b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » Message 10008887 (Thread)

# Graph theory isn't maths, that's just playing around with crayons
AND NOTHING EULER CAN SAY WILL CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE. Hmmph.

Actually I really liked graph theory, probably because it involved playing around with crayons. I remember one module I liked even more, which we called 'taxicab geometry', it's where you work with a totally discrete 2D geometry where the only parts that exist are the intersections of gridlines. Then you see what happens to normal geometry. Circles become tilted squares, ellipses become diamonds, parabolae become weird things like parallel tracks with a triangle stuck on the end, and hyperbolae are boringly little changed.

That was fantastic stuff.
(, Fri 16 Apr 2010, 18:04, archived)
# Euler is old school. It's all about Erdös nowadays...
(, Fri 16 Apr 2010, 18:15, archived)
# Erdos is old school
nowadays its all about Terrence muthafucking Tao.

Green-Tao theorem. Epic.
Ben Green lectured me.
(, Fri 16 Apr 2010, 20:48, archived)
# Hmm.
So it's like an embedding of geometry in a discrete grid er... topology thing.

Sounds a bit like chemical graph layout, except that is usually a hexagonal grid.
(, Fri 16 Apr 2010, 18:27, archived)
# Yep.
No idea what it's properly called. I thought it would be discrete geometry but I bought the Schaum outline of discrete geometry and...... it was gash, nothing to do with it. :(
(, Fri 16 Apr 2010, 19:43, archived)
# I prefer graph theory and the like to...
statistics
Oh how I loathe statistics and probability.
(, Fri 16 Apr 2010, 18:29, archived)
# ^ This
The stats and probability half of my A level was modular. I did the exams and then burned the notes. I have, of course, spent the ensuing 15 years of my life first doing quantum mechanics, which is basically continuous probability theory patched onto classical mechanics patched onto linear algebra, and then doing a PhD in what was meant to be general relativity and turned out to be a bunch of fucking STATISTICS.

I take great pride in the fact that I have a PhD in, effectively, statistics and am about to put out another paper with the word "statistics" in the title, have taught "statistical" mechanics to Masters level and still don't have the faintest fucking clue what statistics is all about.

I am also aware that probably no-one will read this reply given that it's about 90 minutes late. But I don't care. That's how we geeks roll.
(, Fri 16 Apr 2010, 19:46, archived)
# I read it
but I'm a geek too.
(, Fri 16 Apr 2010, 20:07, archived)
# \o/
(, Fri 16 Apr 2010, 20:21, archived)