lordoftheincels said:

I'm better at math than most of the population, isn't saying much though. I could get a job teaching at high school, that's about it. For theoretical maths, you can count me out.

Noone knows what physics relies on, math was invented to record patterns. Math is a convoluted attempt to record nature and predict its patterns. 2000 years from now, if civilization still exists by then, the math used to describe nature will be easy and simple. I view theoretical physics as a replacement of lack of understanding what's really going on. Instead of nailing what is actually happening, they make ever more complicated equations to try to save motions of patterns.

What they do is, they measure electrons in a lab, the data return is inaccurate and random, so they measure it like 200 times, then kind of average it out as a soup, then make guestimations based on ranges and threshold, ie. if some point of data exceeds a value then the theory is proven invalid.

Based on this method, the equations get exceedingly complex, because its trying to save undefined and vague patterns and combining it with other theories, they fail to combine properly so extraordinarily complex equations have to be created to fit with the prior flawed equations.

Logic is a separate brain region than math, I'm very good at logic and its very easy for me. Brain training exercises recognize logic is a different area of expertise than math. Logic is about choices and outcomes, ie. if I choose X will A or B be more likely to happen, its about predicting the future on a large scale. Math is small scale stuff, its about number crunching things on a small scale. On the large scale math has a larger degree of error and fails to predict complex social systems or organic things with any degree of accuracy.

Math is not nearly as easy for me, I browse wikipedia and its a large wall of text. I hate trying to learn college maths on wikipedia. I think I would have an easier time with math if I was allowed to ask questions, reading a wall of text on a website is just nonsense to me, some of the stuff seems vague and its inhuman that I have no professor to ask questions about it, its like I have multiple guesses of what it means but noone to verify if I know what it means.

You're a bit arrogant xD But you seem like a nice person overall , however i would not trust you to get a definition of what math is . The minute you try to find "proof" of something , you enter the domain of maths x) . Maths are the art of problem solving ( btw check the website Art of problem solving! they're good contest problems there). In physics usually physicist take some stuff for " acquired" ( in an axiomatic sense, they're kind of like "the laws") and try to derive further results ( there's a great example with a russian physicist , but i forgot his name , he did a good job at "axiomating" the minimum of stuff

). Basically the problem with physics is the starting point , and the hypothesis of the universe we begin with before going on a deductive reasoning , the problem is just trying to minimize the initial data , in order to maximize the credibility of the deductions , and that's what most physicist do , theories get tested after they're out , not before . Einstein predicted with his 'filthy' maths the existence of gravitational waves before we've detected them . Therefore , your definition of physics is a bit faulty X) .

And math equations are ( i'll borrow your term) "the language" in which us and the outside universe converse , they don't make stuff more complex , they just translate the outside data . When you transform a problem into pure maths , it gets easier , far more easy i would say , since in this way you are less inclined to make errors and more likely to get the issue . You also seem to forget that "solving" physics without proving why "the solution" is correct is a bit pointless , and good luck proving stuff without maths .

What you're saying about logic and maths is also completely wrong , the example you gave with A and B ressembles the domain of Game Theory in maths , or perhaps if you mean predicting the future state of a system based on its initial state , it's Chaos theory , either way what you said is fully 'mathematized". Also it's a bit harsh don't you think , to reduce maths to short term equations , eh?Numbers crunching you say x)? And also large scale error ? You should get deeper into maths , mate . If there's something which minimizes errors , it's probably maths . ( on a side note , maths didn't start with numbers , but with geometry hehe) . And also logic is the basis of maths , there's acctually a logic lesson we have in my country for highschool students in the math class in which maths are formalized , and the notion of "logical assertions" , "truth values", "relation", are introduced along with the precise definitions of 'implication" "equivalence" and other operations on logical assertions ( check it out , if you deem yourself a logician) . I think we should teach this in elementary school . Unfortunately , in most countries highschool maths is nothing but a big joke . They usually just give you an ugly/ Easy special case of something and tire you in automatic repeated exercices.

And as you might've guessed reading maths on Wikipedia is a terrible idea , and it's not doing maths . In maths you need to think , if you want me to send you some beautiful problems in maths , don't hesitate . Also if you have problems with college maths , ask your professors , or go on the Art of Problem solving community , or the maths stackexchange, or maybe just ask me . There are many math communities all around . I mean if you're really desperate just comment on a 3B1B video and you'll get answered . x)