NationStates Jolt Archive

What is your favorite (or least hated) math to do. I liked* Geometry, simply because I was really good at it, and never had to do any work. Was also good at the others, but not as good and had to work.

*despised less

What is your favorite (or least hated) math to do. I "liked*" Geometry, simply because I was really good at it, and never had to do any work. Was also good at the others, but not as good and had to work.

*despised less

Same for me. :) We're two peas in a pod.

Yeah, geometry was good. I'm decent at much of math, but my teachers always hated me since my preferred method of doing algebra was in my head and not following any method they had tought me. My teachers were even more angry when my methods worked even though they shouldn't have.

"Physics" is not a type of math... it's an application of math...

Yeah, geometry was good. I'm decent at much of math, but my teachers always hated me since my preferred method of doing algebra was in my head and not following any method they had tought me. My teachers were even more angry when my methods worked even though they shouldn't have.
Yeah. Why do something on paper, by rote, when it can be done in your head in half the time and a third the steps.

Yeah, geometry was good. I'm decent at much of math, but my teachers always hated me since my preferred method of doing algebra was in my head and not following any method they had tought me. My teachers were even more angry when my methods worked even though they shouldn't have.

yes I constantly got into trouble for that... still... I loved Algebra...
I never could figure out how to work it out on paper though haha :p

"Physics" is not a type of math... it's an application of math...

What's a huge distinction between friends, eh?

ahahahahah! no more math for me! evaaar!!
ehem. No, I did not like math class at all and no, I do not wish to ever have to deal with it again.

"Physics" is not a type of math... it's an application of math...
Shhhhh.
You're spoiling all the fun!
:D
Who needs this stupid "definition" stuff, we'll have the words mean whatever we want!

I know how to do Math on paper. It took me longer to learn than the work I was supposed to be doing but yeah. The trick is to think slower, that way when you get a part answer mentally just write it down instead of finishing it off.

Also. Calculus is so easy.

Are you still up!

Hate math, took me two tries to get through algebra and killed my GPA.
And my major is History-museum science. Like I need algebra!

"Physics" is not a type of math... it's an application of math...

True.

But I liked it the most. In what other application of math can you calculate the deceleration and thus energy released from someone sprinting into a brick wall?

Or accurately predict the velocity of coins being flung through the air?

:D

I guess I would have to say my least despised was geometry. I seem to remember kinda liking doing proofs. In that respect, I liked logic as well (as a sort of half math/half philosophy class). Statistics was a good thing to learn, but a pain in the buttocks.

But proofs where kinda okay.

Algreba II was fun because a)it was II, implying a sequel (This time, it's personal), and b) my teacher was a stoner and my class was after lunch when he'd go get baked with the band instructor so half the time we'd just distract him and eat popcorn.....

paid for that later when I returned to college and had to get through my math requirements, but oh well.

S'funny, for some odd reason, I always hated my school math classes with a passion, which was funny since I'm really good at math, and usually don't mind it.

Maybe I just had evil teachers or something.

Algebra, its all just logic...

Are you still up!

Hate math, took me two tries to get through algebra and killed my GPA.
And my major is History-museum science. Like I need algebra!

Quick test on your general maths: an artifact was made in 50BC, it is no 2005AD, how old is the artifact?

I voted for stats; for some reason I find clustering algorithmns to be very neat. Interesting side note: I have only just recently re-learned most of maths, as I had an aptitude test comming up - had to learn how to long-divide again.

Quick test on your general maths: an artifact was made in 50BC, it is no 2005AD, how old is the artifact?

2055?

Quick test on your general maths: an artifact was made in 50BC, it is no 2005AD, how old is the artifact?
Okay, 2056 years ;)

now, :

if today is 28 degrees celsius, and tomorrow is 30% hotter, what will the temperature be tomorrow?

I HATED calculus, especially in my last year my calculater broke and I couldn't afford to replace it.

Quick test on your general maths: an artifact was made in 50BC, it is no 2005AD, how old is the artifact?
My general math is great. I rarely use a calculator. It's 2055 yrs old. I guess I just have some mental block when it comes to higher math. Actually, statistics wasn't too bad.

My plan is to put a library science degree on top the museum science and I asked my instructor if I'd ever need that algebra. She said "only if you want the degree."

Okay, 2056 years ;)

now, :

if today is 28 degrees celsius, and tomorrow is 30% hotter, what will the temperature be tomorrow? Are you counting year 0?

Quick test on your general maths: an artifact was made in 50BC, it is no 2005AD, how old is the artifact?
2054 years old (assuming you meant it is noW 2005)

For me, Algebra all the way. Loved doing matrices.

My general math is great. I rarely use a calculator. It's 2055 yrs old.
I would suggest your general maths isn't THAT great. It's 2054 yrs old. :)

"Lets talk about math"

Let's don't and just say we did! :headbang:

Oh God - I have my Algebra midterm this Wednesday

And I'm stuck between an A/B split for the 2 quarters (hehe, I got a 90.0 when I got an A :D)

2054 years old (assuming you meant it is noW 2005)

For me, Algebra all the way. Loved doing matrices.

You'll learn to hate them too in time! Once you learn what a matrix can stand for and the theoremas that follow out of this, you'll both hate and love it. Especially when your professor gives you pen and paper only for your exam. two of my greatest fears during my last exam (it wasn't even algebra, it just used a bit of the math):
-calculate (s*I-A)^-1 by hand
-calculate e^(A*t) by hand. it stands for: I+(At)/1!+(At)**2/2!+ ...
So this means you have to diagonalise the matrix A. I hate that algorithm.

By the way, my favorite isn't included: discrete mathematics (modulo, grouping, logic, networks, ... )

S'funny, for some odd reason, I always hated my school math classes with a passion, which was funny since I'm really good at math, and usually don't mind it.

Maybe I just had evil teachers or something.
Could well have been frustrated boredom. I had the same problem, which I solved by sleeping through most of my school maths classes, but I now have a couple of degrees in the subject.

Stats is my favorite by far becuase I'm good at it. Even the AP Statistics course is a breeze.

Laplace and Fourier transforms, and the associated concepts like convolution, are the coolest math around, because they instantly simplify damn annoying differential equations. Differential equations solving solves a lot of dynamical problems. I think this goes under "Calc" in this poll.

I hate math more than anything else in the world.

Okay, 2056 years ;)

now, :

if today is 28 degrees celsius, and tomorrow is 30% hotter, what will the temperature be tomorrow?

118.3 degrees C.

Laplace and Fourier transforms, and the associated concepts like convolution, are the coolest math around, because they instantly simplify damn annoying differential equations. Differential equations solving solves a lot of dynamical problems. I think this goes under "Calc" in this poll.

I'd put it under physics. What's the easiest way to perform a Fourier transform? With a lens.

if today is 28 degrees celsius, and tomorrow is 30% hotter, what will the temperature be tomorrow?

About 118 degrees celcius (rounded).
EDIT: darn - too slow :(

By the way, my favorite isn't included: discrete mathematics (modulo, grouping, logic, networks, ... )

Agreed, graph theory especially.

I never understood calculus. Is that the one with the really tall S symbol?

2054 years old (assuming you meant it is noW 2005)

I believe that isthe first correct answer. Have a proverbial cookie.

I never understood calculus. Is that the one with the really tall S symbol?

Don't worry: in an anarcho-communist state all the S symbols will be of equal size. :D

How on earth are you guys getting 118 degrees to that question? I mean, I know I'm tired, and my brain doesn't work well at the best of times, but I get 36.8 degrees.

Trig is great, it's my best strand.

How on earth are you guys getting 118 degrees to that question? I mean, I know I'm tired, and my brain doesn't work well at the best of times, but I get 36.8 degrees.

If I follow the logic that they followed, we first need to convert it to an absolute scale - Kelvin, I guess, then add 3/10 of that figure and convert back to celsius.

How on earth are you guys getting 118 degrees to that question? I mean, I know I'm tired, and my brain doesn't work well at the best of times, but I get 36.8 degrees.

You need to take the 0 to be -27# Celcius...
I think it's -273...

This is what scientists call "absolute zero", when matter cannot lose any more energy.

if today is 28 degrees celsius, and tomorrow is 30% hotter, what will the temperature be tomorrow?

Well, 28 * 0.3 (i.e. 30%) = 8.4

28 + 8.4 = 36.4 degrees celsius.


If I follow the logic that they followed, we first need to convert it to an absolute scale - Kelvin, I guess, then add 3/10 of that figure and convert back to celsius.

That's not really that logical, you can perform the calculations on the celsius value and get a more logical answer.

I still don't get it.
And I love math, it's like a puzzle. Got A's in college algebra I and II and next quarter I'm taking trig which I love.
Never understood calculus though. Got a C in high school calculus and that was on a heck of a curve...

Well, 28 * 0.3 (i.e. 30%) = 8.4

28 + 8.4 = 36.4 degrees celsius.


273 + 28 = 301 degrees Kalvin
301 * 0.3 = 90.3 degrees Kalvin
90.3 + 28 = 118.3 Celcius

(Kalvin is the same as Celcius, except it starts at absolute zero, rather than the freezing point of water).
Like I said, I think it's -273, not entirely sure though. Someone could tell me, I'm sure.

273 + 28 = 301
301 * 0.3 = 90.3
90.3 + 28 = 118.3

Like I said, I think it's -273, not entirely sure though. Someone could tell me, I'm sure.

1) That is the correct value I believe.

2) With that logic, you must add a 4th step to subtract the 273 that you added, otherwise that makes no sense. 118.3 - 273 = -154.7

1) That is the correct value I believe.

2) With that logic, you must add a 4th step to subtract the 273 that you added, otherwise that makes no sense. 118.3 - 273 = -154.7

Er, no, the scale of Celcius and Kalvin are the same. 90.3 is the 30% of energy that needs to be added. ;-) Therefore I don't need to subtract the -273. Sorry if my style of writing is strange, I just did it as I put figures in my head.
I edited my post before, so it may be easier to understand if you re-read it.

Er, no, the scale of Celcius and Kalvin are the same. 90.3 is the 30% of energy that needs to be added. ;-) Therefore I don't need to subtract the -273. Sorry if my style of writing is strange, I just did it as I put figures in my head.

Oh, ok I see now.

Er, no, the scale of Celcius and Kalvin are the same.

No they're not - an increase of 1 clelsius = an increase of 1 Kelvin, certainly, but as the Kelvin scale begins at absolute zero, it is impossible to have a negative value of Kelvins, whereas it is possible to have a negative value of Celsius. The units as units that they use are the same, but the scales are fundamentally different.

Celsius tells us how hot something is relative to an arbitrary point: the freezing point of water, whereas Kelvin tells us how hot something is relative to an absolute point. Thus asking if something is x% hotter makes little sense if we stick to the Celsius scale, whereas it makes perfect sense in the Kelvin scale.

No they're not - an increase of 1 clelsius = an increase of 1 Kelvin, certainly, but as the Kelvin scale begins at absolute zero, it is impossible to have a negative value of Kelvins, whereas it is possible to have a negative value of Celsius. The units as units that they use are the same, but the scales are fundamentally different.

Celsius tells us how hot something is relative to an arbitrary point: the freezing point of water, whereas Kelvin tells us how hot something is relative to an absolute point. Thus asking if something is x% hotter makes little sense if we stick to the Celsius scale, whereas it makes perfect sense in the Kelvin scale.

The zero-point in Kelvin is every bit as arbitrary as the zero point in Celsius; the difference is that with Kelvin, there is no such thing as negative measurements. At least with Celsius, the zero point is measured at something tangible, even if the point is arbitrary; what i want to know is what kind of dope that Fahrenheit guy was smoking when he picked the zero point for the Fahrenheit scale that he did.

In any case, I actually enjoyed calculus and especially precalculus, but I hated geometry. Part of it was that I couldn't figure out proofs and all those logic puzzles; part of it is that I wanted to stab my teacher with a railroad spike. My advanced algebra teacher, who was also my precalculus teacher, was a total goof who used the chalkboard a little too much (he shook my hand once and got chalk dust in my mouth from it ) and was a total pathological liar who tried to prove that 1 = 2 about twelve different ways. He taught us probability, which he said was our hardest unit, and I though it was no problem at all; that was my best unit. Of course, he breaks out trig equations and my head about explodes.

My calculus teacher was a drill sergeant, but we were happy she was when AP test time came and half of us got 5s, including me. In college, I got another quarter of calculus and did well, mainly because it wasn't geometry and our professor was a goofball.

Trig is a form of geometry, so yes I liked geometry, but specifically trig.

I enjoy Non-Euclidean Geometry because it has no basis in reality and I can make crap up. :D

M4Th 15 t3h de\/1L!!!!11!1!!1!!11!11111!!!1

The zero-point in Kelvin is every bit as arbitrary as the zero point in Celsius; the difference is that with Kelvin, there is no such thing as negative measurements.

Well, I was using the term 'arbitrary' with regard to Celsisus scale to say that it could equally well have been based on ohter essentially similar points such as, frex, the freezing point of mercury or the boiling point of lead, without affecting the way the scale works, whereas with Kelvin there is no other similar point like absolute zero, and so it is a much less 'abitrary' decision.

.... what i want to know is what kind of dope that Fahrenheit guy was smoking when he picked the zero point for the Fahrenheit scale that he did.

....



IIRC, 0 degrees Fahrenheit was supposed to be the coldest you could get naturally and 100 degrees the temperature of the human body. Not so much a problem of dope, more that he needed to get out more (and further north) if he thought that was as cold as nature gets.

I enjoy Non-Euclidean Geometry because it has no basis in reality and I can make crap up. :D
:awe:

My 666th post. :devil:

Well, I was using the term 'arbitrary' with regard to Celsisus scale to say that it could equally well have been based on ohter essentially similar points such as, frex, the freezing point of mercury or the boiling point of lead, without affecting the way the scale works, whereas with Kelvin there is no other similar point like absolute zero, and so it is a much less 'abitrary' decision.

It is based on something that has no negative, but the meter is measured based on a ten-millionth of the distance between the North Pole and the Equator; however, both are still arbitrary measurements. By definition, all measurements, units, and terms used by humans are arbitrary; even the ones based on something in nature are arbitrary to the point where we could just as easily have picked something else. Kelvin could be based on the freezing point of sodium hydroxide, if the guy who designed it found that to be important.

That said, the freezing point of water seems like as good a choice as any for the zero point of Celsius. Water is extremely important to pretty much all life on Earth. It's freaking everywhere. And really, do humans have much of a use for measuring in single digits Kelvin in their everyday use? This is why we use Celsius; it's more useful for our everyday use.

118.3 degrees C.


darn it..i got my nchemistry teacher with taht one for like half an hour :P

*walks into MGA(math geeks anonymous)*

Hello, my name is... er... wait, isn't this anonymous? Anyway, I like math. *runs away and cowers in a corner*

IIRC, 0 degrees Fahrenheit was supposed to be the coldest you could get naturally and 100 degrees the temperature of the human body. Not so much a problem of dope, more that he needed to get out more (and further north) if he thought that was as cold as nature gets.
0 degrees Fahrenheit is the coldest that water can get while it's a liquid at atmospheric pressure. Yeah, it's still pretty useless.

It is based on something that has no negative, but the meter is measured based on a ten-millionth of the distance between the North Pole and the Equator; however, both are still arbitrary measurements. By definition, all measurements, units, and terms used by humans are arbitrary; even the ones based on something in nature are arbitrary to the point where we could just as easily have picked something else. Kelvin could be based on the freezing point of sodium hydroxide, if the guy who designed it found that to be important.

That said, the freezing point of water seems like as good a choice as any for the zero point of Celsius. Water is extremely important to pretty much all life on Earth. It's freaking everywhere. And really, do humans have much of a use for measuring in single digits Kelvin in their everyday use? This is why we use Celsius; it's more useful for our everyday use.

No, the only thing arbitrary about the Kelvin scale is the definition that the triple point of water is at 273,16 K. the 'length' of the unit is arbitrary, but the beginning point is fixed by an important point. temperature ~ kinetic energy of the particles. This energy can't be zero, so temperature shouldn't be. If you want simple formula's for thermodynamic equitations you'll need the Kelvin scale. In fact, the moment i get confronted with degrees Celcius (or *shivers* other non SI units) the first thing i'll do is put it all in Kelvin.

M4Th 15 t3h de\/1L!!!!11!1!!1!!11!11111!!!1
amen

amen
Whoa.
"amen" in reverse is almost "nemo".

I think this is irrefutable proof that God is a cute little clownfish.
Yay!

I would suggest your general maths isn't THAT great. It's 2054 yrs old. :)

:D

The wave equation is really kinda beautiful, I think. Ocilliatory motion, woohoo!

I like almost all the things in the poll; except Stats. To me, stats is complicated garbage. At least I can do things with the others.

Meh. :-)

I liked maths and stats so much that I'm double majoring in it at uni.
Calculus! I love you! :fluffle:
But you didn't mention chaos theory in the poll :(

eeeps!

set-theory!