Flammable Maths man look it’s the real Andrew Dotson. Are you going to use the trope where they just assume/approximate/do sth weird and us math students get Vietnam flashbacks?
Took me a while to understand this video, but now I think I got it. Basically, physics students have beards, and math professors speak in a heavy Bavarian accent.
Mine says something like "If you use a few substitutions, you get the following... I won't show you the integration steps because this is not a calculus class, you already know how to do it
My vector calc teacher told us the other day "ahh, i love teaching engineers, yall dont care about these silly proofs so i can just show you cool things to do with these instead"
Actually kind of true. A lot of math lectures, at least on graduate level, is dedicated to enormous proofs that are very often uninteresting technicalities. It is not until research level/seminars that people just say "oh do this and that, and some trickeries here and there".
Math and physics' job is to take every piece of information to understand how the world works. Engineers' is to take that shit and use the useful concepts. We don't have time for demonstration jerkoffs
@@ErkaaJ As a maths undergraduate I think about 30-40% is proofs and not gonna lie that shits not interesting my favourite class's have been statistics, cryptology and the joint physics ones so odes and vector calculus. I honestly get excited when I can actually see the direct relevance of something to the work place which usually only happens in Statistics 🤣
To be fair i did lebesgue measure and integration while studying L^2 spaces (im a physics undergrand) and theres no way you dont have to evaluate integrals on your own etc.. ofc the video is made like this for entertainment and its okay like that xS
Well not as the video says you don’t really have to know measure theory to do the functional analysis. The small l2 is a Hilbert space, and so is the completion of continuous function R to R on closed interval defined with normal L2 norm. There are lot of ways to construct Hilbert space. In face, space of functions of at most countable nonzero values defined with the dot product as sum (x in R ) f(x)g(x) is also Hilbert
When I was a physics undergrad, I was in differential equations class.There were about 15 students. The professor was a mathematics professor who taught way above the standard level and way beyond the textbook. He rarely ever turned to look at the class. There were about 5 physics majors, 9 engineers, and one math major who sat in the front row and always appeared to be asleep with his head on the desk. The professor would start lecturing and lose about one student every 2 minutes until we were all looking at each other shrugging. Then professor would ask a question. Not turn around, just ask. No one would respond and he would repeat the question. Then say “anyone? Anyone?” in the much parodied style of professors. This would go on for an uncomfortably long period of time, then the math kid up front would suddenly sit bolt upright, give the correct answer, then lapse down onto the desk, apparently asleep again. I will never forget that class, lol.
A chemistry student in a physics lecture: Lecturer: "How can you even do chemistry, without wave function-integrals, when you use it daily in your work ?" Chemist: haha colors go brrrr. ^^
Money counting machines makes the sound ''brrrr" as they are counting money. This is why ''money printer go brrrr" is a meme, and why other 'go brrr' memes are dumb.
Math Student: π is half the period of any nontrivial real valued function f satisfying f''=-f. Or we could also say it's the first zero of the function f satisfying f''=-f, f(0)=0, and f'(0)=1.
a prof i know (who is a advisee^3 of Feynman) explained Feynman's approach to path integral as doing two things 'technically wrong' to get something right and that is why Feynman is the best physicist
I can see that. We have to memorize a lot of that, but I guess we probably have a lot less weight on the math than other physics programs, as long as it doesn't show a conceptual misunderstanding.
Engineers about math and physics: So how does this help me build a device that can get this solid lead cube that weighs 450 lbs onto a shelf that is 20 feet in the air?
shuvankar biswas not only at your country, but pretty much everywhere my friend... the table thing is just a joke. Greetings from a Peruvian engineering student who loves math
I studied undergraduate math for 2 years till now along with computer science but I'm dropping math now. This shit is hard. Mathematicians are walking gods among us.
@@nako7569 if your talking about math and god in the same sentence, you either suck at logic or faith. you either don't have enough faith so external evidence is needed, or you don't have enough evidence, so external faith is needed.
Feynman was even cooler than most people think. The only proof one needs is his own books and papers. They are excellent. He was the last to revolutionize quantum mechanics with his path integral method and his diagrams. I admire him greatly
"Hand-waving" is a term used to denote making a complex proof really easy by skipping all of the rigorous parts and just intuiting it, which is FAR less prevalent in theoretical mathematics courses than phys.
Im a economics major with IT minor but physics and philosophy have always intrigued me so much. Economic theory and Philosophy were my favorites classes.
I'm a math major, and thoroughly enjoyed this video... was sitting in math class the other day and suddenly thought of, "It's easy, you say: assuming the necessary assumptions, let H be a Hilbert space," and had to stop myself from laughing out loud right there. The juxtaposition of that line with the nature of this particular math class -- where you have to check whether you're allowed to assume 1 + 1 = 2 when writing a proof -- is just so good. Awesome video man, thanks for the laughs.
Umm, Dirac deltas don't really have inner products, do they? They only have duality couplings with continuous functions - if you are GENEROUS!!!, and mostly only duality couplings with smooth functions of compact support. No Hilbert spaces there, my boi! None at all!!!
Let B be a linear span of sin functions. These are continuous and the scalar product can be defined through Riemann integrals. I'm not sure, but I think the metric completion of B will be our desired Hilbert space L2, and the scalar product can be defined through limits of scalar products of sin functions. Also, the sequence space l2 is a Hilbert space as well, and it involves no integration at all.
@@bogdanlevi Ok, You are trying to define L2, but here is the point: Dirac Delta does not belong to L2. You cannot define the integral of the product of Dirac Delta and a L2 function because L2 functions cannot be evaluated in a point.
If G is a locally compact abelian hausdorff group we can equip G with a translation invariant regular measure. With respect to this measure, L^1(G) can be embedded in the space of complex regular borel measures M(G) where the dirac delta function lives.
I love throwing Laplace transforms at things until they go away, its my second favorite pass time aside from throwing (1/n) / (1/n) at limits to make all the zeros
Hahahahaha I love this!! I major in both physics and math and this video officially made me realize where I stand fundamentally... I was raised by the math department then groomed by the physics department... Now I’m starting to understand the depth of my physics professor’s comment whom I wrote and published my first physics papers with... “You are the most mathematically rigorous student I’ve ever had.” I now realize... he was calling me annoying 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
ah yes, brings me back to my college days as an engineering student, going to a physics class to learn how to do something one way, then going to a math class to learn how to do the exact same thing another way, and being told by each respective professor that their way is right. lol, and looking back on it both the physics professors did wave their hands around a lot, but not the TA's. guess they weren't there yet.
Lmao. The boundary terms one was spot on. Every time I helped a physics buddy with a boundary problem they always said that. Great videos man. You’ve come a long way. I look forward to seeing you have 100k subs
Andrew, I hope Jackson isn't treating you too harshly! I know you haven't posted in a while, but as a physics grad myself I totally understand why. I wish you the best of luck with the rest of this semester!
Wow I’ve never watched a video right after it was uploaded... I’m so buried in Class Mech homework I’m literally watching physics videos as soon as I wake up to remind myself it’s still fun. Thanks for the joke videos!!
My electrostatics professor the other day, in a quiz on Laplace's equation and boundary conditions, claimed that "all PDEs can be solved by separation." It was presented as a "correct" statement in a multiple-choice list, and consequently we were docked for omitting it.
"It seems to me that mathematical rigor is like clothing: in its style it ought to suit the occasion, and it diminishes comfort and restricts freedom of movement if it is either too loose or too tight." --George F. Simmons
i remember in maths class, displacement was different from in physics class and all us physics students just dragged the class for an hour because it didn’t match up to what we were taught. at the end we were told, just follow.
In fairness, when you’re in the real world using math and science to figure out issues you’d normally be able to look up the equation if you forgot it, wether that be via book or internet.
0:16 : Priceless! If I had a penny for every time I thought to say that and only just managed to bite my tongue. You could've ended the video right there and it'd still be great.
When you take an AP calculus class in high school and you think you’re cool because you know what an integral and a derivative is. But then you watch this video and you realize you don’t know anything...
Man... just to mention that in my university the professor giving Quantum Mechanics I was more mathematically rigorous than most calculus professors I had. It's physics not engineering we a talking about.
Really cute video. I was about to jump at the screen when THE Richard Feynman was dissed! Seriously though, I think Feynman might agree that there is an absence of mathematical rigor in modern theoretical physics.
3:14 , I can Totally Relate to This, Even Though I'm just a 14 yr old Learning Theoretical & Mathematical Physics, Physicists need to use Hand Expression, I also do it when Doing a Lecture and Uploading it, it basically now, kind of became by your Subconscious Mind, just happens directly when exactly, but, still I don't know Why we basically do it, like what's the reason?!
