Math is a tool, a language of sorts. Having a math background does not magically allow to "understand" anything, and in particular not ML.
-
And math will not do the understanding for you. If it did, mathematicians would dominate the field of ML, which they most definitely do not.
In my experience, physicists tend to convert to ML more easily than people from a math or stats background. Interesting to note.
-
-
Would you say the same principle applies to discovery of new methods? Obviously plenty of overlapping concepts (LI, Complex, etc)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
we, physicist, tend to prefer understanding problems intuitively and then applying maths to go deeper. The same happens in ML
-
is that the same as observe, guess a thesis, try and fail (repeat)?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
true. They are used to work with complex systems.
-
Many physics dissertations also involve large data sets and statistical models. Most math dissertations don't.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
it is not interesting because physicists and MTeachers are essentially reverse engineers, while mathematicians are idealists
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Why does one need to convert? Is it some sort of religion?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
maybe the mathematicians just don't care?
-
that's the most likely explanation. Most of the math behind ML is trivial. It barely goes beyond "calculus I".
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
late to the party, but I DO feel that more mathematicians could mean more theory for ML, in particular, for deep learning.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.