political science job rumors

Things may get weird. Trying to fix the problems.

1. BMandeville
   .edu verified member

   Level of mathematical proof is considerably higher in some parts of economics -- particularly in the use of fixed-point theorems, notably the Kakutani fixed point theorem, a generalization of the classical Brouwer fixed point theory from real analysis -- in general equilibrium models. One rarely if ever sees anything comparable in political science.

   Godel's theorem, by the way, states that there are some propositions in any non-trivial formal system that are unprovable, not that all are unprovable. "1+1 = 2" is proveable (albeit in multiple ways, depending on where you want to start axiomatically). For arguments about systems where all propositions are unprovable, see the qualitative methods thread...

   Posted 3 years ago #

2. Tulsa_Luck
   .edu verified member

   But the "real" question is: can you prove that turnips aren't posting on PSJR? Can you prove a negative? :)

   Posted 3 years ago #

3. Barnaby Jones
   .edu verified member

   Sucking ****.

   But seriously, statistics. Entering your program with a working knowledge of OLS and MLE methods will put you at a significant advantage over some of your cohort and it will certainly reduce your stress levels while everyone else is panicking through Intro to Stats.

   Posted 3 years ago #

4. anonymouse
   Member

   "Sucking ****."

   That's more of a general life skill, not one specific to academia. Perhaps 'kissing arse' is a more gender-neutral way to put it. Or 'interpersonal skills'.

   Posted 3 years ago #

5. Anonymous.
   Member

   Godel's theorem, by the way, states that there are some propositions in any non-trivial formal system that are unprovable, not that all are unprovable. "1+1 = 2" is proveable [etc.]

   Sorry, my allusion was not precise enough: I was not saying that "no one knows if 1+1=2" because of Gödel's theorem. I was referring to the fact that the demonstration for "1+1=2" is buried deep in Bertrand Russell's <i>Principia Mathematica</i> on page 350, a book so obscure that Russell used to joke that no one ever read it except for Kurt Gödel (apocryphal). If you want to take a look at the demonstration, here it is.

   Posted 3 years ago #

6. anonymoushero
   Member

   What about differential equations, set theory, and stochastic calculus?

   Posted 3 years ago #

7. oasis
   Member

   Does anyone actually use Fourier transformations? Or spectral densities?

   Posted 3 years ago #

8. Anonymous
   Unregistered

   Reviving an old thread here with three questions. First, I saw the LaTex tutorial posted, but is there a different one for BibTex specifically, or is learning LaTex sufficient and transferable to anything else I'd need to do?

   Second, regarding python: is it really worth learning? I don't know any programming languages, so I'm wondering whether it is worth it to try to learn.

   Third, the PATE method mentioned above: I can't find anything about it online, although it is mostly self-explanatory. Do people skim articles, read specific sections in depth, skip entire sections or what? I get that PATE is to help you summarize articles quickly, but the reading is what takes up the bulk of my time. What methods do you use to cut down on that time and still get the point and what you need out of the article?

   Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply