i telling π to be rational? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Not sure how exactly to explain …
geometry’s proofs and theorums.
You know, they sit you down, and show you a thingy, and you have to prove in words why the thingy is
Give me a fucking straight edge, a compass and a protractor and I can draw anything I need, i just couldnt prove why putting a dot on that line and swirling this thingy thisaway just that much makes this figure thingy here … not in words at least. Too many years just plain drawing stuff I guess.
I know a+b=c, but why, might as well be voodoo to me.
i’ll be over here pounding bearskins between rocks to soften them up to make clothing out of. Maybe I’ll try discovering fire soon, my toes are cold
I understand the concepts just fine–it’s the execution of said concepts that are problematic for me…
I’m sure I’m not unique in this. I am also sure that music and math are connected in some fundamental way (not just counting) within the brain. I tried to read Oliver Sack’s book on musicology, but found that one really needed to be well, musical to appreciate it. I had enjoyed his other books tremendously, but wonder now if that is because of my medical background. I also like, but do not fully understand Ian McDonald’s(?) book on the Beatles entitled, “Revolution in the Head”. He goes into music theory quite a bit.
aruvqan: you are not alone. The first day of Trig, when our teacher said, “Imagine a unit circle with a circumference of 1.” (or maybe it was diameter–whatever. I thought to myself, well–if they are just making shit up now, I can imagine a “unit circle” that has any amount of different dimensions. He lost me the first day. I still resent having had to take that class. WHY imagine it? What difference does it make? What purpose does it serve? Gah.
Double-entry accounting.
Demonstrating that you can make one drawing to meet the criteria set forth by a given proposition does not mean that you have proven the proof of that proposition. For instance: suppose I say, hypothetically, given that any four-sided figure whose sides are all equal, the vertices are always 90-degree angles. To prove this I show you a picture of a square. Does this prove the truth of the proposition?
I get the impression that the way they typically introduce proofs (and, furthermore, the way they link it with geometry) in high school is pretty terrible; some overformal, over-regimented two-column bullshit? (I dunno exactly; I never took geometry, though I’ve heard enough from classmates. But people oughta know, mastery of that particular arcane system is of little use, so far as real math goes; it’s pretty obfuscatingly divorced from how actual mathematics is done). Anyway, Lockhart’s “A Mathematician’s Lament” has a great section on this as well.
Sometimes I get glimpses of what math must be like to those who love it. I liken the paucity of interest in math to the same one in history or social studies in school here. History is (usually) so boring here–it’s a time line of dates. But history is fascinating, really.
Not to diss teachers, but IMO some approaches to subjects deserve a hard look.
Commas. I tend to overuse them to make up for the fact that just got no idea where to put them.
Math. All of it.
And in Spanish, accents (as in the little flicks on certain vowels). They have the most arcane laws for their use that I just do away with them entirely, even with the one on my own last name.
I misspell my own name.:smack:
I’ve used geometric proofs at work, but then I’m an engineer.
I don’t get what’s such a huge deal about Shakespeare. Sure, he wrote a bunch of good plays, which perhaps express some thoughts about human nature and society. But so did many other authors I’m sure. What’s so special about him?
Do you actually have troublew understanding the concepts of “Gerunds,” or is it just that nobody’s ever explained them?
A gerund is just a verb used as a noun. It usually ends with -ing.
“Cycling is good exercise.” - “Cycling” is used here as a noun, not a verb.
“I think fighting should be banned from hockey.”
I’m not saying geometric proofs are useless, far from it; I’m saying shoehorning them into a particular overregimented style (as I gather is done in these classes) is pointless and distracting.
I like math. I did quite well with algebra, trig, geometry, etc.
Then I encountered calculus. I might as well have encountered Cthulu.
I never before noticed how close those two words are…
They way I read it, a LOT of people over at Bear Stearns, AIG, et al can’t grasp accounting either.
Don’t worry if you don’t get it, we will all give you our money anyway.
I can’t do trig in my head…
It’s been years since I took a couple of months worth of Introduction to Accounting, but I still remember the idea, if not the specifics, of double-entry accounting. Think of the old fashioned kind of scales where if one side goes up the other goes down. Double-entry accounting is setting things up so that all your accounts on one “side” should always equal the accounts on the other “side”. If they don’t, you’ve either made an arithmetic error, your accounts weren’t set up properly, - or something’s hinky. It’s why they call it “balancing”.
However, I could probably take remedial English grammar and punctuation forever, and still make 5th-grade mistakes.
Not a fucking clue, other than through sheer dint of memorization I managed to learn a few basics - sum of the 4 sides and all … I could play around with my toys and draw a square, and measure the angles … but literally if it was described, the only way I could verify it would be to draw something and see if it worked. I couldnt sit there with a list of the theorums and proofs and put them together without drawing them to see first.
What postulate is being applied here?
9(x + y) = 9x + 9y
um, thursday? french toast? I know, 42, it is always the answer ....he did a cracking good soap opera … if they had popcorn it would have been the elizabethan equivalent to a popcorn flick…
I am partial to Taming of the Shrew, and Much Ado About Nothing myself. Not great literature but entertaining, and a fun look at the society of the time through the filter of the stage, much like there is a fair amount of current society in West Side Story. WSS also sort of points out that it is also a case of same shit, different century =)
Clues fuck?
Anyway, the example I gave doesn’t prove that, as the existence of parallelograms demonstrates.
This is the problem with (what I gather to be) the (rather limited) way they try to teach proof in high school… way too unnecessarily bureaucratic. There’s a time and place for this level of formality, but it’s not the end-all, be-all of proofs, and it only kills intuition to make it one’s first introduction to the very idea of rigorous mathematical argument. Who gives a shit whether you know the name someone once came up with for this particular property? The name doesn’t matter; it’s just terminology. You know the property you’re referring to. You understand the concept. That’s all that matters.