>>16883978
Analysis is the most grounded and concrete area in math.
>Should I just give up and stick to physics?
You should give up and stick to biology. You're not gonna make it in physics if you can't even into analysis.

RA is when math first got interesting for me, everything until that point is just memorizing random tricks to solve problems. Unless you want to be a theoretical physicist I don't think it even matters anyway

>>16883978
Well, someone needs to make sure your formulas work.

>>16883978
>I have no fucking clue how I even passed
The topologist gave an easy exam because you guys are retarded. You know I’m right.

>>16883982
>You're not gonna make it in physics if you can't even into analysis.
Analysis is not required for physics dumbass.

>>16883991
Navigating physics without measure theory is like navigating the woods without a compass. Also, the foundations of quantum mechanics lie in functional analysis.
Besides that, the main point is that without the ability to think or to understand basic ideas, your attempt at physics will be futile.

Not the people arguing above. But meh, most people failed to do anything worthwhile in physics. Whether they had real analysis or not. Most students are even unable to get into the grad school of choice, or even any phd program. Hell, most people who starts a physics bachelor program will not finish it.
Do whatever you want. You most likely will fail anyways.

>>16883995
Reminder that Galileo, Newton, the Bernoulli family, Cavendish (designer of the Cavendish experiment, which is still used today for the most precise measurements of G), Coulomb, Lagrange, Laplace, d'Alembert, Descartes, Huygens, Hooke, Boyle, et al. all formulated groundbreaking physical and mathematical modeling utilized even today in physics and every single one of them did so without real analysis (since they all predate it). You are a useful idiot who has been brainwashed by schizophrenic modern mathematicians into thinking that their delusions are necessary for physics. When any proper physicist sees you for the frauds you are. If you want to prove your use, solve the three body problem, or give a rigorous treatment for why QFT works instead of crying about how it's not rigorous.

>>16884000
Every single name you mentioned resided over 200 years ago.
Getting filtered by century-old results does not constitute "making it".

>>16884004
If I listed modern physicists you'd just say they rely on analysis. I had to list physicists who are famous, many of whose works are still used today, who explicitly couldn't have used analysis since it didn't exist. You don't understand what physics relies on. You believed a lie told to you by schizophrenic mathematicians who wanted to justify their wankery.

>>16884007
>If I listed modern physicists you'd just say they rely on analysis
Yes, because modern physics uses analysis. Why are you trying to argue this, when it's evident you have less than a surface level understanding.
And you conveniently dismiss, once again, the main point which is that physics requires the ability to think. If you can't handle analysis, you're going to shit your pants in physics.

>>16884010
>Yes, because modern physics uses analysis.
do you have any proof of this? i completed both a math and physics major, and a phd. i completely disagree with your claim.

>>16883978
give up on physics AND math and just do pre-med or pre-law before its too late.
>but thats lame
everyone sells their soul eventually, just do it now and you'll thank me later

>>16884007
>I had to list physicists who are famous, many of whose works are still used today, who explicitly couldn't have used analysis since it didn't exist.
>>16884000
>Newton
really?

>>16884097
Show me where in principia mathematica Newton used analysis (you can't)

File: 1765053422495786.gif (510 KB, 640x360)

510 KB GIF

ITT: pic related

File: Schwabl contents.png (121 KB, 703x633)

121 KB PNG

>>16884015
>do you have any proof of this?
First chapter of Schwabl is already talking about Fock space.
>i completed both a math and physics major, and a phd
No you didn't, and you couldn't make it more obvious in your posts.

>>16884246
fock you

>>16884000
Unfathomably based, they also made scientific discoveries without using computer simulations or electronic computers of any kind. Obviously Big Computer is trying to brainwash physicists into using their products, and we must resist this

>>16884246
i see no epsilon delta proofs in that book. try again.

>>16883978
you should have learned by now that going through the process of
1) learning the basics of an application
2) then learning the math underpinning those basics
3) then revisiting the application grounded in theory
is the most productive way to master quantitative thinking

all that abstract analysis shit?
absolutely fundamental to doing numerics and having confidence that things converge at all.
more over, advanced physics is steeped in functional analysis, and all that analysis "baggage" is actually taking the time to actually make sure anything you do makes sense.

>>16884270
I massively lost interest in my physics major when I realized computers are used for everything now and coding is basically a prerequisite. the SOVL is gone forever.

File: kneel-vegeta.gif (82 KB, 68x200)

82 KB GIF

>>16884000
Holy trips of trvth

>>16883978
I was told by a person who has a phd in physics who does research in condensed matter physics that real analysis, for a physicist, is unecessary to learn.

They told me that not once in their career did they need to use real analysis and in fact all the math they did use that is not part of the standard curriculum they learned from another physicist in a math methods course.

So i guess real analysis isnt required for phd level research in physics, it should instead be taken and learned only for having a sole interest in doing problema related to it or just because. Sorry that you took it thinking that you needed it. Complex analysis requires real analysis as a prerequisite but at the level of an under graduate you might not have to take the mathematicians version of complex analysis which primarily focuses on proof writing and not on the important stuff that is used in physics such as contour integrals.

It must have been hard for you, tell me OP, hpw difficult was it and what exacrly did you have a difficult time with while you were in the course?

>>16883978
The math didn't become less meaningful or more ridiculous, the puzzles just became harder than the puzzled became more frustrated and overwhelmed.
You should stick to physics, it doesn't require as much intelligence or skill. Though you'd probably have better ROI on getting a master's in janitorial work.

>>16884280
You could still be a theoretical physicist that doesnt work with computers, but that is very rare as even the theorists test their simulations and theories on computers nowadays.

Im completely with you though, i wish we could go back and do physics without computers, but until some mathematician or physicists comes up with better math methods to use on paper then we are stuck using computers.

File: download.jpg (43 KB, 625x626)

43 KB JPG

>>16884277

>>16884304
>Complex analysis requires real analysis as a prerequisite
Not at all. Complex analysis and real analysis are almost entirely distinct from each other.
>>16884304
>I was told by a person who has a phd in physics who does research in condensed matter physics
Condensed matter physicists are to physicists what combinatorists are to mathematicians.

>>16883978
anon discovers the difference between academia and industry.

File: Eunveiled04.jpg (26 KB, 350x300)

26 KB JPG

>>16884000
when the mathematicians first appeared, such as Euclid and Pythagoras, they were treated as occult and esoteric and their appliance to engineering was neglected.
Even in medieval, when practical appliance of mathematics were discovered, the deeper subjects were "occult" and "mysteries" and often treated as something spiritual and often their practicality ignored.
Now we know they are necessary and applicable as they are logical.
Same applies to academia, many new works are treated as if they are occult but in future they will be considered ordinary.

>>16883978
>generally what the fuck is the point of this shit?
The discipline itself.
Once your start getting into pure mathematics you've subtlety crossed a line into academia.
Not that that's a bad thing, but it starts to become less about skills and more about research and theory.

So the drift you're feeling is real but just be prepared for what you're getting into if you want graduate school and further.

File: ogimage_EuclidsPostulates.png (372 KB, 1150x724)

372 KB PNG

>Picrelated is true because it just is, okay? We've all agreed to this, get over it, chuddie.
Math is liberal arts soft science on the level of critical race theory.
You need it to path the ideological purity check, not for anything real.

I dont trust math majors, too many women in math, cant be trusted, physics is better, barely any women.

>>16884000
Technically the vast majority of them wrote more about metaphysics and theology from which they derived their "science", then they ever wrote about "science" that has been selectively amputates into Scientism

>>16884326
>Complex analysis and real analysis are almost entirely distinct from each other.
this. and both are super useful for different reasons in physics.
good to know /sci/ isn't a complete lost cause, yet

>>16884349
Complex analysis is completely useless.

>>16884349
>>16884349
Only contour integrals matter and I can learn them from a math methods books instead of a textbook on complex analysis

>>16884351
every time i was taught contour integrals and all the little fucky tricks in a non-math class or a non-math text, it amounted to a waste of time
>>16884350
for you, freshie

>>16884353
>He can't do Fourier Analysis
Cope.

>>16883991
most serious programs require analysis up to complex vector spaces.
I'm not even sure how you would construct sound physics in the modern era without modern mathematics. And consider that point I just made very. I'll say it again: Modern.
You've so far only enjoyed the older and most common physics and mathematics.
If you want to survive in this era where there are an overwhelming number of intellectuals especially in math and physics which requires the funding of a chalk board and chalk you need to realize that baby rudin and electrodynamics are toilet reading material.

>>16884280
a physicist should be proficient in physics, mathematics, programming, and electronics

>>16883978
AI always needs some new optimization that's where many Physics students end up now inventing some diffusion model to do a micro optimization which can save millions in hardware costs. Honestly you should skip your second major and all your electives, switch to doing research every campus has research going on so join one then argue it should count for your electives. When you finish undergrad you now have real world research experience and a finance company will want you.

Lot's of physics problems besides AI to solve like error correcting ram is still fucked up because everything is too close together so cells now leak charge into neighboring cells called read access disturbances or rowpress attack. The mitigations for it don't work it's a physics problem.

>>16886426
Yep, 90% of undergrad math is tossed out like Analysis I and II you waste your time learning an obsolete integral which was replaced over a century ago then replaced again with a generalized one in the 1960s. Most irl functions even continuous ones don't have derivatives and yet badly discontinuous everywhere functions often do it's like the modern world of math is the opposite of everything learned in undergrad RA.
Linear algebra disappears and is either the theory of modules instead of vector spaces and anything computational is numerical linear algebra and ever changing characteristic constructs to replace chebyshev polynomials and none of this even looks like undergrad linear algebra anymore. The arithmetic now needs to be in constant not variable time (python junk) arithmetic because the vast majority of numerical libraries do all kinds of arbitrary truncations or strange branching which have to be thrown out for verifying properties of some physics model. It's like they designed undergrad to work against you should you decide to do any kind of modern physics

>>16884334
except you can reject these and create your own theory if you want.

>>16884332
The history of math is usually applied need first then theory later like for land surveying so some ancient king could charge taxes. Archimedes was making weapons like catapults and other engineering. Early algebra was directly used for Athenian inheritance law.

There were many ancient greek math schools of thought and some of these were cults like the Pythagoreans but mostly it was about doing concrete calculations like measuring distances to ships, constructing shit or mapping stars for time keeping or cartography. Euclid was primarily a textbook author I'm not sure how much in his books are his own work it's like he wrote a huge survey of all math from the various schools up until his time

In medieval times math ratios were used to build elaborate cathedrals and write music (isorythm) which is probably the first use of a function. Fibonacci invented his sequence in the 1200s to estimate growth of rabbit populations

>>16883978
Maybe you should switch to engineering. You're not built for physics.

>>16886426
Please state which areas of formal mathematics are required for QFT :)

>>16884000
Almost every one of them was an expert on Euclid's elements too. Is your claim that not even one of them wrote the proof of some theorem?

>>16886940
Let's not pretend that Euclid's elements is in any way remotely similar to modern mathematics.

>>16884000
>Reminder that Galileo, ..., Boyle, et al. all formulated groundbreaking physical and mathematical modeling [...] and every single one of them did so without real analysis (since they all predate it).
>If you want to prove your use [...] instead of crying about how it's not rigorous.
If the problem is the so called rigour, I just wanted to point out that elementary real analysis is simply calculus with proofs, just like Euclid's Elements is geometry with proofs.
If the problem isn't that but modern concepts of intermediary real analysis like that of meausure: physicists don't feel like proving theorems most of the time and that has never been problem for any of them, that's why they study the so called mathematical methods for physicists instead of "rigourous" textbooks. Even so, what's so scary about epsilon and deltas? You could easily understand them if you read Peter Lax' calculus book. I will admit mathematicians have for the most part done a bad job explaining the concept, but it only takes some effort and patience, like any other mathematical milestone

>>16886660
proompting chat gpt very good is the only skill a physicist need saar!

>>16883978
retard, enjoy being a calculator monkey for your entire career.

>>16887059
>calculus with proofs, just like Euclid's Elements is geometry with proofs
Cut the dishonest horse shit. It's not a lack of understanding driving this (I earned an A in real analysis, real analysis 2, complex analysis, and abstract algebra all of which are proof based). I'm telling you that this garbage is not used in modern physics, not even in the slightest. Yes functional "analysis" is used in QFT, but not anywhere close to the same vein it's introduced in math. Reframing physicists aversion to these formal proofs as "fear" is slimy and dishonest. The aversion is that such obsession with rigor is antithetical to how physics works.

Back to your comparison of proofs. Euclid's proofs are in a completely different class than modern mathematics. Perhaps an analogy will help. Consider two different proofs that are constructed for why you're a faggot.
1. There is video evidence with eye witness testimony that you're a Faggot
2. Axiom: there exists Kinsey's scale of faggotry and per this scale nearly nobody is at the poles ergo per statistical heuristics it's obvious you have a degree of faggotry in you
Now, pray tell, which of these is the stronger proof? If you want to say 1. then you are WRONG. Why, you may ask? Because the AXIOM in proof 2 is entirely self consistent with the outcome. Anything you say against it is fear of its strength. In fact, it's the bedrock upon which all psychology is founded!

>>16887116
Physics existed and succeeded long before generative AI, and without the need for formal mathematics. I'll accept your post as a concession that you cannot point to any such rigors present in QFT. :)

>>16887245
"Elementary real analysis is calculus with proofs": why do you assume that saying this has any bearing on what physicists should study? Phycisists already study calculus and further mathematical methods

>>16887299
>why do you assume that saying this has any bearing on what physicists should study?
Have you forgotten what thread this is? Check the OP

>>16886426
>sound physics
According to whom? Physicists universally accept their work is sound without the use of your faggy analysis.

File: Screenshot_20260106_01264(...).jpg (495 KB, 928x1408)

495 KB JPG

>>16887344
I wish someone wrote a textbook on solving difficult and unique integrals via complex integration. The only book i know of is pic related, but it doesnt have enough problems, nor is it written that well, nor does it have solutions to any of its problems.

>>16887249
>Physics existed and succeeded long before generative AI, and without the need for formal mathematics

That doesn't mean it cannot be improved with formal mathematics. Not a physisist but as far as I can tell guys like Einstein made a living by grabbing modern maths and finding a way to put them in a physics context.

>>16887357
>That doesn't mean it cannot be improved with formal mathematics.
Name one (1) model of physics that benefited from formal mathematics. Note that formal mathematics means rigorously proof based. A source must be included to verify such benefit.
>Not a physisist
Clearly.

>>16887360
The standard model has group theory to thank.

>>16887394
You're too dumb for this conversation but I'll play ball anyway.
>Newton invents calculus
>The same calculus physics uses today
>Mathematicians rederive all of calculus through analysis
>Mathematicians pretend such analysis is necessary for physics
Does that help? Probably not because you're an idiot.
>But I talked about group theory not calculus
Same applies b

>>16887406
lol you really are a moron. That's a whole lot of shit you just made up and pulled from your ass. Nobody is pretending about shit. Analysis is an important part of mathematical thinking that can lead to new ways of thinking about physics. You are a lost cause and should frankly quit life entirely.

>>16887415
>that can lead to new ways of thinking about physics.
Mathematicians version of group theory via rigorous proofs adds nothing to how physicists use group theory in QCD. You're welcome to prove me wrong, but you won't because you cannot.

>>16887418
Lol, you truly are clueless. You are missing the forest for the trees my midwitted friend. Consider math a foundation, and proofs as the concrete you use to pour it. Without strong concrete your foundation is prone to breaking. Physics likes to work on top of this foundation, and so it needs to make sure what its working on top of is sturdy when it inevitably attempts to use it improperly. Now, when a physicist wants to add to this foundation, he needs to know how to properly mix the concrete so it stays strong. If it doesn't then it will crumble a part and everyone will laugh at him. Without being able to construct rigorous proofs, the physicist will never know how to make proper concrete and thus will just be the laughingstock of mathematicians.

>>16887424
>Math a foundation
>foundation is prone to breaking
Literally irrelevant. Name one (1) thing in physics, either in antiquity or in modernity, that Russell's paradox broke. And then explain how the proposed fix helped.
>laughing stock of mathematicians
And physicists should care why? Go ahead and help fix all the issues in QFT if formal rigor in math is allegedly the savior of physics. You can't, and yet the standard model which is founded on QFT is the crown jewel of physics, and the most precisely tested model in ALL of science. Isn't that poetic? That the best science has to offer in terms of knowledge and mathematical foundations has absolutely no concrete the mathematicians claim is necessary. Interdastering.... :)

>>16887431
Clueless and misguided. Sad. There is nothing more that needs to be said so we're finished here.

>>16887436
I accept your concession. Stay in your kiddie pool and continue laughing at the adults in the big boy pool. Of the two frameworks (bodies of water) available, one matches reality while the other is full of piss. Your schizophrenic mathematical delusions may fool people who do not know any better, but it doesn't fool actual physicists. Keep seething, schizo.

>>16887442
I can only hope you find peace within yourself one day, all that anger surely isn't good for your health lol.

why are mathematicians so insecure?

>>16887531
What do you mean by your statement? Can you go into more detail?

>>16883978
Math is applied logic
Physics is applied math
Chemistry is applied physics
Biology is applied chemistry.
Difficulty goes up as you get less and less applied and more and more fundamental.

>>16887540
smoothbrained take

>>16887540
yeah, everyone knows sociology is a lot more difficult than organic chemistry.

>>16887531
They're smart enough to know their work is meaningless. And equally egotistical to believe their work is meaningful. It's a deeply rooted and fragile cognitive dissonance. They attempt to gaslight everyone into believe their work is necessary. When the lies are seen through and exposed, they have nothing to fall back on except ego.

>>16887882
I like applied math more despite it being looked down upon

>>16883978
Some physicist told me that their 40% average on their physics exams equated to getting an A in their courses. Is this true, is physics really that hard of a major where of you get a 40% you get an A

>>16883978
>>16888113
Answer me OP or somebody else who is a physicist. Please, I need to know.

>>16888113
Yes.

>>16888113
It all depends on how hard the instructor wants to make the course, it's really easy to give undergrads really troublesome problems to solve so that a 40% is exemplary.

>>16888119
>>16888118
Holy shit

>>16888119
What about in graduate school for physics, would a 40% average still equate to getting an A in graduate school? Or does that just happrn in undergrad?

>>16888127
my qualifying exam could be passed with 30% in each section, and 50% overall.

>>16888119
I had a prof like this for one of my undergrad physics courses. He said since everything was graded on a curve anyway he may as well make the exams interesting for him to write. I think he just enjoyed listening to students complain. The fucked up thing was the curve mandated he fail the worst performing 20% of students, so I guess, in a way, going too hard makes it so he doesn't have to fail a bunch of students who got an 80% on the exams and deal with all that nonsense.

>>16883995
Real analysis is horse shit, and whatever "physics" which requires it isn't physics (and can't be tested). Sauce: my PhD in physics.

>>16884000
Einstein, Feynman, Dyson: also all skipped real analysis class. Real analysis is a Bourbakian meme and irrelevant for physics. Read Vladimir Arnold's books for math background, also his trivium. Anyone in physics or math should be able to solve his Trivium, and there's no real analysis in it. A lot of mathematician wordcels can't do it though because they've been mind fucked by shit like real analysis.

the only thing worse than morons arguing on the internet is educated morons who think they aren't morons arguing on the internet.

>>16888197
>mathtard seething since he's out of arguments

>>16888191
Man this reminds me about how my mathematician friend (taught at a prestigious american university) couldn't even solve my freshman level physics exam problems. He'd rage, and start saying how they're poorly posed problems, they don't make sense, they lack rigor. He couldn't accept that a PhD in math couldn't help him to solve kinematics questions lmao.

>>16888198
>he missed the obvious implication that everyone in this thread is a moron because he is a moron.

>>16887306
>Have you forgotten what thread this is? Check the OP
OP didn't take mandatory higher mathematics courses, he made the mistake of taking them freely and without a philosophical/epistemological grounding for doing so

>>16888210
Not OP, but what if i need real analysis for complex analysis, is that a good enough reason?

>>16887249
if your only goal were to be a high school physics teacher you should have just said that instead of wasting everyone's time.

File: Screenshot 2025-11-25 173811.png (617 KB, 1536x864)

617 KB PNG

>>16883978

>>16883978
>proof by contradiction carried me through the entire thing
Assume proof by contradiction didn't actually

>>16888244
There are complex analysis courses for physicists and engineers too, they don't involve more rigour than the average freshman calculus course, but they do have requirements of multivariable calculus and maybe something else. You have to ask an advisor or faculty about this to be sure.

Or you can just learn it for free without paying a professor who wants to apply the pace, obsfucate implications, and uphold institutional gatekeeping and assign a grade based upon his paced preexpectations.

>>16883978
You should have just learned it on your own time, abbott real analysis or real analysis by Lang, they both jave solutions online.

Listen to the physicists next time when they say that you don't need real analysis. If anything, you need more multivariable calculus which helps you out more as a physicist.

>>16888113
yes Ive had multiple courses where I would get 50% on a test and it would be the best score in the class. always given by tryhard professors giving undergrads crazy advanced curve ball problems they didnt even slightly prepare us for.

how the fuck do you even teach RA from a "topologist perspective"? how are the two even related?

>>16888422
Question, then how did you prepare for exams if they were this difficult. What would you personally due to prepare, i want advice

>>16888435
by boozing and partying, evidently

>>16888424
Start with metric spaces instead of R^n of even instead of just R?
Maybe even this:
https://groupoids.org.uk/pdffiles/topgrpds-e.pdf (first chapter)
https://www-users.cse.umn.edu/~olver/ln_/cc.pdf (first part)

>>16887882
it's not my fault you're retarded, seriously its not my fault you see a much small view of all things, it's just your genetic limitation.
I don't blame blind people for being blind or downies for being cognitively impaired.
None of that is their fault, just like you little man. It's not your fault.
>>16888080
Ok without googling it, tell me what is a hermitian matrix and why it matters for Lanczos' method.
No cheating, mister.
Applied math isn't look down on when it's math, it's look down on when rigor and quality are thrown away for the sake of scientists and engineers. Also a lot of it is made the fuck up without canonical consistency, not that anyone cares though because I also personally don't care about computational accuracy. I care about theoretical accuracy, engineers don't care about either, they only care about outcome.

>>16883995
>Navigating physics without measure theory is like navigating the woods without a compass
just walk in a straight line???

>>16888435
I literally didnt study at all because it was all first and second year physics courses where I had already learned 90% of the material in AP physics in high school, where I really nerded out and dove in because I loved it. the only real difference in college was having some more higher level maths involved but the physics equations were all the same. studying more wouldnt have helped, the tests were hard because the questions themselves were novel and unique applications we hadnt seen before. cramming in undergrad physics isnt going to help you much imo, you have an equation sheet and you hash shit out, you either know it or you dont.

sadly after second year I switched to a different major before the really interesting and hard shit wouldve began. and its too embarrassing to even admit what it was here. I have many many regrets.

>>16888435
Have a high IQ. Physics professors give these exams to stratify the students and identify the geniuses.

>>16888471
Lanczos was a physicist you dumbass lmfao. Imagine trying to sing the praises of formal mathematics and citing a physicist instead.

>>16888574
>Have a high IQ
So basically have superb memory and youll score A's in undergrad physics. Am i right on this assumption?

>>16887353
Write it yourself.
Btw I personally don't think the standard physics curriculum used complex analysis that much. And I took classes until QFT and beyond. I'm just saying it won't help much to get good at them outside of integration bee, math stackexhange questions, and very rarely actual useful problem.

Other than books like Nahin's, I would guess Special Functions textbooks will have some for the derivations.

>>16888435
Imo, for the average student, there is a lot of luck involved.

In general, you need to grind problems. Especially problem books. Same attitude as those math olympiad high school students and competitive programming contestants. Just do problems after problems.
If you have seen the problem or its variation, obviously it becomes much more doable.

Btw in top universities, the curve is not really a bell curve. A percentage of students always do super well, like near perfect. So we have 2 peaks in the grade curve, normal human peak, and their peak.

>>16888611
No. He said high IQ, not good memory.

>>16888648
Can you go into detail on what the differencw is between the two?

>>16888667
to explain it at your level, think of it as this
>iq ~ working memory; fluid intelligence
>"memory" ~ long term memory; crystallized intelligence
fluid intelligence peaks when you're young, and decreases with age. its primary utility is solving new problems.
crystallized intelligence consistently increases as you age (until structural brain degradation from old age), and is how you recall information.
some disciplines such as biology benefit highly from crystallized intelligence. physics benefits from fluid intelligence.

>>16888683
>primary utility is solving new problems
So basically you have to have the ability of having high imagination in regards tp thinking about problems in order to be a top A student in undergrad physics.

And you have to grind as many problems as possible.

Is that what you are saying?

>>16888686
no. i am saying you need a high iq

>>16888688
I wish i could understand what you are saying

>>16888689
me too, brother.

>>16888689
>>16888696
Anybody can get an A gpa in physics, just grind the problems. For example, lets say for a homework your professor assigns you 10 problems to do. Figure out how tp solve them via solutions, then redo those same problems without using the solutions only when neccessary. Then redo those same 10 problems again and again and again until you can do them from memory. No high iq needed, just need high speed information processing and decent memory.

The main problem I surmise is that a super majority of people, like 98% of people, lack the high speed information processing that is required to get all A's in a physics bachelors. The faster you are able to process and understand information means you can quickly work and rework on problems in the shorteat amount of time possible.

This is what I think high iq, or true high iq is, information processing speed. Think of it akin to a cpu that is overclocked, that is how the brain of an A student in physics is, they simply process information faster than others.

These are just my thoughts but correct me if you think im wrong.

>>16888688
Your too broad

>start something
>finish thing
Simple as

>>16888113
It is true for two reasons.
1. Most physics majors are pretty dumb.
2. Every physics major insists on teaching physics without invoking any math which makes the whole thing easier.

>>16884015
>Phd
Well, i guess you are american. Your education is on the level of european highschool, probably even lower sometimes

You couldn't even get a job at McDonalds with your Phd in europe, sorry to say that dude

>>16889081
the U.S. is where people come to get Ph.Ds that people actually respect

Why isnt real analysis required for a physics major?

>>16889611
Almost everything you do in Physics resembles applied mechanical engineering so hydraulic models and cosmological models usually model the universe as being full of a spatially varying continuous fluid.
They do a lot of numerical analysis to speed up models on computer hardware which doesn't use real numbers as now in the realm of applied floating point approximations and quantum anything is all some operator-valued distributions rather than normal fields where you solve path integrals in ridiculous large dimensions.

You also don't need measure theory to do functional analysis unless you're deep into rigorous quantum probability proofs which in that case a physicist would read enough of a measure theory text to understand Lebesgue integrals and ignore the rest of a real analysis text. Nothing you learn in undergrad real analysis is needed to learn measure theory in fact you waste your time doing undergrad RA just go straight into graduate analysis

>>16889633
Its hard to understand but ty for the explanation

>>16883978
What did you get in the course OP? An A, B, or C?

>>16888689
>>16888696
working memory in its true form is called digit span basically how many random numbers in a sequence you can hold in your head at once fluid is pattern recognition with spatial ability, think of making things fit in a square where a square goes but more advanced since there needs to be granularity in which the difficulty arises or everyone would score high and there wouldnt be a way to asses whos better at the specific task take the median of the scores thats a FSIQ full scale composite calculation

crystallized intelligence is a theory i experienced a personal event and my fluid dropped and so did my so called crystallized think of the SAT

if you wanted to measure general intelligence with previously learned information instead of culture fair puzzles youd make a bunch of word problems with ranking difficulty to again create granularity in which we can asses and see whos 70 and whos 120 iq

File: Screenshot 2026-01-14 at (...).png (87 KB, 724x485)

87 KB PNG

aww shieeet innate

>>16886426
I thought analysis was just proofs wtf does that have to do with physics lmao

>>16891442
is the way you create proofs similar to deriving physics equations?

File: 1765220090805514.png (181 KB, 500x375)

181 KB PNG

>>16891442
functional analysis is the bread and butter of physics theory and application, both analytical and numerical

>>16891444
Not even close.
>>16891468
Written like a mathfag who has never done physics.

>>16887249
>QFT isn't rigorous
You just ousted yourself as a retarded undergrad. Go back

>>16891569
rigorous for physicists is not the same as rigorous for mathematicians.

>>16891569
>>16891634
since i can predict your seething, let me shut that down pre-emptively
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6530/rigor-in-quantum-field-theory

>>16883978
>math is now about doing totally abstracted logical wankery writing proofs about sets but
never solving problems

Don't blame math. Blame poor lecturers, bad textbooks and an overall poor tradition of pedantic pedagogy. Abstract logical wankery exists BECAUSE it helps to solve problems, but most lecturers (conscious or not) hide these problems from the students ending up in lectures that only make sense for logic-loving autists.

I love math, but I too hate how unmotivated concepts are often introduced.

>>16883978
What textbook did you use for the course OP?

File: bro.png (306 KB, 808x451)

306 KB PNG

>>16891643

>>16891561
>Written like a mathfag who has never done physics.
written like a freshman in physics that thinks they are better than everyone else

>>16883978
Get ready to never see a whole number again

>>16889633
>Nothing you learn in undergrad real analysis is needed to learn measure theory in fact you waste your time doing undergrad RA just go straight into graduate analysis

I mean except the fact that you will struggle without the maturity of a RA course.

>>16892118
Knows*

>>16883978
What textbook did you use op

>>16892234
A decent calculus book is effectively a good enough undergrad real analysis if it has bounds of sets in there somewhere and vector calc. First day of graduate RA you are given a sheet of anything you may need from undergrad RA like this: https://measure.axler.net/SupplementMIRA.pdf lot's of grads are forced to take measure theory for probability and don't have undergrad RA but they do fine

>>16891643
What happens is a bunch of research is done to discover something in math (the fun part) then it all has to be justified so they build a logical apparatus around it and we usually get taught all this wankery first with no explanation why then eventually you get to the why when all the useful shit is finally taught. If you have a book like this skip to the why first and skim it before spending weeks in the construction of the abstract model

>>16892515
Also, to watch someone doing this see the lectures of Borcherds https://m.youtube.com/@richarde.borcherds7998/playlists

In some of the lectures first he defines what axioms he wants to have then he goes about building up the logical apparatus for it to all work. I wish every math lecture I had started this way

>>16892336
students that prioritize smelling their own farts don't get far in physics, i saw plenty of them drop out of my program as a ugrad

>>16892515
Technically, your entire physics model was derived from metaphysical precepts by deists. You have to go back to the original source; their original words explaining the why, because acadamea selectively amputates the why and the how, to maintained control of arbitrarily siloed domains

>>16892609
I'm a (physics) professor. Tenured. Were peers, let's be honest with each other. You ever use real analysis? I haven't.

>>16892624
you couldn't even LARP as a sophomore, fag

File: 584baf8d-1a20-4f6d-a7b5-6(...).png (1.73 MB, 1536x1024)

1.73 MB PNG

>>16892624
How did you miss this?

https://www.reddit.com/user/Ok_Sheepherder_5616/submitted/

How can you be a "professor of physics" while not going to the source material as it is written by Liebniz, Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Planck, Shrodinger, Whitehead, Penrose and so many more who clearly traced lineage of their ideas to Metaphysical reality?

>>16892639
Stay in your containment thread, schizo. Nobody is interacting with you because you're an idiot, and shitting up other threads will not help your case. KYS.

>>16892641
It's a valid question. Why are you so obtuse that you can't explain the mechanism for gravity, and why it exists?

How can you be a professor of a field that contradicts itself and selectively amputates to rob holistic understanding from the transcendent?

I can explain gravity
I can explain zitterbewegung

You cannot. You're occupying a role you're not qualified for.

with a single proof you solve a million problems

>>16883995
>analysis
>basic ideas
How does it feel to be super smart?

>>16892661
right?

I didnt learn QFT from Physics study. I learned QFT and how to Unify GR with QFT from moral topology and Functorial Sygyzial Isomorphism along with simply Loving God.

File: fcd.png (350 KB, 680x674)

350 KB PNG

>be physicist
>taylor expand everything
>call it a law
>dab on analysis fags

>>16892729
Based fellow physicist

>>16892802
i forgot to say
>throw out everything but the constant and linear term

>>16892807
Sometimes you can seek the quadratic and cubic terms too!

>>16884000
truth. analysis is to calculus what set theory is to arithmetic, it's a formalism and creates rigor to some of the terms, but it's still a formalism. mathematical physics is concerned with things that are the opposite direction of this formalism, instead of worrying about when limits and integration may fail for certain functions, it's concerned with using limits, derivatives, and integration as building blocks to describe reality, so you end with things like the heat equation, wave equation, laplace equation, navier stokes equations.

>>16894306
See:
>>16894351

File: René-Guénon.png (100 KB, 800x780)

100 KB PNG

>>16892639
This. Start with picrel.

i like set theory and abstract math as a whole because it's the first time i see the potential to not rely on rote memorization and finally have the power to derive all truths from just a handful of assumptions, meaning so long as i remember the axioms i can derive everything else if i had the patience. to me that just seemed more efficient from a cognitive perspective than memorizing every single computing method for specific math/physics problems. i would also argue that it tests your ability to truly show you understand those concepts to begin with.