When you have a chance read the article in Wikipedia entitled Discrete Mathematics. And then read the one entitled Linear Algebra. It will help you make up your mind. FWIW, when I was working on a Masters in Computer Science the two math courses that proved most useful were: Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science majors and Linear Algebra for Computer Science majors. The distinction "for computer science majors" implies a greater emphasis on process, implementation, and analysis and none on "proofs". In that sense they are "practical" courses because it is assumed up front that the material presented is based on a solid foundation of proofs (referenced or 'appendicised' and "there's no need to get into all of that"). Math courses for mathematics majors and science education majors, in contrast, are entirely "proof" oriented because these people need to fully understand how to extend the absolute rigor of mathematical logic and theory, and also how to teach it. BTW, reading about how math proofs were achieved, with their creative leaps o' logic, can be fascinating and rewarding when they're presented from a historical perspective. It's remarkable how many proofs were actually locked down THOUSANDS of years ago.

The proposed idea that early stars were made of dark matter, etc. is pure speculation. Speculation is NOT a theory. Let's review: scientifically speaking "a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable" [wikipedia]. A theory also is built on a substantial mathematical/physical/chemical foundation on which it rests. Unfortunately there is an air-headed defintion that 'theory' is a speculative conjecture, opinion, or untestable notion; but only numbskulls think along those lines. Also, dark matter and dark energy are in themselves nothing more than speculative conjectures ... there is currently NO theory of dark matter nor of dark energy. In time, a workable theory involving them will no doubt be built.