It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: ChaoticOrder
What I meant was that I don't understand how that complacency teaches math fundamentals. Sure 2+2 is about as simple as it gets. But as the problems grow in complexity, the underlying lesson that "so long as I'm close it's okay" is still there. Everything in me just doesn't like that.
originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: EternalSolace
When I watch the clips that a child can answer 2+2=5 and still get it correct because correcting them would lower self esteem, I shudder.
Yes we all should be able to do such basic operations, but that's only because we should all understand the basic concept of how addition works, and adding two units to another two units is not exactly challenging. I can actually do many basic operations in my head, I just don't remember the answer unless I have to do the same operation all the time. Since I work with binary and hex a lot I do remember many of the 2 and 16 multiples.
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: ChaoticOrder
What I meant was that I don't understand how that complacency teaches math fundamentals. Sure 2+2 is about as simple as it gets. But as the problems grow in complexity, the underlying lesson that "so long as I'm close it's okay" is still there. Everything in me just doesn't like that.
Wonder what would happen if they did that at CERN lol!!!
A algebra professor told me once that Its just a fancy way to show off your intellectual prowess. IF you arent going to be a rocket scientist he didnt see the reason to force students to take it. STraight from the horses mouth its useless to 90 percent of humans who only need to know basic math. Its a educational scam for more cash.
Good for you.
Really? I used to be a programmer/developer before i moved into project management and at 44 years of age, I still remember all my multiplication tables to 13 without a second thought.
The way you had it elevated programming languages above mathematics. You cannot have programming languages without mathematics but you do have mathematics without programming languages.
For instance when he talks about syntax meaning different things in different fields of mathematics, the exact same thing happens when you switch programming languages.
yes, i'm a programmer as well. 3d engines, FFTs, image processing - been there, done that. and while i agree that there are many things that are best left for research on as-needed basis (we can't be experts in every field possible), there are some things that one just should know - and sorry, but i can't imagine blaming not remembering a multiplication table on anything else but lazyness. such simple things that you prefer not to remember have to slow you down quite a bit during your work as well.
Of course you can understand how particles will move through space simply by understanding how particles interact with each other. First of all you just need to know how they gravitationally react to each other, and as we know the force of gravity gets exponentially stronger as two particles move closer together. Then we also need to take into consideration the electric forces and the nuclear forces, etc. Of course we can use equations to help us understand all those different forces but it would be extremely complicated if we tried to combine all of those equations into one equation which described everything about particle movement.
also, i think you're quite far from understanding the idea behind math at all. i also prefer to think like a programmer - because i am one. but you can't simply imagine how a stream of particles will move in space just by knowing the rules being the building blocks of their movement. you'll get it simple - but you'll have to perform so many iterations of your simple math and traverse such a tree of dependecies to get to the end result, that by the time you'll get there, you'll forget what was it that you were checking. computer will do it - sure. you won't.
on the other hand, someone able to think like a mathematician will be able to imagine the flow of said particles just by looking at a single, complicated equation. why do you think scientists all over the world use such complicated math? are they a bunch of morons, unable to come up with anything better? far from it - it's just a natural way for them, and a natural way for a human in general. you can of course research new problems using computers, you can create models and optimize them using methods you've described - but that's not how things are done, and it's not optimal.
If you're in say finance, it's very useful to have "go-to" equations memorized for use in programs such as excel. Same with actuarial science. You do need to be able to do certain functions from memory to be successful at that job because looking them up all the time wastes time that could be used doing the actual job.
Kind of how most people can write in English but aren't experts on etymology and the history of grammar.
Kind of how I said that in certain fields it's easier just to memorize the equations without necessarily knowing complex theory behind them.