For the team, yes. For the pitcher, no. You do understand the difference, right?
Anyway, i’m not going to hijack this thread any further pointing out your stupidity on this issue. I just thought it amusing that you felt the need to start a Pit thread about this, especially when, as Meyer6 has pointed out, the object of your ire very quickly understood the issue once it was explained to him.
In my experience of math at the upper levels the amount of memorization is minimal, but when to use what isn’t always as clear. The rules of integration are easy, but manipulating the formulas isn’t always obvious at first. Usually it requires trying a few different things before you arrive at a solution.
My calculus teacher made a good analogy once. He said often a problem will have a clear destination, but the path there is unknown. It is like walking the streets of Paris trying to get to the Eiffel tower without a map. You can see it on the horizon, but the roads are twisty and sometimes double back and sometimes are dead ends. You don’t know which will be which until you walk them. You might take a short path, or a very very long path.
I think it is outrageously unfair to simply dismiss math as rote memorization.
I cannot do math beyond college level algebra…so I settled and got a degree in accounting. 
When people ask what I went to school for, they automatically assume I am very good at math. Business math = easy, true mathematics = ??? for me.
First, this guy could be in Physics 101 - I don’t see anything that says what year he’s in. Second, that question in no way resembled HS remedial math, at least none that I’m familiar with. Third, we all know he’s in COLLEGE, but that doesn’t mean he knows everything. The point of college is to learn, so asking questions seems quite reasonable.
I’m thinking that the ‘square root of a decimal’ thing was not the *subject *of the lecture, but just a small part of whatever formula or concept they were discussing. Sometimes if you’ve been reading tons of material or going over a complicated problem you suddenly think ‘hey, wait a second - how does this bit work again?’. It’s more like a brain fart or (as **friedo **said) a small hole in your otherwise fine knowledge than an indication that you are dumb. Actually, I personally find that this happens more and more the more I study - it’s like there’s so much information running around in your brain that some bits start to fall out.
I’m not sure why you want to paint this guy as a drooling idiot based on this one thread, the subject of which seems quite reasonable to me, and obviously did to the dozen or so people who responded to it and didn’t say anything rude. Do you have some kind of personal problem with this guy?
Sorry if I seem to making out to be a “drooling idiot”. Have no problem with them, just seems that this concept should be grasped in HS.
Really? That’s why you said that he should be in HS remedial math and that thinking he was in college would be ‘obviously giving him too much credit’? You do understand how that is insulting, don’t you? Furthermore, you also understand that he can read these things you wrote? Do you say condescending things like this about people that you ‘have no problem with’ IRL?
My first thought was If you multiply something by more than one it gets bigger. If you multiply it by less than one, it gets smaller. And Is a decimal more or less than ONE?
“It just is.” pfffft A teacher tried to get away with that?
:rolleyes:
I thought it was remedial COLLEGE math! (only originally perfunctually read it) Yes, I agree it sounds mean! And in regard to my baseball takes (I know it’s not you meyer, just killing 2 birds) Won’t you agree college math is A LITTLE more important that baseball?
If the question is about square roots, then that’s at least two steps away from “multiplying by a decimal makes it smaller”. First you have to recognize that a square root is the opposite of a square. And then that squaring is just multiplication. Then you can deduce that (a) squaring a decimal makes it smaller, and thus (b) taking the square root of a decimal makes it larger.
And least a few of those steps are counter-intuitive if you are used to square roots making things smaller and squares making things larger.
Cut the OP of that thread a little slack: he admits he’s been up all night doing physics homework, and his brain may well have been kinda fried at that point. Everybody can have a mental block or a :smack: moment once in a while.
Ordinary language is occasionally at odds with mathematical language. In everyday speech (and in first-grade math), if you add to something, you make it bigger, and if you subtract from something you make it smaller. But in math, you can add a negative to something, thereby making it smaller, or subtract a negative from something, thereby making it bigger. (And that’s not even to mention adding or subtracting things like complex numbers, or vectors, or matrices, where notions of “bigger” or “smaller” don’t really apply.)
And, relevant to the thread in question, in ordinary language, multiplying implies growth. (“Go forth and multiply,” etc.) So it can kind of mess with your intuition when multiplication makes things smaller.
This is not my experience at all with people who are good at math. (By “good at math” I mean beyond simple high school algebra.) Sure, you have some “computers” in there who just do the mechanics of it, but once you get past say, basic calculus, you can’t get far without understanding. Even with calculus (which is as far as I got) the importance of understanding what a derivative is and describes and what an integral is conceptually is required to answer anything but the most basic of word problems.
High school math courses don’t teach much in the way of “critical thinking” math (you’re faced with a novel problem and have to devise a mathematical solution to it, just as you could in a typical tech job); instead it’s more “cookbook” math-the professor gives you a recipe for today’s set of problems and you have to follow the basic recipe to get them right, over and over. I’m constantly trying to retrain my students for the SAT, which overall most definitely is not recipe math-and believe me it isn’t easy to get them to think like that.
I agree, but if you don’t understand how and why everything works, or your teacher doesn’t care to teach you how and why things work, then all you’re left with is a disconnected mass of formulas-from-God to memorize.
Which is indeed the way much math is taught, I think.
Well then, by your standards, I’m “good at math”. I’m talking about people who [at least claim to have] got[ten] 100% in courses like calc 3, at the university level. I’m also talking about the tutors I dealt extensively with while in college algebra, and almost every math teacher I had after 6th grade.
Just so you know, I think a lot of the things you say are stupid. As a corollary, your condescending attitude isn’t justified by your intellect.
Really?
Did your finger slip and you typed HS instead of COLLEGE? I can see how that would happen, what with those letters right beside each other on the keyboard and all.
Can you believe I was buying material at a Hancocks (they sell material) and the young lady at the counter who was about to cut the material INSISTED that 1/4 was bigger than 1/3… until I drew a pie for her and asked her which piece she would take (if it were her favorite pie) (and then she cut the material right). She was actually “giving away” that which was not hers to give. Our education today worries me.
I don’t understand this response. pulykamell’s standards for “good at math” were simply stated as being good at math “beyond simple high school algebra”. What in that is in conflict with having “got[ten] 100% in courses like calc 3, at the university level”?
In other words, I think you’ve misinterpreted what pulykamell’s standards for “good at math” are; he intends to pitch them higher than what he suspected you must have been referring to, not lower.
I do find odd your apparent experience that mathematicians, or others of similar sorts in your circles, almost universally aspire not to understanding of mathematics but only rote memorization, but I suppose such people must exist.
(Unless, I suppose, you were noting that it is also your experience that the mathematicians in your circles are almost universally not the people who did well in math classes, though that would also be odd.)
In turn I don’t understand yours 
.
He said by “good at math” he meant beyond simple high school algebra, and I pointed out that I’m “good at math” by those standards-- I’m talking about people far beyond that.