Gravity

  • 99 Replies
  • 14886 Views
?

Ising

  • 125
  • I can't hear you over the sound of my awesomeness
Re: Gravity
« Reply #90 on: March 19, 2018, 05:13:10 AM »
Does word "field" rings the bell?
Why Jane asked about "groups"?

She asked about groups, not rings.
Sorry, I'll just go kill myself now, don't mind me.

*

Macarios

  • 2093
Re: Gravity
« Reply #91 on: March 19, 2018, 05:23:46 AM »
Does word "field" rings the bell?
Why Jane asked about "groups"?

She asked about groups, not rings.
Sorry, I'll just go kill myself now, don't mind me.

No need to KYS. Just read this:

Quote
The concept of a group is central to abstract algebra:
other well-known algebraic structures, such as rings, fields, and vector spaces,
can all be seen as groups
endowed with additional operations and axioms.
(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_theory)
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

Re: Gravity
« Reply #92 on: March 19, 2018, 06:16:02 AM »
As you said, you don't have a degree in maths so there's no reason for you to have studied group theory.

Also, there's no reason for "him" (anyone) NOT to study it for own amusement. :-)

Does he need degree for it?
Someone to confirm his knowledge on paper?
He could just enjoy it, without attempts to get hired in the field.

You get the point.

-----------------------------

Fundamental or not, gravitation results in force between objects with mass.

Newton considered it fundamnetal, which means object with mass creates force field around itself.
Does word "field" rings the bell?
Why Jane asked about "groups"?

The question is not simply "do you know it?".
Ask yourself "do you know what to do with it?".

Have you ever met anyone who's studied group theory just for fun?

?

Ising

  • 125
  • I can't hear you over the sound of my awesomeness
Re: Gravity
« Reply #93 on: March 19, 2018, 06:32:54 AM »
Does word "field" rings the bell?
Why Jane asked about "groups"?

She asked about groups, not rings.
Sorry, I'll just go kill myself now, don't mind me.

No need to KYS. Just read this:

Quote
The concept of a group is central to abstract algebra:
other well-known algebraic structures, such as rings, fields, and vector spaces,
can all be seen as groups
endowed with additional operations and axioms.
(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_theory)

Why, one learns something new every day !

*

Macarios

  • 2093
Re: Gravity
« Reply #94 on: March 19, 2018, 07:28:24 AM »
Have you ever met anyone who's studied group theory just for fun?

Nope.
But I know the person who studied geology and mineralogy for fun.
My sister is linguist and doesn't need geology at all.

There is always someone whom we've never met, but know for sure they exist.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2018, 07:30:10 AM by Macarios »
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Gravity
« Reply #95 on: March 19, 2018, 08:20:20 AM »
Have you ever met anyone who's studied group theory just for fun?
Literally anyone in higher education tends to find what they do fun. Why is the idea of someone enjoying maths beyond that so strange to you?
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: Gravity
« Reply #96 on: March 19, 2018, 08:55:42 AM »
Have you ever met anyone who's studied group theory just for fun?
Literally anyone in higher education tends to find what they do fun. Why is the idea of someone enjoying maths beyond that so strange to you?

Maths is literally my life, so I find it incredibly fun to talk about but not everyone i come across has a passion for the subject to the point where they want to study it at that level. Quite a few maths teachers these days don't even have a maths degree.

The jump from GCSE to A Level is enough to put most people off, but with this particular topic most people won't have heard about groups in this context. I don't know if group theory is a minor module on other courses but I know it doesn't appear in further maths at a level so I don't know why someone would come across groups in these terms without doing the maths degree.

That being said I am using duo lingo to teach myself Spanish and that's purely for fun, so I could be wrong.

?

Ising

  • 125
  • I can't hear you over the sound of my awesomeness
Re: Gravity
« Reply #97 on: March 19, 2018, 09:18:38 AM »
Have you ever met anyone who's studied group theory just for fun?
Literally anyone in higher education tends to find what they do fun. Why is the idea of someone enjoying maths beyond that so strange to you?

Maths is literally my life, so I find it incredibly fun to talk about but not everyone i come across has a passion for the subject to the point where they want to study it at that level. Quite a few maths teachers these days don't even have a maths degree.

The jump from GCSE to A Level is enough to put most people off, but with this particular topic most people won't have heard about groups in this context. I don't know if group theory is a minor module on other courses but I know it doesn't appear in further maths at a level so I don't know why someone would come across groups in these terms without doing the maths degree.

That being said I am using duo lingo to teach myself Spanish and that's purely for fun, so I could be wrong.

Jesus, we get it, you know what groups are, get over it !

Re: Gravity
« Reply #98 on: March 19, 2018, 09:53:31 AM »
Have you ever met anyone who's studied group theory just for fun?
Literally anyone in higher education tends to find what they do fun. Why is the idea of someone enjoying maths beyond that so strange to you?

Maths is literally my life, so I find it incredibly fun to talk about but not everyone i come across has a passion for the subject to the point where they want to study it at that level. Quite a few maths teachers these days don't even have a maths degree.

The jump from GCSE to A Level is enough to put most people off, but with this particular topic most people won't have heard about groups in this context. I don't know if group theory is a minor module on other courses but I know it doesn't appear in further maths at a level so I don't know why someone would come across groups in these terms without doing the maths degree.

That being said I am using duo lingo to teach myself Spanish and that's purely for fun, so I could be wrong.

Jesus, we get it, you know what groups are, get over it !

It isn't so much about whether i know it or not, it was more about me thinking those without a degree would not know and why that would be the case.

If you look at the post I responded to it was quite a direct response.

Re: Gravity
« Reply #99 on: March 22, 2018, 10:18:04 PM »
How many distinguishable colourings of a regular triangle are there if each side can be painted one of two colours.

X is the set of all colourings of a regular triangle where each side can be coloured one of two colours. (S3,*) is the symmetry group of a regular triangle. Substitution tells you the answer is 24/6 which is 4.

This is a combinatorics problem. The ordered set X of all colourings of a triangle (regular or irregular) where each side can be coloured one of two colours is represented by the following sets, using 1 and 2 for the two colours - {1,1,1}, {1,1,2}, {1,2,1}, {2,1,1}, {1,2,2}, {2,1,2}, {2,2,1}, {2,2,2}. Indeed, being such a colouring expert, you obviously know this is the same as the number of ways of colouring any 3 things with 2 colours, whether they are triangles, have symmetry or not.

You'll note that there are only 8 possible combinations, rather then the 24 you've somehow arrived at above.

The number of symmetries isn't applicable here - "distinguishable" means that a triangle with 1 red and 2 green sides is the same as another, whichever side we choose as the red one. We reduce the ordered set to an unordered one, giving {1,1,1}, {1,1,2}, {1,2,2} and {2,2,2}.

So, well done on getting the right answer (it's not that hard), but your reasoning is rubbish. You said you used Burnside's Colouring Formula to get your answer, but your working doesn't show that at all. Given the simplicity of the question you posed, it would be ridiculous overkill to even try to apply a formula aimed at much more complex scenarios, when simple maths will cover it.

You did a dissertation as part of your bachelors degree, you say? That's very unusual. Where did you study?

I'm sure I speak for all those interested in graph and network theory to read "Groups and an Application to Colouring Problems". Why don't you post it for us, and remove all doubt about your expertise?