>>11753717>I honestly hate math classes that focus on "physical" applications. "Applied" math as in using a result to prove another result is much more interesting to me.I naively thought it would be both and ended up with neither.
>Shit school? Or you haven't done any real math classes yet.I did a discrete math class that actually used proof and I sailed through that.
I'm referring mainly to the sort of central pillars of first year math for us, which were algebra and calculus. Nearly nothing was proven or linked to further proofs.
I thought I was taking crazy pills, being in entire lectures of people, and being taught by staff, who apparently didn't care about things as basic as explaining why we know that a particular angle produces a particular specific trailing value when put into a trigonometric function.
>"This guy proved this. Then this branch was discovered/founded." Unironically useless.I find that stuff, combined with the historical effects (what new technology was made possible, what the math did to culture - for example HP Lovecraft mentions math, you need math to understand Spengler) fascinating.
Where the inspiration for the math comes from is of interest to me.
>unless you have the mentality to open up a book and work a dozen problems for 8 months or so every day of the week, you will not get far.I don't mainly care about being able to do calculations. I want to be able to understand proofs and understand theoretical physics. I'll learn what I need to to do that.
If I do aerospace, the math I've been doing gains some applicability, because the first year courses I did should have been labelled "Mathematics for science and engineering" (calculus and algebra) and "mathematics for computer science" (discrete math). If the tins had just been labelled correctly I wouldn't be ass-blasted.
