Scoob's Guide To Pure Mathematics

I went with a pure concentration; initially I preferred algebra over analysis, but by the time I was done I was all about analysis. I think it was a class on Galois theory where I found that I needed a bit more grounding in the real world. Yeah. I became "that guy", the "this is cool, but when am I going to use this in my life"
 
I know that's basically heresy. I had such master plans to take my degree and go work in Business and make lots of Money. All the job interviews were like "so, you know all about statistics right? Because otherwise you can just f***ing leave". I did not live stats, and avoided them at all cost in school o_O Live and learn.
 
TaoChaos said:
I know that's basically heresy. I had such master plans to take my degree and go work in Business and make lots of Money. All the job interviews were like "so, you know all about statistics right? Because otherwise you can just f***ing leave". I did not live stats, and avoided them at all cost in school o_O Live and learn.
Click to expand...
LOL yea. Pure math is useless. I had worked as an intern at a finance company so I had a bit of "real world" experience under my belt. Definitely business stats is the path to go down, applied math. Pure math is purely academic. I never planned on doing anything past my degree. I got sick of studying mathematics. Too many years too long.
 
ScoobyDew said:
LOL yea. Pure math is useless. I had worked as an intern at a finance company so I had a bit of "real world" experience under my belt. Definitely business stats is the path to go down, applied math. Pure math is purely academic. I never planned on doing anything past my degree. I got sick of studying mathematics. Too many years too long.
Click to expand...
I'm actually starting an MS in Data Analytics on Monday. It's hybrid, so I can still work full time, and I have a wife and 6 month old, so... yeah... the program is only 2 years, I figure if I can go without sleep until 2019 I should be fine.
 
ScoobyDew said:
Sup guys. As many of you already know or if you don't know. I've been pursuing a PhD in Pure Mathematics. We teach TA classes, conduct research, attend conferences etc. As creepy boy @falkenjeff googled that I attended Stony Brook University. I was only a student and have moved. Please do not try to locate me. I would like to keep my academic life as professional. So that I may continue my career in Pure Mathematics.1

I currently teach Linear Algebra. If for whatever reason, a PSO player takes a Pure Mathematics course view these videos.

Linear Algebra won't be the only topic covered I might also host Calculus 1 - 3, etc.
Click to expand...
Entertaining read/10
 
Andy said:
GET A WRITING TABLET THING YO
Click to expand...
ScoobyDew said:
Sure babe. As soon as Trump is inaugurated.
Click to expand...
giphy-downsized-large.gif
 
Here's one.

Rational Zeros Theorem:

Supposed c0, c1, ... cn are integers and r is a ration number satisfying the polynomial equation

cnX^n + cn-1X^n-1 + ... + c1X + c0 = 0

n>=1, cn =| 0 and c0 =| 0. Let r = c/d where c,d are integers without common denom. d =|0 thus c divides c0 and d divides cn.

In other words, the only rational candidates for solutions of above theorem have the form c/d where c divides c0 and d divides cn.
 
Beyond The Sea said:
Here's one.

Rational Zeros Theorem:

Supposed c0, c1, ... cn are integers and r is a ration number satisfying the polynomial equation

cnX^n + cn-1X^n-1 + ... + c1X + c0 = 0

n>=1, cn =| 0 and c0 =| 0. Let r = c/d where c,d are integers without common denom. d =|0 thus c divides c0 and d divides cn.

In other words, the only rational candidates for solutions of above theorem have the form c/d where c divides c0 and d divides cn.
Click to expand...

Posting in a dead thread.

(He can't reply to it anymore.)

RIP Scoob
 
Let S and T be nonempty bounded subsets of R.

a)Prove if S is contained in T, then inf T <= inf S <= Sup S <= Sup T.

We know that if S is contained in T then inf T is <= s for all s in S. Thus inf T <= inf S.
Clearly inf S <= Sup S. Since S is contained in T then inf S <= Sup S <= Sup T.

Concluding:

inf T <= inf S <= Sup S <= Sup T
As S= x, inf T <= x <= Sup T
 
Beyond The Sea said:
inf T <= inf S <= Sup S <= Sup T
As S= x, inf T <= x <= Sup T
Click to expand...
What do I mean by Sup? Sup is notation for Supremum i.e. the 'least upper bound'.
Inf is notation for Infimum i.e. the 'greatest lower bound'.

Say we have a set S = [0,1] we can see that the Supremum is 1 and the Infimum is 0.

Sup and Inf do not need to be an element of S. For example the set S = (0,1) still has Sup 1 and Inf 0 despite 0 and 1 not being included in the set.

Max S can be denoted as s0 or s(sub-zero), Max S is the maximum element in S while Min S is the minimum element of S

Sup S can = Max S as can Min S = Inf S.
For example. In [0,1] we clearly see our Max and Min are 1 and 0. As stated above we know our Sup and Inf are 1 and 0.
In (0,1) we have no Max or Min as 1 and 0 are not included in our set but our Sup and Inf exist.

We can say that [0,1] three upper bounds are 1,2,3 and our three lower bounds are 0,-1,-2 but our LEAST upper bound is 1 and our GREATEST lower bound is 0.


;)
 
When things go South I can always go back to Mathematics, pure and true.
It never lies to me but rather I misunderstand the proof
My only friend, my only guide to the mysteries of the complex numerical mind.
Without Mathematics where do I lay, between the Reals or the Q's where the rationals play.
I'm bounded below but never above as I strive to disprove my limits.
Mothafuckin' Mathematics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top