its all old addition: to learn it you need to know 1 thing 1+1=2 multiplication: 3 things 1*0 1*2 2*2 division: 3 things 3div2 2div3 2div2 thats all math science needs math but math dont need science
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
FIRST!
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
You're going to fit in well here.
(math doesn't lie, but I do)
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
math is stupid
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
So... how's Illinois?
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
huh?
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
illinois smells like cheese exaust and fried rice
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
You'll find that once you discover ways to use math for practical purposes, it becomes more than 1+1. I found that out when I started programming.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house." -- Lazarus Long
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Without math, how will you know the exact height you need a ladder to be, if you want it at a certain angle?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
T:man, your Myspace blog is... intriguing...
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
thx heh heh heh im in ap calculus
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
(next year)
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
its not that i dont understand math its that its all been done anything u use a calculator for some one put those numbers in not you Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Wow.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
this conversation greatly saddens me. Using calculus to solve algebra/trig problems on the SATs/ACTs back in highschool made me happy though Posted by katdog42 (Member # 4773) on :
I think that you're confusing math with arithmetic. (Not that I think either one is stupid)
Posted by Temposs (Member # 6032) on :
I've heard it said before that you can think of Calculus as the beginning of intermediate math. Think about that for a second.
There is definitely math that hasn't been done yet...
I'm not that great in math, though I have a Computer Science degree. But I certainly appreciate it.
Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
Slick Math Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: "Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house." -- Lazarus Long
Best. Quote. Ever.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man: its not that i dont understand math its that its all been done anything u use a calculator for some one put those numbers in not you
You continue to give evidence to the contrary.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man: math is stupid
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
I had a physics test once in college. In many physics problems, they assume that you know certain things, like the Pythagorean theorem, or the value of PI. If you need to know these things for the problem, and you don't, you're screwed - they won't provide it.
On this particular test, there was a problem for which I needed to know the formula for the volume of a sphere. I could not for the life of me remember it. I *did* however know the formula for the area of a circle. Just weeks before that, I had learned about polar coordinates in calculus. And I realized that if I took the formula for the area of a circle, and performed a double integral using polar coordinates, it would give me the formula for the volume of a sphere. It worked, and I got the problem correct.
That was probably my most fulfilling moment ever on a college exam.
EDIT: The point being, T:Man seems to be implying that no new discoveries are being made in the area of mathematics. While mathematics may not be a fertile ground for discovery, it is the tool by which advancement in other areas are made. Math has it's hand in *everything*. It has it's nose in *everyone's* business.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: "Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house." -- Lazarus Long
What does the word 'cope' mean, as used by Long?
I don't enjoy math; I'm not good at it. Does that make me a pseudo-subhuman? I mean, I can balance a checkbook, and help my children with their math problems, and I recognize the importance that math plays in the world...
But I hope cope != enjoy. Because I've got real problems with that sort of thinking.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man: its all old addition: to learn it you need to know 1 thing 1+1=2 multiplication: 3 things 1*0 1*2 2*2 division: 3 things 3div2 2div3 2div2 thats all math science needs math but math dont need science
I just came from a lecture about applying percolation theory to very large, time varying (in a Markov sense) graphs. I don't *recall* the lecturer using any of the particular results you cite, but I'll bet you could derive his results from those. Let me know how it turns out, T:man.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
heh heh heh im in high school a sophmore
what im mean by math is stupid is that it is all the same
multiplication is just addition
division was new 3000 years ago
once you know these things you can practicaly do all math
algebra new 2500 years ago
i havent done calculus yet but it sounds boring
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man: thx heh heh heh im in ap calculus
Pity you aren't in AP English. Hell, even remedial English. The schools in Skokie weren't that crappy when I went there.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man: what im mean by math is stupid is that it is all the same
A: Math is all the same, therefore: B: Math is stupid.
I don't follow.
quote:Originally posted by T:man: once you know these things you can practicaly do all math
Not that I agree, but wouldn't this be a good thing? To have absolute command over the tool that has it's hand in all of science?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man: multiplication is just addition
Thats only true for integer multiplication.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man: heh heh heh im in high school a sophmore
what im mean by math is stupid is that it is all the same
No, it's really not. I can understand your feelings, but there's all sorts of new mathematical discoveries all the time.
quote:multiplication is just addition
division was new 3000 years ago
once you know these things you can practicaly do all math
You're using a very limited definition of "math." Like katdog said, you seem to be limiting yourself to arithmetic and calling that "math." While math includes arithmetic, it is not limited to it (that's a little preview of set theory for you).
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
sorry im not fully educated Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man:
im in ap calculus
...
i havent done calculus yet but it sounds boring
WHU???
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
no really multiplication is addition
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
no im doing calculus next year i didint start yeet
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man: no really multiplication is addition
How do you perform an operation such as 5*0.5 using only addition?
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
oops yet
Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by T:man: no really multiplication is addition
How do you perform an operation such as 5*0.5 using only addition?
.5 + .5 + .5 + .5 + .5
I think a more interesting question would be, how do you perform sqrt(2) * e with addition. Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Ouch. You got me there Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
hmm what about *runs into wall* hmm
lemme think
Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: "Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house." -- Lazarus Long
Although I find this quote quite entertaining, and in spite of the fact that I'm a bit of a mathematician, I don't much care for a view of humanity that defines what makes us human in terms of our abilities in mathematics.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
heh heh heh still thinking *just actually read all posts* woah whats wrong with my spelling i dont want to type full sentences im lazy Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeorge:
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by T:man: no really multiplication is addition
How do you perform an operation such as 5*0.5 using only addition?
.5 + .5 + .5 + .5 + .5
I think a more interesting question would be, how do you perform sqrt(2) * e with addition.
How 'bout 0.5 * 0.5? (I think that's what you were getting at, Threads)
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
(1/2.5)+0 thas multiplication not addition hmmm theres a way to do it *wishes he new what he was talking about*
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
heh heh heh does the goldbach conjecture work for every number?
(oops knew)
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
The goldback conjecture is a good counterexample to your claim that "its [math] all been done."
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: (that's a little preview of set theory for you).
Set theory is a brain-bender. Didn't it drive Cantor crazy?
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
sorry im was mad and wasnt thinking
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
How's high school going for you, T:man, besides your math class? Have you read OSC's books? How did you find hatrack?
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
i found hatrack looking for free copies of the shadow books bad T high school is awesome they have this new engineering program its awesome Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man: heh heh heh still thinking *just actually read all posts* woah whats wrong with my spelling i dont want to type full sentences im lazy
Some people who join a forum might read through it and see what passes for normal communication. I'm sure there are forums where sounding like an idiot is the norm. But if you've read anything here, you must have noticed that we don't treat this place like IRC or a text message.
Type full sentences. Use punctuation. Capitalize when appropriate.
Or, you know, don't. And see how many people care about what you have to say.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: (that's a little preview of set theory for you).
Set theory is a brain-bender. Didn't it drive Cantor crazy?
Correlation is not causation. Judging from some of the set theorists I know, I think your causality arrow may be going in the wrong direction.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: I had a physics test once in college. In many physics problems, they assume that you know certain things, like the Pythagorean theorem, or the value of PI. If you need to know these things for the problem, and you don't, you're screwed - they won't provide it.
On this particular test, there was a problem for which I needed to know the formula for the volume of a sphere. I could not for the life of me remember it. I *did* however know the formula for the area of a circle. Just weeks before that, I had learned about polar coordinates in calculus. And I realized that if I took the formula for the area of a circle, and performed a double integral using polar coordinates, it would give me the formula for the volume of a sphere. It worked, and I got the problem correct.
That was probably my most fulfilling moment ever on a college exam.
EDIT: The point being, T:Man seems to be implying that no new discoveries are being made in the area of mathematics. While mathematics may not be a fertile ground for discovery, it is the tool by which advancement in other areas are made. Math has it's hand in *everything*. It has it's nose in *everyone's* business.
I had a multi-variable calculus final earlier today, the first question asked for a parametric equation of a line formed by the intersection of two planes. I had forgot that you could get the direction for such a line by taking the cross product of the units normal to the planes, so I used linear algebra to solve the problem.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
To those who are criticizing his usage of spelling and grammar...
...check his listed myspace. This is either a fake name created to piss us off(hardy har har), or he's using WtIP's myspace as his own. I vote the first.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It would be rather a coincidence if it were the second.
*thwaps WtIP*
Good catch, Tinros.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
Credit for that one goes to Threads. I wouldn't have thought of checking the myspace had he not mentioned it in a previous post(on the first page of this thread).
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
Threads already pointed this out, although more subtly. I just assumed they both were familiar with HHGTTG.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Subtle goes over my head this time of night.
MEC, maybe. But then why does the myspace profile match up with the existing Hatracker poster who goes by WtIP?
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
I just wanted to save people the trouble of getting worked up over something when they might have missed Threads' hint on the previous page. *shrug*
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Meth is Stupid Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
I know enough maths to understand that I will *never* be a Mathematician.
I'll just settle for having some pretty powerful tools in my Engineering toolbox to solve the various problems I encounter.
quote:When a ball Bounces off of a wall, When you cook From a recipe book, When you know How much money you owe, Thats mathematics! Tom Lehrer
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by T:man: multiplication is just addition
Thats only true for integer multiplication.
OOOOHHHH Snap!
I am fascinated that Hatrack is so eager to argue, it has begun an argument on the very basic value of math. Awesome.
Posted by Math (Member # 11618) on :
quote:Topic: Math is Stupid
Oh yeah? Well I think you're stupid too!
Kids these days... Hrumph Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: "Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house." -- Lazarus Long
I reckon that makes me subhuman then. I'm better with words.
Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: To those who are criticizing his usage of spelling and grammar...
...check his listed myspace. This is either a fake name created to piss us off(hardy har har), or he's using WtIP's myspace as his own. I vote the first.
Well, this does help explain why he can't remember whether or not he's taken calculus yet.
Is this a common occurrence at Hatrack? Because to be honest, if I'm going to waste my time talking to someone's imaginary friends, I'd rather it be my own imaginary friends (of which there are plenty), since then I can be stroking my own ego instead of someone else's.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Wowbagger the infinitely prolonged is a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy character. It's entirely possible that our Wowbagger and this guys myspace have nothing to do with each other.
Wait, how does his myspace match up with Hatracker WtIP?
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
Wha...that's not me
If you most know here's my myspace page My myspace Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Yeah, I didn't think so. It didn't seem much like you.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: Wowbagger the infinitely prolonged is a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy character. It's entirely possible that our Wowbagger and this guys myspace have nothing to do with each other.
Wait, how does his myspace match up with Hatracker WtIP?
That's kinda what I said a few posts up...
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
I missed the HHGTTG reference. my bad, Wowbagger, for accusing you falsely. Apologies offered.
Regardless of whether or not it's OUR WtIP, the guy's myspace says he's 26. I'm having a hard time believing this one, myself.
Edit: Nevermind, the entire myspace is either fake, or he's REALLY trying to pull one over on us. "College Graduate, Genius, Proud Parents, $250000 a year."
So, he either needs to give up the dumb act, or actually adhere to the sort of unwritten rules of posting on Hatrack and try to actually use proper spelling, grammar, and whatnot, regardless of laziness.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Mathematics isn't stupid, it is magical.
Yes, if you are an average Joe (or Jane) who life consists of schlepping to work, spending 8 hours filling out tedious forms, the schlepping back home again, one could see how you might think Math is stupid. On the other hand, if you didn't think Math was stupid and you have applied yourself at it, you might have a job that actually mattered in the world.
Like it or not, Math paves the highways you drive over on your way home, it buttresses the bridges you cross, it construct the building you live and work in, the car you drive is fueld by Math. In every way, everyday, you are surrounded by Math. Without it, we would be living in caves and surviving on raw meat and contaminated water.
Further Math teaches you a systematic method of problem solving that can be applied to any aspect or your life; tangible and intangible.
Sean Monahan, above, gives us a perfect illustration of problems solving using Mathematical Method. She/he is confronted with a problem to which he/she does not know the solution. So, using standard mathematical methods, he/she arranges the knowledge he/she does have, and determines how that can be applied to the solution.
She chose one method, but there is another; to realize that if you take a triangle that represents half the vertical cone and rotate that triangle 360 degrees, the result not only gives you the formula, but also gives you the answer.
If you aren't experienced in this systematic method of problem solving, then likely you would have never been able to solve this problem without the actual formula.
Here is one of the most thrilling aspect of Mathematics that I encountered in college - Laplace Transforms. Though I'm greatly generalizing, Laplace Transforms rely on the magical Laplace Domain. The Laplace Domain is a magical place where universal problems can be solved.
For example, let's say you are using algebra to solve the feedback loop in an airplane autopilot system. You are going to reach a point where it becomes obvious that the problem can't be solved. So, you jump into the magical Laplace Domain and solve the general and universal equation related to your problem, and low and behold, when you are transported back out of the Laplace Domain, you have the solution to your unsolvable problem.
Now tell me that isn't magic?
steve/bluewizard
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: "Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house." -- Lazarus Long
Reminds me of the Ravenclaw House motto: "It's not that we're smarter than you, except that it totally is."
I told my husband that quote. He laughed, because not only am I dysgraphic, I also refuse to wear shoes. Next time he complains I'll just remind him that I'm subhuman. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged: Wha...that's not me
If you most know here's my myspace page My myspace
Apologies. And apparently I misremembered your age, too. Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
"On the other hand, if you didn't think Math was stupid and you have applied yourself at it, you might have a job that actually mattered in the world."
Wow, you're a complete asshole.
I guess the building you're sitting in doesn't matter.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
my myspace is totally fake i made it when i was 12. i wish i really made $250000 a year, and had kids but i'll change it sorry. I thought it was funny.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
there i changed it
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
JonHecht,
OK, I get the 'asshole' part, though I much prefer 'smartass', and really that one line is taken out of context, though not by much.
But how does the last line apply to anything?
"I guess the building you're sitting in doesn't matter."
steve/bluewizard
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i am posting in this high quality thread
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I hate math. I prefer words and stories. Poetry and stories are also what made us civilized, but there is a mathematical aspect to music. Still, some people do not have a head for anything other than 2+2. It doesn't make them stupid, it just means their brains think differently. Many of them are probably not so bad at metaphors.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: JonHecht,
OK, I get the 'asshole' part, though I much prefer 'smartass', and really that one line is taken out of context, though not by much.
But how does the last line apply to anything?
"I guess the building you're sitting in doesn't matter."
steve/bluewizard
The people whose jobs supposedly don't matter built the buildings you live in.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I am fascinated that Hatrack is so eager to argue, it has begun an argument on the very basic value of math. Awesome.
I will bet you ten dollars that .999~ is equal to 1.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
hee hee hee I started this topic when i was pissed at my math teacher but so many people have posted. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Still, some people do not have a head for anything other than 2+2. It doesn't make them stupid, it just means their brains think differently.
I'm sorry, but that does make them stupid, in the sense of 'unable to do an intellectual task'.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:The people whose jobs supposedly don't matter built the buildings you live in.
No they didn't... cause the people who built the building your sitting in had to use Math for that. He was refering to people who don't know or use Math with the job that actually mattered... and that's next to no one these days.
I mean, farmers have to use math, builders have to use math, teachers, businessmen, politicians, retailers/salesman, even like housekeepers and such have to use math of some sort or another.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Still, some people do not have a head for anything other than 2+2. It doesn't make them stupid, it just means their brains think differently.
I'm sorry, but that does make them stupid, in the sense of 'unable to do an intellectual task'.
In the majority of cases, I feel like people that don't "get math" aren't trying very hard. Of course, that's their prerogative.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
When I was in college, I started out in the engineering school. Freshman year, I took calc, which was fine. First semester sophomore year, I took diff eq, which wasn't so fine. It twisted my head. At the end of that semester, I dropped out of the engineering school (for reasons having more to do with circuits than math), but I took Engineering Math the next semester anyway, because math had always been my best subject, and I didn't want to feel like I'd been a total failure.
I think I got a D in it. It was an absolute nightmare. And believe me, Fusiachi, I tried hard. But I'd just hit my limit, I guess. So I figure that other people might have different limits.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Yes, and if you take that limit as x approaches infinity...
Seriously, I think it's a bit unfair to say that people who have trouble with math just aren't trying. Maybe they aren't, and maybe some people are irrationally afraid of a topic they haven't even tried to understand. But I do think that people's brains are all wired differently, and I try very hard not to assume that everyone thinks like me. I have my own deficits for sure. People confuse me Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
There's a Free IQ Test ad at the bottom of the page right now. Just FYI.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fusiachi:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Still, some people do not have a head for anything other than 2+2. It doesn't make them stupid, it just means their brains think differently.
I'm sorry, but that does make them stupid, in the sense of 'unable to do an intellectual task'.
In the majority of cases, I feel like people that don't "get math" aren't trying very hard. Of course, that's their prerogative.
I fail to see the difference between this attitude, and the attitude that people are overweight or poor because they are simply lazy.
I agree, in that I think we can be defined by what we are willing and not willing to try. However, that's different than what we can or cannot accomplish.
My brothers, father, and husband are a combination of mathematicians, engineers, physicists and programmers. We have all had our IQs professionally tested.
Mine is the highest, and yet I have not successfully completed a simple trig course, and I have been trying for years. My talents lie elsewhere.
Maybe we should select some other skll or talent out there and begin defining other people's humanity based on their possession of that. Maybe we should decide that only charismatic people are really people, and that lack of social success makes a person sub-human.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Still, some people do not have a head for anything other than 2+2. It doesn't make them stupid, it just means their brains think differently.
I'm sorry, but that does make them stupid, in the sense of 'unable to do an intellectual task'.
I totally, completely, absolutely 100% resent that! I struggle on a daily basis with adding and multiplying numbers in my head, or dealing with percentages or, decimals when it comes to putting in my hours. I've always had this problem. I can write poems however, but many of them do not rhyme or have iambic pentameter and I could make up a story in a matter of seconds, again, everyone's mind works differently. It's not laziness either. It's a sort of mathematical dyslexia.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Resent it all you like. "Mathematical dyslexia" is just a fancy name for "can't do sums", which, sorry, is a form of stupidity. Intelligence is the ability to do intellectual tasks. Arithmetic is an intellectual task. Lack of ability with arithmetic is therefore a lack of intelligence, also known as stupidity. I apply the same reasoning to ordinary dyslexia - a euphemism for "can't read". Just because these forms of stupidity are not correlated with disability in other areas, as we would usually expect, doesn't mean they're not stupidity.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't think ordinary dyslexia is similar to being illiterate, KoM.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Resent it all you like. "Mathematical dyslexia" is just a fancy name for "can't do sums", which, sorry, is a form of stupidity. Intelligence is the ability to do intellectual tasks. Arithmetic is an intellectual task. Lack of ability with arithmetic is therefore a lack of intelligence, also known as stupidity. I apply the same reasoning to ordinary dyslexia - a euphemism for "can't read". Just because these forms of stupidity are not correlated with disability in other areas, as we would usually expect, doesn't mean they're not stupidity.
It's not a form of stupidity, especially since that's such a rude, impolite and ugly way to refere to it. The fact is that there are plenty of people who are good at math, but couldn't analyze a story or poem to save their lives, does that make them stupid? No. Does having a learning disability make a person stupid? No, it only means that they have a different way of processing information. Referring to a person as stupid will only make them feel like steaming dog crap and make it difficult for them to find and take pride in things that they are good in. Plus, it's a totally outmoded way of looking at things. Math is only one aspect of intelligent. There are at least 8 more aspects of intelligence.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
From Merriam-Webster:
quote:Main Entry: in·tel·lect Pronunciation: \ˈin-tə-ˌlekt\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin intellectus, from intellegere to understand — more at intelligent Date: 14th century 1 a: the power of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will : the capacity for knowledge b: the capacity for rational or intelligent thought especially when highly developed 2: a person with great intellectual powers
Let us not confuse physical or mental disabilities that make mathematics hard (i.e. inability to properly perceive numbers) with the inability to reason or to understand.
Just as a person who is blind will be unable to paint with beautiful colors unassisted is still able to percieve beauty in his or her own way.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't think ordinary dyslexia is similar to being illiterate, KoM.
Dyslexia has a different cause from ordinary illiteracy. However, it has the same effect: To wit, its victim is unable to read. (Or has difficulty reading - there are obviously degrees of this.) Now, illiteracy is considered a shameful thing, and rightly so; but we do not like to assign moral fault for features of someone's body or brain. So if someone is dyslexic, we nod understandingly and do not assign them tasks involving a lot of reading. But stop right there: At this point, we are saying "You cannot read, and we do not expect you to." Well, what is the difference between this and "You cannot think, and we do not expect you to", as might be (implicitly) said to someone with an IQ of 70? Only that we are being a bit more specific.
Analogy: Suppose we were looking at the ability to run quickly. Clearly some people are geniuses at this; other people can't run a mile to save their lives. We don't attach any particular moral significance to this, though, so it's easier to discuss dispassionately. Now consider the guy who was born with cerebral palsy. Can he run fast? No, he cannot. It doesn't matter what the cause of his inability is; the fact remains that he just is not going to be doing any five-minute miles. Dyslexia (either kind) is similar to this: Never mind the cause, if you can't read or do sums, then you can't. And if running fast were regarded as a moral quality, as intelligence is - if 'slow' were an insult in the way that 'stupid' is now - then the cerebral palsy cases would be saying "I'm not slow! It's just that I have CP, you can't expect me to run as fast as those other guys!" No, we don't. But the fact remains that you actually are slow. It is an accurate description.
quote:It's not a form of stupidity, especially since that's such a rude, impolite and ugly way to refer to it.
You prefer euphemisms? Sure. Just tell me which one you like best. Personally I like to know what I am discussing.
quote:The fact is that there are plenty of people who are good at math, but couldn't analyze a story or poem to save their lives, does that make them stupid? No.
Yes. By exactly the standard I used above: Inability to do an intellectual task. You are of course at liberty to assign weights to the tasks, and say "This one is more important than that one."
quote:Does having a learning disability make a person stupid? No, it only means that they have a different way of processing information.
Um, yes. Try that again: What does 'learning disability' mean? "Inability to learn". If you have a better definition of 'stupid', by all means tell us.
You should please note: I am not attaching any moral significance to 'stupid', any more than I do to 'tall' or 'fast'. It's just a description. Perhaps this is the place we are disconnecting?
quote:Referring to a person as stupid will only make them feel like steaming dog crap and make it difficult for them to find and take pride in things that they are good in.
I would not call a child stupid to his face, because if nothing else people do develop at different speeds; but an adult should be able to accept an accurate description and work around his weaknesses.
quote:Math is only one aspect of intelligent. There are at least 8 more aspects of intelligence.
But this is just what I am saying! If you accept nine ways of being intelligent, then necessarily you must accept nine ways of being stupid as well!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I can't believe you don't realize how stupid and outmoded that sounds. There is so much about the brain people don't know, especially why there are people who can barely dress themselves who know complicated math things and can draw detailed pictures of things they've seen one time. Dang, that's such a simple way of looking at complicated things. No one THESE DAYS even describes people with, say, low IQs (IQ tests aren't even completely accurate) as moron, or imbecile o stupid because it's not only rude, but it's just not totally accurate.
[ May 19, 2008, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: No one even described people with, say, low IQs as moron, or imbecile o stupid because it's not only rude, but it's just not totally accurate.
Um, yes, they absolutely did. 'Moron' and 'Imbecile' are both terms that originated to describe people with a certain IQ. This is very simple to verify.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: No one even described people with, say, low IQs as moron, or imbecile o stupid because it's not only rude, but it's just not totally accurate.
Um, yes, they absolutely did. 'Moron' and 'Imbecile' are both terms that originated to describe people with a certain IQ. This is very simple to verify.
What I meant to say is they don't, or at least try to avoid doing that NOWADAYS. It's outmoded and very unPC and I like it that way.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
"Imbecile" actually originated as a generic term for bodily impairment or weakness. It goes well back to Classical Rome. (I believe "moron" is newer, though.)
Don't get me started on those old categorisations. Blech. It's crap science the way social Darwinism is crap science.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Why do we put a moral value on intelligence?
People talk about intelligence as though it is not just something you are born with, but something you earn. When I had my baby, I said I was happy how cute she came out. And my mother in law was horrified that I would give any value to looks because that is just luck and then went into how she wants her grandchild to be smart. She also slammed a bunch of her students who weren't smart but were pretty (and she didn't talk about laziness, but kids who seemed to honestly not get it).
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't know. Intelligence is more complex than people who read books and regugitate facts, or even people spelling correctly. There's a subtle kind of intelligence people don't often understand.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Resent it all you like. "Mathematical dyslexia" is just a fancy name for "can't do sums", which, sorry, is a form of stupidity. Intelligence is the ability to do intellectual tasks. Arithmetic is an intellectual task. Lack of ability with arithmetic is therefore a lack of intelligence, also known as stupidity. I apply the same reasoning to ordinary dyslexia - a euphemism for "can't read". Just because these forms of stupidity are not correlated with disability in other areas, as we would usually expect, doesn't mean they're not stupidity.
I resent that. I may suck at arithmetic, but I'm not bad at math. There's a huge mistake in treating them as the same. Arithmetic is the ability to perform simple additions, subtractions, multiplications and occasionally divisions effectively, which most students do by memorizing fact families.
Why do I suck at arithmetic? Because I never stored the multiplication tables in my head, a task that is NOT intellectual. I have to think about my arithmetic, which makes me very slow and ineffective at it. I don't memorize 5+3; I have to envision 5, envision 3, and, if I'm tired, with the help of my fingers, count them off. Most people look at 5+3 and think "8." I'm very dependent on my calculator whenever I need to use numerical equations.
I'm good at math because I'm very right-brained. I seldom need to study for math tests because I can deduce concepts and figure out ways to solve the problems without memorizing formulae, with only a few exceptions.
Tell someone who DOESN'T ace all his honors classes and at the same time program complex 3D geometrical functions for a 3D video game and still have time to enjoy a good Orson Scott Card book that he's stupid.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, well, if you're just going to shout "Stupid! Outmoded!" instead of addressing the actual argument, I don't see much point in having the discussion.
I think we assign a moral value to intelligence because it's such a fundamental part of what we are. "I think, therefore I am", right? So if you're not good at thinking, presumably you're not good at being. Not to mention that intelligent people are generally more pleasant to be around. Sure, sure, mentally handicapped kids often have big smiles and are generous with the hugs, and that. But after a while you get to be wanting some adult conversation, and not to have to explain Sesame Street for the twentieth time.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I resent that. I may suck at arithmetic, but I'm not bad at math. There's a huge mistake in treating them as the same. Arithmetic is the ability to perform simple additions, subtractions, multiplications and occasionally divisions effectively, which most students do by memorizing fact families.
Very well, I am happy to acknowledge that you are mathematically intelligent while being arithmetically stupid. As you say, they are not the same. Nonetheless I would invite you to consider that even equation-solving and trig problems do rather depend on being able to do the arithmetic correctly.
Look, people, all I'm saying is that if you say "Intelligence consists of X, Y and Z" components, then for consistency you will have to acknowledge that stupidity consists of the lack of X, Y and Z. Arithmetic and math are surely two of the components in question.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
But that isn't all you're saying. You are assigning moral value to intelligence, that is, YOUR kind of intelligence.
If I decided to assign more moral value to, say, how much kindness or forgiveness you are capable of, then what will your life be worth?
Intelligence (good looks, athletic ability, hereditary money) is a gift.
Kindness is a choice.
I think how we treat others is a much more meaningful determiner of how "human" we are.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Oh, well, if you're just going to shout "Stupid! Outmoded!" instead of addressing the actual argument, I don't see much point in having the discussion.
I think we assign a moral value to intelligence because it's such a fundamental part of what we are. "I think, therefore I am", right? So if you're not good at thinking, presumably you're not good at being. Not to mention that intelligent people are generally more pleasant to be around. Sure, sure, mentally handicapped kids often have big smiles and are generous with the hugs, and that. But after a while you get to be wanting some adult conversation, and not to have to explain Sesame Street for the twentieth time.
Ok, now to give up talking to you because I should avoid things that frustrate me. Intelligence isn't just a black/white thing. There are subtleties and shades to it, and a person just won't see them if they dismiss a person or entire group of people as stupid.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: You are assigning moral value to intelligence, that is, YOUR kind of intelligence.
Actually, I get the impression that he is doing exactly the opposite of what you think, that is, he's using the term without the moral value and significance.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Indeed, I explicitly said that this is what I was doing.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Yep. Any syn continues to gloss over that in her search to be offended.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Yep. Any syn continues to gloss over that in her search to be offended.
Gloss over that?
It's really not right to use the word stupid to describe a person not being good at a subject. Especially if they are good at other things. Everyone has some sort of weakness unless they are a total genius and even people like that aren't always good at being social for some reason... *gives up*
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
KoM, this is much easier to stomach than your other recent points in this thread:
quote:Very well, I am happy to acknowledge that you are mathematically intelligent while being arithmetically stupid
I think Syn and others object to describing an otherwise intelligent person who has difficulty with one particular intellectual task as "stupid". "Arithmetically stupid" might still be un-PC, but it's not nearly as offensive as "can't do math therefore stupid."
What if someone can't run to save his life, but can solve a Rubik's cube in 16 seconds? He's slow, and he's also damn fast. If I just call him slow without explaining at what I mean he's slow, I'm not being accurate. So, just be precise in how you describe people's intelligence, and there's not a problem.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If a modifying adjective makes the overall point easier to swallow, then sure. Feel free to insert 'mathematically', 'arithmetically', or 'literally' in front of any 'stupid's in my posts. (The last is probably not the right adjective of 'literature', but I can't think of the right one.)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
literarily?
Oh, and its an adverb not an adjective.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
OK I have ADHD, and while posting this i am watching a movie and rereading The Shadow of the giant, I think its not real at all considering I am in honors chemistry, math, american history and honors american literature. But I believe that learning disability's are the way someone thinks. KoM you are stupid!
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Yep. Any syn continues to gloss over that in her search to be offended.
Gloss over that?
It's really not right to use the word stupid to describe a person not being good at a subject. Especially if they are good at other things. Everyone has some sort of weakness unless they are a total genius and even people like that aren't always good at being social for some reason... *gives up*
For someone who claims to be good at words, your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. Yes, gloss over that is exactly what you've done and what you continue to do. You're skipping his provisos and then getting offended at precisely the thing he's said he's not saying.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
OK everyone is good at something and bad at others, remember when bean is on his flight to battle school hmmm Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Maybe i just have different ways of defining stupidity and intelligence.
Off I go.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: literarily?
Oh, and it's an adverb not an adjective.
Right you are. But as we are dealing with writing rather than literature as such, perhaps 'graphically' would be better.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
I think that king of men is stupid at running marathons. Hmph Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Heh heh heh I feel popular so many posts on my stupid thread. Hee hee hee Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man: I think its not real at all considering I am in honors chemistry, math, american history and honors american literature.
KoM is working on a Ph.D. in physics. I have a Ph.D. in Engineering and have been a professor for the past 16 years. Forgive us if we are not impressed by your credentials.
Based on what you have said, you do not even know what mathematics is. Perhaps that is because you a mathematically stupid or perhaps you are just young and uneducated. If the later is the case, then you should feel embarrassed about having made such sweeping condemning statements about a field of which you are clearly ignorant.
Arithmetic is not math. Mathematics is a system of logic which is elegant because of its precision and the ease with which it can be used to explore logical relationships. It has proven extremely useful as a way to state complex predictive hypotheses within fields that involve quantities, space, time, structure, and change. And is invaluable as a tool for modeling physical and chemical systems and solving complex problems within those fields.
To claim "Math is stupid because its all old and its all just addition" is as ludicrous as claiming that English literature is stupid because its all just the same words arranged in different orders.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
I guess I am uneducated but its still hateful to call people with learning disabilitys stupid.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Latter not later
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
You are not Diagnosed with ADHD are you Rabbit? hmmm Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: You are assigning moral value to intelligence, that is, YOUR kind of intelligence.
Actually, I get the impression that he is doing exactly the opposite of what you think, that is, he's using the term without the moral value and significance.
And then KoM also said,
quote: I think we assign a moral value to intelligence because it's such a fundamental part of what we are. "I think, therefore I am", right? So if you're not good at thinking, presumably you're not good at being. Not to mention that intelligent people are generally more pleasant to be around. Sure, sure, mentally handicapped kids often have big smiles and are generous with the hugs, and that. But after a while you get to be wanting some adult conversation, and not to have to explain Sesame Street for the twentieth time.
Okay, then, KoM, please set me straight--what moral value DO you assign to mathematical ability?
Just out of curiousity. Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
" i think therefore i am" What if deepthought was stupid but was capable of thought.
(i dont even know if the guide's quote came first sorry if im wrong) Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Let's all agree that my original comments where wrong and that I'm uneducated, yay, don't hate the (T).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
T:man
"Je pense donc je suis," (I think, therefore I am) was originally stated by René Descartes in 1637 in his Discourses on Method. He makes the same statement in latin "Cogito ergo Sum" in 1644 in his treatise Principles of Philosophy.
BTW, Descarte is the same philospher/mathematician who originated Cartesian coordinate system.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Okay, then, KoM, please set me straight--what moral value DO you assign to mathematical ability?
Ah, I see. I am not assigning a value to mathematical ability for purposes of this discussion. But I recognise that society generally sets a moral value on intelligence - this is why it's a difficult subject to discuss, with hurt feelings all over the page - and I was setting forth a hypothesis for why that might be, in response to scholarette's question. Different contexts.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Thank you for setting me straight. Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Okay, then, KoM, please set me straight--what moral value DO you assign to mathematical ability?
Ah, I see. I am not assigning a value to mathematical ability for purposes of this discussion. But I recognise that society generally sets a moral value on intelligence - this is why it's a difficult subject to discuss, with hurt feelings all over the page - and I was setting forth a hypothesis for why that might be, in response to scholarette's question. Different contexts.
Alrighty. Then I agree with you.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man: Latter not later
T:man, there is an edit function at the top of each post. If you are looking at a post you have made in a thread and want to correct something, then click on the pencil-on-a-sheet-of-paper icon at the top of that post (it's over to the right of your forum name, near the middle of the page -- just to the left of the quote marks).
This takes you to an edit page. You can make whatever changes you want to your original post there.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by T:man: Latter not later
T:man, there is an edit function at the top of each post. If you are looking at a post you have made in a thread and want to correct something, then click on the pencil-on-a-sheet-of-paper icon at the top of that post (it's over to the right of your forum name, near the middle of the page -- just to the left of the quote marks).
This takes you to an edit page. You can make whatever changes you want to your original post there.
But also remember that if you edit something after about 10 minutes of posting the original statement it's common courtesy to state why you edited your post. Some folks actually preface the edited comments with, "Edit: etc etc etc." Or simply put at the bottom, "Edited for spelling and clarity."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Or, you know, you could just spell-check in the first place. As opposed to wasting everyone's time. It would help if you had anything interesting to say, too, but crawl before walking.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"You're skipping his provisos and then getting offended at precisely the thing he's said he's not saying."
The women...they are frustrating, no? Posted by Pegasus (Member # 10464) on :
For probably the first time ever, I am finding that I agree with nearly everything KoM has had to add to this discussion.
I fully recognize that I am smart in some areas and stupid in others. I think that most people are like that with different strengths and weaknesses and differing amounts of both. I enjoy learning in the areas where I need it and also enjoy the subject materiel. Other areas that I don't enjoy as much and I don't have a pressing need to be more educated on I can remain ignorant in, and I feel fine about that.
Also, I can sympathize with those people not mature enough to handle an accurate description of their abilities; tactfullness and kindness are key to encouraging more learning.
Obviously with any subject of learning and ability there will be a scale to measure how well a person does. Terms like "smart" and "stupid" while conveying the basic idea, are not exactly wrong, but are fairly inaccurate, non-specific and tend to push emotional buttons.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
And now for something kind of different.
Intelligence has very little to do with knowledge, or perhaps I mean it the other way around.
That is the fundamental problem with any attempt to measure intelligence: it is immeasurable, and any attempt to pinpoint it would be using circular logic. He has this IQ because he has intelligent. How do you know that he's intelligent, and not just well read? Well, because he has this IQ. Damn.
I know a guy who have more knowledge than the vast majority of people, but he isn't "innately intelligent", as most people would put it. He just happens to work very very hard. There are professors who obviously aren't the brightest people, but they managed to attain Ph.Ds for the same reason.
Then there are people who score very well on these "IQ tests", but don't perform. That was useful, to know that if they had a completely different personality that they might be a boon to society, rather than a drain on it.
The idea of objectively measuring intelligence is laughable. Maybe even the idea of the existence of intelligence.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You might as well doubt the existence of science fiction because you cannot define it satisfactorily. We can see that intelligence exists.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I doubt it exists the way folks think it does. That's the problem. Everything is bigger and more complicated than people think, including the brain. People haven't even discovered everything about it.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:He has this IQ because he has intelligent. How do you know that he's intelligent, and not just well read? Well, because he has this IQ. Damn.
IQ tests are generally designed to test cognitive abilities, not knowledge. Knowledge helps in some areas of some tests. Memory is a component of intelligence. But I don't think it's as circular as you seem to.
IQ has a positive correlation with SAT scores, grades, job performance, income, and other valued outcomes...it's not always the biggest factor, and it's never absolutely predictive, but I wouldn't call it a laughable measurement. It has some validity.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
When I took an IQ test, my overall score was quite high, but my memory was piss poor.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: You might as well doubt the existence of science fiction because you cannot define it satisfactorily. We can see that intelligence exists.
We can also see that it is not one-dimensional and therefore not identifiable by a single integer.
Posted by Slim (Member # 2334) on :
One reason I think many people have difficulty understanding math is because teachers rarely explain how the math concept he/she is teaching applies to the real world. I've never gotten less than an A in math my whole life, but just because I can see how Calculus applies in my everyday life doesn't mean everyone else in the class can.
Sure perhaps you as an individual may be able to function without math, but life is sure easier when you understand it. My boss at Lawn Care charges people by the square foot, but he measures only in squares. He said he tried to do triangles too, but could never figure them out.
Then my co-workers at Sonic: They often were short-changed because they could not figure change out correctly. That's just subtraction. Then I've had customers argue about my math skills, and time was wasted because they don't know math.
And then wouldn't it be nice if you are convicted of a crime to be able to prove to the jury mathematically that 10,000 gold coins could not possibly have been robbed by one man? Or by using distance rate and time, that you couldn't have robbed that bank either?
(insert thousands of other everyday examples I want to type here)
-------------
On .5*.5 : You only need two operations. Add and move. Move the decimals so that it is 5*5, which is 5+5+5+5+5 = 25, move the decimals back, and it is .25. My computer architecture teacher said that the only thing computers can do is add and move, everything else is in terms of that.
Higher operations build on lower operations, but why use the lower operations when you have the higher? Especially when the higher operations are given to make complex problems much simpler.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The 'move' operation implicitly assumes that you understand division and fractions, though.
Posted by katdog42 (Member # 4773) on :
I don't remember "move" being a valid mathematical operation. I'll have to go look that one up.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It's a division or multiplication by ten, or anyway by the base of the number system you are using. Duh. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: You might as well doubt the existence of science fiction because you cannot define it satisfactorily. We can see that intelligence exists.
We can also see that it is not one-dimensional and therefore not identifiable by a single integer.
I do not disagree. I also do not think that this contradicts anything I have been saying.
quote:One reason I think many people have difficulty understanding math is because teachers rarely explain how the math concept he/she is teaching applies to the real world.
I think you have the causality backwards. People who understand calculus can see it working all around them. If you don't get it, though, it's just abstract symbols to you, and how many abstract symbols do you deal with outside of math class? You have to be able to think on two levels at once: One level is (to take an example I encountered in real life recently) the manipulation of lambda, f, and c to get f alone on one side of the equation; the other is the equivalence between f and frequency, lambda and wavelength, c and the speed of light. It is a bit like pointers in C++: Either you understand what they are and how they work, or you just combine the *s and &s until you get something that compiles.
Now, it is true that this ability to think in two levels at once can be improved by practice. But I don't think that explaining things in terms of wavelengths and frequencies is necessarily helpful; what is wanted is a map between concepts and symbols, plus a skill set in manipulating the symbols, plus perhaps the meta-skill of making your own symbol map when you encounter a new concept. Thinking about concepts is not going to help on its own.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
To take another example: Nobody complains about being unable to learn multiplication on the grounds that they don't see the relevance. But really, how often do you actually need to do hardcore multiplication and not have a calculator handy? But pretty much everyone understands what multiplication is about and how it works (provided they haven't been taught New Math, of course...), even though they may sometimes make mistakes in the actual operation. So if you asked someone to give an example of multiplication in the real world, they would think for a moment and say, perhaps, "Tax rate times income", or "price of gas times gallons bought", or something. But it has never been explained to them in those terms! They just learned quite abstract lookup tables - three times two is six, seven times two is fourteen - and then did some problems with it.
If you know the math, then you can see applications easily. But knowing the applications doesn't make learning the symbols any easier; to see this, consider a student with some degree of mental retardation, who struggles with multiplication. Is he going to have an easier time when you explain that "This is used for calculating how much you have to pay for gas"? I think not. Or similarly Synesthesia with her dyscalculia. Certainly she understands how arithmetic applies in real life! She's just missing the relevant circuit in her brain, so she can't do it.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I wonder if the way I do math in my head is similar to anyone else's?
Say, for example, I wanted to figure out a 15% tip on a meal that cost $43.26. What I'll usually do is just round to the nearest 10, in this case 40, and figure that for every $10, I pay $1.5 in tips. So I take 1.5 and multiply by 4, which, in my brain is 1.5x2=3 and 3x2=$6.
Then it's $.15 for every dollar, or $.45; $.02 for every 10 cents, or .04. So I end up with a tip of about 6.49, which I'll usually just round up till I get an even dollar amount on the final charge.
This I figure by just taking the cents of the charge and adding enough so I get an even cent amount, in this case I add $.04 so that I'd get 43.30, then it's easy to see that I just need $.70 more to get to 44.00. So I leave a tip of 6.74 which leaves a total charge of $50 even.
Now to check my math on a calculator: 43.26x.15=6.489, or 6.49 rounded up. $50-43.26=6.74.
Sure, I could do long multiplication or division to figure this out, but that's hard to do in my head. By breaking it down, I can do the whole thing in my head and it doesn't require much effort.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That's very similar to my procedure, yes.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
What I usually do is figure out ten percent (shift the decimal point), then add in about half of that more.
And because its how I am, I make bill + tip add up to an even dollar amount.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: What I usually do is figure out ten percent (shift the decimal point), then add in about half of that more.
And because its how I am, I make bill + tip add up to an even dollar amount.
I've done this as well.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: What I usually do is figure out ten percent (shift the decimal point), then add in about half of that more.
And because its how I am, I make bill + tip add up to an even dollar amount.
That's what I do too. Sometimes not the last part, if it's way off.
Posted by Slim (Member # 2334) on :
quote:Originally posted by katdog42: I don't remember "move" being a valid mathematical operation. I'll have to go look that one up.
It's more commonly called "Shift Left" and "Shift Right." I think my teacher used the word "move" because he probably also wanted to include moving from one memory location to another. And as King of Men said, it's just multiplication or division by the base. And what do mean by "valid" mathematical operation, anyway? I would have thought just about any function could be called a mathematical operation.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: The 'move' operation implicitly assumes that you understand division and fractions, though.
Not necessarily. "move" contains only a subset of all division, and is a simpler operation. One doesn't really have to know anything about division, or what a decimal point means in order to move it.
But you are right in that I'm just giving an algorithm. Meaning and understanding is what we really want, but an algorithm alone will not provide it. Blindly following a series of steps won't help. But, like I said before: Just using the higher operations help make life easier.
quote:I think you have the causality backwards. People who understand calculus can see it working all around them.
Yeah, you're probably right, that does make a lot of sense. I guess I said that because the biggest complaint I hear from people who don't understand math is "I don't get this. Why am I learning this? When am I ever going to use this in real life?" So maybe they only ask that because they haven't been seeing it working all around them, so why should something new?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
They did a study looking at how math was taught and how well students did and it turned out understanding why it was useful, or having it taught as fun did not improve students understanding. Simply being taught to do it because you have to was the best method.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Best method for what, though, scholarette? Passing tests, or understanding the material?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Well, passing the test was the measure they used for determining understanding. I don't see a good way to test understanding other then that in this kind of survey. Kumon (tutoring) basically folow this method- they have students do many many math problems that are all similar until they are getting a certain perentage right. They don't spend any time explaining why it is important or trying to make it fun and I have heard they are very successful.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
For basic arithmetic, I cannot think of a better way to learn than just plain rote drill. All four arithmetic operators are just lookups, with the possible exception that you can do addition by counting on your fingers.
Then for trig and suchlike, you have to understand what's going on to set up the equation correctly, but after that it's rote memorisation and a small amount of intuition again. The amount of intuition increases as you go on to calculus; but I don't think there's anything taught in your basic undergrad math that doesn't benefit from quite a bit of rote memorisation.
Posted by Brett Moan (Member # 11641) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: this conversation greatly saddens me. Using calculus to solve algebra/trig problems on the SATs/ACTs back in highschool made me happy though
I'm a senior in high school and because I used calculus on my SAT I realized i answered a question wrong.
The SAT doesn't agree that (1)/(infinity)=(0)
Edit: I was really thinking that the limit of 1/infinity=zero or would it be that the limit of 1/x is 0 as x approaches infinity. I'm not all that sure how it would be stated.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: What I usually do is figure out ten percent (shift the decimal point), then add in about half of that more.
I just usually tip 20% but if i was tipping 15% I would do it this way as well.
[ June 24, 2008, 06:49 AM: Message edited by: Brett Moan ]
Posted by Happy Camper (Member # 5076) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Well, passing the test was the measure they used for determining understanding. I don't see a good way to test understanding other then that in this kind of survey. Kumon (tutoring) basically folow this method- they have students do many many math problems that are all similar until they are getting a certain perentage right. They don't spend any time explaining why it is important or trying to make it fun and I have heard they are very successful.
Ugh, I cannot think of a more effective way to get someone to hate math even more. And I don't really think that this would be a particularly effective method in the grand scheme anyway. Sure the person understands how to get that style of problem right, but without being able to extend that knowledge and apply it to other things, it's very nearly worthless.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
According to a recent SciAm article, students who learn concepts abstractly (like use x and y) score significantly better on tests using applications of those concepts then students who were taught using concrete examples (slices of pizza, distances, etc). The students taught with concrete examples were not able to apply the information to another situation. They did however, learn the concrete example faster, which is why teachers are convinced that concrete is the better way.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Without math, you'll never figure out how to make the perfect cheese sandwich.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Hi my first thread! Nice to see you on your fourth page.
Posted by Slim (Member # 2334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brett Moan: The SAT doesn't agree that (1)/(infinity)=(0)
Edit: I was really thinking that the limit of 1/infinity=zero or would it be that the limit of 1/x is 0 as x approaches infinity. I'm not all that sure how it would be stated.
Right, that's how you would say it. One divided by infinity doesn't equal zero, but the limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity does.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
hee hee hee, I changed my mind Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I believed there was unbiased truth in mathematics but eventually I realized there was no truth, only observation. If we had 8 fingers, would you count to ...6,7.8,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,20.....and would it still work? I was discouraged when my grade would suffer for not showing work or for using ratio and proportion in lieu of a formula. When more than the solution mattered, I was discouraged.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: According to a recent SciAm article, students who learn concepts abstractly (like use x and y) score significantly better on tests using applications of those concepts then students who were taught using concrete examples (slices of pizza, distances, etc). The students taught with concrete examples were not able to apply the information to another situation. They did however, learn the concrete example faster, which is why teachers are convinced that concrete is the better way.
Thanks for posting that because it's basically what I was going to mention just way more official - that knowing the concept (as opposed to why it is useful) is a BIG one. To use myself as an example, someone who was good at math in high school and ended up majoring (with teaching certification grades 7-12) in it in college... I didn't know why a variable was called a variable (note: super simple case here) until a couple years after first using them; then I realized that is it because it varies. It was a 'duh' moment, but it made some things click. Obviously, there are more complex concepts to be found in the field of mathematics, but there you go. If you understand the concept, you can often do what Sean Monahan did in his story on the first page of this thread. That's really cool, by the way.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I'm getting back in to math after not taking any math in college since I'd taken Calculus in high school. I'm taking a Calculus II class at the community college near me and I'm loving it. I love the logic and problem solving that goes in to it. Yay for math!
Posted by Mathematician (Member # 9586) on :
I haven't posted in months (perhaps close to a year), but you've pulled me out of my shell.
Tman, what do you think my number 1 reason is for doing math? Why in the world have I chosen to suffer through grad school (2 years to go!) instead of making lots of money, say, being an actuary? Why am I going to spend my life solving problems that will almost certainly have no practical applications, especially if we confine the effects of their solutions to my life time?
It's the beauty in it. Yes, I think mathematics is beautiful.
Now, first and foremost, when I say "mathematics", I do NOT mean arithmetic, trig identities, solving equations, and to a large extent, I exclude calculus as well. These ideas are certainly very important in (almost?) all branches of mathematics, but they are not "mathematics" as I use the term.
To me, mathematics is the art of problem solving. It's the art of finding the most elegant reasons why a given fact should be true. It's the art of finding the perfect argument.
I think it's clear, then, that I view mathematics more as an art, less of a science.
It's more about creativity than applying formulas, more driven by the search for beauty than the search for applications.
As Lockhart says, "Music can lead armies into battle, but that’s not why people write symphonies. Michelangelo decorated a ceiling, but I’m sure he had loftier things on his mind."
In the same way, yes, mathematics often has important practical applications, but that is not it's purpose.
So, I say, give math a shot. When/if you go to college, take a beginning undergraduate math major course. Maybe you'll get a hint of the beauty of mathematics. Maybe once you see the beauty, you'll be hooked.
And as far as the idea that all math has been solved, I invite you to take a look here for a list of 171 new math papers that are coming out TOMORROW. I also suggest you check out this for a list of 324 math papers that have come out in the last week.
Math is still a vibrant field, full of innumerable problems. And more often than not, the solution to one problem merely opens the door for more questions.
Edit: I just wanted to add that if what I wrote intrigues you, I highly recommend you read a decent portion of Lockhart's Lament, especially the part where he describes the nature of mathematics.
Also, just be be clear, while I agree wholeheartedly with everything Lockhart says about the nature of math, I do NOT agree with much that he says about mathematics eduction.
[ March 24, 2009, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: Mathematician ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Although what you say is true, it is als unfortunately true that most people are never going to grasp the beauty of mathematics. It takes a certain amount of brainpower to enjoy or be good at symbol manipulation; most people don't have it.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
It isn't always brainpower, it is often brain configuration. Some people aren't wired for math, and other people aren't wired for philosophy.
Different strokes and all that.
-Bok
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Sigh. Once more: Having a brain wired to do X can be restated as "my brain has the power of X". Therefore, a lack of such wiring is a lack of brainpower. See the whole argument on the previous page of this thread.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
No, I mean they are categorically different, even if the symptoms are the same. To conflate them is stupid.
-Bok
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If you lack the ability - the power - to do math, you just lack it. Where the lack comes from is not relevant.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
But you didn't say they lacked the ability to do math, you said they lacked amount of brainpower. The difference is not necessarily one of amount, but of quality.
After all, just because, given sets A and B of mental ability, A - B = C, where C is non-empty, does not mean |A| > |B|
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
No, but express it the other way: A = B+C with C non-empty; this does imply |A| > |B|.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Sure, if you say something other than what I said, and something other than what you said, something else is true. Unsurprisingly.
quote: It takes a certain amount of brainpower to enjoy or be good at symbol manipulation; most people don't have it.
Note the use of the word amount. You're asserting that there is a quantity of brainpower required to be good at symbol manipulation, and that people lacking that quantity cannot do it. This neglects the case of people who have plenty of brainpower, but such that it isn't very useful for that sort of symbol manipulation.
Shall we break it down into symbols again? For your statement to be true requires the following statement to be true (assuming we accept the proposal of different sorts of intelligence):
"good at symbol manipulation" member of A and "good at symbol manipulation" not member of B implies |A| > |B|
And that's just not true. Or do you assert this is not necessary for your statement I quoted above to be accurate, and if so, could you explain why?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, perhaps you shouldn't use set notation to discuss something that is not discrete. In arbitrary units, let 1 be the threshold of symbol-manipulation-ability (SMA) above which people are able to enjoy simple forms of math. Plainly, 1 is greater than 0.5. Also notice that SMA is usually correlated with other forms of intelligence. although I understand that there are particular forms of brain disabilities where this is not true.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mathematician:
To me, mathematics is the art of problem solving. It's the art of finding the most elegant reasons why a given fact should be true. It's the art of finding the perfect argument.
To me this is only half the story. There is also an exploratory side to it, where new entities are defined and their structure investigated. I have been told of a quote by Grothendieck in which he dismisses some highly-decorated mathematician as a problem-solver (I forget who).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
KoM: there's an obvious bijection between types of intelligence with a variety of discrete levels and sets, so I feel just fine using set notation.
Perhaps this should be phrased a different way: considering two people, where one is a good painter/bad mathematician, and one is a good mathematician/bad painter, do you feel the good mathematician is necessarily more intelligent?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Painting is a trainable skill to a larger extent than mathematics is; the mathematician can likely become a competent draftsman with practice. But assuming for the sake of argument that both have made good-faith efforts at learning the other's skill, and failed, then no, these two are about equally intelligent. (Holding their other skills equal, obviously, and ignoring the weighting factor that math has rather more applications than painting.) A splendid showing of the power of constructed examples. In the real world, as I noted, skill at mathematics is correlated with other measures of intelligence.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Where is the line drawn for what skills are representative of intelligence? In place of painter, put sprinter.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Correlated? Sure, but there are numerous extremely intelligent people in the world who aren't very good at math, and numerous mathematicians who have areas they are very deficient in. I doubt I would have any problem finding a mathematician who was very bad at painting and a painter who was very bad at math, in the real world. Or are you asserting such individuals could not exist when you call it a "constructed example"?
And I won't even ask you to give a cite for this unsubstantiated assertion
quote:Painting is a trainable skill to a larger extent than mathematics is
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I doubt I would have any problem finding a mathematician who was very bad at painting and a painter who was very bad at math, in the real world.
Could you find such a pair who had both made a good-faith effort at really learning the other guy's skill? And in any case, what's with the airy dismissal of the correlation? I never claimed it is a 100% correlation, nor do I need it to be. Your counterexamples demonstrate only that the correlation is not 100%.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
natural_mystic: a wonderful question, but unfortunately one we aren't very good at answering. Mostly it is a situation of, "I know it when I see it".
I should say that I don't consider everyone who makes very good paintings very intelligent; in some sense I was using that as shorthand for being very good at thinking about how to make good paintings, and applying those thoughts systematically, which I think is pretty definitely a sort of intelligence.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, it might require asking around, and possibly having a few potential candidates put forward a good faith effort over the period of a few months or years, but I don't see any real difficulty.
And where did I dismiss the idea of there being correlation? I think you're imagining I'm saying things that I have not said. I've been discussing existence, not correlation.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Then you've been barking up the wrong haystack. I have not claimed that there are no intelligent people unable to do math. I have claimed that, other things equal, those with math ability are more intelligent than those without, and further that (dropping the requirement of other things equal) math ability does correlate with other ability. Existence is uninteresting in this context.
quote:And where did I dismiss the idea of there being correlation?
You didn't, but you dismissed its significance.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Then I'm assuming you misspoke when you said this?
quote: It takes a certain amount of brainpower to enjoy or be good at symbol manipulation; most people don't have it.
As for having dismissed its significance, could you point me at where I have done so?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
In your quote, I'm ignoring the rare special cases and using the correlation, which is a much more powerful predictor.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
At best that's dismissing the relevance of correlation to a question of existence. Not dismissing its significance in general.
Your statement that I was arguing against, which I can quote yet again if you've forgotten yet again, was not about correlation. I am quite happy to agree that there is a lot of correlation between many types of intelligence.
Also, you might note what I was replying to:
quote:A splendid showing of the power of constructed examples. In the real world, as I noted, skill at mathematics is correlated with other measures of intelligence.
You were implying that the correlation meant my example didn't mean much in the real world. But even an incredibly strong correlation (and I doubt most forms of intelligence correlate at anything above .8 -- I mean, I know several mathematicians who can't work outside their specific sub-fields very well, despite a lot of trying, because their brains work better with topology or analysis or whatnot) in a world of this population, with this many intelligent individuals, will leave millions of people with intelligences that don't overlap much with millions of others. That's not the realm of a 'constructed example', that's the realm of an important distinction that can't be waved away with "correlation".
Posted by Mathematician (Member # 9586) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by Mathematician:
To me, mathematics is the art of problem solving. It's the art of finding the most elegant reasons why a given fact should be true. It's the art of finding the perfect argument.
To me this is only half the story. There is also an exploratory side to it, where new entities are defined and their structure investigated. I have been told of a quote by Grothendieck in which he dismisses some highly-decorated mathematician as a problem-solver (I forget who).
Fair enough, though I would also say that the exploratory side can be subsumed in both "finding the most elegant reason why a given fact should be true" and "finding the perfect argument". One will almost certainly have to engage in exploratory activities to understand why things are true. However, at the end of the day, there should be a proof, i.e. a well reasoned argument. And the more beautiful the argument, the better.
In fact, as Hardy said "The mathematician’s patterns, like the painter’s or the poet’s must be beautiful; the ideas, like the colours or the words, must fit together in a harmonious way. Beauty is the first test: there is no permanent place in the world for ugly mathematics."
I suppose the point to everything I'm saying is that mathematics is much more about discovery and/or creation than most people think. In this way, it is, in my opinion, best thought of as an art which happens to have occasional practical applications.
Further, it is quite often the case (and admittedly quite often not the case) that there is NO scientific component to mathematical discovery, in the sense of experimental evidence. Sometimes you just play around with a handful of axioms and out pops some beautiful result.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Well, there's also the fact that the physical world consists of mathematics. Matter is energy. Energy is fields. Particles are like knots in the fields. Fields are just numbers in space. Physical laws are mathematical formulae without any mechanical explanation or underpinnings. As best as we can tell given our current knowledge, nothing that exists is realer than math.
There was a great quote by someone who said Mathematics is the language God speaks when creating the universe, or something to that effect that sounds a lot niftier.
Anyway, math is extremely cool, but I happen to be an applied scientist, and I think it's coolest of all when it teaches us how to build neato stuff using its principles.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I think it's coolest of all when it teaches us how to build neato stuff using its principles.
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)