which poker pro is the most educated ?

[thehotspur]

[ QUOTE ]
I've thought about this one long and hard... and i've come to my conclusion.
the most educated poker pro is Brad Booth. The most educated at buying into that High Stakes Poker TV show with a Cool Million Educated

[/ QUOTE ]

Never ever ever attempt humour again.

[PLO8FaceKilla]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've thought about this one long and hard... and i've come to my conclusion.
the most educated poker pro is Brad Booth. The most educated at buying into that High Stakes Poker TV show with a Cool Million Educated

[/ QUOTE ]

Never ever ever attempt humour again.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're absolutely right. Next time ill run it by you first and make sure you find it acceptable.

I don't know what the hell i was thinking.

[Budget Boy]

pretty sure its Chad Batista

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But the toughest part is the math. So, I think a doctorate in EE, ME, ChemE, (don't know about CE,SE,PE,etc.), math, stat, CS, hard science trumps most else (maybe not MD) because you can't hide from the math -- either you figure it out, or you flunk out.


[/ QUOTE ]

Math can be tough, but by your sophomore year, it's behind you. I know people that got PhDs in engineering that didn't have to take any more math. I think the advanced engineering degrees require a lot of work in your effort of your specialty, but the most challenging stuff was in undergrad, especially since you don't have a choice to avoid the stuff you don't like. After that, you're spending a lot of time on the parts that you really enjoyed and were good at (which is different than saying it's easy).

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't necessarily true at all. I have an M.S. and a Ph.D. in aerospace engineering. My general research area is control theory (which is one of the major specialties among aerospace engineering grad students), so much of my coursework was graduate level math. Even most of the graduate engineering courses I took were basically math courses taught by the engineering dept, and were presented in a "theorem-proof-theorem" format.

At the advanced undergrad level, many aerospace engineering courses are essentially applied math. This includes flight controls (linear algebra, systems theory, and integral transforms), fluid dynamics (partial differential equations), and structural analysis (finite elements, modal analysis).

[davidlong14]

Andy Bloch

[highhustla]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no name professionals who are highly educated. Computer science and engineering degrees are only applied mathematics. They are middle range degrees. A Law or Medicine degree is 3 times more difficult to achieve. And any dumbo can become a patent attorney. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Leveling??? Otherwise wow.....just wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

wtfff @ bold part (bolded by me). Are you implying that theoretical math is higher education than applied math?

EE's are so much better at math than math majors it's not funny.

Middle range degrees, LOL! What "high end" undergrad are you supposed to get before you become a doctor or lawyer? Think that through.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually wonder if some of you guys have any idea of the difference between pure and applied mathematics...

And for those who really want to know:

Mathematics is both an art and a science, and pure mathematics lies at its heart. Pure mathematics explores the boundary of mathematics and pure reason. It has been described as "that part of mathematical activity that is done without explicit or immediate consideration of direct application," although what is "pure" in one era often becomes applied later. Finance and cryptography are current examples of areas to which pure mathematics is applied in significant ways.-http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/PM_Dept/What_Is/what_is.shtml

Applied mathematics is a branch of mathematics that concerns itself with the mathematical techniques typically used in the application of mathematical knowledge to other domains. - Wikipedia.

Applied math is simple, compared to theoretical math. Very few people can succeed at it because it involves the creation of mathematics. The idea of "sets", for example, has been around less than 110 years. Applied mathematicians merely make deductions from what theoretical mathematicians have created. Ask Chris Ferguson, David Sklansky or Barry Greenstein if you don't believe me. Or read, 'A Mathematicians Apology' by G. H. Hardy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, yes, we do. Do you, because it sure the f doesn't sound like it? (see bold) What you're saying is not that hard to understand, and no, I don't believe you. Applied math pushes the boundaries of "pure" math at least as much as vice versa. I think history backs me up here, with a lot of the most influential mathematicians being computer scientists, physicists, etc. The advanced abstract ideas came from SOMETHING in the first place.

The abstract mathematicans are masturbating so far off in their own little world, they haven't the slightest clue how their ideas will contribute anything to the world at all. You can argue this is besides the point, and yeah, it is sorta--but actually USING your ideas is a greater test of intellect than just masturbating with them, IMHO.

And of course all mathematicians, scientists, and engineers are going to be biased towards themselves.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Mathematician's_Apology:

[ QUOTE ]
A Mathematician's Apology is a 1940 essay by British mathematician G. H. Hardy. It concerns the aesthetics of mathematics with some personal content, and gives the layman an insight into the mind of a working mathematician. It is ,however , a very individual view as Hardy's opinions are not universally held by mathematicians.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
pretty sure its Chad Batista

[/ QUOTE ]

[PLO8FaceKilla]

Tomer Benvenisti with Brian Watkins sitting at a close 2nd.

[tame_deuces]

Wow, this is like watching bodybuilders comparing biceps. High degree academics may be hard on on the 'only a small portion of the people do it', but it isn't scaling the K2 hard and minimal cutting edge academics is required to get a degree - it is mostly about plowing acceptable fields of study compared to your current 'position' in the academic hierarchy.

With means and will getting a degree is far from spectacular, and comparing the degrees themselves as something reflection a person's mental faculties is moot, you have to atleast review their academic work to do something like that.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no name professionals who are highly educated. Computer science and engineering degrees are only applied mathematics. They are middle range degrees. A Law or Medicine degree is 3 times more difficult to achieve. And any dumbo can become a patent attorney. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Leveling??? Otherwise wow.....just wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

wtfff @ bold part (bolded by me). Are you implying that theoretical math is higher education than applied math?

EE's are so much better at math than math majors it's not funny.

Middle range degrees, LOL! What "high end" undergrad are you supposed to get before you become a doctor or lawyer? Think that through.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually wonder if some of you guys have any idea of the difference between pure and applied mathematics...

And for those who really want to know:

Mathematics is both an art and a science, and pure mathematics lies at its heart. Pure mathematics explores the boundary of mathematics and pure reason. It has been described as "that part of mathematical activity that is done without explicit or immediate consideration of direct application," although what is "pure" in one era often becomes applied later. Finance and cryptography are current examples of areas to which pure mathematics is applied in significant ways.-http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/PM_Dept/What_Is/what_is.shtml

Applied mathematics is a branch of mathematics that concerns itself with the mathematical techniques typically used in the application of mathematical knowledge to other domains. - Wikipedia.

Applied math is simple, compared to theoretical math. Very few people can succeed at it because it involves the creation of mathematics. The idea of "sets", for example, has been around less than 110 years. Applied mathematicians merely make deductions from what theoretical mathematicians have created. Ask Chris Ferguson, David Sklansky or Barry Greenstein if you don't believe me. Or read, 'A Mathematicians Apology' by G. H. Hardy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on this, it would have to be Matt Damon, obv.

NCAces