In article <un2j1dtt1.fsf@_delete_mvt.ie>, <PeterK@_delete_mvt.ie> wrote: >email@example.com (Frank Miles) writes: > >> I've talked >> with quite a few Ph.D. EE students who would have been mathematicians, >> except that they realized that the prospects for making a semi-decent >> salary after graduation was much better with the EE than the math >> diploma. Looking at their dissertations, one sees propositions, theorems, >> proofs,... > >And what is wrong with that?! In many DSP applications it is >imperative that theoretical understanding of the problems (and >algorithms used to solve them in practice) is achieved before any >advances can be made. People would still be stuck at the 33kbaud >modem (instead of the 56kbaud achievable now) if PhD students >hadn't proved theorems !! > >Peter "Yes I did prove a few theorems in my PhD" Kootsookos!
Absolutely nothing. I'm was simply trying to point out that the difference between math and engineering can decline as one advances (in some, but definitely not all realms of engineering). Previous postings seemed to indicate that there was some chasm between the two; I'd say there wasn't. Prolonging the time the 'average' engineer-to-be is willing to tolerate mathematical theory before seeing how it might have relevance to engineering problems is a more difficult matter. This is particularly the case when many lower level jobs, for instance using off-the-shelf digital technology, don't require the same level of skills as, for another instance, analog technologies. Engineers are often attracted to the latest technology de jure; only later will they find out that the basic mathematics and science have a greater long-term payoff in many respects.