#### Topic: Analog Landau Lifshetsa in the mathematician

Whether there is an analog of Landau Lifshetsa in the mathematician? Or m. A dial-up of textbooks of different authors making .

You are not logged in. Please login or register.

Whether there is an analog of Landau Lifshetsa in the mathematician? Or m. A dial-up of textbooks of different authors making .

Hello, RBender, you wrote: whether RB> There is an analog of Landau Lifshetsa in the mathematician? RB> or m. A dial-up of textbooks of different authors making . There is no also a such cannot be. The modern mathematics much more the modern physics.

Hello, RBender, you wrote: RB> Or m. A dial-up of textbooks of different authors making . It is possible to look at the books mentioned in the program of Mishi Verbitsky: http://imperium.lenin.ru/~verbit/MATH/programma.html

Hello, the Miner, you wrote: There is no also a such cannot be. Well it is possible to recall works of the Bourbaki. As "minimum" quite descends.

Hello, wildwind, you wrote: W> Well it is possible to recall works of the Bourbaki. As "minimum" quite descends. As the textbook of the Bourbaki do not approach absolutely. And mathematicians envelop only a small part even modern it.

Hello, the Miner, you wrote: There is no also a such cannot be. The modern mathematics much more the modern physics. From what suddenly?

Hello, DreamMaker, you wrote: DM> Hello, the Miner, you wrote:>> There is no also a such cannot be. The modern mathematics much more the modern physics. DM> from what suddenly? It is a question or objection?

Hello, DreamMaker, you wrote:> There is no also a such cannot be. The modern mathematics much more the modern physics. DM> from what suddenly? The flight of fancy is restricted by nothing, it is possible "to come in any direction". Here also come.

Hello, D. Mon, you wrote:>> There is no also a such cannot be. The modern mathematics much more the modern physics. DM>> from what suddenly? DM> the flight of fancy is restricted by nothing, it is possible "to come in any direction". Here also come. On the one hand it so, but on the other hand the physics quits on application-oriented things and there there are knowledge and information tons. The mathematics - wide, physics - deep well here is admissible we take classical electrodynamics. It uses rather simple mathematics which can be stated in one not so thick textbook. And here the electrodynamics in practice has enormous application and consequently there is a huge heap of knowledge and the information, ton of books and so on. It is possible to compare simply educational , used for preparation of the physicist and the mathematician - it is assured that it is values of one order.

Hello, the Miner, you wrote:>> There is no also a such cannot be. The modern mathematics much more the modern physics. DM>> from what suddenly? It is a question or objection? Objection.

Hello, DreamMaker, you wrote: DM> Hello, the Miner, you wrote:>>>> There is no also a such cannot be. The modern mathematics much more the modern physics. DM>>> from what suddenly?> It is a question or objection? DM> objection. But that is it is your incorrect point of view.

Hello, DreamMaker, you wrote: DM> Hello, D. Mon, you wrote:>>>> There is no also a such cannot be. The modern mathematics much more the modern physics. DM>>> from what suddenly? DM>> the flight of fancy is restricted by nothing, it is possible "to come in any direction". Here also come. DM> on the one hand it so, but on the other hand the physics quits on application-oriented things and there there are knowledge and information tons. The mathematics - wide, physics - deep DM> well here is admissible we take classical electrodynamics. It uses rather simple mathematics which can be stated in one not so thick textbook. And here the electrodynamics in practice has enormous application and consequently there is a huge heap of knowledge and the information, ton of books and so on. What is Young-Millsa theory, you are finite, do not know. The mathematics is deeper than physics, and much more. As a matter of fact, the classical electrodynamics has been constructed by Maxwell only because he noted that the equations of an electromagnetic field written from the physical phenomena known at that point in time, not the Hamilton. To correct this lack, it it is artificial from a head one member added. Then the correct equations turned out. before to argue on a subject, learn .

Hello, the Miner, you wrote:>>>> There is no also a such cannot be. The modern mathematics much more the modern physics. DM>>>> from what suddenly?>> It is a question or objection? DM>> objection. But that is it is your incorrect point of view. No, it is your incorrect sight at my true point of view. Something more informative is what to tell?

Hello, DreamMaker, you wrote:> There is no also a such cannot be. The modern mathematics much more the modern physics. DM> from what suddenly? For example that the subject of learning of physics is initially restricted by the nature while the mathematics is restricted only human mind. Fundamental laws of the nature, mandatory for learning by any physicist, not too it is a lot of. In the mathematician in essence new important ideas arise "from anything" and "breaks" can be result of activity literally one person (compare to the same the TANK). It does not mean that the mathematics is better"than physics or on the contrary. Simply it is very different, though occasionally and tightly connected, sciences.

Hello, Qbit86, you wrote: Q> It is possible to look at the books mentioned in the program of Mishi Verbitsky: http://imperium.lenin.ru/~verbit/MATH/programma.html In view of that Verbitsky's scientific interests are original enough and rather far from "mainstream", I with care would follow its recommendations.

Hello, DreamMaker, you wrote: DM>> the Flight of fancy is restricted by nothing, it is possible "to come in any direction". Here also come. DM> on the one hand it so, but on the other hand the physics quits on application-oriented things and there there are knowledge and information tons. Mathematics - wide, physics - deep And how to lead boundary between physics and mathematics? All physics is formulated and works through mathematics, it is possible to tell that it is simply small application-oriented part of mathematics. And except physics in the mathematician there is still a heap of pure and absolutely abstract areas. Everyone it is unlimited extensive and on complexity level quite often much more abruptly. DM> it is possible to compare simply educational , used for preparation of the physicist and the mathematician - it is assured that it is values of one order. To preparation for what? On a University/postgraduate study output always it turns out narrow , understanding only one subject to some extent, i.e. understanding a tiny part of all science. And it if carries. And more often - not understanding even in it. Therefore such comparing compares nothing.

Hello, D. Mon, you wrote: DM> Hello, DreamMaker, you wrote: DM>>> the Flight of fancy is restricted by nothing, it is possible "to come in any direction". Here also come. DM>> on the one hand it so, but on the other hand the physics quits on application-oriented things and there there are knowledge and information tons. Mathematics - wide, physics - deep DM> And how to lead boundary between physics and mathematics? All physics is formulated and works through mathematics, it is possible to tell that it is simply small application-oriented part of mathematics. And except physics in the mathematician there is still a heap of pure and absolutely abstract areas. Everyone it is unlimited extensive and on complexity level quite often much more abruptly. DM>> it is possible to compare simply educational , used for preparation of the physicist and the mathematician - it is assured that it is values of one order. DM> to preparation for what? On a University/postgraduate study output always it turns out narrow , understanding only one subject to some extent, i.e. Understanding a tiny part of all science. And it if carries. And more often - not understanding even in it. Therefore such comparing compares nothing. And here V.I.Arnold said that "the mathematics is that part of physics in which experiments are cheap". And still that it is harmful to mathematics.

Hello, 31415926, you wrote: 3> In view of that Verbitsky's scientific interests are original enough and rather far from "mainstream", I with care would follow its recommendations. It, like as, is the list collected and by means of inquiries of other mathematicians (I such inquiries about it saw, anyway) so recommendations are reliable enough, it seems to me.)

Hello, jahr, you wrote: J> It, like as, is the list collected and by means of inquiries of other mathematicians (I such inquiries about it saw, anyway) so recommendations are reliable enough, it seems to me.) About it I know nothing. But the list will quite be coordinated with subjects of its operations, in a case of that on arxiv.org. It is assured that the list of algebraic geometer was very strongly another, and the expert in partial equations or probability theory - absolutely another.

Hello, 31415926, you wrote: 3> Hello, DreamMaker, you wrote:>>> There is no also a such cannot be. The modern mathematics much more the modern physics. DM>> from what suddenly? 3> for example that the subject of learning of physics is initially restricted by the nature while the mathematics is restricted only human mind. At the same time human mind if it nothing to direct, is not too inventive also in itself is restricted enough. 3> in the mathematician in essence new important ideas arise "from anything" and "breaks" can be result of activity literally one person (compare to the same the TANK). All these breaks (or nearly so all) are made in the directions prompted by physics, chemistry etc., in general, the nature. 3> it does not mean that the mathematics is better"than physics or on the contrary. Simply it is very different, though occasionally and tightly connected, sciences. Here you will not argue.

Hello, wildwind, you wrote: 3>> In the mathematician in essence new important ideas arise "from anything" and "breaks" can be result of activity literally one person (compare to the same the TANK). W> All these breaks (or nearly so all) are made in the directions prompted by physics, chemistry etc., in general, the nature. Yet really? Here number theories and algebraic geometry which were central in 20 century - that there prompted the nature? About the theory of sets and logic theory and there is nothing to speak. Yes even in 19 century - operations of Cauchy, Weierstrass, Lebesgue and Riemann had to natural sciences rather and rather remote relation. Here is how "nature" could motivate activity on giving of severity to analysis bases? Physicists till now not very much with questions of convergence of rows. It seems that at you rather restricted representation about the mathematician.

**Random topics**