Live data from Hacker News

Everyone is capable of, and can benefit from, mathematical thinking

quantamagazine.org

91–100 of 419 posts

Re: Everyone is capable of, and can benefit from, mathematical thinking

#91
post #15

I agree with the sentiment of this. I think our obsession with innate mathematical skill and genius is so detrimental to the growth mindset that you need to have in order to learn things. I've been working a lot on my math skills lately (as an adult). A mindset I've had in the past is that "if it's hard, then that means you've hit your ceiling and you're wasting your time." But really, the opposite is true. If it's e…

It's funny because I've had the opposite heuristic most of my line: the things I want to do most are whatever is hardest. This worked great for building my maths and physics skills and knowledge.

But when I started focusing on making money I've come to believe it's a bad heuristic for that purpose.

Re: Everyone is capable of, and can benefit from, mathematical thinking

#92
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying success at maths isn't an inbuilt ability. Instead, it depends on an (inbuilt) ability to hyper focus... Which you are just born with?

Not even that. It depends on the learned ability to stop pushing yourself when your focus is wavering. That's how you develop aversion towards the topic. Let your natural curiosity draw you to particular topics (that's why you might have a winding road through the subject).

parent comment was a bit tounge-in-cheek but I'll continue the sentiment: You're saying that the curiosity is "natural" hence one is either born with it or not. I think that there is no way around the fact that it will be hard and uncomfortable to mimic the progress of someone that has an innate inclination towards a subject (be it talent or focus or curiosity) artificially.

Re: Everyone is capable of, and can benefit from, mathematical thinking

#93
"mathematics is a game of back-and-forth between intuition and logic" I teach/guide Math at our school (we run a small school and currently have kids under age 10) and this is so so true.

I just wrote about this. In fact, you can even see this at play in the video of the kids talking https://blog.comini.in/p/what-happens-in-math-class

Re: Everyone is capable of, and can benefit from, mathematical thinking

#94

A nice sentiment but clearly a large % of people never do learn even basic mathematical thinking and seem very confused by it. So is there some scientific study backing up the claim that all these people could easily learn it or are we just making it up because its a nice egalitarian thesis for a math popularization book?

> So is there some scientific study backing up the claim that all these people could easily learn it [emphasis added] Who said it would be easy?

It is easy to learn for some.

Re: Everyone is capable of, and can benefit from, mathematical thinking

#96
post #17

I’m far from being any kind of serious mathematician, but I’ve learned more in the last couple years of taking that seriously as an ambition than in decades of relegating myself to inferiority on it. One of the highly generous mentors who dragged me kicking and screaming into the world of even making an attempt told me: “There are no bad math students. There are only bad math teachers who themselves had bad math teac…

Sadly, when I was a postdoc, an eminent mathematician I was working under once shared a story that he found amusing that one of his colleagues was once asked a question in the form: "This might be a stupid question, but..." and the response was "There are no stupid questions, only stupid people." Run into too many people like that, who I daresay are common in the field, and it's easy to see how people become dispirit…

Isn't that a positive statement, that you can ask questions without worry since they aren't stupid?

Re: Everyone is capable of, and can benefit from, mathematical thinking

#97
This interplay between intuition and logic is exactly what makes the magic happen. You need intuition to feel your way forward, and then logic to solidify your progress so far, and also for ideas maybe not directly accessible via intuition only. I've experienced that myself, and it is even well-documented, because I wrote technical reports and such at each stage. My discovery of Abstraction Logic went through various stages:

1) First, I had a vague vision of how I want to do mathematics on a computer, based on my experience in interactive theorem proving, and what I didn't like about the current state of affairs: https://doi.org/10.47757/practal.1

2) Then, I had a big breakthrough. It was still quite confused, but what I called back then "first-order abstract syntax" already contained the basic idea: https://obua.com/publications/practical-types/1/

3) I tried to make sense of this then by developing abstraction logic: https://doi.org/10.47757/abstraction.logic.1 . After a while I realized that this version only allowed universes consisting of two elements, because I didn't distinguish between equality and logical equality, which then led to a revised version: https://doi.org/10.47757/abstraction.logic.2

4) My work so far was dominated by intuition based on syntax, and I slowly understood the semantic structures behind this: the mathematical universe consisting of values, and operations and operators on top of that: https://obua.com/publications/philosophy-of-abstraction-logi...

5) I started to play around with this version of abstraction logic by experimenting with automating it, giving a talk about it at a conference, (unsuccessfully) trying to publish a paper about it, and implementing a VSCode plugin for it. As a result of using that plugin I realized that my understanding until now of what axioms are was too narrow: https://practal.com/press/aair/1/

6) As a consequence of my new understanding, I realized that besides terms, templates are also essential: https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.00358

7) I decided to consolidate my understanding through a book. By taking templates seriously from the start when writing, I realized their true importance, which led to a better syntax for terms as well, and to a clearer presentation of Abstraction Algebra. It also opened up my thinking of how Abstraction Algebra is turned into Abstraction Logic: https://practal.com/abstractionlogic/

8) Still lots of stuff to do ...

I would not be surprised if that is exactly the way forward for AIs as well. They clearly have cracked (some sort of) intuition now, and we now need to add that interplay between logic and intuition to the mix.

Re: Everyone is capable of, and can benefit from, mathematical thinking

#98
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Caveat here is that "talent" and "dedication" is linked to speed at least in the beginning. For instance, any student can learn calculus given enough time and advice even starting from scratch. However, the syllabus wants all this to happen in one semester. This gives you vicious and virtuous cycles: Students' learning speed increases with time and past success. So "talented" students learn quickly and have extra tim…

Thank you for the insight that academic (in a very broad sense) bulk-fixed-time approach does in fact produce both of the cycles, and the gap indeed only widens with time (speaking from personal experience, especially from my life as an undergrad student). Reminds me of my personal peeve that "studying" should not be "being taught", studying is pursuit of understanding, "being taught" is what happens in primary schoo…

I would say that you could generalize this even further outside of education. A few early successes in life can greatly accelerate one's trajectory, while early failures could set one many years back. And this happens independently of whether those events are due to skill or luck.

Re: Everyone is capable of, and can benefit from, mathematical thinking

#99
post #15

I agree with the sentiment of this. I think our obsession with innate mathematical skill and genius is so detrimental to the growth mindset that you need to have in order to learn things. I've been working a lot on my math skills lately (as an adult). A mindset I've had in the past is that "if it's hard, then that means you've hit your ceiling and you're wasting your time." But really, the opposite is true. If it's e…

Amazingly, I believe that today, with the myriad of tools available, anyone can advance in sciences like mathematics at their own pace by combining black-box and white-box approaches. Computers, in this context, could serve as your personal “Batcomputer” [1]. That said, I would always recommend engaging in social sciences with others, not working alone.

Who knows? You might also contribute meaningfully to these fields as you embrace your own unique path.

[1] https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Batcomputer

Re: Everyone is capable of, and can benefit from, mathematical thinking

#100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whilst some people (mostly spectrum) do seem have an innate talent I think the only thing in autism that I'd call an innate talent is detail-oriented thinking by default. It'd be the same type of "innate talent" as, say, synesthesia, or schizophrenia: a side effect of experiencing the world differently.

> a side effect of experiencing the world differently A side effect for which there is a substantial, lifelong, and most importantly wide cost, even if it occasionally confers usually small, usually fleeting, and most importantly narrow advantage.

Yes, there is a significant cost to being built differently regardless of perceived advantages (by one's self or others). For example, as an autistic, I have to cope with finding interaction with non-autistics quite difficult for me, even if detail-oriented thinking can make certain tasks seem easier to me.
Post reply on HN