True or false: people who are good at physics are usually also good at math?

i feel it is true

Obviously, since physics has many formulas, which needs to have math applied.

true

Well alot of physics involves many advanced mathematical equations so I would say true. Someone can be good at math but not be good at physics just because it doesnt involve physics to do math. Math is the basis of many studies. (electrical, physics, hydraulics, engineering etc...) Plus most people in physics are in it because they are curious or want to learn it - especially the advanced quantum-mechanical stuff. Most of them that is, not all.

Lagrange was one of the creators of the calculus of variations, deriving the Euler–Lagrange equations for extrema of functionals. He also extended the method to take into account possible constraints, arriving at the method of LaGrange. Lagrange invented the method of solving differential equations known as variation of parameters, applied differential calculus to the theory of probabilities and attained notable work on the solution of equations. He proved that every natural number is a sum of four squares. His treatise Theorie des fonctions analytiques laid some of the foundations of group theory, anticipating Galois. In calculus, Lagrange developed a novel approach to interpolation and Taylor series. He studied the three-body problem for the Earth, Sun, and Moon (1764) and the movement of Jupiter’s satellites (1766), and in 1772 found the special-case solutions to this problem that are now known as Lagrangian points. But above all he impressed on mechanics, having transformed Newtonian mechanics into a branch of analysis, Lagrangian mechanics as it is now called, and exhibited the so-called mechanical "principles" as simple results of the variational calculus. ======================================… Newton's mathematical work has been said "to distinctly advance every branch of mathematics then studied".[19] Newton is generally credited with the generalised binomial theorem, valid for any exponent. He discovered Newton's identities, Newton's method, classified cubic plane curves (polynomials of degree three in two variables), made substantial contributions to the theory of finite differences, and was the first to use fractional indices and to employcoordinate geometry to derive solutions to Diophantine equations. He approximated partial sums of the harmonic series by logarithms (a precursor to Euler's summation formula), and was the first to use power series with confidence and to revert power series. He was elected Lucasian Professor of Mathematics in 1669. In that day, any fellow of Cambridge or Oxford had to be an ordained Anglican priest. ==================================== Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (18 July 1853 – 4 February 1928) was a Dutch physicist who shared the 1902 Nobel Prize in Physicswith Pieter Zeeman for the discovery and theoretical explanation of the Zeeman effect. He also derived the transformation equations subsequently used by Albert Einstein to describe space and time. ======================================… In 1905, Einstein would use many of the concepts, mathematical tools and results discussed to write his paper entitled "Elektrodynamik" (Electrodynamics) known today as the theory of special relativity. Because Lorentz laid the fundamentals for the work by Einstein, this theory was called the Lorentz-Einstein theory originally. ======================================… I don’t consider mathematics different from physics. A good body with out soul is a dead body. No use of physics with out mathematical background and vice versa. I hate arguing which is the best. Let us follow the scientists who are well versed both in physics and mathematics.

Your statement is true in a general sense. After all, math is the language of physics. In Theoretical Physics, you could not utter a word unless it is couched in math. And in experimental Physics, you still have to be familiar with the theory which is developed mathematically. I said in a general sense because being good at math does not imply being good in all the various branches of math. Just what is relevant to your specialization and in those relevant areas you gotta be damn good! My two pesos!

I'd say false. Although the two would probably have a common set of "tools," there are some areas of physics that people versed in math would not care about. Likewise, there are aspects of mathematics that are of no use or interest to physics. There's too much encompassed by "math" to make a blanket statement saying that all people who are good at physics are good at math.

True today. Back in the old days, I think you didn't have to be good at math to be good at physics. Maybe it's just a myth (ie unverified claim), but I think Faraday was bad at math. And of course, there are lots of people good at math who are terrible at physics.