😃

Lol, and so physics != maths only n is less than 4

😂oh god

Sure thing go ahead and upload that part, I'm calling bullshit.

@@JohnDoe_69 I don't have it saved. It happens in a few minutes or so after the end of this clip. So if you find a longer version that's where you'll find his joke.

Einstein was way more clever with words than Feynman.

Reminds me of my math professor. One time our physics professor was out for a personal emergency just before midterms, and we frantically looked for a fill in, but all the science profs were in other classes that hour, so I thought of my math prof, who had the session open, and we were just using calculus to solve motion problems anyway, and some examples in calc class were the same exact problem as we worked in physics class. So a little maneuvering, and it was approved for him to fill in. We went through the homework, and he vetted our answers ok. Then he put the next sections problems on the board, and asked for volunteers to work them. We set some variables to zero, allowing us to narrow the equation, then set the two intersecting forces to equal so we could start eliminating unneeded elements. And he said, hold on, how are you doing this, what proof do you have that these can be equal. The answer of course from a physics perspective is it doesn't matter. If I drop a rock it will accelerate from gravity until it hits the floor, then the height, and velocity will be zero. His answer was "you physics guys sure play hard, and fast with the rules of mathematics". And pointing to me, "don't you try this sh@t it MY class". Which is a basic difference. In math everything has to be proven mathematically. In physics, you use math to get you in the ballpark, then pull out a ruler, and measure it. My proof, I dropped an object, it is now resting on the floor, measured height = 0.

The actual science of logic is conversant at present only with things either certain, or impossible, or entirely doubtful, none of which (fortunately) we have to reason on. Therefore the true logic for this world is the Calculus of Probabilities, which takes account of the magnitude of the probability which is, or ought to be, in a reasonable man’s mind. -James Clerk Maxwell

@@ivankaramasov bear in mind that a lot of Einstein's quotes have been refined and beautified by numerous consecutive authors ;) at the end of this process they become crystal clear and concise, but they're not verbatim quotes, just distillation

@@vibovitold Appreciate that insight, respect.

I always thought defining the purpose of math as the pursuit of beauty is rather absurd. Very few of the great theories would have been found had it been only a better pastime for its inventors.

@@dasbloekendeschaf The way Hardy explains it, and I agree with him, is like this. Say you're a basketball player like Jordan. If you ask Jordan why he plays basketball, he may say that it produces a social good like entertainment/inspiration etc but the truth is more like 1) he is very good at basketball, 2) it is super amazingly fun to play basketball, and 3) he wants to kick everyone's ass and accomplish something in basketball. According to Hardy, those are the true reasons behind pure mathematicians doing math. They are really good at math, math provides them with an immense amount of pleasure (you can also call it pursuit of beauty or fun) and they are ambitious and want to make a name for themselves in the math community and in history. Pure math gives you a kind of immortality. We are still talking about Pythogoras and Newton etc and always will if there is civilizational continuity.. much more than we would be talking about a poet or politician or a businessman from a different era. Yeah sure, math winds up being the language of physics and the language of universe and really helps with engineering and literally every other field of human enquiry and winds up having social value but.. that's not why mathematicians do math. Nobody does math to make the world a better place. People do math for the reasons Hardy described. In a free society, people should be allowed to do things for whatever reasons they want. In a communist or state controlled society, people should let mathematicians do math because they love it and the rest of us get this positive externality.

But the book is darn expensive how did you procure a copy

@@amatya.rakshasa Ok. If we talk about the intrinsic personal motivation of some of maths greatest geniuses you are probably right. Yet what I was thinking about was that this perspective must be more of a minority given the tremendous role mathematics plays in our science and education. The overwhelming majority of people who work with it share a more pragmatic approach than the l'art pour l'art you described. At least thats how I feel as a computer science major ^^

Don't say things like "they do it to make the world a better place". That's Nonsense. No mathematician does mathematical research thinking that it will make the world a better place. Physicists may, but even then, much of their work doesn't see practical applications for some time. Those who are doing what they do to make the world a better place are doing and making real, applicable things that are not theoretical.

as opposed to: everyone in the nth camp sucks :P Camp n+1 4 da win!

he sure wasn't about to degrade physics. that'd make him a hypocrite

@@DctrBread "hippocrite"

Not really.

@@dread_nought yeah, gonna diss physics when you live in the physical world?

I have the same feeling sometimes, though I am equally divided among physics, maths, and computer science.

Maths is like a black hole. It can suck out reality

Do it. Come to the dark side. This way lies beauty and madness

@s v it’s true I used to hate math . Then I started doing math for fun some times when I listened to music . Because it’s just patterns and it’s challenging but now I’m like what’s the meaning and purpose behind it I need it to apply to something meaningful lol

@@josemenesesmontano411 Can I ask what is pattern and how you enjoy math ?

What high school was it?

@@davidstokar887 La Mirada HS, CA. Not sure why/how Feynman came to our school - I’ve always guessed that one of my classmates’ parents had a connection to Feynman, but it never occurred to ask at that time since I didn’t know who Feynman was - he was just this incredibly animated speaker who exhibited the love of math/science that I had. The title of his talk was “What is 1/2 factorial’ - he spent the lecture developing the gamma function then using it to interpolate the factorial function at 1/2.

Hello! That is so amazing that he wrote back. I am very interested in reading the contents of that letter but I am unable to find it. When I search on Google for what you have referenced here, it brings up resources that I do not have access to. Are the contents of the letter available elsewhere? Thanks!

@@ramkiranputrevu the problem you may be having is that the letter, which is only one page, appears in a box on one page and is not considered a math article per se so it isn’t referenced in the Monthly’s index. It should be findable by searching JSTORE using the reference I gave. Let me know if you still have trouble and I’ll try to figure out a workaround.

@@bookert2373 Thank you so much! I was able to read it this time. I had not realised that JSTOR allows free reading of articles. The advise that Feynman gave was so simple and straightforward. It was amazing to come across this. Is it common for professors to reply to students like that? I gather that you are a professor too and that is why I ask. Thanks again!

literal soyjack

@@neetocracy >>>/sci/

@@neetocracy that came outta nowhere

Their math is used to model, very different from pure math. We don’t use math to predict and to model. Let’s say this to put into perspective, we all know g is roughly 9.81 to physicist this number means the strength of the gravitation field, but to mathematician this is a rational number. See the difference? Either perspective is correct but in the eye of a mathematician we only want to know how consistent or how related are things within math.

yeah, that is why it's called "theoretical" physics.

I don't even believe Physicists are the group that makes math connect to the "real world", but they find physical phenomena and attempt to quantify the nature of things in mathematical form. Engineers often take the results and test the applicability of these relations in specific cases, and then throw out the specific terms that are infinitesimal in their specific case or replace them with a constant or simplified expression that will produce a useful result to solve the problem within specific parameters. For example, for most of us engineers, gravity is 9.81 m/s "down", and this gives us something useful for our problems. But to a physicist gravity is an equation that includes the mass of both objects to determine their attraction to one another, and it has to have a direction vector, when most engineering applications can just use, "down".

Good for you to realise this. We all do our jobs. But just to make sure that this is clear, mathematicians don't just come up with new axioms and theories willy-nilly (usually). If your theory doesn't solve any of the old problems, it will be hard to convince any mathematician that it's worth looking into. New mathematics is born from the fact that you solved some open problem and then bunch of other people get interested and expand the theory in search for other interesting applications. It's always a cycle: come up with something new to solve old problems, investigate the new theory on its own, create new problems, rinse and repeat.

It is easy if you are famous mathematician who already solved a lot of problems.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislaw_Ulam

Try to build a bridge(Real world!) without Mathematics. And don't tell me.....bla bla bla try to build a bridge without physics. Bridges were being built long before the "science" of Physics existed.

School mathematics is pretty much like running in laps. It's uncreative for most of the time, but you have to do it to build stamina if you wanna get into sports.

@@Ennar I completely agree with you.

This is honestly a great opinion. For me, abstract thinking doesn't directly help us to solve things but it helps us develop a logical mind. A mind that doesn't just conform to what it sees but the possibilities that may look absurd but still a good foundation for finding solutions in life. Like how computer programming/coding uses lots of abstract logic/reasoning which leads to usable GUI, touchscreens, and such

You know... after 3rd year of high school, physics is used in mathematics. Mathematics needs help from physics.

@@InvadedTalks it's the other way around. The only thing that mathematics uses is formal logic. That's not to say that physics doesn't inspire mathematics, or that physicists don't contribute to mathematical discoveries, but mathematics doesn't use physics. Help is much appreciated, though.

All physicists I've encountered with had same mindset: Math is a tool.😞

sadly ive yet to be taught math by more than two great teachers, like other forms of art not all people could understand and fully appreciate it, i suck big time in calculus but did well in more down to earth subjects like statistics and probability. ive never knew math was boring and abstract on purpose

Can high school students solve irodov

I wouldn't say "true" mathematicians, but agreed

@@axxxyxxxx5233 Can a highschool student comprehend complex analysis?

You can never travel back in time, and physics cannot help you. Genuine philosophy can help you.

@@Crazytesseract metaphysics to be precise..

@@Crazytesseract quantum physics can but in future as it is itself not well developed

But bro if you are mathematician can u create a generalosed equation of anything related to time travel. May be it can help us.

@@Crazytesseract that's what they said about flying, going to the moon, and the heliocentric model of the Solar System. Previous physical models have often been glaringly wrong, and the fact that our best models fail to join the quantum world with gravity shows just how wrong our current model is too. So just because an imperfect model says time travel is impossible, does not mean it is so.

Math problems are "word problems". Mathematicians don't use special sign language to communicate, they speak and write as normal people do :D But I get what you mean, however, you are judging what maths looks like from the perspective of high school and college freshman. A bartender that had lot's of students as customers once told me he learned to differentiate physicists from mathematicians by looking at their notes and observing that mathematicians' notes didn't contain any numbers ;)

Get a job

No

Same with me...

Are you also studying at unacademy plus?

Same with me ...I am also studying at unacademy plus

@@anshmishra5885 hey there. Can i get in touch with you?

@@manalisutar7875 hey dude. Can i get in touch with you?

Businessman: I don’t know how I get it all done!

It'a engineers who kick asses of both and do innovation which impact lives.

IT guy : i'll copy paste bit and pieces of this processes and it should work

Trivialize some variables? Let's recognize that I can replace the ODE with the number 1 in our problem because if the deflection is small the angle = tan(angle) = sin(angle) and then the equation becomes... The same thing mathematicians do all the time.

@@mr.rachetphilanthrophist601 Impact is an ambiguous word. Mathematicians will tell you that asskicking is just a trivial 3D case of what they seek to grasp.

How math is considered in both real and imaginary World

Math lets you escape your grounded reality.

@@aaaaii6511 yeah as said in video as well you can go in any dimension.

@@holdberg7729 give me a time stamp? I want to see what u mean?

@@aaaaii6511 from 1:10

so redbull = math

Managers use engineers for practical purposes!

More like managers in all fields are businessmen who through cunning and luck take the credit and glory of engineers, computer scientists, economists, architects what have you, and do nothing but exist as means of control from yours and their bosses.

It has been said that: Physics is mathematics limited by reality. Engineering is physics limited by money.

@@danielcarroll3358 there's a shorter version, "physicists dream, engineers make those dreams come true" 😂🤣

we differentiate position to get velocity and differentiate velocity to get acceleration

Not all patterns can be expressed mathematically, not just due to gaps in our knowledge, but due to certain mathematical concepts which contradict the notion that all patterns can be expressed mathematically. A few great examples of this including the "Haulting Problem" from computer science, as well as Godel's incompleteness theorems. Both of those examples show fundamental gaps in the abilities of math itself, not just human knowledge.

@@MrSephirothJenova im an absolute layman so please excuse my probable inaccuracy, but while it's true that concepts like Godel and the halting problem reveal that truth can exist beyond our ability to comprehend, to me, undecidable statements can't be said to have a "pattern" in the sense I intended. 🤔 Thinking about it, it seems to me that a statement might be fundamentally undecidable BECAUSE it lacks a pattern that can describe it; otherwise, we could. As a result, these kinds of statements are literally beyond math. If you agree/disagree I'd be interested to hear your opinion

This seems to be an interesting conversation in the making. I am commenting so I get notifications to this ;)

@@Enthos2 Well I suppose this mostly just semantics, but generally it is accepted that patterns can be both hypothetical and concrete. You don't need to know of the pattern, or even be able to express it for it to exist. If we can speak of a hypothetical pattern (such as a computer program that can determine whether another program will halt), it is a pattern, regardless if maths is able to represent it or not.

Exactly 💯💯💯

Exactly and math has been crucial in recent years to theoretical physics compared to Feynman’s era. Math provides a strong backbone to physics and the rigor is really important in the end to both fields.

Math is a tool for physics. Math is only relevant as far as it can explain physical reality

@@jackjackson39 there are uses for mathematic constructs that don't have a real world counterpart, eg quaternions

Bro similar physics is backbone for born of modern maths ( calculus, extension of trigonometry etc)

Ultimately, math is an exercise on logical arguments that spun off from a different part of philosophy than physics, though they are multually supporting, as math is grammar for many areas of human knowledge. If a subject is not (directly) applied to theorical physics, than it should have place somewhere else. Neither is physics submitted to math, because nature doesn't use numbers or is constrained to our models, instead it is the other way around.

In Chemistry, even exceptions have exceptions!

In Chemistry, even exceptions have exceptions!

I think you mean EXCEPTIONAL subject

@@sohangchopra6478 Example?

1+1 equals 2 except when 1 does not equal 1

When I first heard Feynman talk about this, I was an undergraduate math major, first learning things like real analysis and abstract algebra. And I agreed with his sentiments. But now that I'm a published research mathematician hearing this clip again for the first time in years, yeah, that part made me cringe.

i feel like anyone who's math degree is worth anything understands that math has meaning and application. what he is talking about is jerking off over theoretical things with no real world application which is a very thin and specific slice of the math pie. cue joke about how modern physics is vastly more theoretical and more often than not lacks literally any application within the foreseeable future.

Also, there must be some sort of meaning to mathematical symbols or else they wouldn't be applicable in physics to begin with. Sure, mathematicians talk about n dimensions and aren't particularly interested in n=3, but n nevertheless does represent 'possible dimensions' here. So, perhaps mathematics circumscribes possibilities whereas physics describes realities.

@@MuffinsAPlenty I'm glad I ran into you, tell me how to apply 14 dimensional maths, I've been waiting a long time for implementation.

@@PseudoSarcasm Sure, but first you tell us how to utilize the power of a black hole.

You've knowingly or unknowingly (I presume the latter) straw manned his argument. He said mathematicians don't NEED to use intuition or know what they're talking about. That's just one extra word, but it completely changes the argument. Maths can exist without the connection to physical reality, although it often is inspired from it.

Engineers and physicists often do their own proofs because they have to. Mathematicians are getting short shrift here. They also advance economic theory, chemistry, medicine, biology, ...

I know right. I think saying that mathematicians dont need proof is saying that a mechanical robot with fitted logic inside him can do mathematical research. no it cant like physics mathematics too needs a sense of direction needs the so called pictures in the head of person doing it. so is true for physics. Its strange that in todays world where research is going about interdisciplinary domains and connecting various fields people still think that physics can be detached from mathematics. I want to become theoretical physicist and as a student undergoing MS i cant stress enough the importance of properly studying mathematics like a mathematician for physics. its like using a lense you just see physics better once you know your mathematics

@@SoumilSahu you are just saying that physics needs experiments in a much convoluted way

@@SoumilSahu that's like saying that physics doesn't need to exist without classical mechanics, because every experiment is better explained using quantum mechanics. like yes, formally, physics would be no different without classical mechanics, but you're hardly a physicist if you don't know the basics. likewise, the formal structure of mathematics can get by without any intuition at all, but nobody would study it if that were the case.

Give the link in your comment

@@pravahgupta6461 I'm not sure if this is complete either but I hope it helps: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pchznbJ1ytWwhqs.html

@@pravahgupta6461 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pchznbJ1ytWwhqs.html

@@pravahgupta6461 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pchznbJ1ytWwhqs.html

@Hello there, how are you doing this blessed day?

@@edithbannerman4 Who is "@Hello"?

"physics is math with the constraint of reality" - someone on the internet

Math is just simply a tool to create a model of measurement. So called, the formula, or model of measurement.

​@@waterbuffalo867 But it is not "just".

@@ts0542 OK. let's remove the word "just" out of it. Sorry 😅

"π=3"

"They can do what they want to do"

@@brunojani7968 so can physicists. What he said can clearly be generalized to absolutely any academic field. it's entirely unsubstantiated. It's literally just an arbitrary bit of "wisdom." I suggest you look up Slavoj about his opinion on "vulgar wisdom" (spoiler: that would be all wisdom).

@Sky Gardener theoretical physicists have published plenty of completely inapplicable theorems just because they were a discovery

@Sky Gardener look up on most of the quantum mechanical interpretations, people trying to solve for quantum gravity, AdS/CFT correspondance, janus model. none of which has an application but are considered as great piece of physics.

@Sky Gardener on your later comment about mathematics. almost everything can be and is usually said about quantum mechanics. I would even argue that going by this logic quantum mechanics is more of a branch of mathematics and not physics.

" Figures don't lie but liars do figure "

As someone that used to teach mathematics in school (a pure mathematician), your teachers had the wrong approach. That way of teaching only works for maths majors and even then, you need to come up with examples, even though the examples for maths majors come from less abstract maths. You can learn a great deal of theory, but if you can't come up with examples (and counterexamples), that knowledge is pointless.

True. Even right now trying to learn mathematics online, nearly all of them do not dive into the intuition of human sense, but teach simply by the rules of math. Doing math itself is incredibly easy, but understanding why I do the things I do takes me days of thought

@@Ennar I believe that in order to understand the general case, one needs to start with the specific cases. You’re much more on the money there, frankly.

Sounds like you misunderstood the point of math, because math is not the study of the real world, but of all possible worlds.

I had the opposite experience back in school: abstracting away a lot of details made it a lot easier to think about the problems without a lot of unnecessary fluff that comes with the real world. I usually barely got passable grades in physics because a lot of the formulas seemed arbitrary and disconnected from each other leading to me constantly forgetting them all the time. Meanwhile, I could recall at least some of the steps of deriving theorems in mathematics to recall what they were, and I was fascinated enough with maths to jump far ahead of the program in many cases where proof was omitted, finding it and spending time thinking over it until understanding it.

Physicists do that everywhere.

@@schmetterling4477 well lol we dersver it jk

@@schmetterling4477 in italy happens the same

Lol, yeah, can confirm 😂😂

@@hiiamjustacoolrandomuser168 Of course, to the mathematicians the physicists are mere upstarts and noisy brats with a whiteboard who are getting way too much research money. ;-)

Using punctuation also differs us from animals

you said it very well.

No, maths is tool to explain science and any thing quantitatively

nope...maths cant explain us about universe....it just quantifies things for physics and then physics helps to reach there.....

@@confusediitian600 Yes it can. And it does. Thinking about maths like that is very old-fashioned and close-minded.

@@confusediitian600 it can. ur just too stupid to understand.

Are you implying that Feynman was a poor mathematician? LOL

No......Mathematics is the father and Physic is the new born son.......never equal

This video leaves out quite a funny line from Feynman where he concedes that the general case is important. See: watch?v=obCjODeoLVw&t=207s But here's the quote: "[...] There's a certain amount of reducing because the mathematicians have prepared these things for a wide range of problems, which is very useful. And later on it always turns out that the poor physicist has to come back and say, 'Excuse me, when you wanted to tell me about the 4 dimensions...'"

Yeah, I was gonna say, all the talk about physics being about specific cases or something you can intuit really falls apart when you start venturing into more advanced physics topics. These parts of physics AREN'T intuitive and can be extremely hard to visualise classically or model accurately without advanced mathematics. And there is a long list of useless looking math that has surprising and incredible implications for areas of physics beyond the basics. I also think he completely leaves out the possibility of a purely mathematical insight inspiring new models for physical phenomenon, instead making it sound like pure luck whenever a mathematician happens to already have a theorem ready for a specific physical case.

@@NabsterHax The Special Theory of Relativity has simple linear algebra yet it's postulates are very profound. Same is true for Hawking's black hole equations. Your idea that advanced physics require complex maths isn't true.

@@kundakaps no offense but 1) relativity’s math is not easy, it is considered very difficult, when you actually look at how the constants are derived it requires lots of very complex mathematics. on top of that it uses maxwells’ equations to justify some of its conclusions, which are no small hill to conquer either. 2) there are other areas of physics which also require immense calculations

I spot feynman - he has no glasses….

Well said

Thanks dude, I really needed it. I didn't feel anything after watching this video, but when I saw your comment my emotions bloomed and felt immediately satisfied with my life. I'm now feeling calm, life-changed, informed, inspired, heartwarmed, and I started to enjoy my life.

other 👍

That's not true. Physicists definitely are struck by certain formulae and want to dig deeper into their meaning and "reason" for existing. A nice example would be the path integral for which Feynman is famous, which has its routes in the action principle of classical physics. Physicists simply care more about connecting physical ideas rather than mathematical ones. That doesn't mean they treat all formulae as mere phenomenological models that must be made more complicated to fit more circumstances. In fact, usually the opposite has happened. Simpler and simpler formulae describe larger and larger collections of phenomena.

Damn, that makes my brain tremble.

@@nathanborak2172 right, because physicist are always need to look closely on the symbol of the formula they are using.

Had physicists “not cared about why formulas are such and such” than we wouldn’t have gotten any further than the science we knew back in the 1700s. Knowing what causes what is essential and are the building blocks to the advanced sciences we have today.

@@anonymoususer7986 beleteguese is that you?

i did

Vol 1

I see you love pain

What he wanted to say with this, is that mathematics uses symbols to denote things that can be anything. If i write 2+2 i dont know what 2 means. 2 can be apples, people, money , anything, even the "+" can change depending on what is defined.

@@vitorhugohomemmarzarotto1865 but i know what 2 means. 2 is 2

@@toniokettner4821 Mathematicians focus on the logical structures defining these objects, but they don't really care about its correspondence to real stuff

@@theunicornbay4286 not true

@@toniokettner4821 What do you mean by that? 2 is 2? Do you speak of the symbol? Of the abstract idea of a quantity in the physical world? Mathematically, 2 usually refers to succ(succ(0)) (= succ(1) = 2) Does 0 have any meaning here? Not really, it is defined to be the first natural number in the Peano axioms. The only meanings associated with it are the ones that logically follow from the axioms. Mathematics never concerns itself with real world phenomena. Mathematicians might draw inspirations from the real world for new theories and abstractions, but ultimately mathematics is an entirely decoupled construct where the only meaning the symbols have is their relationship to the rest of mathematics.

What an elegant mastery of the English language!

Mathematics use logical proofs, the development of logic is always related to philosophy since logic comes from a simplified or symbolic form of philosophical reasoning. Your terms tend to underestimate philosophy and physics to increase your personal value of mathematics: a very naive attitude towards some complex and complementary fields of knowledge.

Development of logic? Would you kindly give an example? I can see how mathematics benefit from the development of mathematical logic, that is, the study of logic within mathematics (e.g incompleteness theorem, intuitionistic logic, etc.) But what about logic in general? Thanks.

@@hteicavlidelin Logic does not depend on mathematics but on philosophical problems, nor inversely. Modal logic and Kripke semantics are a form of development of logic which comes from philosophical reasoning and not merely mathematics. I do not intend to separate, reduce nor underestimate mathematics since it has obviously helped all fields of knowledge. I just say that stating "Physics as just philosophy" is a naive and short-sighted vision of mathematics since both get benefits from each other.

​@@hteicavlidelin I just reconsidered your question, if you strictly ask for *general* development of logic, I'd say it develops as mathematics do, as the sum of every subfield or branch of it. I'd say the emergence of non-classic logics is a general development. Sorry for my latter misunderstanding, just ignore it.

@@dany97061 Well said, philosophy is essentially at the root of all knowledge!

I don’t care about everyone else’s mission. If 2 plus 2 equals 4 , then they 😅chase the numbers like everyone else.

I as an Electrical engineer can second this.

The physics courses were only a little better. They tried to solve problems with simultaneous equations that could be transformed into 1D models. It was like driving a tack with a sledge hammer. If I used the physics instructor's methods on my problems at work, or on my PE exam, I wouldn't be an engineer today because I wouldn't have finished the test or the assignment before the deadline.

Munkund Vispute It is more than that.

2 chapter of hc verma first line

No it is the language of God

Bro math is the most important subject study around the world

More like a tool