Question from the category-who is stronger than an elephant or a lion? In fact, in order to compare something, you need the values to be comparable: expressed in numbers and measured on the same scale. From this point of view, the question is MEANINGLESS. It is strange that many respected physicists and mathematicians did not take this into account in their answers. Things happen…

Given that in the Western tradition, any doctor is considered a doctor of philosophy and only then it is clarified in which field, and this is a fairly fair approach, it turns out to compare a mathematical philosopher with just a philosopher. Well, here the choice is obvious, the mathematician will be stronger. Comparing the whole thing is silly, of course, since each person is different, but if you average it, then the advantage will be, of course, on the side of mathematicians.

Mathematicians are very thoroughly and for a long time engaged in solving difficult analytical problems – they are Master Pros of this business.

Philosophers do not solve analytical problems – they are not supposed to do this in their work and profession, their main work lies in a completely different direction (party-political and ideological work).

Analytical/mathematical logic is the most important subject and tool only for mathematicians.

The main scientific “free-thinking” principle – “subject everything to critical doubt” – is strictly forbidden in philosophy (here only everything that is dogmatic and approved from above is respected).

Back at the institute, before a couple of philosophy classes, I remember a very intelligent classmate developing the thesis that philosophy is a meaningless science. Roughly along the lines of what I've read in other answers to this question. I didn't say anything at the time, because I had nothing to say. But today, perhaps, there is.

What is analytics? This is the first question a philosopher asks when he begins to answer a question. What properties does it have and how does it manifest itself in the world? How is the power of analytics measured?

The mathematician begins by defining a system of representations in which he will think to answer a question. And he will think based on this system. Parallel lines don't intersect. And if they intersect , it's some other geometry. This is normal. You can and should change the system if it doesn't describe the task well.

My point is: both are levels of abstraction, but different. The philosopher takes on tasks that are not even really voiced, not described, maybe the question is not clearly formulated(here there is something in the air, but xs understand what it is). The mathematician sets out with a specific goal in mind. Much like a carpenter, he takes on the construction of a certain structure, a mathematical model that provides an answer to the question posed. Yes, he uses ideas, but they are clear statements based on the system of representation that he has chosen.

I hope this information is enough for the author of the question to decide who is stronger as an analyst. Or think about how to reformulate it.

I can't even imagine how modern market analytics can be conducted by philosophers. Immediately you need to calculate specific figures, but how to do this with the help of philosophy? How to create a market model using philosophy? And mathematicians work very fruitfully in analytics.

Definitely, the mathematician is stronger. Builds a model, tests it on large actual data, and calculates probabilities.

Mathematicians have highly developed analytical, logical and critical thinking.

Of course, a philosopher, he has a wider outlook, more connection with the real world, and not with the abstract. Let's take this question: to what extent can our real world be considered 4-dimensional (the fourth dimension is time)? Or: the relationship of complex numbers with reality, the concept of infinity, the relationship between discrete and continuous – the questions are related to mathematics, but the philosopher will answer better.

The philosopher asks questions that a pure mathematician wouldn't think of. But there always comes a time when the philosopher's thoughts have to be digitized and it is impossible to develop research without knowledge of mathematics. With the help of mathematics, the ideas that have arisen are often confirmed or refuted, and the development of mathematics requires problems that go beyond the known.

Perhaps, without the joint use of these sciences, it is difficult to consider a person as an analyst at all.

Everything determines the individual, she and only SHE! Specialty, in general, has nothing to do with it. Analytics is a sequential, chained thing. A defect in any link breaks the chain. Either mathematical or philosophical. They make mistakes – they “break the chains”, THAT's ALL! Mathematician…, limited… ??? He is no less abstract than a philosopher. Prove that Perelman is NOT A PHILOSOPHER. https://yandex.ru/q/question/chto_dokazal_grigorii_perelman_prostymi_ea5ad597/ And you can only talk about the AVERAGE-having correctly collected and processed statistics from both “almshouses”. Joke: a scientist lives for a brief moment of exultation when he has proved something, but so far, he has not seen an error in the proof.скром And… , modesty really adorns you, colleagues. Sincerely, good luck!

Question from the category-who is stronger than an elephant or a lion? In fact, in order to compare something, you need the values to be comparable: expressed in numbers and measured on the same scale. From this point of view, the question is MEANINGLESS. It is strange that many respected physicists and mathematicians did not take this into account in their answers. Things happen…

Given that in the Western tradition, any doctor is considered a doctor of philosophy and only then it is clarified in which field, and this is a fairly fair approach, it turns out to compare a mathematical philosopher with just a philosopher. Well, here the choice is obvious, the mathematician will be stronger. Comparing the whole thing is silly, of course, since each person is different, but if you average it, then the advantage will be, of course, on the side of mathematicians.

THE ANALYTICAL APPARATUS in mathematics is developed and used to the maximum extent, in philosophy to the minimum extent.

Whatever philosophers can do, mathematicians can do, but not the other way around.

Mathematicians are very thoroughly and for a long time engaged in solving difficult analytical problems – they are Master Pros of this business.

Philosophers do not solve analytical problems – they are not supposed to do this in their work and profession, their main work lies in a completely different direction (party-political and ideological work).

Analytical/mathematical logic is the most important subject and tool only for mathematicians.

The main scientific “free-thinking” principle – “subject everything to critical doubt” – is strictly forbidden in philosophy (here only everything that is dogmatic and approved from above is respected).

Back at the institute, before a couple of philosophy classes, I remember a very intelligent classmate developing the thesis that philosophy is a meaningless science. Roughly along the lines of what I've read in other answers to this question. I didn't say anything at the time, because I had nothing to say. But today, perhaps, there is.

What is analytics? This is the first question a philosopher asks when he begins to answer a question. What properties does it have and how does it manifest itself in the world? How is the power of analytics measured?

The mathematician begins by defining a system of representations in which he will think to answer a question. And he will think based on this system. Parallel lines don't intersect. And if they intersect , it's some other geometry. This is normal. You can and should change the system if it doesn't describe the task well.

My point is: both are levels of abstraction, but different. The philosopher takes on tasks that are not even really voiced, not described, maybe the question is not clearly formulated(here there is something in the air, but xs understand what it is). The mathematician sets out with a specific goal in mind. Much like a carpenter, he takes on the construction of a certain structure, a mathematical model that provides an answer to the question posed. Yes, he uses ideas, but they are clear statements based on the system of representation that he has chosen.

I hope this information is enough for the author of the question to decide who is stronger as an analyst. Or think about how to reformulate it.

I can't even imagine how modern market analytics can be conducted by philosophers. Immediately you need to calculate specific figures, but how to do this with the help of philosophy? How to create a market model using philosophy? And mathematicians work very fruitfully in analytics.

Definitely, the mathematician is stronger. Builds a model, tests it on large actual data, and calculates probabilities.

Mathematicians have highly developed analytical, logical and critical thinking.

Philosophers use general categories and laws.

Of course, a philosopher, he has a wider outlook, more connection with the real world, and not with the abstract. Let's take this question: to what extent can our real world be considered 4-dimensional (the fourth dimension is time)? Or: the relationship of complex numbers with reality, the concept of infinity, the relationship between discrete and continuous – the questions are related to mathematics, but the philosopher will answer better.

The philosopher is unequivocal.

The mathematician is limited, and the philosopher is not limited!

However, you are asking the question “as an analyst”, and it is a trick question…

So, of course, it is ambiguous.

And that's why it's interesting.

Thanks).

All the best to you.

The philosopher asks questions that a pure mathematician wouldn't think of. But there always comes a time when the philosopher's thoughts have to be digitized and it is impossible to develop research without knowledge of mathematics. With the help of mathematics, the ideas that have arisen are often confirmed or refuted, and the development of mathematics requires problems that go beyond the known.

Perhaps, without the joint use of these sciences, it is difficult to consider a person as an analyst at all.

Everything determines the individual, she and only SHE! Specialty, in general, has nothing to do with it.

Analytics is a sequential, chained thing. A defect in any link breaks the chain. Either mathematical or philosophical. They make mistakes – they “break the chains”, THAT's ALL!

Mathematician…, limited… ??? He is no less abstract than a philosopher.

Prove that Perelman is NOT A PHILOSOPHER.

https://yandex.ru/q/question/chto_dokazal_grigorii_perelman_prostymi_ea5ad597/

And you can only talk about the AVERAGE-having correctly collected and processed statistics from both “almshouses”.

Joke: a scientist lives for a brief moment of exultation when he has proved something, but so far, he has not seen an error in the proof.скром

And… , modesty really adorns you, colleagues.

Sincerely, good luck!