@MGOwner what do you reckon? I reckon the human bladder cannot hold a sufficient quantity of piss to make a realistic Rush disc using the steps outlined above.
Going the other way my work experience was that hot-headedness and spikiness increased steadily from mathematicians to life scientists (that was as far as I got - Psych and Soc never applied for access to great big lasers, thank goodness). TBH I only came across mathematicians in the theory groups and they were so hard to distract from their work that it wasnât clear whether they got on with their colleagues or not.
It was Lord Rutherford who said âAll science is either physics or stamp-collectingâ. They invited candidates to âdiscussâ that on the Oxford Entrance Exam the year I sat it. I picked other questions.
There should be two mathematicians in the graphic.
I knew a woman who was a mathematician, every time I asked her a maths question she would say âDonât ask me, that is applied mathsâ
I never really understood what she did, but I donât think it involved numbers.
The more academics I met, the harder it became to distinguish intellect from autism.
People who could function in any applied area were viewed with the utmost suspicion by theoreticians, bordering on distaste.
That said, palaeontology is as much an Arts discipline as a scienceâŠ
God no, proper mathematics doesnât involve anything as vulgar as actual numbers.
I have a mate whose PhD was in some aspect of topology in dimensions higher than 3. Something about n-dimensional knots in (n+1)-dimensional spaces IIRC.
Number theory does, but that comes under the heading of prime number stamp collecting mostly.
Of course, Cantor set theory proves that they exist which was a good one to trot out to the physicists/engineers at uni whem they wondered what your course involved.
I thought Cantorâs set theory work was on the different sizes of infinite sets, didnât think it was relevant to prime number work.
That was that numbers exist at all, not that prime numbers exist.
Question I wrote back in the day: âWithout citing Cantor (et al) show proof that 1+1=2â
My final asked me to show how 1+1 might not =2.
#internationalmensday
Oh Lordy, I had the original proof of 1+1=2 as being Betrand Russellâs work.
I thought it was
âDont be such a stupid twatâ
QED
I would never have got into Oxford 
AA: âThe hilarity never begins.â
Youâre right
Page 379 
Didnât know (possibly given the scope of my UG degree) that there was a mathematician called Kleene.
Which leads to an inevitable Kleene đ„ gag.
I like mathsâŠ
1 times 1 is 1
1 times 2 is 2
1 times 3 is, errr, ah, ummmm , twelvety