Timeline for Skills Difference between Theoretical Physicists and Mathematicians
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 7 at 21:39 | comment | added | StefanH | They are OK with me as well, I just noticed that engineers use these approximations a lot, even in "proofs", which might not be permissable from a mathematicians point of view (or the mathematician would use a lot of fancy language, like let x be contained in a sufficiently small neighborhood etc...). So, I thought I might bring it up. Your answers are great btw! | |
| May 7 at 1:14 | comment | added | Dave L Renfro | @StefanH: These approximations were OK with me, as it was usually clear that approximations were being made. Incidentally, several such examples that I first encountered in physics are given in #6 in this Mathematics Educators answer. The “random statements” stuff I mentioned refers more to textbook exposition stuff, not calculations, although even regarding calculations, I often did not feel that I knew what was “fair game” when making approximations to solve a textbook problem or in trying to anticipate a textbook derivation. | |
| May 6 at 19:24 | comment | added | StefanH | The "small-angle approximation" for trigonometric functions is often used in physics (and also engineering) without saying it explicitly, at least when the reader is assumed to have seen it before. | |
| May 5 at 19:57 | comment | added | Dave L Renfro | @Xander Henderson: When I saw the question I thought it would soon be closed, but decided to go ahead and make a comment that is now the paragraph with "difficulty in determining whether some random statement being made". As I was putting the finishing touches on my comment, I decided that it was really an answer, considered not saying anything (I assumed the question would be closed), then decided to go ahead and give an answer (because I comment a lot in this group but don't answer much) by throwing in some other stuff. I'm utterly shocked that I'm getting so many upvotes for this. | |
| May 5 at 19:26 | comment | added | Xander Henderson | @DaveLRenfro This probably isn't a good fit for Math SE, as it seems to run afoul of both the prohibition against asking for personal advice, and the prohibition against opinion-based questions. It is marginal in either regard, but I suspect that it would not be well-received. | |
| May 3 at 16:00 | comment | added | Dave L Renfro | @CosminA: I suppose you mean problem-solving techniques, such as differentiating under the integral (see my comments here). I suspect those with a math bent would be more interested in studying the method itself -- its limitations, generalizing it, etc. -- than those with a physics bent. I learned several such "math tricks" first in physics -- see comments here -- but this was before the internet and increased math competitions that has led to a huge increase in their familiarity. | |
| May 3 at 14:58 | comment | added | CosminA | I relate to this. Very often I felt strange being one of the few people in class that actually cared about the "math tricks" physicists use to get the right answer. | |
| May 3 at 10:13 | history | answered | Dave L Renfro | CC BY-SA 4.0 |