Piano Forum
Non Piano Board => Anything but piano => Topic started by: liszt85 on August 01, 2012, 08:09:41 PM
-
https://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1792946/1.html and stubborn to boot. This is exactly why I hate that forum.
-
Yes. All musicians in the world are dumb as sh*t. It really shouldn't even be a question.
::)
-
A very good pianist there claims that basic algebra is too complex for her brain. I wonder what kind of musicians we're bringing to the world with this kind of closed education (i.e., musicians don't study basic math, mathematicians don't study basic music, etc). Why is it that they think that they can make meaningful music without having the basic tools with which they can understand the world (and its a rapidly evolving one) around them?
-
As a physicist/musician I take offense!
Haha but come on, every group of people has idiots in them. Especially when it comes to math. Most people hate math and other than grade school have no background in it at all.
-
Not every musician is dumb.
-
As a physicist/musician I take offense!
Haha but come on, every group of people has idiots in them. Especially when it comes to math. Most people hate math and other than grade school have no background in it at all.
Hmm.. I think the fault lies with the math teachers then. For example, how many people really know why (a+b)^2 = a^2 + b^2 + 2ab? The more mathematical of us know that its a simple geometric proof (and its much more fun to think in terms of shapes rather than letters of the alphabet). Its sad that we don't teach math the way it is supposed to be taught. It ought to be as fun as music!
I posted that link though as an example of the rude and stubborn people on that forum which I've come to dislike quite a bit. So many posts and stubborn exchanges over simple algebra.. imagine how tough it would be to discuss something slightly more complex and something that requires thinking out of the box.
-
Not every musician is dumb.
Of course. I would be calling myself dumb if I really meant to say that. :P
-
Lol that guy says,
'where did you get the zero from? That's not in the equation! The answer is x-2, not x=2'
...
...
...
...
...
WHAT THE HECK?!??!?!
First off, that's the wrong answer. Second off, even if it was the right answer, they're the SAME FREAKING THING! If anything, you would get points off for saying x-2 because that's not completely simplified.
-
Lets not get into the math here (if we did, we would probably get to see more mathematical incompetence).. the point was about all that ensued.
-
https://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1792946/1.html and stubborn to boot. This is exactly why I hate that forum.
This is why you have us on pianostreet! ;D
-
This is why you have us on pianostreet! ;D
I was away for a while and then I chanced upon that annoying thread and I remembered that I was still a member here and could rant here. :P
-
Lol that guy says,
'where did you get the zero from? That's not in the equation! The answer is x-2, not x=2'
...
...
...
...
...
WHAT THE HECK?!??!?!
First off, that's the wrong answer. Second off, even if it was the right answer, they're the SAME FREAKING THING! If anything, you would get points off for saying x-2 because that's not completely simplified.
The problem is that the original equation does not set the expression equal to zero. Therefore claiming x - 2 and x = 2 are the same thing is incorrect. That is only correct if you are minimizing x by setting the equation to zero, but the OP failed to do so. For all we know the problem could have been to just simplify the expression, which doesn't need to set the expression equal to anything.
And yes, a big part of the problem is in how we teach math, absolutely. That being said, math really sucks. I mean I love how it can be used to explain physical phenomena, but man it really sucks. (Do a triple surface integral in spherical coordinates and tell me it's fine. Green's Theorem can only get you so far) Not many people are wired to enjoy math. It takes a certain type of person.
-
i suck at math,.... maybe i should leave this forum and go to that one. i think ill fit in more.
-
And yes, a big part of the problem is in how we teach math, absolutely. That being said, math really sucks. I mean I love how it can be used to explain physical phenomena, but man it really sucks. (Do a triple surface integral in spherical coordinates and tell me it's fine. Green's Theorem can only get you so far) Not many people are wired to enjoy math. It takes a certain type of person.
I think we have come to believe that math sucks because of the way it is taught. So yes, most people might be wired to not enjoy math but I believe its more of a cultural wiring than a genetic one. Integration in spherical coordinates, integration in a complex plane, Quantum scattering (perturbation theory) and green's functions, etc are things I've done and enjoyed but not because they were taught particularly well. So I get what you're saying about wiring, but the more important type of wiring is still cultural in my opinion. There is so much misconception about what math ought to be that deans at universities take out certain math courses just because people take them for "easy credit". So its almost like people think math OUGHT to be hard and frightening. That attitude will naturally be reflected in the teaching as well.
-
Maybe the problem isn't that they don't make math as fun as music, maybe it's just that you guys don't like math as much as you like music? I've always enjoyed math. In fact, I skipped several grades in math and ended up taking AP Calculus AB as a sophomore.
I always try to ignore questions like this online because they always show a blatant misunderstanding on the part of the students of how math works. I don't know if it's necessarily the teacher's fault. I know there are plenty of students who just don't get math. Like, it doesn't click in their head. If you got them from point A to point B, and from point B to point C, they still couldn't get from point A to point C. I know everyone loves to rant and rave about how awful the US's education is, but as far as teaching goes, I think the US actually does better than China in many ways (at least in math). I know China's education system is considered very very good, but in my experience with students from China, they are excellent calculators but not very good at critical thinking in math, and I think that's because of China's accent on just drilling and drilling math into their heads. I'd equate it to virtuosos who can play anything but lack any sense of musicality. I was involved in a competitive math program in high school and my team always went to state (the other schools in the area's teams were quite pitiful). At state, there'd be something like 50% Asians, and the top students were almost always Asian. But then, they'd take the top 50 students at state and give them a higher level test that dealt with types of problems they hadn't been explicitly taught, problems that required critical thinking, and of the top 10 students on that test, only 1 or 2 were Asian.
Anyway, just got off on a rant about how the US isn't quite as bad as everyone likes to think ;D
-
i suck at math,.... maybe i should leave this forum and go to that one. i think ill fit in more.
That's not the only condition. If you suck at math and if you think you by being a musician are above everyone else and if you are an extremely stubborn and closed-minded person, then do go to that forum, you'll fit right in. :P
-
Maybe the problem isn't that they don't make math as fun as music, maybe it's just that you guys don't like math as much as you like music? I've always enjoyed math. In fact, I skipped several grades in math and ended up taking AP Calculus AB as a sophomore.
I always try to ignore questions like this online because they always show a blatant misunderstanding on the part of the students of how math works. I don't know if it's necessarily the teacher's fault. I know there are plenty of students who just don't get math. Like, it doesn't click in their head. If you got them from point A to point B, and from point B to point C, they still couldn't get from point A to point C. I know everyone loves to rant and rave about how awful the US's education is, but as far as teaching goes, I think the US actually does better than China in many ways (at least in math). I know China's education system is considered very very good, but in my experience with students from China, they are excellent calculators but not very good at critical thinking in math, and I think that's because of China's accent on just drilling and drilling math into their heads. I'd equate it to virtuosos who can play anything but lack any sense of musicality. I was involved in a competitive math program in high school and my team always went to state (the other schools in the area's teams were quite pitiful). At state, there'd be something like 50% Asians, and the top students were almost always Asian. But then, they'd take the top 50 students at state and give them a higher level test that dealt with types of problems they hadn't been explicitly taught, problems that required critical thinking, and of the top 10 students on that test, only 1 or 2 were Asian.
Anyway, just got off on a rant about how the US isn't quite as bad as everyone likes to think ;D
I believe you. Why? I am Asian myself. We are trained to be excellent calculators. Not so much critical thinkers.. that is just not something that is emphasized in the education system there. Any critical thinker from Asia probably had a natural inclination to do so, or went to a non-traditional school. I have no other explanation given the education system in Asia that some people still turn out to be excellent thinkers.
-
I believe you. Why? I am Asian myself. We are trained to be excellent calculators. Not so much critical thinkers.. that is just not something that is emphasized in the education system there. Any critical thinker from Asia probably had a natural inclination to do so, or went to a non-traditional school. I have no other explanation given the education system in Asia that some people still turn out to be excellent thinkers.
I'm glad to hear I'm not completely delusional. I think it's quite sad, though. I am good friends with two Chinese guys. One of them is kinda the opposite of the stereotype. Lazy as hell, but really good at math (both following formulas and critical thinking), and the other is more in the really good at following instructions camp. They're both obviously extremely bright, but the second student, who could easily destroy me in any competition like I described above, really struggled to keep up with me and the first guy when dealing with complicated calculus and the like. He obviously really liked math, but I don't think it was till he got to the US that he really started developing his ability to think in different ways.
I think the reason the first guy did so well is that he's just naturally really skilled. That's the thing with education systems. Self-motivated students who really want to learn will do well pretty much no matter the circumstances. Obviously, they'll do better with good teachers and such, but they'll do well either way, I think. It's the kids who aren't naturally drawn to a subject but could have really ended up enjoying it that get screwed over the most by bad education (and benefit the most from good education).
-
Self-motivated students who really want to learn will do well pretty much no matter the circumstances. Obviously, they'll do better with good teachers and such, but they'll do well either way, I think. It's the kids who aren't naturally drawn to a subject but could have really ended up enjoying it that get screwed over the most by bad education (and benefit the most from good education).
I was once very self-motivated to study genetics. This was when I was in the 10th grade. I went around town meeting with the local scientists and had very nice conversations with them. In the 11th grade, I had this horrible biology teacher who just killed it for me.. it was impossible to remain motivated in that atmosphere. That's how I shifted my focus to Physics and ended up going to college for Physics. So I believe good education will benefit both kinds of people somewhat equally.. its just that *some* self-motivated people manage to escape the clutches of uninspired education but that isn't quite enough. I agree with your general observations.
-
I was once very self-motivated to study genetics. This was when I was in the 10th grade. I went around town meeting with the local scientists and had very nice conversations with them. In the 11th grade, I had this horrible biology teacher who just killed it for me.. it was impossible to remain motivated in that atmosphere. That's how I shifted my focus to Physics and ended up going to college for Physics. So I believe good education will benefit both kinds of people somewhat equally.. its just that *some* self-motivated people manage to escape the clutches of uninspired education but that isn't quite enough. I agree with your general observations.
I can relate to that quite well. I was always pretty interested in maths and sciences, and enjoyed exploring them on my own. Nearly all my high-school teachers in those areas absolutely murdered any interest I had at that time... I became the academic rebel, didn't care at all because the teachers were unpleasant grouchy people that inadvertently punished anyone who didn't fit their perfect predictable student mold.
The system was appalling - I remember passing the semester tests with top marks and yet failing the subject (this happened in maths several times) because I refused to do boring daily classwork that taught me nothing under the rule of someone with some kind of totalitarian complex.
-
A very good pianist there claims that basic algebra is too complex for her brain. I wonder what kind of musicians we're bringing to the world with this kind of closed education (i.e., musicians don't study basic math, mathematicians don't study basic music, etc). Why is it that they think that they can make meaningful music without having the basic tools with which they can understand the world (and its a rapidly evolving one) around them?
The solution... an interdisciplinary education :)
I think that all the subjects or at least the skills required to succeed in those subjects are pretty much related. It never hurts to learn seemingly unrelated subjects.
For example, I don't think I will ever fall in love with math. It's interesting, and I can do well when I study, but I'm not particularly good at it, nor do I have a passion for it. However, I plan on continuing my math studies, because it's important to know..
I'm not saying we should all get PhDs in every subject, but I think it's important to keep an open mind. All science is not just physics or stamp collecting... and artists can have a sciencey side!
Self-motivated students who really want to learn will do well pretty much no matter the circumstances. Obviously, they'll do better with good teachers and such, but they'll do well either way, I think. It's the kids who aren't naturally drawn to a subject but could have really ended up enjoying it that get screwed over the most by bad education (and benefit the most from good education).
I agree with this.
It's all about learning to appreciate the subjects we're not naturally drawn to... not necessarily falling in love with them, but at least realizing that they're not useless. I hear so many people say, "I'm going into ________ and so I'm not taking any _______ classes, because they're useless". That's why good teachers are important.
Sorry if this is totally incoherent. It's 3 in the morning and I'm suffering from insomnia.
From my rant... anyone want to guess what I'm studying? ::)
-
I agree with this.
It's all about learning to appreciate the subjects we're not naturally drawn to... not necessarily falling in love with them, but at least realizing that they're not useless. I hear so many people say, "I'm going into ________ and so I'm not taking any _______ classes, because they're useless". That's why good teachers are important.
Sorry if this is totally incoherent. It's 3 in the morning and I'm suffering from insomnia.
From my rant... anyone want to guess what I'm studying? ::)
People always laugh at a liberal arts education, like, "Wow, that's useless. Why would you want to learn about, ya know, everything, in addition to learning about the very specific area you will be majoring in?" But a liberal arts education, I think, really helps you in the subject you are majoring in (even when taking "unrelated" classes) as well as in life.
You would not believe how much crap I get from some people because I'm not just doing the generic "I understand science, let's go to engineering school and do nothing but that for 4 years!" route. EDIT: I take that back. Considering there are a lot of music majors here, a lot of you have probably dealt with similar criticism.
-
I think Computer Programming is another subject where you either get it or you don't. I don't- I couldn't get past the explanation of what an object is in Java! -It is also so fussy and nit-picking about syntax -
I would like to understand a programming language -as I would like to write software which was like Sibelius -only was more number based -like the Schillinger System -I would call it Joseph -(Schillingers' first name) and it would be an amazing musical tool -the musical equivalent of Photoshop with all its filters -
The only drawback would be that to get the most from it you would need to have studied the Schillinger System -but it would still be a great way of learning it -
Guess I am not wired right.
-
I think Computer Programming is another subject where you either get it or you don't. I don't- I couldn't get past the explanation of what an object is in Java! -It is also so fussy and nit-picking about syntax -
I would like to understand a programming language -as I would like to write software which was like Sibelius -only was more number based -like the Schillinger System -I would call it Joseph -(Schillingers' first name) and it would be an amazing musical tool -the musical equivalent of Photoshop with all its filters -
The only drawback would be that to get the most from it you would need to have studied the Schillinger System -but it would still be a great way of learning it -
Guess I am not wired right.
I hated computers when I first entered college. I'm now doing a PhD and realize that computers are my friends. I now realize that I should have paid attention in my programming classes. I've picked up some programming skills ever since my attitude to it changed. I'm therefore guessing that a lot of it is about developing the right attitude.
-
https://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1792946/1.html and stubborn to boot. This is exactly why I hate that forum.
And you're still reading it over a half of a year past your ban. I guess you're just trying to feed the hate, right? :)
-
And you're still reading it over a half of a year past your ban. I guess you're just trying to feed the hate, right? :)
Absolutely. I got banned for no reason. This is not just my perception. Many members I communicated with (via youtube, etc) after the ban agreed that there wasn't sufficient reason for a permanent ban. The prominent members there all get away with worse crap all the time. They are quite an autocracy. I also happened to criticize how the moderator did things there (over PM) and that is when the ban really happened. Ah well, I just hate them not just for the ban but for the extreme ignorance overall on that forum. I read that forum because the people who once got together against me have turned against each other for the same reasons I was arguing with some of them. The example I posted here is one such example of an ignoramus who stubbornly went on and on until it because irrefutably clear he was wrong. It is usually not so clear since we don't talk math there but this guy usually gets a lot wrong but is the single most stubborn online character I've ever met. Similarly, the person who I got into an argument with that led to my ban has shown his true colors to this guy (the stubborn guy in this math thread) who earlier supported him (This guy earlier supported him only because of the "your enemy's enemy is my friend" law). Now they've turned against each other and annoy each other at every little instance. I don't see that kind of crap happening on this forum. So yes, I read that forum sometimes to feed the hate and for entertainment value.
-
I wonder what kind of musicians we're bringing to the world with this kind of closed education (i.e., musicians don't study basic math, mathematicians don't study basic music, etc). Why is it that they think that they can make meaningful music without having the basic tools with which they can understand the world (and its a rapidly evolving one) around them?
Hmm... but then one would also have to learn a working knowledge of zoology, economics, nutrition, leading foreign languages, geology, cosmology, cooking, physics, gardening, psychology, sports...
Doesn't sound very achievable to me! A little biased in your own favor, aren't you?
-
Even sticking to just math, a working knowledge of the basics of every field in math could be daunting especially when you're preoccupied with your specialization (i.e. imagine a number theorist taking the time to study functional analysis, graph theory, risk theory--> lol add applied math into the mix, group theory, combinatorics, probability theory, etc.). Many specialists would just admit it openly like, "analysis is not my specialization ask someone who is more experienced with that."
I have no problem with people being ignorant of things I consider "basic" as long as they're not arrogant. What's insulting is when someone behaves like the "be all and end all" of something they know absolutely nothing about.
If there's anything that annoyed me in the linked thread; it is the post stating that the "x" variable be removed. I can't even begin to describe my contempt for the attitude of that post.
It is for this same reason that whenever I give musical advice on this forum, I usually place "IMO", "IMHO" and be very careful cause I am aware of my limitations.
-
(a+b)^2 = a^2 + b^2 + 2ab
What, are we in a field or something? (a+b)^2 = a^2 + b^2 + ab + ba, usually. Unless we're in a non-associative algebra, for instance. You're assuming commutativity, associativity and distributivity of multiplication over addition.
-
https://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1792946/1.html and stubborn to boot. This is exactly why I hate that forum.
Agreed, who wants to talk about X's anyhow? being stupid with X's is what makes music !
-
Hmm... but then one would also have to learn a working knowledge of zoology, economics, nutrition, leading foreign languages, geology, cosmology, cooking, physics, gardening, psychology, sports...
Doesn't sound very achievable to me! A little biased in your own favor, aren't you?
It is certainly achievable to have a working knowledge of most of those things that you mention. People do it, believe it or not (I could probably hold an intelligent conversation with another intelligent human being about most of those topics except for maybe economics and geology. I do plan to get better in economics. I'm not asking people to be experts at everything.. I'm asking people to appreciate the fact that to be a well rounded individual, you need to be open minded and be willing to learn about all these nice things in the world) . All you need to do is not shut yourself in a narrow world.
-
What, are we in a field or something? (a+b)^2 = a^2 + b^2 + ab + ba, usually. Unless we're in a non-associative algebra, for instance. You're assuming commutativity, associativity and distributivity of multiplication over addition.
I was talking about a,b belong to R where R is a commutative ring. So yes, I'm assuming commutativity. This post of yours is out of place considering the title of this thread. :D
-
It is certainly achievable to have a working knowledge of most of those things that you mention. People do it, believe it or not (I could probably hold an intelligent conversation with another intelligent human being about most of those topics except for maybe economics and geology. I do plan to get better in economics. I'm not asking people to be experts at everything.. I'm asking people to appreciate the fact that to be a well rounded individual, you need to be open minded and be willing to learn about all these nice things in the world) . All you need to do is not shut yourself in a narrow world.
Really :3
It takes multiple years of mathematics to get to the level required for algebra, your "basic/working knowledge". By that time, I could learn two or three "easy" foreign languages, or earn a bachelor degree in microbiology. Do you HONESTLY expect me to believe that your knowledge about most of the subjects named previously is even remotely close to that?
Anybody can "hold an intelligent conversation" on most topics, because it only requires commonplaces (and common sense, interest...). You are biased because mathematics are highly "specialized" and reputed as abstract, which means if you don't have a functional knowledge about it there is nothing to talk about, simply and purely, as opposed to psychology, which comes somewhat easily from observation, or cooking which fulfills the primal need to eat and is common to everyone (I'm not implying that you cannot pick on on maths by yourself, of course, otherwise there would be no maths period, but it is much less obvious and "useful", may I say).
-
Really :3
It takes multiple years of mathematics to get to the level required for algebra, your "basic/working knowledge".
Did it take you multiple years of mathematics to get to a working knowledge of basic algebra (such as the question presented in the thread we're talking about)? Are you suggesting you need multiple years of mathematics to know that a - (b - c) = a - b + c?? I'm talking about that kind of extremely basic knowledge.
Again, yes, I do have a basic working knowledge of most of those areas that you mention. Now I have no way of proving it to you but just realize that there are people out there who show interest in being aware of their surroundings in a more holistic way. The reason I say this is MANY members of that other forum used to ridicule science (if somebody brought up science as being useful in understanding music). My point is, these are people who don't even know that a-(b-c) = a-b+c and they think they know enough to trash entire fields of study. It helps to be (even if only remotely) aware of other fields. I'm not asking that everybody be a polymath like Leonardo Da Vinci or Aryabhatta. Btw, most ancient scientists would be classified as polymaths (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymath), also see a list of polymaths, you'll see that its mostly people from earlier centuries. I believe that is a function of how the education system has changed. We no longer believe in holistic well rounded approaches to learning. These days, if you're a pianist, you know nothing else.. if you're a physicist, you ridicule the psychologists (I had physics professors who did that), etc. That is a sorry state of affairs.
-
https://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1937983/Curiosity%20has%20landed%20safely.html#Post1937983
See the fourth and fifth posts. You tell me if you think that's a good attitude or not.
-
Anybody can "hold an intelligent conversation" on most topics, because it only requires commonplaces (and common sense, interest...).
Btw, we are in agreement here. This is all I was asking for: interest and respect! You might think this is redundant, but I've dealt with many people who have 0 interest and probably negative respect (i.e., that translates to "disrespect", for those of you who do not have multiple years of math) in anything except their own field of study. That is what I'm talking about. I think I've made myself sufficiently clear now.
-
I would probably deserve whatever comes at me after this post but anyway...
Let it go man...
I had a grudge against a certain forum also before I came here. Somewhere along the line I said f that, I'm not looking back.
take for example, the supposed "mathematical" question. using basic logic I can come up with reasons on why the OP's post is not even a mathematical statement. It's not even worth looking at or attempting to answer. With all the ambiguities, I can even assume that the we're dealing with modules and construct a case where even 3x + 2 is undefined (this already crosses the border on too much effort at being a prick).
yeah, I can do that and piss people off but sometimes it's just not worth it, but that's me
-
Am I the only one too dumb to have a clue what this thread is about? :-\ :-[
-
With all the ambiguities, I can even assume that the we're dealing with modules and construct a case where even 3x + 2 is undefined (this already crosses the border on too much effort at being a prick).
Your statement makes no sense. Let me guess: You wiki'd "commutative ring" and/or "field" after they were mentioned in this thread, clicked around a little bit until you stumbled across "module," and then tried to inject it into a response?
-
Your statement makes no sense. Let me guess: You wiki'd "commutative ring" and/or "field" after they were mentioned in this thread, clicked around a little bit until you stumbled across "module," and then tried to inject it into a response?
oh my, the assumptions, the "wiki" assumption. Do you know what a module is? Don't answer that, if you knew what a module is, the case I was referring to should have been clear as day. But I'll humor the ignorance and illustrate the case.
Let "3" and "2" be elements of the Ring and "x" an element of the Abelian group. Let the Ring and Abelian group be disjoint such that operations between them are undefined. "3x" is defined by the function of the R-module and is an element of the Abelian group, "2" is an element of the Ring.
try to wiki that counter example, good luck with that. my last parting message (I'm "letting go" of this thread) to the ignorance reflected in both forums here and the "other one" is not "to consult wiki". Instead, read Algebra by Pierre Grillet and the other by Hungerford IMO they're good books.
-
Am I the only one too dumb to have a clue what this thread is about? :-\ :-[
It's about being so smart, really, like sooo smart, you know, like INCREDIBLY smart.
-
It's about being so smart, really, like sooo smart, you know, like INCREDIBLY smart.
So my proof of the Riemann Hypothesis would be an appropriate post? But then, I wouldn't want to show off. :-\
-
I no longer know what this thread is about either. I still do prefer this forum to the other one.
-
Do you know what a module is? [...] I'll humor the ignorance and illustrate the case.
Let "3" and "2" be elements of the Ring and "x" an element of the Abelian group. Let the Ring and Abelian group be disjoint such that operations between them are undefined. "3x" is defined by the function of the R-module and is an element of the Abelian group, "2" is an element of the Ring.
try to wiki that counter example, good luck with that. Instead, read Algebra by Pierre Grillet and the other by Hungerford IMO they're good books.
Again, your post makes zero sense. The phrase "operations between them are undefined" has no significance. A module is just a ring action over an algebra or variety (not necessarily an abelian group; only somebody who looked this up on wiki would think it has to be an abelian group :)). Operations between the ring and algebra will typically not be the same. 3x + 2 is not/cannot be an element of the module you have described, if 2 \notin M, given that the mapping R \times G \rightarrow G is linear and M is a group; given that 1 \in R leaves G invariant by the definition of the product, 3x \in M by 3x \in G, thus (3x + 2) - 3x \in M \Rightarrow 2 \in M. Unless you want to look at an affine translation space of the module, I suppose? In which case it's still defined. If your ring has no unity, you simply appeal to Burnside's Lemma and treat R as an abelian group acting on G to peel off 3x \in M. If you knew what you were talking about, you could have, and would have, simply said, "let R be a ring s.t. 2 \notin R. Then 3x+2 is undefined."
I.e. suck my dick.
I have no clue what these books you are talking about are. The standard introductory texts on algebra are Dummit-Foote, Cohn, Herstein, Jacobson (which sucks), Lang and - if you read Hungarian - Kiss. The books you have mentioned are complete unknowns. Let me guess: Amazon, this time?
-
3x + 2 is not/cannot be an element of the module you have described,
;D props for getting this. Now go back to my previous post and put it all together. That was exactly what I was getting to with the case I outlined.
-
:D This is awesome, I get to learn some math on this forum!
-
;D props for getting this. Now go back to my previous post and put it all together. That was exactly what I was getting to with the case I outlined.
Because you didn't define module correctly in the first place, you complete, utter idiot. I know that you can't read my post, so I won't bother telling you to reread it.
-
** wonders if perhaps thread subject should be changed to "Are musicians usually this rude?"
-
Because you didn't define module correctly in the first place, you complete, utter idiot. I know that you can't read my post, so I won't bother telling you to reread it.
okay, since you've completely degraded yourself to childish insults. I'll leave you at that.
:D This is awesome, I get to learn some math on this forum!
I was hoping you would jump into the fray cause you've confessed to a phd degree in math.
-
** wonders if perhaps thread subject should be changed to "Are musicians usually this rude?"
+1
And I was trying to be civil all throughout. I like this place. It really tests my patience on civility.
-
okay, since you've completely degraded yourself to childish insults. I'll leave you at that.
I was hoping you would jump into the fray cause you've confessed to a phd degree in math.
He knows more math than you do (i.e. more than nothing), but does not have a Ph. D.. I, on the other hand, do. I would rather "degrade myself" by calling you the idiot/liar that you are, than be the idiot/liar who has been called out.
And I was trying to be civil all throughout. I like this place. It really tests my patience on civility.
Do you know what a module is? Don't answer that, if you knew what a module is, the case I was referring to should have been clear as day. But I'll humor the ignorance and illustrate the case.
Again: Idiot.
-
I was hoping you would jump into the fray cause you've confessed to a phd degree in math.
Really? Could you please tell me where exactly I "confessed" to a PhD degree IN MATH??? So you're turning your focus elsewhere now that fft has exposed you? I suggest you move on.
-
but does not have a Ph. D.. I, on the other hand, do.
What in, may one ask, and from where?
-
What in, may one ask, and from where?
In mathematics, from UAB, as of three weeks from now. My research is in group theory, algebraic geometry, algebraic combinatorics and automorphic forms.
-
okay so maybe that phd was from another post.
Let's make this formal. Again.
Let R be a ring. Let A be an additive abelian group. Consider A as a (left) R-module
(ok, are we fine with this?)
3, 2 \in R and x \in A. Let R and A be disjoint, such that \forall r \in R, r\notin A and \forall a \in A a\notin R.
consider 3x + 2 again. You got that it isn't part of the module. That's exactly the case I wanted to show.
PhD and all, professionalism and all is it beyond all of you to make a formal criticism of the statements above?
I'm not angry. I'm not mad. I actually enjoy the emotional challenge of everyone bearing down on me on a forum. Anyone who takes an effort to properly criticize all of the above and I will certainly admit my mistakes and leave it at that.
-
Let R be a ring. Let A be an additive abelian group.
There is not such thing as an "additive abelian group." Every abelian group can be written additively. That is how I will interpret your post from here on: $A$ is an arbitrary abelian group, written additively.
Consider A as a (left) R-module
(ok, are we fine with this?)
No. If you proceed with this wording, you will get nowhere. You mean, "let $R$ act on $A$ from the left." $A$ is not the module.
3, 2 \in R and x \in A. Let R and A be disjoint, such that \forall r \in R, r\notin A and \forall a \in A a\notin R.
How a mathematician would write this: $2, 3 \in R, x \in A, R \cap A = \varnothing$.
consider 3x + 2 again.
I assume you mean in the module. Ok, what about it?
$1 \notin R, \sigma(x) = 2; \forall r \in R, a \in A s.t. a \neq x, ra = 0. 3 \in R, 3x = 3x + 2; \forall r \in R s.t. r\neq 3, rx = 0, 3 + 2 = 3 \in R$.
There is a module where 3x + 2 is defined, despite your stipulations. I made your ring $\mathbb{Z}_2$ and abuse your notation. 3x + 2 will, in general, not be defined in such a module; however, you made many other statements in your other post which were nonsense. As well, again, nobody would bother mentioning a module.
-
There is not such thing as an "additive abelian group." Every abelian group can be written additively. That is how I will interpret your post from here on: $A$ is an arbitrary abelian group, written additively.
No. If you proceed with this wording, you will get nowhere. You mean, "let $R$ act on $A$ from the left." $A$ is not the module.
How a mathematician would write this: $2, 3 \in R, x \in A, R \cap A = \varnothing$.
I assume you mean in the module. Ok, what about it?
$1\notin R, \sigma(x) = 2; \forall r \in R, a \in A s.t. a \neq x, ra = 0. 3 \in R, 3x = 3x + 2; \forall r \in R s.t. r\neq 3, rx = 0$.
There is a module where 3x + 2 is defined, despite your stipulations.
Finally a proper response I'm glad to read.
3x + 2 will, in general, not be defined in such a module
Exactly what I wanted to point out but you gave an example where 3x+2 is defined despite my stipulations. That's acceptable. If you did that from the get go then none of the previous altercations were necessary.
-
Finally a proper response I'm glad to read.
I presented a case where 3x+2 isn't in the module but you gave an example where 3x+2 is defined despite my stipulations. That's acceptable. If you did that from the get go then none of the previous altercations were necessary.
You did not present such a case; you were not specific enough. I can abuse your notation easily. In general, 3x + 2 will not be defined in that module. However, it was not the ultimate assertion that I objected to; you made many other statements in the post that I initially responded to. Those are the statements which are bizarre.
Edit: btw, in your quote, which you apparently made between my edits, what is described is not actually a module. I need 2 to be the additive identity of R, something I left off in the first version.
-
You did not present such a case; you were not specific enough. I can abuse your notation easily. In general, 3x + 2 will not be defined in that module. However, it was not the ultimate assertion that I objected to; you made many other statements in the post that I initially responded to. Those are the statements which are bizarre.
Edit: btw, in your quote, which you apparently made between my edits, what is described is not actually a module. I need 2 to be the additive identity of R, something I left off in the first version.
The issue of 3x+2 not being defined was the only issue I'm concerned with since my second post on this thread. My only purpose was to outline that possibility. But that's already covered and both of us are repeating it over and over again.
-
fft, jesc is actually your adviser. He/she just wanted to test you one final time. You will get your degree tomorrow in the mail, you won't have to wait 3 weeks. Good luck.
PS: I wish I had taken group theory as an undergrad. It sounds like a lot of fun.
:D
-
PS: I wish I had taken group theory as an undergrad. It sounds like a lot of fun.
Basic group theory is moderately self-teachable, although you may get hung up on a couple of things, as nearly all students do (specifically quotient groups, Sylow's Theorems, normal series, central series, the Frattini subgroup and commutator subgroups). Group theory can be studied to an extremely high level in a pretty self-contained manner (even up into current research areas), without venturing out into other areas of upper level mathematics. As of right now, the main areas of research in group theory are:
Thin groups, which only requires a basic knowledge of graph theory,
discrete groups and abstract harmonic analysis (via automorphic forms: not approachable),
lie representations (approachable if you're willing to beef up on linear + multilinear algebra),
p-adic representations (not approachable; requires a lot of number theory),
classical invariant theory (not approachable: requires a lot of combinatorics),
and fusion systems (self-contained, but very high level).
Computational group theory using GAP (a computer program) is also popular atm, but what exactly they're doing I'm not sure. It's not relevant to automorphic forms or fusion systems, which is what I study in the context of group theory. For the most part, they're just compiling absolutely as much info as possible on groups of small and medium order (say, under 1000 elements).
I can send you a PDF of Dummit-Foote, the standard intro text, if you think you're interested.
-
In mathematics, from UAB, as of three weeks from now. My research is in group theory, algebraic geometry, algebraic combinatorics and automorphic forms.
As a matter of interest, could you point me in the direction of your PhD dissertation when it becomes available? Not for me, mind! - by saying which I do not wish to appear rude - I mean that I openly admit that its contents would be well above my head - but because I know two mathematicians who happen also to be heavily involved in the Sorabji cause and I'm sure that it would be of interest to them (there would have been a third but, sadly, Charles Hopkins died, as you probably know, just over 5 years ago at the age of 55). If you prefer to send details of this privately, then by all means do so to my email address which I'm sure you have.
Thanks in advance.
Best,
Alistair
-
Basic group theory is moderately self-teachable, although you may get hung up on a couple of things, as nearly all students do (specifically quotient groups, Sylow's Theorems, normal series, central series, the Frattini subgroup and commutator subgroups). Group theory can be studied to an extremely high level in a pretty self-contained manner (even up into current research areas), without venturing out into other areas of upper level mathematics. As of right now, the main areas of research in group theory are:
Thin groups, which only requires a basic knowledge of graph theory,
discrete groups and abstract harmonic analysis (via automorphic forms: not approachable),
lie representations (approachable if you're willing to beef up on linear + multilinear algebra),
p-adic representations (not approachable; requires a lot of number theory),
classical invariant theory (not approachable: requires a lot of combinatorics),
and fusion systems (self-contained, but very high level).
Computational group theory using GAP (a computer program) is also popular atm, but what exactly they're doing I'm not sure. It's not relevant to automorphic forms or fusion systems, which is what I study in the context of group theory. For the most part, they're just compiling absolutely as much info as possible on groups of small and medium order (say, under 1000 elements).
I can send you a PDF of Dummit-Foote, the standard intro text, if you think you're interested.
Please send me the pdf! I'd love to take a look. My email id is impromptu.pianist AT gmail.com
Thanks.
-
Please send me the pdf! I'd love to take a look. My email id is impromptu.pianist AT gmail.com
Thanks.
Ok, attaching. You'll have it in just a bit. In the mean time, please download a .djvu viewer; I used .djvu rather than PDF, because it is more compact and the book is ~950 pages.