Cubers and math

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 36445
  • Start date Start date

Do you like math?

  • No, I'm pretty bad at it

    Votes: 14 14.3%
  • Yes, i like to study math on my own

    Votes: 69 70.4%
  • Yes, and I have a major in math

    Votes: 15 15.3%

  • Total voters
    98
I’m a person who just likes math I guess. I joined Math GT in 2nd grade, and now I’m in 5th grade. I got into the cube in 4th grade. Math is fascinating, trigonometry, fractions, how Pi never ends, math is cool. Rubik’s cubes also apply with too, with fractions, ratios, and more.
 
(Soon-to-be) math major here. The stuff is fascinatin. Green's theorem is what first really cemented my love for math, it is so brilliant
what's so good about it? it's just a specific case of generalized Stokes' theorem which doesn't make assumptions about working in R^2 or R^3

anyway I did my major in Statistics so you could probably count that as math, as well as a math minor for the hell of it because I took enough courses for fun and for the stats degree. I graduated feeling like I understood even less about statistics than when I started. AP Statistics is a joke as it teaches you so little, you might as well just watch a youtube video.
 
I like maths, but am ashamed to say I do not have a major. Also @Isabellikesmaths
I’m famous! We had a discussion about this on my profile a little bit and I said the following over there: I think loads of cubers are maths nerds, not because cubing needs maths, but because people who aren’t good at maths are more likely to be intimidated by a cube and think it needs maths, so they’re less likely to learn it.
 
i cant say im good at math. theres a guy in 7th grade who knows calculus and trignometry :skull. im just a kiddo who understands the concepts easily (by asking annoying questions), which makes me like maths
(who all say math leave a 'wow')
 
I wish I did more math (such as calculus) in undergrad. I've taken Statistics, Biostatistics, and Physics (I know that's not pure mathematics, but as a science it involves plenty of math). Through Biostatistics I also got a very good introduction to R. I've taken several GIS (Geographic Information Systems) courses and work as a GIS technician. This greatly involves understanding the attributes associated with spatial data, recognizing outliers, and finding the most effective data and algorithms/tools to answer questions of spatial analysis (e.g., What percent of this local park is x soil type?, What areas of a city are readily accessible to fire services?, How are socioeconomic demographics reflective of home size?, etc.). My final project last semester was mapping out land use change throughout Chechnya (a republic in Russia) following the Second Chechen War between 1999-2009. This allowed us to both visualize and calculate that Chechnya was subject to significantly more land use change in comparison to any other republic of the North Caucasus, and we could even visualize exact areas where particular war events (e.g., bombings) occurred.

I've done Chemistry and plenty of Biology too, which both involve math for experimental design and result interpretation. One needs to estimate cell concentrations, temperatures, understand results from spectrophotometry, determine statistical significance of results (e.g., p<0.5), and the list can go on and on. In biology, I feel like contextualizing numbers and recognizing trends is extremely important. Quantitative analysis is integral for communicating and presenting results, but qualitative analysis and the ability to recognize notable trends (even if they aren't statistically significant) is equally important.

There is less math on the anthropology side of things for me, but still some depending on the subdiscipline. In biological anthropology, we have both metric analysis and visual scoring systems for estimating aspects of a biological profile including age at death and estimated biological sex (different than gender identity). These fall into ranges, but as every individual is extraordinarily different given so many variables, not everyone perfectly falls into finite categories. My focus is the more molecular side of things though, so I focus heavily on genetics and microbiology in relation to human evolution anf archaeology.
 
Last edited:
I wish I did more math (such as calculus) in undergrad. I've taken Statistics, Biostatistics, and Physics (I know that's not pure mathematics, but as a science it involves plenty of math). Through Biostatistics I also got a very good introduction to R. I've taken several GIS (Geographic Information Systems) courses and work as a GIS technician. This greatly involves understanding the attributes associated with spatial data, recognizing outliers, and finding the most effective data and algorithms/tools to answer questions of spatial analysis (e.g., What percent of this local park is x soil type?, What areas of a city are readily accessible to fire services?, How are socioeconomic demographics reflective of home size?, etc.). My final project last semester was mapping out land use change throughout Chechnya (a republic in Russia) following the Second Chechen War between 1999-2009. This allowed us to both visualize and calculate that Chechnya was subject to significantly more land use change in comparison to any other republic of the North Caucasus, and we could even visualize exact areas where particular war events (e.g., bombings) occurred.

I've done Chemistry and plenty of Biology too, which both involve math for experimental design and result interpretation. One needs to estimate cell concentrations, temperatures, understand results from spectrophotometry, determine statistical significance of results (e.g., p<0.5), and the list can go on and on. In biology, I feel like contextualizing numbers and recognizing trends is extremely important. Quantitative analysis is integral for communicating and presenting results, but qualitative analysis and the ability to recognize notable trends (even if they aren't statistically significant) is equally important.

There is less math on the anthropology side of things for me, but still some depending on the subdiscipline. In biological anthropology, we have both metric analysis and visual scoring systems for estimating aspects of a biological profile including age at death and estimated biological sex (different than gender identity). These fall into ranges, but as every individual is extraordinarily different given so many variables, not everyone perfectly falls into finite categories. My focus is the more molecular side of things though, so I focus heavily on genetics and microbiology in relation to human evolution and environmental interactions.
my brother uses R
 
Where's the "all of the above" option?

I hate it, but I also love it, but I'm terrible at it, but I majored in it, but…

For all of the math nerds, in temperature measurement is their a negative and a positive 0, or is 0 just 1 number. (Excluding kelvins of course.)
That's more of a physics question, where the answer is… you guessed it, it depends!

For everyday temperature measurements (in Celsius, or if you live on the wrong side of the planet, in Fahrenheit), +0 and −0 are one and the same.

But, at least for Celsius users, there is a significant practical difference between a temperature denoted as "+0 °C" versus a temperature denoted as "−0 °C", which is that the former actually means a temperature slightly above 0 and the latter slightly below. This matters because water is a liquid in the former case, and a solid in the latter case. As it turns out, our planet is filled with water, and knowing whether this substance is solid or liquid is often important.

There's another sense of negative temperature which I unfortunately don't understand well enough to explain, but you can read about it on Wikipedia or something.
 
Where's the "all of the above" option?

I hate it, but I also love it, but I'm terrible at it, but I majored in it, but…


That's more of a physics question, where the answer is… you guessed it, it depends!

For everyday temperature measurements (in Celsius, or if you live on the wrong side of the planet, in Fahrenheit), +0 and −0 are one and the same.

But, at least for Celsius users, there is a significant practical difference between a temperature denoted as "+0 °C" versus a temperature denoted as "−0 °C", which is that the former actually means a temperature slightly above 0 and the latter slightly below. This matters because water is a liquid in the former case, and a solid in the latter case. As it turns out, our planet is filled with water, and knowing whether this substance is solid or liquid is often important.

There's another sense of negative temperature which I unfortunately don't understand well enough to explain, but you can read about it on Wikipedia or something.

Can you tutor me through physics
 
Back
Top