High school students who are prospective college mathematics majors should take as many mathematics courses as possible while in high school. Other Skills Required Other qualifications For jobs in applied mathematics, training in the field in which mathematics will be used is very important. Mathematics is used extensively in physics, actuarial science, statistics, engineering, and operations research. Computer science, business and industrial management, economics, finance, chemistry, geology, life sciences, and behavioral sciences are likewise dependent on applied mathematics.
Mathematicians also should have substantial knowledge of computer programming, because most complex mathematical computation and much mathematical modeling are done on a computer. Mathematicians need to have good reasoning to identify, analyze, and apply basic principles to technical problems. Communication skills also are important, because mathematicians must be able to interact and discuss proposed solutions with people who may not have extensive knowledge of mathematics.
Mathematicians - What They Do - Page 2. At some schools, there is a single mathematics department, whereas others have separate departments for Applied Mathematics and Pure Mathematics. It is very common for Statistics departments to be separate at schools with graduate programs, but many undergraduate-only institutions include statistics This approach is similar to that of applied mathematics.
These four needs can be roughly related to the broad subdivision of mathematics into the study Statisticians work with theoretical and applied statistics in both the private and public sectors. The core of that work is to measure, interpret, and describe the world and human activity patterns within it.
Toggle navigation. Register Forgot password? Login Register. Mathematicians - What They Do. Math Grads Advice to New Students. Is a Math a Good Major. Is a Mathematics Major Worth It. Pros and Cons of being a Math Major. Careers with Maths and Data. Why study Financial Mathematics. What is Applied Mathematics. To prove this statement, you don't need to examine every possible instance — you merely need to exhibit a recipe for how you would construct a contradiction if you were given a solution.
The math solution is, to find out properties of the things we work with, and prove those. Then we re-search those properties for more properties we can now prove. And on those more intricate properties, we build even more complex proofs. In the case of your parking lot, the mathematician might start by asking: What do I know about this parking lot? The answer might be that it's the staging area of a factory where the finished cars are waiting to be shipped.
The natural next question would be, whether the factory actually can produce orange cars. If we find that the answer is "no", we may continue to check other possible loopholes like the question whether other cars than freshly built cars from the factory are parked there. The result is a proof along the lines of: This parking lot only contains cars of Ford model Ts, which always comes in black, so no car on the parking lot can be orange.
Ok, slightly contrived example, but you get the idea. For a look the other way round, take for example the proof that there are infinitely many prime numbers. It goes like this:. This is bullshit. It contradicts my assumption. Since I didn't make a mistake in deriving this bullshit, my assumption must be bullshit. I conclude that there is an infinite number of primes.
You see, all this proof really does, is to derive other facts from the given facts. It did not need to look at every integer. It did not need to look at each prime. Much in the same way that above we didn't even look at a single car, we just checked some properties of the parking lot to determine that there is no orange car on that parking lot.
The trouble with this method is, that we can never prove everything that's true. We can derive some astounding properties of many things we can formalize, but in the end almost all questions that are possible to ask require an infinite amount of time and space to prove them. Math is, by its very nature, restricted to those questions that have a finite proof which is actually easy enough for humans to find.
What makes mathematical statements about infinite domains work is a belief in realism, that is, a belief that these statements represent on face-value something real. If they represent something real then according to Michael Dummett this implies a belief in the principle of bivalence regarding these statements.
With realism each of these statements has a semantic content. They are either true or false even before one finds out by constructing a proof or disproof of the statement. If they have this semantic content then there is no reason not to allow the inference rules used to provide proofs or disproofs of these statements to include the law of the excluded middle reflecting the principle of bivalence about these statements. For an anti-realist the situation is different.
These mathematical statements are not true until one has constructed a proof of the statements. Furthermore, the inference rules used in those proofs cannot include the law of the excluded middle since that assumes a belief that the statements are true or false prior to providing a proof. The choice of being a realist or an anti-realist regarding mathematical statements does not carry much significance for most people. This may be another reason why such mathematics works or why such statements are culturally acceptable: there is little at stake for most people one way or the other.
However, the choice between realism and anti-realism may not involve such cultural indifference for all classes of statements.
For example, consider statements about the future. Does the principle of bivalence apply to statements about the future now or do we have to wait and see what actually happens? If these statements represent a reality about the future, then there are no alternate paths for us to take, we have no free will and determinism is true.
That would be a cultural motivation for rejecting realism about that class of statements. This question sort of leads in two directions. The first direction is proof theory , which describes how mathematical proofs work.
They formalize a process of manipulating statements according to a set of rules, much like a game. Reach the statement you wish to reach, and you win the game.
There are many games out there, with different sets of rules. Some of those rule sets permit making sweeping statements about sets of objects, or even classes of objects.
For example, many proofs use mathematical induction, a rule that permits a mathematician to condense an infinite number of steps into one, provided it fits the precise shape of that rule. The more interesting question leads in the other direction: why does mathematics seem to be so darn good at being applicable in real life? And, frankly, mathematics has a curiously good track record for being able to be applied this way.
Some of this is simply a matter of how long we've been developing it. We've had a lot of time to hone it. There's plenty of other ways to get reliable information besides mathematics. In particular, wisdom often does not rely on such games. You may find an old man who simply nods and says "Yep, there's an orange car in a handicap spot. Here, I can take you to it. Now when mathematics reaches out to the larger and larger reaches, such as dabbling with infinity, it gets harder to test it empirically.
Indeed there are some who play by rulesets that disagree with modern math constructivists, in particular, play with a much more strict ruleset which does not permit as many infinite steps tucked away like we tend to do. The final reason I'd consider for why math is so effective is known as reverse mathematics. This is the study of how little one needs to assume to make the proofs work. This looks at what happens as we refuse to make assumptions about how the universe works.
Each time we drop an assumption, we gain the ability to describe a larger set of possible operations with which to model reality. As we grasp at the faint edges of mathematics, we find its hard to come up with counterexamples showing that a model doesn't work. This, while not quite philosophical, has a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy bit to it. Suppose we want to determine whether one of the cars is both orange and not orange see note.
I don't think anyone would need to go through the parking lot or even give so much as a cursory look to any of the cars. We can do the same thing for a mathematical problem as we do for your parking lot problem. Suppose we want to know how many even integers there are. Well, we could just go through the set of integers.
We wouldn't finish the job but we wouldn't finish a parking lot problem either if the parking lot had an infinite number of cars in it. And, for maths problems, it is simpler for some of them to just count on our fingers than to try and solve the thing logically. It is a mathematical problem since there is likely a logical solution to it, but, like your parking lot problem, it is also one you can solve using an algorithm because it is a finite problem.
However, it is precisely the method you use to solve a problem which is either mathematical or not mathematical. Mathematics is both logical and formal. It is also fundamentally an abstraction and therefore a generalisation. The same theorem applies to an infinity of possible concrete situations. Logic isn't specific to mathematics. Any problem we solve requires some logic.
Formalisation isn't specific to mathematics either. But mathematics involves these three aspects. It is also an extreme form of generalisation. Science also relies on abstraction: a necessarily small set of observations and experiments make the basis for generalising to a particular type of phenomena.
Mathematics goes well beyond that. The same mathematical theorem or theory will potentially apply to very different species of phenomena. You can count cows just as much as atoms, and the whole of arithmetic applies just as well to cows as to atoms. This in turns requires that mathematics, unlike science, completely ignores empirical evidence except of course, if it is applied mathematics. So, mathematics is a discipline where people assume abstract premises, often called axioms, expressed in as rigorous a way as possible using an often specially made-up formalism and go on logically inferring from that perfectly abstract and formal conclusions, i.
Something only mathematics and Aristotelian logic can do. There is also a number of mathematical problems that still don't have any known mathematical solution. One of the most well-known and perplexing example, given its apparent simplicity, is that of the prime numbers.
A prime number n is a natural number, i. For example, 2, 5, 17, 53 are prime numbers. However, there is as yet no known formula to identify all prime numbers.
We don't know of any algorithm listing all prime numbers. Of course, mathematicians are perfectly capable of deciding whether one particular number is or not a prime. However, what they seem interested in is a formula for listing all primes. They already have discovered various formulas to identify a number of subsets of all primes. But no general formula yet. Existing formulas leave out an infinity of prime numbers.
You have one parking lot with an infinity of cars and you also have several infinite lists of orange cars together with their location in parking lot. This is a lot of orange cars you know where they are. However, there is still an infinity of orange cars not on any of your lists, somewhere in the parking lot you don't know where. Thus, for an infinity of cases, to know whether a number n is a prime or not, you have to use your parking lot procedure to try and see if it is or not divisible by any of the natural numbers between 1 and n.
This is a cumbersome procedure. A formula would be much more convenient, be less exhausting, give the result faster and with less risk of error. Discovering whether one number is a prime or not, however, is not the job of mathematicians. The job of mathematicians is to find the general formula once the premise of the definition of prime numbers is accepted and given all other accepted premises relative to numbers.
Cars could be painted not at all with orange paint but looking orange from a distance for example Yes, what colour things are is nothing like a black-and-white issue However, I did say " orange and not orange ", not something else. So, let's assume cars may be painted with yellow and red dots all over and look orange from a distance.
Even then cars will either be orange or not orange, and this whatever criterion you decide to use to assess whether a car is " orange ". The argument that red and yellow dots would make a car both orange and not orange, which would therefore make the predicate " orange and not orange " true is the fallacy of equivocation. The equivocation is in having, if only implicitly, two different criteria to assess whether a car is orange.
You can't do that. You have to use the same criterion not only for all cars but for "orange" and for "not orange". The criterion may be " looks orange to me ", or " is painted with orange paint all over ", or indeed anything at all, like, is painted black , or " smells good ".
This is how, and indeed why, logic works. But it will only work if you use it to begin with. Mathematics works because mathematics has a defined set of rules for manipulating mathematical symbols and entities.
If we start with a specific mathematical phrase, we apply the rules in some sequence to achieve different mathematical phrases until we reach an outcome we want a contradiction, a scope limitation, a relation If there were solid rules for how people parked cars — e. In other words, if we know rule 3 holds, and we know the parking lot has no blue signs, then we would know without ever getting out of our chairs that there are no orange cars in it.
Likewise, if we do something in mathematics where we do not know an obvious rule, then we are always reduced to brute-force counting methods.
If we don't know the binomial theorem, then the only way to calculate probabilities is to list out and count every possible permutation of a random event.
A 'proof' is nothing more than the logical manipulation of symbolic rules. When we have such rules, proofs are possible; when we don't, they're not. But rules of this sort are a mixed blessing. The more tightly defined rules are, the more restricted the domain of inquiry. Do we want a world in which we are always obliged to park our orange cars net to blue signs, just to make the lives of parking control officers more systematic? Something that's pretty important to state is that it's not easy!
Fermat's Last Theorem took a while to prove, and while what the statement means is to some extent a trivial consequence of its phrasing in first order logic, we didn't actually know whether or not it was a true statement for about years before it was eventually proved. The epistemology of Mathematics has a long and complicated literature, but broadly speaking, logical reasoning is our most important tool for apprehending its facts and objects.
From foundational axioms, we apply rules of inference to derive new statements of fact about the domains we take the axioms to describe. The structure of rules and derivations we call Proof, and the new statements that we have derived are call Theorems. If we take mathematical axioms to describe privileged domains, then our understanding of the different kinds of systems of inference we might use will be informed by how we generally observe those domains to behave, or how we want those domains to behave in order to put them to effective use.
It doesn't contribute to a complex understanding of the world. Math is often studied as a pure science, but is typically applied to other disciplines, extending well beyond physics and engineering. For instance, studying exponential growth and decay the rate at which things grow and die within the context of population growth, the spread of disease, or water contamination, is meaningful.
In a similar vein, a study of statistics and probability is key to understanding many of the events of the world, and is usually reserved for students at a higher level of math, if it gets any study in high school at all.
But many world events and phenomena are unpredictable and can only be described using statistical models, so a globally focused math program needs to consider including statistics. Probability and statistics can be used to estimate death tolls from natural disasters, such as earthquakes and tsunamis; the amount of aid that might be necessary to help in the aftermath; and the number people who would be displaced.
Understanding the world also means appreciating the contributions of other cultures. In algebra, students could benefit from studying numbers systems that are rooted in other cultures, such the Mayan and Babylonian systems, a base 20 and base 60 system, respectively.
They gave us elements that still work in current math systems, such as the degrees in a circle, and the division of the hour into 60 minute intervals, and including this type of content can help develop an appreciation for the contributions other cultures have made to our understanding of math. In geometry, for example, Islamic tessellations — shapes arranged in an artistic pattern — might be used as a context to develop, explore, teach and reinforce the important geometric understandings of symmetry and transformations.
Students might study the different types of polygons that can be used to tessellate the plane cover the space without any holes or overlapping and even how Islamic artists approached their art. Here, the content and the context contribute to an understanding of the other. More importantly, students will be able to use data to draw defensible conclusions, and use mathematical knowledge and skills to make real-life impact.
By the time a student graduates high school, he or she should be able to use mathematical tools and procedures to explore problems and opportunities in the world, and use mathematical models to make and defend conclusions and actions. The examples here are just a sampling of how it could be done, and they can be used to launch content-focused conversations for math teachers.
Then, the challenge is finding genuine, relevant and significant examples of global or cultural contexts that enhance, deepen and illustrate an understanding of the math. The global era will demand these skills of its citizens—the education system should provide students the wherewithal to be proficient in them.
In Asia Society International Studies Schools , all high school graduates are expected to demonstrate a mastery of mathematics. Students work on skills and projects throughout their secondary education.
At graduation, students have a portfolio of work that includes evidence of:. Unsupported Browser Detected. Understanding the World Through Math.
0コメント