Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mathematics is one of our love stories? Yes! All the endings are happy and the unfinished stories are utterly fascinating. And there are already so many stories with happy endings! Mathematics is our best bildungsroman
> Yes! All the endings are happy and the unfinished stories are utterly fascinating. I'm not sure the practice of mathematical research supports that all the endings are happy, but definitely all the journeys are interesting.
Mathematical Methods for Physics [pdf]
21–30 of 44 posts
Re: Mathematical Methods for Physics [pdf]
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
”but I have to see anyone do it” This is a strange take. Why or how would you ever see someone do it? It is very unlikely you would be aware of them. I do concur most ppl I’ve seen lacking formal education in physics - no matter how smart - do have some gaps in their knowledge. There seems to be something of a tacit knowledge transfer involved - but I have no clue what it is. Maybe physicists radiate physics particle…
Posts by Susan Fowler "so you want to self-study math/physics" have gone hugely viral here and I have yet to see anyone in the comments or later report that they actually became really good after following her tutorial. Same for any other tutorial or guide or self-study overall. maybe one blogger whose name eludes me but extremely rare. This is a strange take. How is it strange? What you meant to say is you disagree.
Well, when you learn something, do you remember everything that contributed to your learning it, and go back and acknowledge it? I try very hard to acknowledge those from whose instruction I have benefited, and I doubt I come anywhere near that ideal.
Come to that, one measure of real expertise is knowing you're never done learning, so, even for someone who does acknowledge every single source along the way, the more they know the more presumptuous it'll seem to say they are done learning it, so they probably won't.
Re: Mathematical Methods for Physics [pdf]
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
”but I have to see anyone do it” This is a strange take. Why or how would you ever see someone do it? It is very unlikely you would be aware of them. I do concur most ppl I’ve seen lacking formal education in physics - no matter how smart - do have some gaps in their knowledge. There seems to be something of a tacit knowledge transfer involved - but I have no clue what it is. Maybe physicists radiate physics particle…
It begins when you realise all the physics examples are toy models, and reality is basically unmodellable. That physics is not mathematics, and the rules of inference in physics cases are the rules of reality -- not of mathematics. That what guarentees your modelling works is observation, that "hand waving" is something one does to force one's thinking to be empirical. I suspect people who learn physics via the textb…
A typo for "tenor," I presume, but a funny one!
Re: Mathematical Methods for Physics [pdf]
#24My professor for the courses always said it was about putting more mathematical tools in your tool box. Which is a perspective I've since carried.
Re: Mathematical Methods for Physics [pdf]
#25Mathematical Methods for Physics is such a great course. Took the course, and an Advanced version in undergraduate when I was still attempting to be a physicist. The course is at its core a bunch of very important Mathematical concepts that a Physicist or adjacent will need that you won't quite ever come across naturally in mathematics courses unless you go into graduate studies. A "Here is the problem, here is the m…
Re: Mathematical Methods for Physics [pdf]
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
The key ingredient in a formal course is the formal examination. Be it graded exercises or a written or oral exam. It forces studying at a level where you can reproduce and explain the key concepts and results and apply them to something new. In theory one can do that also with self-study. Most people don't, they just watch some youtube video or read a Wikipedia page, and then they think they have understood somethin…
If there's a method to feel the pressure of classroom test or the requirement of finishing a project would really help home DIY learning.
Re: Mathematical Methods for Physics [pdf]
#27We're in something of an autodidacticism boom. I have yet to see anyone, in years, actually become proficient at college-level math/physics without formal instruction, just by doing self-study with tutorials like pdfs and videos. There will always be major knowledge gaps or roadblocks/impasses of understanding, like notation or clarification needed. This is not to say it cannot be done but I have to see anyone do it.
”but I have to see anyone do it” This is a strange take. Why or how would you ever see someone do it? It is very unlikely you would be aware of them. I do concur most ppl I’ve seen lacking formal education in physics - no matter how smart - do have some gaps in their knowledge. There seems to be something of a tacit knowledge transfer involved - but I have no clue what it is. Maybe physicists radiate physics particle…
You would see someone be proficient at math or physics and then get surprised they had no degree, just like anything else. You can find such programmers everywhere, even algorithms are very easy to self study compared to math and physics, but people proficient in math or physics without a corresponding degree is almost non existent.
> Maybe it’s just going through a specific set of rote calculations and lab work needed.
I think the biggest problem is error correction. Everyone who learns math and physics accumulates errors as they learn, and if nobody is there to correct the wrong assumptions they will just continue to accumulate. To do that you need an instructor grading your tests, or at least almost everyone needs that since they can't grade their own answers fairly, their incorrect understanding leads to incorrect grading of their own answers.
This is why programming and algorithms is so easy to learn in comparison, since there its easy to grade yourself. If the program works you did it right, otherwise not. For algorithms there are plenty of sites you can practice implementing algorithms for problems and they tell you if you did it right. There are no such sites for math or physics, so there unless you are a genius at self correcting you need an instructor to just get proficient.
Edit: In short, if you can write code that works the first time you run it without testing etc, and you can do that over and over and never be wrong, then you can self learn math and physics without an instructor.
But if you need to execute your code and test to get it right, then you need an instructor to learn math and physics correctly as well.
Re: Mathematical Methods for Physics [pdf]
#28https://archive.org/details/concrete-mathematics/page/n11/mo...
Re: Mathematical Methods for Physics [pdf]
#29We're in something of an autodidacticism boom. I have yet to see anyone, in years, actually become proficient at college-level math/physics without formal instruction, just by doing self-study with tutorials like pdfs and videos. There will always be major knowledge gaps or roadblocks/impasses of understanding, like notation or clarification needed. This is not to say it cannot be done but I have to see anyone do it.
openstax.org has a lot of good books. [1]
[0] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL49CF3715CB9EF31D [1] https://openstax.org/subjects/math
edit: i am an autodidact who loves to learn.
Re: Mathematical Methods for Physics [pdf]
#30Ronald L. Graham, Donald E. Knuth, Oren Patashnik: oncrete Mathematics https://archive.org/details/concrete-mathematics/page/n11/mo...