How would they even know about anything, they don't even know what happens if you ram 2 rocks together. :P
hahaha i remember when i was studying physics, there was another guy who was graduating in math and physics at the same time and used to interrupt all the time with comments like this. we lost a lot of time. until the professor, who was a guy who looked like a heavy metal musician and was not very patient, told him "Boy, we are physicists. We dont give a fuck".
@@kaneaustin8708 I guess because a lot of these small details are not really as relevant to physics as in mathematics. Physicists are more concerned with using mathematics to model the real world and applying it to problems than all of the minutae that mathematicians are interested in, such as the fact that some function is differentiable everywhere besides 0. Mathematics as a subject is also sort of philosophical in that it stresses proving one's arguments true via proofs. So, with this in mind, it might be safe to assume that some of the people who like math, especially the logical and rigorous side of it, might be annoying to the more concretely thinking physicist who does not want to philosophize and debate constantly.
@John Doe relativity is not a correct representation, though it's way closer to reality than classical mechanics (I'm sure you know the difference, just saying)
@John Doe I think he means Newtonian mechanics was never falsified experimentally either until new discoveries were made. Just because relativity describes all of the observations now doesn't mean it always will
My physics professor at the university: "If any matematician saw this, they would rip their hair off, but we will divide the whole equation by the dx".
AustrianSchoolÜbermensch Ja genau du hast recht, dann gibt es da noch die Geistesteswissenschaftler... die Menschen die es nicht geschafft haben was richtiges zu studieren. 😉
@@angeldude101 No, they aren’t. Both matrices and polynomials are functions and functions describe the relationship of elements between sets, their values are not necessarily even numbers and can’t be generalized as vectors. An “Arrow” is whats often used as a visual aid for vectors.
@@rindal3042 Vectors are not arrows. Arrows can be vectors, but most vectors are not arrows. The only requirement for something to be a vector is the ability to add and scale them. Arrows can do this. So can polynomials and matrices. Polynomials and matrices are also functions as you said. You can even represent them in terms of a basis. An NxM matrix is a NM-dimensional vector that can act as a function on other matrices to get a new matrix, or on arrows to get a new arrow. A polynomial is an arbitrary-dimensional vector, with the nth basis vector being x^n. x can itself be a vector with a well defined multiplication operation, which polynomials and matrices both are. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from plugging a polynomial as the input to another polynomial. I feel the need to mention that ℝeal numbers are also 1-dimensional vectors with 1 as the sole basis vector.
@Lucas Fernandes I'm not saying that vectors are polynomials. I'm saying that polynomials are vectors. Polynomials ⊊ vectors. Functions in general ⊊ vectors, but you can only really call functions arrows if you can point your arrows in uncountably infinite dimensions, since they possess a coordinate for every single ℝeal number in their domain. "To be clear, I see arrows as concept more general that straight line oriented segment." That's fair, but not a very common position. Most instances I'm aware of only care about the start and end of the arrow, and that the path it takes doesn't matter, so it may as well just be straight.
@@LucasFernandes-oy7pjHave you ever read an advanced linear algebra book? If not go to the second chapter of linear algebra by Friedburg (4th edition free online)
@@IVIasterIVIind No documentation and arbitrary dependencies just to make the one who reads the code have to jump around a lot. Perfectly cooked spaghetti!
@@everything71 Most likely a non-native speaker. When learning English, "they" sounds plural, the neutral "he" doesn't seem used anymore, and "he or she" (while technically correct regardless of political correctness) is too verbose.
When mathematicians and physicists work well together, they produce astonishing science. However, they usually don't get along so physicists tend to do nonsensical mathematics and mathematicians do abstract mathematics without any applications for centuries to come
Not my experience with engineers in the slightest. To me it seems engineers are very narrow visioned and all problems have to derive from their area of study for example i worked as a mechanical engineer at a company. There was a problem with our water flow. I shit you not the other mechanical engineer said it HAD TO BE A PROBLEM WITH THE WATER PUMP, IT HAD TO BE A MECHANICAL ISSUE. He stood waste deep in water in a lightning storm for 8 hours doing that look at a pump until i came in and found that the problem was simply a blockage in a pipe. This is exactly my experience with almost every single engineer i have met. They simply can't think outside the box
When faced with a problem: Mathematician: I cannot prove, I'm stuck! Physicist: I solved it, but it only applies to spherical chickens in vacuum Engineer: Let me show you how is done
@@hungryplate400 I mean if you use the original definition of the meter (the seconds pendulum one, not the 1/10000000 of the distance from the North Pole to Paris) than this approximation would actually be exact. Unfortunately, the value of g differs in different places, so we can't use this definition, but that approximation is not just a high school trick. It's akin to pretending the density of water is 1000 kg/m^3 exactly (though more inexact I'll give you that).
An engineer, a physicist and a mathematician traveling in Wales for the first time notice a black sheep. Engineer: Oh, sheep in Wales are black. Physicist: Oh, there exists black sheep in Wales. Mathematician: Oh, there exists at least one sheep in Wales, and at least one side of it is black.
WAIT. AS A GERMAN. HELP ME OUT HERE. black sheep "EXISTS"? WHY. WHY SINGULAR? WUT? Do i have to use the singular just because the word sheep works as both? THEN WHY IS IT "THE POLICE ARE"? KILL ME
@@BlueRabbitification Umm, I guess you're right; the guy who wrote the original comment wasn't really intending to dodge any grammatical inaccuracies I figure. But yes, in general, both the words: 'exist' and exists' are acceptable if they're referring to equivocal words such as 'sheep' which can be singular or plural. Here though, it is evidently plural, thus 'exist'.
Physicist in mathematician's class: _Makes fun of physicists' lack of rigor_ Mathematician in physicist's class: _Makes fun of physicists' lack of rigor_
I remember a mathematics prof teaching a lecture on stochastic differential equations to physicists saying: „Teaching to physicists is like being a grand parent: All the fun, no responsibility!“
This is painful, I was so confused how my physics professor magically turned sin(x) to x in a pendulum. Approximation hurts, but all wounds heal with time... Update: I am now both a physics and math major, and I now see nothing unethical here.
@@CHROMIUMHEROmusic since we only have so many tools and "standard" functions, often you will have a problem, cou canprove a solution exists, but you can't describe it in those standard functions One of the oldest examples are stuff like squaring the circle if you only use compas and straightedge, or general roots of polynomials with degree higher than 5 using only +,-,×,÷,n-th roots and n-th powers There are other examples like the undefined integral of sin(x)/x or of e^(-x^2)
CHROMIUM HERO if you take the harmonic oscillator example they showed in the video. If you were to not approximate a solution, what you would get in the end is a non-elementary integral where representing it would require infinite terms or the use of the error function. In otherwords, you can’t get a perfectly accurate solution making it part of a non-analytical class of problems
Mathematician: I can't solve it analytically, therefore it's ugly and boring. Physicist: I can solve it analytically, therefore everything interesting has already been said and done. Let's move on to the really interesting stuff.
@@PapaFlammy69 If you can solve Product from k=2 to n-1 of (sin(n/k*pi) ) ill give you 100 000 dollars. Its looks like the one you solved in this video ua-cam.com/video/8u1qsupVQhk/v-deo.html , except you have n/k instead of k/n. The solution needs to be made out of a finite number of terms. No joke. Ill actually give you the money.
Mathematician: If it satisfies Fubini's theorem, you can switch the integrals. Physicist: Assume necessary conditions, you can switch the integrals. Engineer: You can always switch the integrals.
If you look at old physics books they allude to some theorem (like the function is bounded so we can switch integrals, not sure whicb theorem it allludes too). Probably the next generation was also not so sure, they knew the result is correct so the whole discussion was dropped in physics.
"and now we omit this part, becase mathematicians also have to eat, and we arrive at this equation" ~My professor of physics during my engineering degree
In my physics porfessor's note, while studying forced damped oscillators, he wrote "This is a non-homogeneous second order differential equation, that mathematicians are really good at solving. The result is..."
Okay everyone, find the volume of a cow! Engineer: okay I'll submerge the cow in water and see the volume change. Mathematician: I'm going to slice the cow into geometric figures who's volume I can solve for Physics: well that's easy, first I'll assume the cow is a sphere
To engineer. Good luck lifting her and not drowning her. Also gotta accurately measure the change in depth of water and surface area of pool. To physicist. Circumscribed or inscribed sphere? To mathematician. Can you guarantee that your will only need to make a finite number of cuts?
@@Grassmpl Engineer: the problem never stated the cow must be alive. Mathematician: so long as I am only attempting to reach a nonzero threshold of accuracy I can guarantee that the number of cuts need not be infinite. Physics: what are those?
Always assume Pi is 3. Unless you can shove it into a calculator, then use about as many digits as the calculator itself gives when called for Pi. That's how you build a system, maximum calculation of critical factors and trial and error!
True Story - I'm a Stats / Actuarial Maths major. Girlfriend at time was same University in Urban Planning. Asked me for help on her Stats assignment (she had to take this one introductory math course - she was not good at the subject - I was in 4th year). I did the entire easy assignment slowly in front of her showing her every single step (exactly what would be required in the Math Department). She got the assignment back a week later and I got 65% (i blew my mind because it was all 100% correct). I went down to her Lab and confronted her TA and told him everything was absolutely correct. The insanity that went down for the next 30 minutes I will remember for the rest of my life. I was subsequently banned from the building. The story spread to the Math Department to the point that one of my Profs asked if it was me and then see the actual assignment - i management to get it from her, make a copy and gave it to him. As a joke a few weeks later, he started the class reviewing my answer that I was given a 6/10 on. The class was laughing hysterically - at the end he gave me a 9.5/10 because I didn't end the Proof with QED
@Huup Simple answer it was an intro stats class taught out of a book with answers by a TA. I dual majored in psychology/biology, minor in chemistry and it happened to me all the time. Psychology was the worse because for the most part they didn't know jack and hated looking bad when you explained exactly why they were wrong. Biology wasn't a lot better when it came to the brain and nervous system, like axon potential and neurotransmitters, for the most part they didn't know the material and tried to bs their way through it.
When I was eleven I got into an argument with my primary school teacher. I maintained that 3/10 was 30% and she maintained it was 33+1/3%. It was pretty funny in retrospect though at the time I was very upset by it. First she had me explain why I thought that so I argued that since 30/3=10=100/10 we could conclude that 30/100 was 3/10. A good argument in retrospect but presented with the clumsiness you'd expect from an eleven year old. She dismissed that argument on grounds that I do not remember and argued that we should divide 100 by 3 instead to calculate the percentage. I asked her how this worked if we wanted to calculate 4/10 wondering if she could possibly think that this was 25% but here she agreed with me that this would be 40%. I then went through some further examples asking her what 5/10 and 6/10 where. She told me they were 50% and 66+2/3% respectively. I then thought her problem was with multiples of 3 so I asked her what 9/10 was wondering if she would seriously tell me that was 100% but she told me instead that this was 90%.
@@Evilanious Man that's tough, nothing worse than a grade school teacher without the intelligence to realize they had a kid that needed support and encouragement to continue at higher level than anything they could achieve.
@@alexeysaranchev6118 do you know newton was a virgin? Also many philosphers like fredrich and scientists like tesla were so . Those who are well productive do not follow the common matrix
"... by dropping higher order terms in it's Taylor Series... and by higher order I mean after the first term." If this isn't how you do physics, than you're not doing it right 😂😂😂
@@NoNameAtAll2 Now now, we have to do at least *something* , the Professor doesn't accept just writing the same equation twice as a meaningful difference.....unfortunately.
While math is the language of physics, math in its own right describes the universe even more intricate than physics! Euclidean and Non Euclidean geometry literally explain how the universe works.
Why argue about who are the smartest: mathematicians, physicists, or engineers. When i was going to school to become a civil engineer, i accepted that physics students were smarter...but math students smarter than engineering students, that's debatable. As engineers, we do specialize, for me to become a structural engineer, I had to go to graduate school because I wanted to make sure that I understood the theory. In the end, we may not be the smartest of the science students but after five years of working in my field, I am making much more than what my physics professor was making...so who cares who is smarter, as long as you enjoy what you do.
Slacker Engi 2 engineering is a great field and the pay is great! Also, very and I mean, very few of these physics students do groundbreaking things and many go into engineering because they are smart and they know it pays way better and there are more jobs.
"Often times we have to resort to approximating functions by dropping higher ordered terms in its Taylor series. And by higher order, I mean after the first term." As an avid mathematician, I felt that. LMAO
Usually, the second and subsequent term involves square and progressive powers of a term which is very very less than 1 which makes the rest of the terms be so small that they can be easily rounded off.
It makes sense when you think about it though. Say you're trying to approximate the Weierstrass function by using small segments as you might when using Euler's Method to solve a differential equation. We can't do it because it's not differentiable, however if we truncate the fourier series that defines it after finitely many terms we do get an infinitely smooth curve that we can solve analytically. However we know that the function is also infinitely wiggly, meaning depending on which term we end with the sign of the derivative may change. This means we should limit our step size to one. We also know that even with just one step we're going to be wrong a priori. We don't really gain anything by calculating the slope more accurately.
I had a professor once tell the class "9 is close enough to 10 to substitute 10 into the value for this problem". I quietly do this at work all the time.
@@Hadar1991 In undergraduate physics, everything is already an approximation. Newtonian mechanics is an approximation at every step. It's impossible to calculate exactly because it is impossible to know the exact state the matter is in (uncertainty principle and influence of the observer). Throw in the the fact that even simple problems don't have a known closed form solution (3-body problem for example), and all that's left is to figure out the level of approximation you want to use.
Once on a TV show, a mathematician and a physician were invited and were to make a fence all over some sheeps using the less material possible. The physician starts, and put all the sheeps in a circle, and try to make the fence less and less big. Then it's the mathematician turn, he makes a fence all over him and define himself as the outside, making the sheeps on the inside of the fence. Moral : there's none, it's just funny stop overthinking
"You'll prove this in some other math lecture next year" "Yes we can always do that since functions in physics are always smooth anyways." "We can interchange that since experiments have shown that the resulting formula actually works" "And now we'll apply this in the next experiment that I am going to show you." *30 seconds later* "I actually have no idea why this is not working like it should. I swear we tested it this morning."
I always understood math in physics better than actual math alone because it was easier for me to understand real life concepts than concepts of numbers.
Agreed, but its merely a perceptive approach towards learning mathematics. Intuitive approach sometimes fails to address real problems but seems valid in narrow light of our experience. If we want to learn some basics and develop some idea it may be useful.
@@2megna That’s more a perspective than anything else. The world of mathematics is actually humongous, it’s kind of ridiculous when you start taking the tour.
Physics Teacher: We do not relate to any mathematics after Yr 9 Maths. Also Physics Teacher: We don’t have any formulas for finding the area under this non-linear graph, so let’s count the squares!
@@christopherjorissen5582yo im doing vce phys too did my methods last year and im doing spec 34 as well now :33 i integrate the functions to find the area under cuz its faster and more interesting yoyo
My physics teacher : so here’s the Dirac, a function equal to 0 everywhere but when x = 0, f(x) = infinity. Let’s say that the integral of that function is equal to 1. Mathematicians : that’s illegal Dirac : I don’t care I’m a physicist
The functions can be generalised to distributions, and that works in all rigour. Anyway, in physics there are always inaccuracies, so that taking a Dirac distribution or a narrow impulse function makes no difference in practice. Again, that is proven in all rigour.
teawsome 123 It just means you can reverse what you did, like hitting undo. Some things have multiple inputs that produce the same result, so you can’t just look at the result and hit “undo.”
You see, in physics all matrices all square and have non-zero determinants... So this is not that wrong... Physicists just aren't interested in matrices that aren't square or have determinant equal to zero.
Electrical Engineer here: *I totally get this!* An electrical engineer is just a more honest physicist - meaning we use an approximation _because it has been shown to work in some context,_ but not because we understand _why_ it works. Even though we admit that we don't know why an approximation works, we are going to use it anyway ... _just because it works!_ That's called _pragmatism,_ and engineers are essentially pragmatists. We are happy to let the mathematicians and physicists argue forever, while we wait patiently for any equations that they might come up with that seem to at least kind-of-sort-of work in some practical situations.
An engineer thinks that equations are an approximation to reality. A physicist thinks reality is an approximation to equations. A mathematician doesn't care.
Can confirm: Teacher: So, now that we're done with the ideal cases on calculating line inductance: this is the mathemathical model for line inductance in a line with earth return. Me: So, is there any proof to it stemming from the Maxwell equations like the previous formulas? Teacher: Nah, I wonder where's the proof to it, we're just gonna take a leap of faith here, son.
good for you but I don't actually think many scientists, especially physicists care that much about the practical application. Like the boi Richard said (paraphrased) "Physics is like sex, it gives practical results, but that's not why we do it!"
@@TheGhostLegend001 Don't you mean "bridge the gap between scientists, mathematicians and practicality"? Because the other types of scientists don't need you to explain anything mathematicians have told them, or vice versa. You know, as if you were some sort of translators, which you're not. At least in the sense that your comment suggests. In the case that you meant that you exist as something between a scientist and a mathematician, it still doesn't quite compute, at least in my head anyways.
Still remember my first-year physics. Prof wrote the general expression for the 3D wave equation on the board (after guessing the solution) and then proceeded to cross out terms- this one very small, this is about one, we assume the wavelength much smaller than the aperture, etc. I was flabbergasted- you can't throw things out! It's an equation!
Navier-Stokes. There's a million dollar prize if you can figure out how to solve it without any assumptions. I had a Fluids test where half of it was writing out all of the terms you could cancel and why.
When i was 2nd year high school, we had a task that had pi in the numerator and 3 in the denominator. You can predict what my professor's next move was
@@hunterm9 I was actually a double major in both physics and maths but had to choose for my grad studies and decided to do maths, since it is easier to switch from maths to physics than the other way around. If your main focus is applied physics, I don't think a very deep understanding of mathematics is necessary. As long as you know how to manipulate "basic" (I use that term very lightly) equations, you should be good. I have several applied physics friends who are terrible at maths but still brilliant in physics.
Reminds me of a story my dad told me from when he studied physics at the University of Oslo. There was this geology professor who was a really good lecturer, so other professors would often attend his lectures. One day he makes a small error writing down an infinite series, and it's solution, when an elderly maths professor raises his hand and says "Sorry, but I don't think your series converges." To which the lecturer replies "I couldn't give a fuck if it converges or not, as long as I get the right answer." Loosely translated from the Norwegian: "Unnskyld, men jeg tror ikke rekken din konvergerer." "Jeg gir da faen i om den konvergerer eller ikke, så lenge jeg får riktig svar."
@@derwinhauser they are extremely similar, if you can speak one of the scandinavian languages you can undeerstand them all, or at least the languages when they are written since there can be quite a difference in pronounciation. i think there is an official term for this phenomena but i can`t quite remember the name of it.
@@skimmelsvamp9531 The term you're looking for is "mutually intelligible" (when referring to two or more languages), which means that people can speak in their native tongues and will mostly understand each other.
@@simonzakeyh6515 geology professor needs hell a lot of liner algebra to predict where the fuck oil / coal/water hidden inside earth...........they need it to model earth's structure from data like gravity, geomagnetism, seismic velocity etc........the problem is called inverse problems......
This may be accurate, but never in my life have I seen physicists so hostile to mathematicians. Most professors were rather apologetic that they don't have the time or knowledge to prove the swappability of limits, existence of integrals etc. They would at least mention that it is a part of the proof.
Economist: so these are the main 4738 assumptions of our model. Mathematicians: how do you solve it under so many constraints? Economist: you don't, assumptions optimize it for you.
I understood. Mathematicians want results that are entirely absolute to the smallest aspect possible, no room of error margins. Physicists just want to use it to poke at the universe.
Yes. But let's be real. If everyone understood that, we wouldn't have people marvel at the fact that "infinities pop up" in Feynmann diagrams, when that's just the result of applying perturbation theory to non analytic functions in most cases. Most teachers treat that as a mystery of nature, when in fact you can have a pretty good intuition of it.
I kind of dislike the e^(--1/x) example, I'd prefer e^(-1/|x|). Not only this is a differentiable and smooth function containing the dreaded absolute value, but also it truly has Taylor series at x=0, which does not converge to the function. Bender discusses stuff like that, 'beyond all order asymptotics' or something like that
it was actually an example in one of my physics classes... to show that the taylor series does not always converge to the function even if it exists ^^ and another time to give an example of a function f(x) which is not square integrable but f(x)/x is....
I have had 2 math courses at my university in Sweden that have been pretty much like both math and physics at the same time; one of them was called "Mathematical Physics" (Matematisk Fysik) and was mainly about the diffusion equation, the Laplace equation and the wave equation, and the other one was called "Applied Mathematics" (Tillämpad Matematik), and was a lot about perturbation theory, approximations of integrals, double pendulums and things like that. I kinda liked those courses, because they _really_ expected us to have experience with multivariable calculus, differential equations and various transformation methods (Fourier Series, Fourier Transform, Laplace Transform etc), as well as a lot of concepts from physics, so they felt very rewarding.
heh. this made me think of the following hypothetical scenario: what if for some cruel reason a physics journal decided to add pure mathematicians as reviewers for the articles submitted to said journal?
What I used to think as a physics student: Physics: Playing fast and loose with the maths to get results Maths: Pure Rigour and well defined functions. What I think now, after looking into what mathematicians are like: Physics: As much rigour as needed. Maths: YOLO We're going to apply things that might not even be true! We're going to use things that don't even make sense! Screw the rules! If something doesn't work we define a new thing so it does. We see a pattern of 10 things following some pattern? Lets call it a conjecture and leave it to someone else to prove whilst we take the credit.
Yeah, it's weird. In my uni I take many classes with mathematicians and/or with a professor who is a mathematician. Usually, when there is a majority of physics students, they'll get very pedantic. Other than that, at least in higher level mathematics and physics, is just like you described. Academia is absolutely RUTHLESS in physics.
Oh boy, that math student should be thankful he is not in an economics class. Every mathematical economics class goes like "let's assume this model describes how people make decisions, and I say assume because it really does not"
@jocaguz18 When they bother to measure, right? I was reading some comments the other day, and it lead me to these philosophical theories (don't ask). I couldn't believe some of them were treated as serious theories. They have theories that straight up disregards any empirical data and embraced the use of narratives (as in the writing device, fictional abstract stories with no proven correlation to anything in real life). I get wanting to go "full abstract" and talk only about fully theoretical statements. That in itself is not a problem. But these theories try to describe real life behaviors. So it is absurd that they would intentionally disregard any sort of measuremnt of their predictions. In case you're wondering, Praxeology and Metaphysics are most of what I'm talking about.
@@ufazig Ah yes, antipositivism is some bullshit. Praexology, as an unempirical sociological theory, is antipositivist and thus entirely arbitrary bullshit. However, antipositivism is the metatheoretical rejection of postpositivism (positivism itself having been widely accepted as insufficient) in *sociology*. Metaphysics is philosophy, if a metaphysical assertion is successfully tested then it becomes physics, metaphysics is entirely speculative. Metaphysics doesn't reject empiricism, it transcends it. There are arguments against metaphysics, but those are metametaphysical.
I did grade 12 calculus before I did grade 11 physics, and... I can't even possibly describe how mad I was when I saw my physics teacher tell the class to approximate the slope of a tangent by putting a ruler to it and drawing a line, then calculate the slope as the difference in y divided by the difference in x between two approximated points on the line. I was so mad, I didn't even say a word... I just stopped, and listened. Of course, I had to retaliate at some point, so on a test in grade 12 level physics, instead of just explaining something the way we were taught in class, I explained my answer in terms of integrals and it felt good. I got 100% on it as well.
Well going by your comment the question asked for 'approximation' and that's exactly how you 'approximate' the slope of a tangent.Also,how did you describe it in terms of an Integral?Isn't differentiation used for slopes?
1+1? Engineer: after 2 hours on a computer says the answer is two Physicist: 2 plus minus 1 Mathematician: the answer exists and it's unique Administrator: how much do you want it to be?
@@FrostDirt I know that, but given the context of this video it is a reasonable assumption that it was a joke. All they were saying is that it would be funny if it turned out that dark matter was simply a result of the discrepancy between the approximations used by physicists and the actual values, eg in some deep realms of cosmology e has been approximated with 10.
If you ever feel like the amount of personal attacks against you is getting overwhelmingly high, just take its analytic continuation on the complex plane and it will be all better.
Experimental physics be like: we have to ber extremly precise because a mistake of 10 to power minus 10 could make everything caollapse Theoretical physics be like: let all constans be 1 so it looks nice and all units describe pretty much the same thing
@@PapaFlammy69 i'd love to learn all that crazy stuff and jargon in the video, if not for me being a medical aspirant. I'm all over the place with my interests lmao
pooyah k all of these conversations were of “basic” concepts covered in undergraduate physics classes - which, funny enough, at the level that these concepts are all introduced, said physics classes are very introductory to the grand scheme of physics.
@Francisco Herrera No. As Einstein and many other people far smarter than you have said, if you can't explain something in clear terms, you don't actually understand it. You should also shut up, because in your half-understanding, where you think complexity is intelligence, leads you to discourage others from actually studying intellectual subjects.
![Proofs in University Maths be like... [ Math Joke Video ] [ Best of invalid proof techniques ] Part1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Onif1UmyiTQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Mathematician: You can't divide by 0.
Physicist: It will cancel out with another infinity later on.
Engineer: We’re going to assume this division by zero is negative and all others are positive. Why? Because that’s going to give us a real solution and not a multiple of i, that’s why.
@@drigondii Storytime: So we were working on those square roots in my Calculus class, and we noticed the teacher was only grabbing the positive solutions, without explanation. So one of us asked why he wasn't adding anything to explain the negative solutions. He looked calmly to us and said: "you're environmental engineers. If you grab the negative solution, it means the river is going uphill".
We all nodded in shame.
OMG 💀💀😂
Engineer: noone will notice.
Haha that was gold man
My physics teacher explained us the difference between a mathematician and a physicist. Imagine both are at a traffic light, the mathematician will wait until the traffic light indicates he can cross the street and he will even check whether all cars are stopped, and he will arrive safely at the other end. On the other hand, the physicist won't even look at the traffic light and will directly cross the street, if he arrives safely, it means the traffic light was likely to be green and if he doesn't, it means it wasn't green.
If he does, it could be green or red or yellow, he has to do it again just to make sure
With that given example...physicists seem like people who are living a very "dangerous" life.👀
@@alexchimi7093 That's why physicists always repeat their experiences a large number of times.
What does that make the traffic light? Metaphorically speaking.
I'm not very smart so I'm just gonna say clever
Mathematician: Let's find out the formula to calculate the shape of a human head.
Physicist: Let's pretend that it is a perfect sphere.
it minecraftin time!
Engineer cad says its 4.
The first thing you need to know about physics is that π = 3 and π² = 10.
@@crowbar_the_rogueWtf. Someone explain please 🥺
@@crowbar_the_rogue😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Mathematician: we have to analyze everything through with logic, so that we know how to apply it.
Physicist: let's poke it, and see what happens.
Poking it is more practical! - A physics student
@ab ab yes sir!
ab ab LIES! WITHOUT MATH THERE WOULD BE NO PHYSICISTS! How would they even know about anything, they don't even know what happens if you ram 2 rocks together. :P
@@NovaWarrior77 Nice picture...
@@cyclic-1033 what are the odds!
hahaha i remember when i was studying physics, there was another guy who was graduating in math and physics at the same time and used to interrupt all the time with comments like this. we lost a lot of time. until the professor, who was a guy who looked like a heavy metal musician and was not very patient, told him "Boy, we are physicists. We dont give a fuck".
What an answer xD 👍
👍🏼😂
I don't know why I read it in Kratos voice
But how can you not give a fuck if you're wrong, what this video confuses me, I don't study maths or physics
@@kaneaustin8708 I guess because a lot of these small details are not really as relevant to physics as in mathematics. Physicists are more concerned with using mathematics to model the real world and applying it to problems than all of the minutae that mathematicians are interested in, such as the fact that some function is differentiable everywhere besides 0. Mathematics as a subject is also sort of philosophical in that it stresses proving one's arguments true via proofs. So, with this in mind, it might be safe to assume that some of the people who like math, especially the logical and rigorous side of it, might be annoying to the more concretely thinking physicist who does not want to philosophize and debate constantly.
I just love coming back to these videos like twice a semester and understanding the jokes a little bit more each time
:D
Basically:
Physicist: Let's make our lives easier by assumptions and aproximations.
Mathematician: No.
It doesn't make life easier, but possible at all. Already the three bodies problem can't be solved. Most of maths is inapplicable in physics.
There is a whole chapter in calculus about approximations and linearization........
@@hoaxyu8763 No
hoax yu yes it’s very deep
Physicist are Engineers cousins?
The more you assume, the more you get paid
“and by higher order, I mean after the first term” I FUCKI G CHOKED
Every time you using Newtonian Physic instead of Relativistism, that is exactly what you are doing.
@John Doe relativity is not a correct representation, though it's way closer to reality than classical mechanics (I'm sure you know the difference, just saying)
@John Doe I think he means Newtonian mechanics was never falsified experimentally either until new discoveries were made. Just because relativity describes all of the observations now doesn't mean it always will
I love how that always happens without any argument whatsoever about why the first term has to be the most significant one.
Discrete Mathematicians: Yes
My physics professor at the university: "If any matematician saw this, they would rip their hair off, but we will divide the whole equation by the dx".
Theorem: if you go the gym and work out, your physical condition will improve.
Proof: exercise
More like exercise disproves the theorem 😝
TriGgeRrEd : has to be in “if, then” form
This is not a mathematical statement :D
xD, like Calculus of Michael Spivak .
Counterexample: Consider the case of a gym bro lifting too much weight and tearing muscles / dropping bar on his face. Clearly not true in general.
This is just like having a philosophy student in a law or politics class
AustrianSchoolÜbermensch Ja genau du hast recht, dann gibt es da noch die Geistesteswissenschaftler... die Menschen die es nicht geschafft haben was richtiges zu studieren. 😉
Paul Krimmel Nicht lustig
LMBO
@@paulkrimmel6384 ohne Philosophie gäbe es sowas wie Mathe garnicht. Mathe baut auf Logik auf und Logik ist ein Gebiet der Philosophie.
@@kurosakiIchigo9626 Pakistan best
Physicist : the gravity is a curvature of space-time
Mathematician: a vector is a vector bitch
Do you mean an arrow, or something that can be added and scaled? Because matrices, functions, and polynomials are vectors.
@@angeldude101 No, they aren’t. Both matrices and polynomials are functions and functions describe the relationship of elements between sets, their values are not necessarily even numbers and can’t be generalized as vectors. An “Arrow” is whats often used as a visual aid for vectors.
@@rindal3042 Vectors are not arrows. Arrows can be vectors, but most vectors are not arrows. The only requirement for something to be a vector is the ability to add and scale them. Arrows can do this. So can polynomials and matrices. Polynomials and matrices are also functions as you said. You can even represent them in terms of a basis.
An NxM matrix is a NM-dimensional vector that can act as a function on other matrices to get a new matrix, or on arrows to get a new arrow.
A polynomial is an arbitrary-dimensional vector, with the nth basis vector being x^n. x can itself be a vector with a well defined multiplication operation, which polynomials and matrices both are. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from plugging a polynomial as the input to another polynomial.
I feel the need to mention that ℝeal numbers are also 1-dimensional vectors with 1 as the sole basis vector.
@Lucas Fernandes I'm not saying that vectors are polynomials. I'm saying that polynomials are vectors. Polynomials ⊊ vectors. Functions in general ⊊ vectors, but you can only really call functions arrows if you can point your arrows in uncountably infinite dimensions, since they possess a coordinate for every single ℝeal number in their domain.
"To be clear, I see arrows as concept more general that straight line oriented segment." That's fair, but not a very common position. Most instances I'm aware of only care about the start and end of the arrow, and that the path it takes doesn't matter, so it may as well just be straight.
@@LucasFernandes-oy7pjHave you ever read an advanced linear algebra book? If not go to the second chapter of linear algebra by Friedburg (4th edition free online)
Programmer : Is there an algorithm to solve this more efficiently?
Programmer: Well... a first approximation of the sqrt from (n/2)-0x5F3759DF should be close enough. But only if it's a 32-bit float..
Manager: can we solve this quicker by hiring a couple more people?
Manager: Can you write me a code to do that more efficiently? Programmer: Sure Manager: You're fired, I don't need you anymore.
@@Jupblup And that is why you make sure your code requires some maintenance, and noone else can understand it.
@@IVIasterIVIind No documentation and arbitrary dependencies just to make the one who reads the code have to jump around a lot. Perfectly cooked spaghetti!
I can only trust a math teacher if it has foreign accent.
Jasc Tomm Had an Indian math professor (great guy), can confirm.
My guy what do you mean "it"
@@everything71 Most likely a non-native speaker. When learning English, "they" sounds plural, the neutral "he" doesn't seem used anymore, and "he or she" (while technically correct regardless of political correctness) is too verbose.
@@everything71 We are talking about a math teacher, way over Frankenstein's monster level.
@@everything71 Didn't you know math professors are robots? You have just been woken, my dude.
When mathematicians and physicists work well together, they produce astonishing science. However, they usually don't get along so physicists tend to do nonsensical mathematics and mathematicians do abstract mathematics without any applications for centuries to come
Engineer: I don’t see what’s wrong with either approach...
yup!
Just go and stick some rocks together or something like that
Not my experience with engineers in the slightest. To me it seems engineers are very narrow visioned and all problems have to derive from their area of study for example i worked as a mechanical engineer at a company. There was a problem with our water flow. I shit you not the other mechanical engineer said it HAD TO BE A PROBLEM WITH THE WATER PUMP, IT HAD TO BE A MECHANICAL ISSUE. He stood waste deep in water in a lightning storm for 8 hours doing that look at a pump until i came in and found that the problem was simply a blockage in a pipe. This is exactly my experience with almost every single engineer i have met. They simply can't think outside the box
@@FormedUnique You obviously haven't met many of them
@@jovan8442 ive met quite a lot actually
When faced with a problem:
Mathematician: I cannot prove, I'm stuck!
Physicist: I solved it, but it only applies to spherical chickens in vacuum
Engineer: Let me show you how is done
Programmer: It's Plagiarisim time!
Also engineers: π^2=g.
@@hungryplate400 😂 very true
@@hungryplate400 I mean if you use the original definition of the meter (the seconds pendulum one, not the 1/10000000 of the distance from the North Pole to Paris) than this approximation would actually be exact. Unfortunately, the value of g differs in different places, so we can't use this definition, but that approximation is not just a high school trick. It's akin to pretending the density of water is 1000 kg/m^3 exactly (though more inexact I'll give you that).
@Ookami Panzer *Our* code
"This proof is trivial you can just do it on your own for practice."
-Official Moto of Physics Professors
-Pierre De Fermat
An engineer, a physicist and a mathematician traveling in Wales for the first time notice a black sheep.
Engineer: Oh, sheep in Wales are black.
Physicist: Oh, there exists black sheep in Wales.
Mathematician: Oh, there exists at least one sheep in Wales, and at least one side of it is black.
Literature enthusiast: ba ba black sheep, have you any wool?
Ye sir, yes sir, three bags full
The mathematician wouldn't assume it was a sheep based only on looking at the object.
WAIT. AS A GERMAN. HELP ME OUT HERE. black sheep "EXISTS"? WHY. WHY SINGULAR? WUT? Do i have to use the singular just because the word sheep works as both? THEN WHY IS IT "THE POLICE ARE"? KILL ME
@@BlueRabbitification Umm, I guess you're right; the guy who wrote the original comment wasn't really intending to dodge any grammatical inaccuracies I figure.
But yes, in general, both the words: 'exist' and exists' are acceptable if they're referring to equivocal words such as 'sheep' which can be singular or plural. Here though, it is evidently plural, thus 'exist'.
@@manswind3417 you just safed the last drop of sanety that was left inside of the potato i now call my brain.thank you
Physicist in mathematician's class: _Makes fun of physicists' lack of rigor_
Mathematician in physicist's class: _Makes fun of physicists' lack of rigor_
True, but this one also makes fun of the mathematician's need of rigor.
Physicist to Mathematician: Hey we also use that sort of notation but we have no idea why.
@@Grassmpl It's like, Im using sort of that thing and it works, but I don't know why, but meh it works xd
As a math student who took Calculus with a physicist as professor, I totally agree.
@@MrSlothJunior how can you make fun of that?
I remember a mathematics prof teaching a lecture on stochastic differential equations to physicists saying: „Teaching to physicists is like being a grand parent: All the fun, no responsibility!“
"If we take the square of the probability amplitude, you are a virgin." LMAO
Those reasoning skills
That was actually brilliant
I died that was frickin funny
My mind freaked on this, great logic there
I DIED! 😂
If that guy takes engineering classes he is gonna have a heart attack hahaha
I was in his shoes in an engineering class (process), it made me sad and depressed how they integrate and differentiate without the slightest care.
@@everlastingideas8625 And we are very proud of that!
@@everlastingideas8625 an answer is an answer 😂
@@ivanplis5554 There is a place in hell for the lots of you 😂😂😂
@@sabrinalin2773 Technically, you re not wrong but some of us are sensitive souls 😂
This is painful, I was so confused how my physics professor magically turned sin(x) to x in a pendulum. Approximation hurts, but all wounds heal with time...
Update: I am now both a physics and math major, and I now see nothing unethical here.
Use MVT to prove that 0 is the only real solution to sin x = x.
Thats valid at low values of x
@@doomkoff9932 Only at x=0
one hell of a scar
@@doomkoff9932 yuuup lower values for the sine function indeed results in themselves
"why are we even interested in something that we can't solve analytically"
*numerics teachers disliked this*
Do people actually ask that question?
why can't some things be solved analytically?
@@CHROMIUMHEROmusic since we only have so many tools and "standard" functions, often you will have a problem, cou canprove a solution exists, but you can't describe it in those standard functions
One of the oldest examples are stuff like squaring the circle if you only use compas and straightedge, or general roots of polynomials with degree higher than 5 using only +,-,×,÷,n-th roots and n-th powers
There are other examples like the undefined integral of sin(x)/x or of e^(-x^2)
CHROMIUM HERO if you take the harmonic oscillator example they showed in the video. If you were to not approximate a solution, what you would get in the end is a non-elementary integral where representing it would require infinite terms or the use of the error function. In otherwords, you can’t get a perfectly accurate solution making it part of a non-analytical class of problems
Mathematician: I can't solve it analytically, therefore it's ugly and boring.
Physicist: I can solve it analytically, therefore everything interesting has already been said and done. Let's move on to the really interesting stuff.
Died at "if it's *in* physics, it's *in* -vertible."
@@PapaFlammy69 If you can solve Product from k=2 to n-1 of (sin(n/k*pi) ) ill give you 100 000 dollars. Its looks like the one you solved in this video ua-cam.com/video/8u1qsupVQhk/v-deo.html , except you have n/k instead of k/n. The solution needs to be made out of a finite number of terms. No joke. Ill actually give you the money.
Anonimatus54125 wut
@@PapaFlammy69 You actually going to solve Anonimatus54125's question?
If it is a matrix it is in-vertible in-the-sense of the in-famous Moore-Penrose In-Verse, denoted by a bloody fucking DAGGER!
Reversible ... >.>
Mathematician: If it satisfies Fubini's theorem, you can switch the integrals.
Physicist: Assume necessary conditions, you can switch the integrals.
Engineer: You can always switch the integrals.
If you look at old physics books they allude to some theorem (like the function is bounded so we can switch integrals, not sure whicb theorem it allludes too). Probably the next generation was also not so sure, they knew the result is correct so the whole discussion was dropped in physics.
Mechanical Engineer: lol. Lmao even. Just eyeball it.
Cad monkey = calculator says it's 12 . 10 is a round number but i am American so it's 3 1/5 cheaseburgers
Marvel: "Infinity War is the most ambitious crossover event in history."
Me:
Marvel: Infinity War , Physics: Infinity but we only consider 1st order terms
"and now we omit this part, becase mathematicians also have to eat, and we arrive at this equation"
~My professor of physics during my engineering degree
That means he didn't know how to do it
In my physics porfessor's note, while studying forced damped oscillators, he wrote "This is a non-homogeneous second order differential equation, that mathematicians are really good at solving. The result is..."
Okay everyone, find the volume of a cow!
Engineer: okay I'll submerge the cow in water and see the volume change.
Mathematician: I'm going to slice the cow into geometric figures who's volume I can solve for
Physics: well that's easy, first I'll assume the cow is a sphere
Cow is a sphere 😂😂😂 I’m dead 😵
To engineer. Good luck lifting her and not drowning her. Also gotta accurately measure the change in depth of water and surface area of pool.
To physicist. Circumscribed or inscribed sphere?
To mathematician. Can you guarantee that your will only need to make a finite number of cuts?
@@Grassmpl
Engineer: the problem never stated the cow must be alive.
Mathematician: so long as I am only attempting to reach a nonzero threshold of accuracy I can guarantee that the number of cuts need not be infinite.
Physics: what are those?
@@m1_1911 Machinist to physicist. Damnit you really only looked at Euler and forgot about our boi Chebychev minmax... .-.
@@Grassmpl I thought you said circumcised 🤣🤣🤣🤣
absolutely no one:
physicists: *t a y l o r e x p a n s i o n*
u mean p e r t u r b a t i o n
Strong coupling appears. Run and hide!
We also use Laurent expansion :(
There is a sound mathematical basis for using a Taylor expansion.
@@vanlepthien6768 yes I'm aware. I am a mathematician lmao
"This is not a math class, I don't know why you insist on acting out." Flawless.
"But Mr. Madlad, this is really important... to me.
0:45 um actually, physicists use generalised function and the distributional derivative, which allows for the derivative of any function at any point.
Nobody:
Physicists: So we're gonna assume c, g, and pi are all = 1 here
c=g=1, "Eh decent approximation at earth's surface and natural units are fun."
pi=1, "You know not the horrors you have unleashed upon this world."
Vide Ultra, all I have to say is thank you
Actually we all know that infinity=3. By Renormalization.
@@joshschilmeister1934 π=1 so.... All radii are zero? All spheres and circles are a singularity. Big bang time, I guess.
Always assume Pi is 3. Unless you can shove it into a calculator, then use about as many digits as the calculator itself gives when called for Pi. That's how you build a system, maximum calculation of critical factors and trial and error!
True Story - I'm a Stats / Actuarial Maths major. Girlfriend at time was same University in Urban Planning. Asked me for help on her Stats assignment (she had to take this one introductory math course - she was not good at the subject - I was in 4th year). I did the entire easy assignment slowly in front of her showing her every single step (exactly what would be required in the Math Department). She got the assignment back a week later and I got 65% (i blew my mind because it was all 100% correct). I went down to her Lab and confronted her TA and told him everything was absolutely correct. The insanity that went down for the next 30 minutes I will remember for the rest of my life. I was subsequently banned from the building. The story spread to the Math Department to the point that one of my Profs asked if it was me and then see the actual assignment - i management to get it from her, make a copy and gave it to him. As a joke a few weeks later, he started the class reviewing my answer that I was given a 6/10 on. The class was laughing hysterically - at the end he gave me a 9.5/10 because I didn't end the Proof with QED
@Huup Knowing some of my teacher in my engineering course, doing more work than was necessary might be a reason.
@Huup Simple answer it was an intro stats class taught out of a book with answers by a TA. I dual majored in psychology/biology, minor in chemistry and it happened to me all the time. Psychology was the worse because for the most part they didn't know jack and hated looking bad when you explained exactly why they were wrong. Biology wasn't a lot better when it came to the brain and nervous system, like axon potential and neurotransmitters, for the most part they didn't know the material and tried to bs their way through it.
When I was eleven I got into an argument with my primary school teacher. I maintained that 3/10 was 30% and she maintained it was 33+1/3%. It was pretty funny in retrospect though at the time I was very upset by it. First she had me explain why I thought that so I argued that since 30/3=10=100/10 we could conclude that 30/100 was 3/10. A good argument in retrospect but presented with the clumsiness you'd expect from an eleven year old. She dismissed that argument on grounds that I do not remember and argued that we should divide 100 by 3 instead to calculate the percentage. I asked her how this worked if we wanted to calculate 4/10 wondering if she could possibly think that this was 25% but here she agreed with me that this would be 40%. I then went through some further examples asking her what 5/10 and 6/10 where. She told me they were 50% and 66+2/3% respectively. I then thought her problem was with multiples of 3 so I asked her what 9/10 was wondering if she would seriously tell me that was 100% but she told me instead that this was 90%.
@@Evilanious Man that's tough, nothing worse than a grade school teacher without the intelligence to realize they had a kid that needed support and encouragement to continue at higher level than anything they could achieve.
Huup well, my phisics teacher can find errors that don't exist
I'm a bachelors physics student and in a relationship with a mathematician who is about to start his PhD program. Let's just say, we have our moments
:D
1 = ||^2 is probably the sickest burn in history.
Nein it isnt being a virgin is cool
@@lordx4641 Prove it.
@@alexeysaranchev6118 lol read some articles about it than coming and whining in here.
@@alexeysaranchev6118 do you know newton was a virgin? Also many philosphers like fredrich and scientists like tesla were so . Those who are well productive do not follow the common matrix
For me mathematicians and inventors are much cooler than any popstar. Also newton has to be one of the coolest ppl who lived on the planet 😎
"... by dropping higher order terms in it's Taylor Series... and by higher order I mean after the first term."
If this isn't how you do physics, than you're not doing it right 😂😂😂
You leave only the highest oder that does not cancel out, ok? Ok!
*Harmonic oscillator at resonance frequency looming menacingly*
why not to stop at 0th term?
@@NoNameAtAll2 Now now, we have to do at least *something* , the Professor doesn't accept just writing the same equation twice as a meaningful difference.....unfortunately.
nonlinear optics glared at this comment lol
"The accuracy of mathematics in explaining physical phenomena is a gift that we neither deserve nor understand"- E.P Wigner
*Anthropic principle intensifies*
The language of physics is math. And as every useful language, there is some sort of slang. Just get over it, mathematicians.
That's got to be my favorite explanation of this ever.
So you're saying physics is to Math what ebonics is to English.
.... burgers do be needin flippin an ere'thing.
@Mahissimo You killed it!! 🤣👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿
While math is the language of physics, math in its own right describes the universe even more intricate than physics! Euclidean and Non Euclidean geometry literally explain how the universe works.
no.
As a engineering student I love the idea of sitting back and getting paid without knowing any of this
Engineers be like: Hey! As long as it works! 😆
Lol pay me 100$ 🥺
Gotta do what's practical
Why argue about who are the smartest: mathematicians, physicists, or engineers.
When i was going to school to become a civil engineer, i accepted that physics students were smarter...but math students smarter than engineering students, that's debatable.
As engineers, we do specialize, for me to become a structural engineer, I had to go to graduate school because I wanted to make sure that I understood the theory.
In the end, we may not be the smartest of the science students but after five years of working in my field, I am making much more than what my physics professor was making...so who cares who is smarter, as long as you enjoy what you do.
Slacker Engi 2 engineering is a great field and the pay is great! Also, very and I mean, very few of these physics students do groundbreaking things and many go into engineering because they are smart and they know it pays way better and there are more jobs.
As a bio-student, I'll sit back, relax, get some popcorn.
Garbage major
@@devinotero1798 indeed
@@devinotero1798 look at the self entitlement. That's why you'll never get laid
@@devinotero1798 Physics is nice and all but biology is the superior science.
@@Lsdlsadmt mmm i don't know. Hopefully biology doesn't need a lot of math like physics, so Physics would be at its 20% of yield without math.
After 4 years of being a math student, the secret I've learned is that forgetting about the rules is the only way to get anywhere
Sounds like just my type of major
.... anywhere close to repeating Analysis I for the seventh time?
I have a PhD in mathematics and I agree with this. The trick is figuring out how to put the rules back in once you’ve gotten somewhere.
The most important lesson of life, indeed.
True. Forget a rule and call it a generalized something
"Often times we have to resort to approximating functions by dropping higher ordered terms in its Taylor series. And by higher order, I mean after the first term." As an avid mathematician, I felt that. LMAO
:D
"If we're lucky we might need the second term too, but that's only if we want to be EXTREMELY accurate"
Usually, the second and subsequent term involves square and progressive powers of a term which is very very less than 1 which makes the rest of the terms be so small that they can be easily rounded off.
It makes sense when you think about it though. Say you're trying to approximate the Weierstrass function by using small segments as you might when using Euler's Method to solve a differential equation. We can't do it because it's not differentiable, however if we truncate the fourier series that defines it after finitely many terms we do get an infinitely smooth curve that we can solve analytically. However we know that the function is also infinitely wiggly, meaning depending on which term we end with the sign of the derivative may change. This means we should limit our step size to one. We also know that even with just one step we're going to be wrong a priori. We don't really gain anything by calculating the slope more accurately.
Yeah, that was really funny
Mathematician: Argues about illogical result
Physicist: *It is what it is*
I had a professor once tell the class "9 is close enough to 10 to substitute 10 into the value for this problem". I quietly do this at work all the time.
I think its g=9,81 m/s^2 , if in problèmes calculator are not used i think we can tack 10 just for do it Quickly
You are an economist?
In QCD, a technique called "1/N expansion" is used, based on the assumption that N=3 is so big that it is approximately infinite.
@@denysvlasenko1865 I worry that some people might think you're exaggerating for emphasis.
and by higher order, I mean everything after the first term. I spit out my drink
knowing the second term is also quite useful, you know what the point looks like locally, is it a saddle point, a maximum or minimum
and the error term
Ya that one got me too.
"In nature, all functions are continuous" as my professor once said.
@Rick Does Math hows that nature
Number of atoms is limited. All those "physics" seem to be a discrete problem to me 🤢
@@Hadar1991 In undergraduate physics, everything is already an approximation. Newtonian mechanics is an approximation at every step. It's impossible to calculate exactly because it is impossible to know the exact state the matter is in (uncertainty principle and influence of the observer). Throw in the the fact that even simple problems don't have a known closed form solution (3-body problem for example), and all that's left is to figure out the level of approximation you want to use.
@@varmituofm As mathematician approximation is just an abomination - another reason to hate physics. xD
Especially in quantum mechanics, right?
Once on a TV show, a mathematician and a physician were invited and were to make a fence all over some sheeps using the less material possible. The physician starts, and put all the sheeps in a circle, and try to make the fence less and less big. Then it's the mathematician turn, he makes a fence all over him and define himself as the outside, making the sheeps on the inside of the fence. Moral : there's none, it's just funny stop overthinking
Hey don't confuse physicist with physician
Haha but this logic is very legendary I didn't think of that
Stay fucking rad, internet friend ❣; this high five is for you 🖐.
Chaos, chaos!
Engineer: Makes an actual functional fence
3:44 That's an Oscar *right there*
Philosophers : whats the point of learning these subjects when you dont even know the meaning of life.
Someone....sent this guy to a biologist
Biologists: all life is sex
🤣
@@themushroom2130 survival survival survival
Again.... suppose there is no life.
"You'll prove this in some other math lecture next year"
"Yes we can always do that since functions in physics are always smooth anyways."
"We can interchange that since experiments have shown that the resulting formula actually works"
"And now we'll apply this in the next experiment that I am going to show you." *30 seconds later* "I actually have no idea why this is not working like it should. I swear we tested it this morning."
@@PapaFlammy69
"you can disregard this answer, it's unphysical"
Flammable Maths if it’s negative just take the absolute value amirite?
Functions in physics are always smooth? Wut?
They're as smooth as a mathematician's pick up lines
And they assume they're smooth, too...
As they say, physics is the same everywhere in the universe
"Ich habe gezeigt dass das integral konvergiert"
"sehr schön, hast du es auch gelößt?"
"nein"
Jedes mal
Don't need german classes when you're born a Korinthenkacker
Der Integrand sieht schön genug aus, also konvergiert das Integral.
Ich wusste bereits am Akzent des Mathematikers, dass er deutscher Herkunft sein muss :D
@@basti4583Digger das ist auch keine Kunst als Deutscher...
I always understood math in physics better than actual math alone because it was easier for me to understand real life concepts than concepts of numbers.
Because you lack rigor of mathematics.
@@sarojpandeya7883 sure but math is more interesting when it's applied
Agreed, but its merely a perceptive approach towards learning mathematics. Intuitive approach sometimes fails to address real problems but seems valid in narrow light of our experience. If we want to learn some basics and develop some idea it may be useful.
@@2megna That’s more a perspective than anything else.
The world of mathematics is actually humongous, it’s kind of ridiculous when you start taking the tour.
Same for me. I've always found abstract mathematics to be much harder than applied mathematics
Physics Teacher: We do not relate to any mathematics after Yr 9 Maths.
Also Physics Teacher: We don’t have any formulas for finding the area under this non-linear graph, so let’s count the squares!
A level physics?
@@redhawkneofeatherman261 yr 12 vce physics, when i was studying yr 12 vce maths methods concurrently
@@christopherjorissen5582yo im doing vce phys too did my methods last year and im doing spec 34 as well now :33 i integrate the functions to find the area under cuz its faster and more interesting yoyo
My physics teacher : so here’s the Dirac, a function equal to 0 everywhere but when x = 0, f(x) = infinity.
Let’s say that the integral of that function is equal to 1.
Mathematicians : that’s illegal
Dirac : I don’t care I’m a physicist
The functions can be generalised to distributions, and that works in all rigour. Anyway, in physics there are always inaccuracies, so that taking a Dirac distribution or a narrow impulse function makes no difference in practice. Again, that is proven in all rigour.
It is even worse, he was an ingeneer !
Engineering student here, can confirm we’re worse.
Davie504 would be proud
Omg thank you I was struggling to understand this for my exam next week! Guess it was just signals and systems shenanigans 😘
Watching this as a computer science student who knows math but not physics is extremely interesting
"All Matrices are Invertible" that genuinely hurt my soul🤣🤣🤣🤣
inb4psuedoinverse
said no one ever ... :D
teawsome 123
It just means you can reverse what you did, like hitting undo. Some things have multiple inputs that produce the same result, so you can’t just look at the result and hit “undo.”
In physics, all matrices are square Hermitian matrices.
You see, in physics all matrices all square and have non-zero determinants... So this is not that wrong... Physicists just aren't interested in matrices that aren't square or have determinant equal to zero.
Electrical Engineer here: *I totally get this!*
An electrical engineer is just a more honest physicist - meaning we use an approximation _because it has been shown to work in some context,_ but not because we understand _why_ it works. Even though we admit that we don't know why an approximation works, we are going to use it anyway ... _just because it works!_
That's called _pragmatism,_ and engineers are essentially pragmatists.
We are happy to let the mathematicians and physicists argue forever, while we wait patiently for any equations that they might come up with that seem to at least kind-of-sort-of work in some practical situations.
I’m also an electrical/computer engineer. I like to think that we engineers sort of bridge the gap between the scientists and the mathematicians.
An engineer thinks that equations are an approximation to reality.
A physicist thinks reality is an approximation to equations.
A mathematician doesn't care.
Can confirm:
Teacher: So, now that we're done with the ideal cases on calculating line inductance: this is the mathemathical model for line inductance in a line with earth return.
Me: So, is there any proof to it stemming from the Maxwell equations like the previous formulas?
Teacher: Nah, I wonder where's the proof to it, we're just gonna take a leap of faith here, son.
good for you but I don't actually think many scientists, especially physicists care that much about the practical application. Like the boi Richard said (paraphrased) "Physics is like sex, it gives practical results, but that's not why we do it!"
@@TheGhostLegend001 Don't you mean "bridge the gap between scientists, mathematicians and practicality"? Because the other types of scientists don't need you to explain anything mathematicians have told them, or vice versa. You know, as if you were some sort of translators, which you're not. At least in the sense that your comment suggests. In the case that you meant that you exist as something between a scientist and a mathematician, it still doesn't quite compute, at least in my head anyways.
Still remember my first-year physics. Prof wrote the general expression for the 3D wave equation on the board (after guessing the solution) and then proceeded to cross out terms- this one very small, this is about one, we assume the wavelength much smaller than the aperture, etc. I was flabbergasted- you can't throw things out! It's an equation!
Navier-Stokes. There's a million dollar prize if you can figure out how to solve it without any assumptions. I had a Fluids test where half of it was writing out all of the terms you could cancel and why.
claro que você pode jogá-los fora, tudo depende do teor da análise.
One does never see Jens and Mr. Dotson at the same time. Does that mean that Jens is Andrew?
Bruh it's called change of variables
Flammable Maths no it means they are both continuous but non differentiable functions
SUPERPOSITION
@@HolyMith Exactly. Somone has to hold the camera, while the other one speaks... ^-^
Or may be they are friends far from each other because the backgrounds seem different
this could single-handedly replace the show, "The Big Bang Theory"
So much funnier actually, you're totally right
No it is better
This is more or less The Big Bang Theory if Sheldon directed it.
normies wouldn't watch it at all
@@technoguyx so a show for actual nerds... and not >vague comic book reference followed by canned laughter
As a physics student this is giving me anxiety as to how much of my stuff has flawed mathematical foundations that I just don't know.
This flammable maths guy is crazy. Next thing he'll be telling us is that dy/dx isn't a quotient 😵
You mean y/x. Lol go back to school you can’t even simplify fractions.
@@alephnull4044 What if d is 0 ? :O
Stranger 01 Then it was undefined in the first place
But then how can you ever solve a differential equation if you can't multiply both sides by dx and integrate?
@@Schrodinger_ Is this a question about multiplying by dx ? If you know please explain what you mean. ( I thought that we multiply by dx .)
When i was 2nd year high school, we had a task that had pi in the numerator and 3 in the denominator. You can predict what my professor's next move was
Yikes
Oh god no
Can anybody tell me what is wrong with pi/3?
Тест канал he is implying that when his teacher did pi/3 the outcome was equal to 1 since Pi is close enough to be equal to 3
@@oaktutor1154 what u mean "close enough"? Pi is equal to 3
As an engineer who LOVES math and has a very solid math base, i am BOTH of these people hahaha. Its a constant internal struggle 😅
"if you have questions about the rigor of this class........... you can leave" LMAO
As a former physics major who recently enrolled in a math master, I feel triggered on so many levels...
What encouraged you to go on to math? I'm curious since I'm seriously considering physics even though I really don't love math.
@@hunterm9 I was actually a double major in both physics and maths but had to choose for my grad studies and decided to do maths, since it is easier to switch from maths to physics than the other way around. If your main focus is applied physics, I don't think a very deep understanding of mathematics is necessary. As long as you know how to manipulate "basic" (I use that term very lightly) equations, you should be good. I have several applied physics friends who are terrible at maths but still brilliant in physics.
@@Presall-v8y I seem to be the other way around. I'm pretty good at math but suck at physics now.
Arctan(1/0)=pi/2
@@SuperVoidBoyz I sucked at physics, but it didn't taste well.
One of my professors could not explain what the physicist said at the conference she attended because she was laughing so hard
xD
Lmao "probability of flipping burgers for rest of life"
Fucking died
Too real...
@@anima94 funny thing is it applies to physics students just as well lol
@@blankblank103 That's what I thought, i'd bet the labor market is not that better for Physics students either...
This made my day lmao
Reminds me of a story my dad told me from when he studied physics at the University of Oslo. There was this geology professor who was a really good lecturer, so other professors would often attend his lectures.
One day he makes a small error writing down an infinite series, and it's solution, when an elderly maths professor raises his hand and says "Sorry, but I don't think your series converges." To which the lecturer replies "I couldn't give a fuck if it converges or not, as long as I get the right answer."
Loosely translated from the Norwegian:
"Unnskyld, men jeg tror ikke rekken din konvergerer."
"Jeg gir da faen i om den konvergerer eller ikke, så lenge jeg får riktig svar."
What the fuck is a geology professor doing linear algebra for?
that looks danish, i wonder how similar the languages are
@@derwinhauser they are extremely similar, if you can speak one of the scandinavian languages you can undeerstand them all, or at least the languages when they are written since there can be quite a difference in pronounciation. i think there is an official term for this phenomena but i can`t quite remember the name of it.
@@skimmelsvamp9531 The term you're looking for is "mutually intelligible" (when referring to two or more languages), which means that people can speak in their native tongues and will mostly understand each other.
@@simonzakeyh6515 geology professor needs hell a lot of liner algebra to predict where the fuck oil / coal/water hidden inside earth...........they need it to model earth's structure from data like gravity, geomagnetism, seismic velocity etc........the problem is called inverse problems......
This may be accurate, but never in my life have I seen physicists so hostile to mathematicians. Most professors were rather apologetic that they don't have the time or knowledge to prove the swappability of limits, existence of integrals etc. They would at least mention that it is a part of the proof.
I lost it when he said, "Let's consider a 3x2 Matrix with all real entries." How the heck are you going to find the inverse of that?
@@PapaFlammy69 oh wait they see pseudoinverses as inverses in physics. When is the Madness going to stop
Matlab
@@CodyLynn100 or a Python library
I wonder how many solutions and discoveries were lost that way… :D
Linear Algebra student: Wait that's illegal
"Just let me take my derivative!!" - Andy Dots.
Ok. Be sure to compute the subdifferentials at all nondifferentiable points.
Economist: so these are the main 4738 assumptions of our model.
Mathematicians: how do you solve it under so many constraints?
Economist: you don't, assumptions optimize it for you.
Programmer : The AI will find it for us.
Solve it? That's what interns are for
Ben ekonomistim
Uzun Biri
I'm not big brained enough to appreciate those jokes
You are lacking then.
sarcastically
@Ray Lant sarc.
I understood.
Mathematicians want results that are entirely absolute to the smallest aspect possible, no room of error margins.
Physicists just want to use it to poke at the universe.
That last one was actually worrisome, as a physicist
Yes. But let's be real. If everyone understood that, we wouldn't have people marvel at the fact that "infinities pop up" in Feynmann diagrams, when that's just the result of applying perturbation theory to non analytic functions in most cases. Most teachers treat that as a mystery of nature, when in fact you can have a pretty good intuition of it.
I kind of dislike the e^(--1/x) example, I'd prefer e^(-1/|x|). Not only this is a differentiable and smooth function containing the dreaded absolute value, but also it truly has Taylor series at x=0, which does not converge to the function. Bender discusses stuff like that, 'beyond all order asymptotics' or something like that
it was actually an example in one of my physics classes... to show that the taylor series does not always converge to the function even if it exists ^^
and another time to give an example of a function f(x) which is not square integrable but f(x)/x is....
I have had 2 math courses at my university in Sweden that have been pretty much like both math and physics at the same time;
one of them was called "Mathematical Physics" (Matematisk Fysik) and was mainly about the diffusion equation, the Laplace equation and the wave equation, and the other one was called "Applied Mathematics" (Tillämpad Matematik), and was a lot about perturbation theory, approximations of integrals, double pendulums and things like that.
I kinda liked those courses, because they _really_ expected us to have experience with multivariable calculus, differential equations and various transformation methods (Fourier Series, Fourier Transform, Laplace Transform etc), as well as a lot of concepts from physics, so they felt very rewarding.
"If we take the square of the probability amplitude, then you're a virgin"
As a mathematics student this applies to me with 100% accuracy.
heh. this made me think of the following hypothetical scenario:
what if for some cruel reason a physics journal decided to add pure mathematicians as reviewers for the articles submitted to said journal?
That journal would soon cease to exist due to lack of acceptable submissions
0:13 looks like a greek lesson
What I used to think as a physics student:
Physics: Playing fast and loose with the maths to get results
Maths: Pure Rigour and well defined functions.
What I think now, after looking into what mathematicians are like:
Physics: As much rigour as needed.
Maths: YOLO We're going to apply things that might not even be true! We're going to use things that don't even make sense! Screw the rules! If something doesn't work we define a new thing so it does. We see a pattern of 10 things following some pattern? Lets call it a conjecture and leave it to someone else to prove whilst we take the credit.
Yeah, it's weird. In my uni I take many classes with mathematicians and/or with a professor who is a mathematician. Usually, when there is a majority of physics students, they'll get very pedantic. Other than that, at least in higher level mathematics and physics, is just like you described. Academia is absolutely RUTHLESS in physics.
Wow! Lol this is really funny! I've always felt the opposite but I haven't taken a physics class in years so 🤷🏽♀️
"YOLO" lmao!
“Sees that the first prime is even”
“Thus All primes are even”
Mushroom Conjecture
Your comment about maths really applies to number theory which is where I see it happening the most
“...And by higher order I mean after the first term” had me dying at like 1:20 AM
:'D
Wait till the math student tries to SOLVE the navier stokes equations
I enjoy that in both versions it’s always the physicist who gets mocked.
Found the mathematician!
Fermat>Feynman
Oh boy, that math student should be thankful he is not in an economics class. Every mathematical economics class goes like "let's assume this model describes how people make decisions, and I say assume because it really does not"
:'D
@jocaguz18 When they bother to measure, right?
I was reading some comments the other day, and it lead me to these philosophical theories (don't ask). I couldn't believe some of them were treated as serious theories. They have theories that straight up disregards any empirical data and embraced the use of narratives (as in the writing device, fictional abstract stories with no proven correlation to anything in real life).
I get wanting to go "full abstract" and talk only about fully theoretical statements. That in itself is not a problem. But these theories try to describe real life behaviors. So it is absurd that they would intentionally disregard any sort of measuremnt of their predictions. In case you're wondering, Praxeology and Metaphysics are most of what I'm talking about.
@@ufazig Ah yes, antipositivism is some bullshit. Praexology, as an unempirical sociological theory, is antipositivist and thus entirely arbitrary bullshit. However, antipositivism is the metatheoretical rejection of postpositivism (positivism itself having been widely accepted as insufficient) in *sociology*.
Metaphysics is philosophy, if a metaphysical assertion is successfully tested then it becomes physics, metaphysics is entirely speculative. Metaphysics doesn't reject empiricism, it transcends it. There are arguments against metaphysics, but those are metametaphysical.
Where you from? Here in Italy that's the pure truth.
I’m so proud of myself. Halfway into AP Calc BC and AP Physics 2 and I can understand every other word.
"You are assuming you can interchange the limits"
Papa... Did YOU just say that?
Papa Fubini
@@non-inertialobserver946 Fubini is love, Fubini is life.
I did grade 12 calculus before I did grade 11 physics, and...
I can't even possibly describe how mad I was when I saw my physics teacher tell the class to approximate the slope of a tangent by putting a ruler to it and drawing a line, then calculate the slope as the difference in y divided by the difference in x between two approximated points on the line. I was so mad, I didn't even say a word... I just stopped, and listened. Of course, I had to retaliate at some point, so on a test in grade 12 level physics, instead of just explaining something the way we were taught in class, I explained my answer in terms of integrals and it felt good. I got 100% on it as well.
Well going by your comment the question asked for 'approximation' and that's exactly how you 'approximate' the slope of a tangent.Also,how did you describe it in terms of an Integral?Isn't differentiation used for slopes?
1+1?
Engineer: after 2 hours on a computer says the answer is two
Physicist: 2 plus minus 1
Mathematician: the answer exists and it's unique
Administrator: how much do you want it to be?
TL;DR Math students are obnoxious.
(PS As a math student, I feel entitled to make fun of us).
Agreed. We are.
So bored with all these modules. Let's arrange them into an exact sequence so we stay organized.
This is me, with my mathematician soul, in a Engineering course
Same bruh, same.
Same
same but it’s easy dude just get a new brain
OMG Don't even get me STARTED. Biggest crimes to me are whenever lectures have ANYTHING to do with vectors.
π^2=g
I'm beginning to suspect dark matter is just astrophysicists' lack of mathematical rigor
Huh? It has a lot of evidence like gravitational lensing in galaxy halo, orbital velocity of stars, and Cosmic Web modelling.
@@FrostDirt It was a joke
@@Smitology you have to go in deep into the Electric Universe woo woo and you'll be surprised that some of this people don't joke around.
@@FrostDirt I know that, but given the context of this video it is a reasonable assumption that it was a joke. All they were saying is that it would be funny if it turned out that dark matter was simply a result of the discrepancy between the approximations used by physicists and the actual values, eg in some deep realms of cosmology e has been approximated with 10.
As a physicist I feel personally attacked 😂😂
Eddy Estevez Don’t worry, physicists use mathematics to construct models of physical phenomena. Everyone be hating on the best.
If you ever feel like the amount of personal attacks against you is getting overwhelmingly high, just take its analytic continuation on the complex plane and it will be all better.
Eddy Estevez U Look Like The 14 Year Old How Learned Calculus And Now Is Praticing Quantum Physics
Experimental physics be like: we have to ber extremly precise because a mistake of 10 to power minus 10 could make everything caollapse
Theoretical physics be like: let all constans be 1 so it looks nice and all units describe pretty much the same thing
Schrödinger, with an “œüæêghh”.
If the matrix isn’t invertible all you have to do is just add in a little random noise to get it to be invertible, duh!
I love the fact I understood absolutely nothing lmao🤣🤣🤣 l
I only understood the matrix :-)
Yeah it was kinda like pointlessly obtruse, the guy is kinda playing Mr bigbrain bigwords
@@PapaFlammy69 i'd love to learn all that crazy stuff and jargon in the video, if not for me being a medical aspirant. I'm all over the place with my interests lmao
pooyah k all of these conversations were of “basic” concepts covered in undergraduate physics classes - which, funny enough, at the level that these concepts are all introduced, said physics classes are very introductory to the grand scheme of physics.
@Francisco Herrera
No. As Einstein and many other people far smarter than you have said, if you can't explain something in clear terms, you don't actually understand it. You should also shut up, because in your half-understanding, where you think complexity is intelligence, leads you to discourage others from actually studying intellectual subjects.
Shorter mathematics.
"But how do you know it's right?"
Shorter physicist.
"We don't that's the whole point."