No.
The statement seems absurd to me.
No. You do not suck. You can truly . . . whatever the opposite is.
I very much doubt it. You need Mathematics to understand Physics and Engineering. Perhaps if you are transfixed by the sheer almost crystalline beauty of Number Theory or the deep pools of structure hidden in the set of Primes then you may not have much interest in such mundane subjects as physics or engineering.If this is the case then you are not merely "good" at maths.You are a Born Mathematician.
No. You do not suck. You can truly . . . whatever the opposite is.
No. You do not suck. You can truly . . . whatever the opposite is.
Such a correlation is absurd.
Not necessarily.
Your sentence is a tautology: trimming it a bit yields:"Do you suck at engineering if you are [...] bad at [...] engineering?"The other subjects add nothing; you could throw in polo and underwater basketweaving as well (on either the "good" or "bad" side) and the sentence would still be true.If this is an example of your typical thought process, I can pretty much conclude that yeah, you're bad at engineering, physics, chemistry, and programming, and I could even be specific as to why. Also, you're not nearly as good at math as you think you are (you might be good at arithmetic, which is something different).
That depends on the individual
I don't think so! Long before there were computers (and computer science), there were brilliant physics and engineering students and they obviously were good at math.
I don't think so! Long before there were computers (and computer science), there were brilliant physics and engineering students and they obviously were good at math.
If anybody tries to sell you on a correlation like that, I've got news for you: They're not that good at math. No such connection is possible. There are thousands of gifted Engineers and Physicists, even today, who never touched a computer or wrote a program.