![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: scott
Subject: Re: I haven't read the entire paper yet, but the analogies are ratherapt
Date: 14 Dec 2010 04:38:33
Message: <4d073b19$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> Although it did leave me wondering for a moment: Am I actually "good at
>> math"? Or am I just good at following directions?
>
> Perhaps it could be compared to computer algorithms: If you are given
> a computational problem for which you need to create an efficient algorithm,
> how good are you at coming up with such an algorithm?
ie How many Project Euler problems have you solved? (and by "solved" I
mean properly, so that you get the answer in less than 1 minute of
computer time, which IIRC is the target).
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Neeum Zawan
Subject: Re: I haven't read the entire paper yet, but the analogies are ratherapt
Date: 15 Dec 2010 10:41:07
Message: <87mxo782oh.fsf@fester.com>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com> writes:
> FWIW, I learned virtually nothing in music class and nothing at all in
> art class. Art class, such as it was, consisted of the teacher trying to
> come up with rules about what you drew to ensure it occupied the entire
> 45-minute class to draw it.
Yeah, years ago I sent that same essay to a friend, and he said his
music class was exactly the one being parodied.
> And while I took and understood a great deal of math, it wasn't until
> physics class that I suddenly said "Oh, *that* is what an integral is
> for!"
I dunno. My textbook made it clear it was about summing infinitesimal
quantities.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: I haven't read the entire paper yet, but the analogies are ratherapt
Date: 15 Dec 2010 10:48:43
Message: <4d08e35b$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> And while I took and understood a great deal of math, it wasn't until
>> physics class that I suddenly said "Oh, *that* is what an integral is
>> for!"
>
> I dunno. My textbook made it clear it was about summing infinitesimal
> quantities.
Yeah, but what is it *for*? When, outside of calc class, would you ever do
such a thing? That's what I hadn't figured out.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Neeum Zawan
Subject: Re: I haven't read the entire paper yet, but the analogies are ratherapt
Date: 15 Dec 2010 16:14:23
Message: <87ei9i91tk.fsf@fester.com>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com> writes:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> I dunno. My textbook made it clear it was about summing infinitesimal
>> quantities.
>
> Yeah, but what is it *for*? When, outside of calc class, would you ever
> do such a thing? That's what I hadn't figured out.
They had the usual examples, like calculating work by integrating the
force.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: I haven't read the entire paper yet, but the analogies are ratherapt
Date: 15 Dec 2010 16:19:29
Message: <4d0930e1$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com> writes:
>
>> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>> I dunno. My textbook made it clear it was about summing infinitesimal
>>> quantities.
>> Yeah, but what is it *for*? When, outside of calc class, would you ever
>> do such a thing? That's what I hadn't figured out.
>
> They had the usual examples, like calculating work by integrating the
> force.
Right. That's the physics I was talking about. I never saw examples in our
textbooks about *why* you want to do this thing. Just curves, and how to
figure out the area underneath. Not where the curves came from.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: scott
Subject: Re: I haven't read the entire paper yet, but the analogies are ratherapt
Date: 16 Dec 2010 03:48:32
Message: <4d09d260@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> They had the usual examples, like calculating work by integrating the
>> force.
>
> Right. That's the physics I was talking about. I never saw examples in
> our textbooks about *why* you want to do this thing. Just curves, and
> how to figure out the area underneath. Not where the curves came from.
You just needed the right text book. Our maths was split into pure and
applied, with separate text books. Pure had all the theoretical stuff
for calculus etc, applied had carefully contrived examples of how you
applied it IRL, things like analysing rockets taking off and various
mechanisms.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Orchid XP v8
Subject: Re: I haven't read the entire paper yet, but the analogies are ratherapt
Date: 16 Dec 2010 07:13:56
Message: <4d0a0284$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 13/12/2010 06:23 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Proof by contradiction isn't reducto ad absurdum.
What is then?
>> This doesn't *prove* anything, but it does explain why you can't solve
>> the equation, in a way which intuitively makes sense.
>
> Actually, that *is* a valid proof. I'm not sure why you think it's not a
> proof.
Presumably since I haven't proven the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic,
this doesn't count as a valid proof.
It does, however, make a lot more sense to somebody who is willing to
take it on faith. (I gather that actually *proving* the matter in this
direction is drastically more complex...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: I haven't read the entire paper yet, but the analogies are ratherapt
Date: 16 Dec 2010 11:05:03
Message: <4d0a38af$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> On 13/12/2010 06:23 PM, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Proof by contradiction isn't reducto ad absurdum.
>
> What is then?
Reducto ad absurdum is reducto ad absurdum.
> Presumably since I haven't proven the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic,
> this doesn't count as a valid proof.
That's an implicit lemma of most proofs.
For example, your "on the other hand" paragraph might need proof, might not,
depending who you're trying to prove it to.
> It does, however, make a lot more sense to somebody who is willing to
> take it on faith. (I gather that actually *proving* the matter in this
> direction is drastically more complex...)
No, it's one of the first known mathematical proofs. It's not drastically
more complex.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |