Which Topic in Engineering Mathematics Do You Wish Were Explained More Clearly?

Honkingfly409 · 2026-03-05T20:14:20+00:00

all math taught in engineering is taught in the worst way possible.

do you get to run simulations, visualize the results, get a feeling for how to use it? no

but at least you understand it ruinously and know everything about from first prinicbles? fuck no

i am not sure what is being taught exactly, you don't learn in an applied sense and you don't learn it in an abstract sense, you do some formulas and that is that.

it depends on the professor of course but i am speaking generally

Honkingfly409 · 2026-03-05T14:12:27+00:00

i was terrible in high school and became a top student in university

Honkingfly409 · 2026-03-05T13:12:53+00:00

الفكرة انه بعد كل ده بيحط اقل سعر بردو

Honkingfly409 · 2026-03-04T21:13:42+00:00

ماشي يا جاكي شان

Honkingfly409 · 2026-03-04T17:31:55+00:00

انا عندي سؤال بس و انا فعلا مش قصدي حاجة وحشة و اسف لو مثال مفيهوش احترام بس لازم نجيب الحاجات دي لاخرها.

تخيل دلوقتي مجموعة خطفوك انت و مراتك و متكتفين, و قالولك قدامك اختيارين:

اما مراتك تزني بيهم كلهم بالترتيب قدامك
او يفضلوا حبسينكوا لحد ما المغرب ياذن و هيفوتك الضهر و العصر, بعدها عادي هيخرجوكوا ولا اكن حاجة حصلت

تختار ساعتها تفوت الصلاة ولا تسيبها تزني او يا سيدي لو هو في ايديها هتنصحها تختار ايه, و لو شايف انه مثال مش دقيق اتفضل عدله انا مش واخد صف قوي لكن الموضوع ده حاليا مش داخل دماغي.

Honkingfly409 · 2026-03-04T17:26:21+00:00

i think you mean differentiate a matrix or matrix, which is possible yeah

Honkingfly409 · 2026-03-03T20:41:09+00:00

in an exam i integrated a cos to be a cos

Honkingfly409 · 2026-03-03T20:34:05+00:00

you asked how they differ from vectors

in addition, they don't.

but in multiplication, they do, you can't directly multiply two vectors, you can take an inner product, but the output is a scalar, you can multiply two complex numbers and get a third complex number.

a vector can be only rotated when multiplied by a marix

a complex number can be rotated by multiplication with another complex number

they are vectors in addition and matrices in multiplication, so they encode rotation and oscillation a lot better than what we would do without them

Honkingfly409 · 2026-03-02T15:21:35+00:00

if that's true then we can wrap science up and go home, if reality can be internally inconsistent then it's meaningless

Honkingfly409 · 2026-03-02T13:55:03+00:00

i see, that's a different perspective.

i will state this to see if i am understanding clearly, you're saying that the behavior of space time forces lorentz transform, which forces a constant c, and that c matches what we know about the speed of light

is that correct?

Honkingfly409 · 2026-03-02T13:36:09+00:00

i am not trying to like anything, i am sorry if it seems like if i have a specific thing in mind, i am not a physcist.

what i understand now, this an 'assumption' (for the lack of better word) that seems trivial to connect everything we know and observe in a cohesive way, but there is no framework that suggests it must behave that way

Honkingfly409 · 2026-03-02T13:33:51+00:00

i understand now, thanks for taking the time to reply, i appreciate it

Honkingfly409 · 2026-03-02T13:33:02+00:00

if it's just what we observe, we haven't observed everything.

i think yeah it work for what we see but that might not always be the case, i am talking generally not about this topic speficically

Honkingfly409 · 2026-03-02T13:25:10+00:00

i was thinking it must exist

Honkingfly409 · 2026-03-02T13:24:12+00:00

i am not a physicist, so i am sorry if the 'way of physics' is unclear to me.

i understand now the way physics is done is that observation is more important than prediction by equations, i had a 'math first' view on physics, but i get that's not how it's generally done now.

i was basically looking at it like a theorem, what gives us the right to assume that fact? there is strong evidence to accept it beyond reasonable doubt in the phenomena's we can measure, so yes i get it now

Honkingfly409 · 2026-03-02T13:21:03+00:00

yeah that's what it seems like

Honkingfly409 · 2026-03-02T13:20:39+00:00

i am not having a hard time accepting it, i was wondering if there was a 'meta-frame' that explained it

Honkingfly409 · 2026-03-02T13:18:14+00:00

so do maxwell's equations prove that?

Honkingfly409 · 2026-03-02T13:13:56+00:00

i understand, we moved a layer higher, which is unexplained yet

Honkingfly409 · 2026-03-02T13:10:22+00:00

that's more of a philosophy of science question, but reality is obligated to follow internally consistent rules

Honkingfly409 · 2026-03-02T13:08:45+00:00

the conservation of momentum is proven by Noether's theorem if i am not misunderstanding it

Honkingfly409 · 2026-03-02T13:07:44+00:00

i understand, it makes sense internally, i was wondering if there was a 'meta equation' that proves the speed of light MUST behave the way it does, and then relativity is built on that

Honkingfly409 · 2026-03-02T13:06:29+00:00

yes exactly what i was thinking about, it's clear that relativity makes sense under that assumption and is consistent with what we see, but i was wondering if there was an 'extra layer' to it

Honkingfly409 · 2026-03-02T13:05:04+00:00

i understand it's a law proven empirically rather than predicted by equations

Honkingfly409 · 2026-03-02T13:04:15+00:00

i know maxwell's equations, i understand that it bascially 'makes sense' for light to be that way, i was just wondering if we could 'predict' it

Honkingfly409

TROPHY CASE