n-word Posts

[Ken B]

I have one about engineers and economists, too, but it's even tougher and I don't want to offend any economist here, if any. 

They won't mind. Just tell them the joke is about another school of economics.

[Florestan]

They won't mind. Just tell them the joke is about another school of economics.

That was good, too.

Okay, here it is.

Two engineers and two economists go to a conference by train. The economists buy two tickets, the engineers only one. "Why only one?", ask the economists. "Wait and see!", reply the engineers. After one hour into the trip, a voice is heard: "Tickets control, please!". The engineers go to the toilet cabin and lock themselves there. The ticket controller arrives, check out the two tickets of the economists and then knock on the toilet cabin's door: "Anybody here? Tickets control, please!". One of the engineers opens the door and hands the ticket to the ticket controller. "Thank you, sir!", he replies, and goes on his way. The engineers return to their places and smile to the economists: "See, that's why we bought only one ticket." The economists look at the engineers with awe and at each other as if saying: "Aha! Got it!"

Conference is over, the four men take the trip back. This time, the economists buy only one ticket, the engineers buy none at all. "Why none?", ask the economists. "Wait and see!", reply the engineers. After one hour into the trip, a voice is heard: "Tickets control, please!". The economists go to the toilet and lock themselves there. One of the engineers go and knock at the toilet cabin's door: "Anybody here? Tickets control, please!". One of the economists opens the door and hands the ticket to the engineer.

Moral of the story: economists apply engineers' methods, but without understanding them. 

[EigenUser]

That was good, too.

Okay, here it is.

Two engineers and two economists go to a conference by train. The economists buy two tickets, the engineers only one. "Why only one?", ask the economists. "Wait and see!", reply the engineers. After one hour into the trip, a voice is heard: "Tickets control, please!". The engineers go to the toilet cabin and lock themselves there. The ticket controller arrives, check out the two tickets of the economists and then knock on the toilet cabin's door: "Anybody here? Tickets control, please!". One of the engineers opens the door and hands the ticket to the ticket controller. "Thank you, sir!", he replies, and goes on his way. The engineers return to their places and smile to the economists: "See, that's why we bought only one ticket." The economists look at the engineers with awe and at each other as if saying: "Aha! Got it!"

Conference is over, the four men take the trip back. This time, the economists buy only one ticket, the engineers buy none at all. "Why none?", ask the economists. "Wait and see!", reply the engineers. After one hour into the trip, a voice is heard: "Tickets control, please!". The economists go to the toilet and lock themselves there. One of the engineers go and knock at the toilet cabin's door: "Anybody here? Tickets control, please!". One of the economists opens the door and hands the ticket to the engineer.

Moral of the story: economists apply engineers' methods, but without understanding them. 

I've heard that one before -- it's good. I feel like the same could sometimes apply to mathematicians and engineers (engineers replacing economists, mathematicians replacing engineers).

[Florestan]

I've heard that one before -- it's good. I feel like the same could sometimes apply to mathematicians and engineers (engineers replacing economists, mathematicians replacing engineers).

Nah, mathematicians are just as far from the real world as economists are. For both of them the world is comprised of numbers only. The engineers have a much more wide and realistic worldview: besides numbers, there are the physics laws, too. 

But what do I know? Although having studied engineering, I am quite annoyed by the technological madness that controls our lives today. 

[Ken B]

A long queue of engineers walks into a bar.
"Half a pint please." says the first. "Quarter pint please" says the next. "Eight of a pint" says the engineer behind him. "Sixteenth of a pint" says the next.

The bartemder looks at them a while, shakes his head sadly, and pushes 2 pints across. "Engineers!" he says "They never know their limit."

[EigenUser]

A long queue of engineers walks into a bar.
"Half a pint please." says the first. "Quarter pint please" says the next. "Eight of a pint" says the engineer behind him. "Sixteenth of a pint" says the next.

The bartemder looks at them a while, shakes his head sadly, and pushes 2 pints across. "Engineers!" he says "They never know their limit."

You posted that one a while back. Still good, though .

Have you heard of the text that I posted on the previous page? It's used by many colleges. I think that Greenberg has written a few other more theoretical books as well.

[Florestan]

A long queue of engineers walks into a bar.
"Half a pint please." says the first. "Quarter pint please" says the next. "Eight of a pint" says the engineer behind him. "Sixteenth of a pint" says the next.

The bartemder looks at them a while, shakes his head sadly, and pushes 2 pints across. "Engineers!" he says "They never know their limit."

Zenon's paradox, aka as Achilles vs the tortoise! (Not bad for an engineer, eh?  )

A famous Romanian mathematician, Grigore Moisil used to explain the rows theory to his pupils thus: "Every normal man must have a glass of red wine for the dinner. And after having a glass of red wine, he becomes another normal man." 

[Florestan]

(Obliquely related...  )

An ordinary old lady comes to meet the Secretary General of the Romanian Communist Party (actually, that would have been a very unlikely occurrence, but for the sake of it let's pass over) and ask him: "Comrade, who invented Communism, the philosophers or the scientists?" He answers "The philosophers, such as Marx and Engels". To which she replies: "I thought so myself, because if had it been invented by scientists it would have first been tested on rats." 

[Ken B]

Zenon's paradox, aka as Achilles vs the tortoise! (Not bad for an engineer, eh?  )

Just spelling tortoise correctly is good for an engineer.

[EigenUser]

Continuing on this thread to avoid ruining the avatar thread

Watch out for those moments of inertia. Soon they turn into minutes of inertia, then quarter hours, then whole days.

Next time I TA dynamics I will be sure to pass this on to the class.

I TA'd this past winter and I gave out a copy of an outstanding essay by fractal mathematician Heinz-Otto Peitgen. The topic? Gyorgy Ligeti, photocopied from this book:
[asin]1843835509[/asin]

It was a stretch to say it was directly related to what we covered (it wasn't), but nonlinear dynamics and chaos theory isn't totally unrelated, either. If we had more time I would have played the 4th movement of the PC for them. Well, not really, but I would have liked to, especially since I love hearing comments on modern classical music from non-classical music listeners, which are often strikingly more positive than one would expect (in my experience). Coincidentally, the professor I TA'd for was a cellist and a music minor.

Not to be pushy, but I bet you'd appreciate Ligeti much more if you read this essay, based on your background. The book is horribly expensive, but I got it from the library.

[Ken B]

Continuing on this thread to avoid ruining the avatar thread


Next time I TA dynamics I will be sure to pass this on to the class.

I TA'd this past winter and I gave out a copy of an outstanding essay by fractal mathematician Heinz-Otto Peitgen. The topic? Gyorgy Ligeti, photocopied from this book:
[asin]1843835509[/asin]

It was a stretch to say it was directly related to what we covered (it wasn't), but nonlinear dynamics and chaos theory isn't totally unrelated, either. If we had more time I would have played the 4th movement of the PC for them. Well, not really, but I would have liked to, especially since I love hearing comments on modern classical music from non-classical music listeners, which are often strikingly more positive than one would expect (in my experience). Coincidentally, the professor I TA'd for was a cellist and a music minor.

Not to be pushy, but I bet you'd appreciate Ligeti much more if you read this essay, based on your background. The book is horribly expensive, but I got it from the library.

I followed you over here. I think I was the only one who got the n-word joke anyway 
I'll look at my library but I doubt they'll have it. But the Detroit system might. I might be able to scare up the Peitgen essay elsewhere.
If you want a good rigorous book on fractals, Fractals Everywhere is good, by Barnes. Formally defines fractals, fractional dimension. Old, probably the first textbook on fractals, but well organized and 'easy'  (ie good for intelligent readers not trained in the formal apparatus of abstract math. That'd be you.)

[EigenUser]

I followed you over here. I think I was the only one who got the n-word joke anyway 
I'll look at my library but I doubt they'll have it. But the Detroit system might. I might be able to scare up the Peitgen essay elsewhere.
If you want a good rigorous book on fractals, Fractals Everywhere is good, by Barnes. Formally defines fractals, fractional dimension. Old, probably the first textbook on fractals, but well organized and 'easy'  (ie good for intelligent readers not trained in the formal apparatus of abstract math. That'd be you.)

This is very useful information for me, as I really don't understand them very well and I would like to. I shall put this on my mental library list for when I return to school in a month.

[Ken B]

This is very useful information for me, as I really don't understand them very well and I would like to. I shall put this on my mental library list for when I return to school in a month.

I tend to be anal about formal abstract definitions of stuff. Not that I don't like intuitive things, but I need to convince myself from precise definitions. Otherwise I obsess and lose the thread. When I read Gravity by Misner, Thorne, Wheeler I just about went nuts. The intuitive stuff is well done, but I had to read a hard core grad level math text on GR and fibre bundles before I could get past "parallel transport WHERE??" . Then I could look at the pictures.

If that makes sense to you or anyone here 

Anyway, I think the book will be useful for you 

[bwv 1080]

guy is flying to California sitting next to a mathematician and looks out the window and sees the Grand Canyon. 
'wow that is impressive' he says. 
Mathematician: 'Yes did you know it is 70,000,003 years old?'
Guy: '70,000,003? how did you come up with that?'
Mathematician: 'well three years ago I sat next to a geologist on this same flight and asked him'

[Karl Henning]

.

A man never tells you anything until you contradict him.

[Ken B]

guy is flying to California sitting next to a mathematician and looks out the window and sees a black sheep.
'Wow, a black sheep' he says. 
'Well', says the mathematician, 'black on top.'

[EigenUser]

Engineering failure: when statics become dynamics.

At my alma mater, engineers in the math courses only needed 50%, 40% to get the prerequisite,  but the human beings pure math types were expected to learn the material.

Well, remind me to never cross any bridges near your alma mater .

At mine, it really just depended on the professor. However, the ordinary differential equations course for the math majors was far better than the one for engineers. I took both -- the former for my own pleasure , and the latter because I had to. Both were geared towards applied math, but the difference is pretty much what you said (actually learning vs. essentially matching forms and plugging in) .I took the math ODE course as a freshman and really struggled to get a B-. The following semester I took the engineering one and got 100% on every homework and every exam. When the professor found out that I had already taken the math version, even he said something like "Oh, well this one will be a joke for you, then!" In fact, perhaps you know his PDE book (which I found in a Borders and he graciously signed for me ):
[asin]0486438341[/asin]

And your new avatar made me laugh. BUT, remember that if it breaks, it isn't the problem of statics. It is the problem of solid mechanics (which is close to the realm of materials science, therefore I suck at it, QED).

[Ken B]

Well, remind me to never cross any bridges near your alma mater .

At mine, it really just depended on the professor. However, the ordinary differential equations course for the math majors was far better than the one for engineers. I took both -- the former for my own pleasure , and the latter because I had to. Both were geared towards applied math, but the difference is pretty much what you said (actually learning vs. essentially matching forms and plugging in) .I took the math ODE course as a freshman and really struggled to get a B-. The following semester I took the engineering one and got 100% on every homework and every exam. When the professor found out that I had already taken the math version, even he said something like "Oh, well this one will be a joke for you, then!" In fact, perhaps you know his PDE book (which I found in a Borders and he graciously signed for me ):
[asin]0486438341[/asin]

And your new avatar made me laugh. BUT, remember that if it breaks, it isn't the problem of statics. It is the problem of solid mechanics (which is close to the realm of materials science, therefore I suck at it, QED).

Dover math books are almost all excellent. For PDE the one I like best is an engineering text, by Farlow
Isbn 978-0486676203  i like this because it is good on understanding how to read the equation rather than just solve it.
If you want a not too difficult text on solutions with distributions, which are nicer than functions, Applied Functional Analysis by Griffel is a terrific book. If you took a course on Lebesgue you should be able to handle it.
Wilcox is a good thin lebesgue book. 

Davis's book on Fourier series 9780486659732 is the best intro to the theory rather than the techniques and existence theorems.
These are all well written texts that avoid the extremely abstract and terse style of most advanced math texts. All Dover.

[bwv 1080]

I took the the functional analysis course on coursera (at least 3-4 weeks of it) and can appreciate the depth of the math  view (the course began with a derivation of Navier-Stokes, which should have tipped me off immediately that I was out of my depth)

Struggling now with GMM (basically what Lars Peter Hansen won the Nobel Prize for last year) and the same issues between academic finance and practice

[EigenUser]

Dover math books are almost all excellent. For PDE the one I like best is an engineering text, by Farlow
Isbn 978-0486676203  i like this because it is good on understanding how to read the equation rather than just solve it.
If you want a not too difficult text on solutions with distributions, which are nicer than functions, Applied Functional Analysis by Griffel is a terrific book. If you took a course on Lebesgue you should be able to handle it.
Wilcox is a good thin lebesgue book. 

Davis's book on Fourier series 9780486659732 is the best intro to the theory rather than the techniques and existence theorems.
These are all well written texts that avoid the extremely abstract and terse style of most advanced math texts. All Dover.

I keep Farlow's PDE text under my pillow at night.

Not really (a friend just borrowed it a few weeks ago), but I do seriously love that book. It is probably one of the most "worn" looking books I have (I got it new). Not only did I learn a lot on PDEs from that, but there is an outstanding short section at the end on calculus of variations -- that is where the topic first "clicked" for me.

For PDEs, the Farlow and this are my top choices:
[asin]0133214311[/asin]

I know Dr. Greenberg very well (I've taken courses from him and TA'd for him) and his book has such a down-to-earth way of explaining things that suits him.

Another excellent applied mathematics book (more advanced) is the Logan, which I used for another class:
[asin]0471746622[/asin]

Of course, these aren't Dover books, so they are a fortune.

I took the the functional analysis course on coursera (at least 3-4 weeks of it) and can appreciate the depth of the math  view (the course began with a derivation of Navier-Stokes, which should have tipped me off immediately that I was out of my depth)

Ah, the NS equations! I haven't seen the 3D case derived, but I've seen the 2D case before. When I took a graduate heat transfer course we derived a system of energy equations (I forget if they had a name). Basically, it was a system that included momentum transfer (N-S) along with energy (heat) transfer. So, the 3D case for this would be a system of 6 awful and nonlinear equations!