Mathematicians are chronically lost and confused

Post by DerpDerpDerp » Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 7:59 PM UTC

neurobro wrote: post #162

DerpDerpDerp wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The issue is never actually explicitly stating "R represents the set of real numbers" or "n is a natural number". It's at the start of like... every book ever. Pretty much any book on mathematics will start off with a fairly in-depth list of symbols. It's the math equivalent of expecting you know what a 'while' loop is when you go reading through the documentation for a library (reading a paper) - basic programming…

Yep, it's also a good practice for programming. Describe every single-letter variable in the README, which everyone obviously reads and memorizes before diving into the code. I still do this as a throwback to the days when we wrote code on parchment that cost a week's wages per square cubit.

Post by wetmore » Fri, Mar 07, 2014, 12:26 AM UTC

csours wrote: post #157

japhyr wrote: post #41

I currently teach math to at-risk students. I don't read all of these submissions about math education, but I skim the comments on most of them. The comments people make change the way I teach math. I have always done a decent job of teaching math. I focus on helping students understand concepts, even when they are focusing on mechanics. I use words like "shortcut" and "more efficient method" rather than "trick" when…

I love stories like these. I haven't gone much past calculus, what stories can I look for that will take me farther?

Post by tipsy » Fri, Mar 07, 2014, 4:12 PM UTC

cs702 wrote: post #22

nly wrote: post #20

Secondary math education, for me in the UK, didn't deal with anything outside of elementary algebra, Euclidean geometry, some statistics, and relatively simple calculus. Nobody talked to us about imaginary or complex numbers, or bayes theorem, decision theory, or non-trivial mechanics problems until I was in college (age 16+). Nobody mentioned matrices, broader number theory or discrete transforms until I was in univ…

Often I find I spend days or weeks deciphering mathematics in compsci papers only to find the underlying concept is intuitive and plain, but you're forced to learn it bottom up, constructing the authors original genius from the cryptic scrawlings they left in their paper... and you realise a couple of block diagrams and a few short paragraphs could have made the process a lot less frustrating. This is SO TRUE. The sa…

Post by ColinWright » Fri, Mar 07, 2014, 7:38 PM UTC

Shamanmuni wrote: post #189

ColinWright wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understood this assertion. Most people I explain it to in this way still think it's 50:50 because you only have two doors left.

That's odd, I found the 100 doors example is the most efective way of explaining it. It's easy, pick a door, then the host discards 98 doors in which the car isn't. Do they still think that the probability of the other door left is the same than the one they picked? I want to play gambling games with them!

    Pick a door, the host discards 98 doors
    where the car isn't.  There are now two
    doors left, so it's 50:50.

Post by ColinWright » Fri, Mar 07, 2014, 8:45 PM UTC

johnbm wrote: post #196

ColinWright wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understood this assertion. Most people I explain it to in this way still think it's 50:50 because you only have two doors left.

Because it is near impossible to open 98 doors at random and not reveal the car.