Some define it to be a jumble of numbers with confusing orders of operations and tiring algebra...
However, I'd like to put it more eloquently and define it in one word. Math is an art...
However, it is necessary not to stray from the main point of contention that will be discussed today and for possibly many days and weeks from this point on.
Why is Mathematics in school?
It's a waste of time some say, others argue its intriguing.
Personally, I think Math is an important and essential subject within the school curriculum. It's a rudimentary subject that seems so simple when first discovered, like a book's first page, is actually complex and intricate with connections intertwined throughout the whole being that it is.
First of all, it is necessary that we learn. By removing a subject from the school curriculum, it's obvious that we are learning less and therefore it is a detriment to our overall bank of knowledge.
Secondly, it is useful in life. Everyday, math is involved, the number of sections of the sidewalk on your block, or the intricate structure of the skyscraper you saw commuting to work... Math is a fundamental subject, and not only essential it is so much more than just a practicality.
Math is art. Theories created by great minds enrapture young and budding students that wish to learn. Physics, Economics, so many more subjects revolve around math or utilize math in such a manner that it is vital.
And to stop here, I wish to let my fellow people discuss this subject. I have discussed why Math is a necessity in order to localize the more broad and open question...
Why do we have mathematics in school?
EDIT:
So I think I haven't made my question quite clear. Here's what I mean:
On October 15 2010 15:14 mieda wrote: More clarification/verification please:
Do you mean how did Mathematics enter liberal arts education historically? Or do you want to discuss "Why should we have mathematics in liberal arts?"
And maybe you left the question, "What do you think math is?" intentionally vague and very open-ended just to get aimless first responses from people here. I assure you, if you leave the question "What is purpose of math?" as it is, then you're going to get tons of trolling responses.
In order to set boundaries, and working in conjunction with Mieda, I ask this question....
How did Mathematics enter liberal arts education historically?
If you lack the historical background in order to answer this question with comprehension and cognizance, then I also ask this...
Why should we have Mathematics in Liberal Arts?
I also would hope that a sort of quid pro quo would be established here, that the effort put into my response would be put into yours.
cuz its instrumental for a large number of majors and if you take it out of the curriculum those degrees and jobs would be impossible and society would collapse and the options for career paths would be considerably smaller?
On October 15 2010 14:59 mOnion wrote: cuz its instrumental for a large number of majors and if you take it out of the curriculum those degrees and jobs would be impossible and society would collapse and the options for career paths would be considerably smaller?
Ah, please, let's try to avoid practicality and go into depth with other aspects of this question.
On October 15 2010 14:59 mOnion wrote: cuz its instrumental for a large number of majors and if you take it out of the curriculum those degrees and jobs would be impossible and society would collapse and the options for career paths would be considerably smaller?
Ah, please, let's try to avoid practicality and go into depth with other aspects of this question.
I really don't think you can dramatize something like this. should we also discuss the reasoning behind having lunch in school other than the whole "need food to survive" thing?
On October 15 2010 14:59 mOnion wrote: cuz its instrumental for a large number of majors and if you take it out of the curriculum those degrees and jobs would be impossible and society would collapse and the options for career paths would be considerably smaller?
Ah, please, let's try to avoid practicality and go into depth with other aspects of this question.
I really don't think you can dramatize something like this. should we also discuss the reasoning behind having lunch in school other than the whole "need food to survive" thing?
i dont understand what you want to discuss...
like the emotional aspects of math?
So you think Math is just a subject? It seems you fail the realize the depth of what it actually is!
There is no "dramatization" going on, it is merely discussing a question. And to be philosophical, to argue, to debate, to discuss that's what I want to do.
On October 15 2010 14:59 mOnion wrote: cuz its instrumental for a large number of majors and if you take it out of the curriculum those degrees and jobs would be impossible and society would collapse and the options for career paths would be considerably smaller?
Ah, please, let's try to avoid practicality and go into depth with other aspects of this question.
so you want a circle jerk about how much Tlers like math? Half your OP is just adjectives describing beauty being applied to math.
On October 15 2010 14:59 mOnion wrote: cuz its instrumental for a large number of majors and if you take it out of the curriculum those degrees and jobs would be impossible and society would collapse and the options for career paths would be considerably smaller?
Ah, please, let's try to avoid practicality and go into depth with other aspects of this question.
so you want a circle jerk about how much Tlers like math? Half your OP is just adjectives describing beauty being applied to math.
This sums up my feelings on the subject quite nicely. In my high school at least, we never even talked about "proof" or why we were doing what we were. The beauty of the subject is lost amid the demands of a confused and poorly thought out curriculum.
I think math is an excellent way to develop your logic. In fact, I would argue that math, much more than any other subject is how one becomes acquainted with the process of reasoning and deduction.
Also, why does this suspiciously smell like homework?
On October 15 2010 15:11 aliasds wrote: I think math is an excellent way to develop your logic. In fact, I would argue that math, much more than any other subject is how one becomes acquainted with the process of reasoning and deduction.
Also, why does this suspiciously smell like homework?
since mathematics is an extension of formal logic, this follows naturally.
Do you mean how did Mathematics enter liberal arts education historically? Or do you want to discuss "Why should we have mathematics in liberal arts?"
And maybe you left the question, "What do you think math is?" intentionally vague and very open-ended just to get aimless first responses from people here. I assure you, if you leave the question "What is purpose of math?" as it is, then you're going to get tons of trolling responses.
On October 15 2010 15:11 Cube wrote: This sums up my feelings on the subject quite nicely. In my high school at least, we never even talked about "proof" or why we were doing what we were. The beauty of the subject is lost amid the demands of a confused and poorly thought out curriculum.
On October 15 2010 15:11 aliasds wrote: I think math is an excellent way to develop your logic. In fact, I would argue that math, much more than any other subject is how one becomes acquainted with the process of reasoning and deduction.
Also, why does this suspiciously smell like homework?
Detective at work!
I think math gives meanings to certain characters we call numbers. Did I make any sense there?
Are you serious? Everything IS math. Our own existence could be described perfectly (in theory) using only mathematical functions, thereby proving that WE ARE MATH. MATH IS REAL.
English is purely an invention of our own and not a "rudimentary subject" as you call it. Math is the most elementary subject and everything that you can possibly imagine is actually just math in some form or another.
On October 15 2010 15:11 Cube wrote: This sums up my feelings on the subject quite nicely. In my high school at least, we never even talked about "proof" or why we were doing what we were. The beauty of the subject is lost amid the demands of a confused and poorly thought out curriculum.
On October 15 2010 15:06 SonuvBob wrote:
On October 15 2010 14:57 kineSiS- wrote: Why do we have mathematics in school?
We don't, we just have the jumble of numbers you mentioned. Math is far more interesting than what they teach in school (in the US, at least).
it's like this in Canada too.
However, I feel like that wasn't what I meant with the question, I did clarify, I hope you can readjust your response according.
And sonuvbob... that was not my intention, I never applied a blanket statement on Mathematics as being a "jumble of numbers".
you didn't read the whole thing. skip to page four if you don't like his music/painting parallels.
On October 15 2010 15:11 Cube wrote: This sums up my feelings on the subject quite nicely. In my high school at least, we never even talked about "proof" or why we were doing what we were. The beauty of the subject is lost amid the demands of a confused and poorly thought out curriculum.
On October 15 2010 15:06 SonuvBob wrote:
On October 15 2010 14:57 kineSiS- wrote: Why do we have mathematics in school?
We don't, we just have the jumble of numbers you mentioned. Math is far more interesting than what they teach in school (in the US, at least).
it's like this in Canada too.
However, I feel like that wasn't what I meant with the question, I did clarify, I hope you can readjust your response according.
And sonuvbob... that was not my intention, I never applied a blanket statement on Mathematics as being a "jumble of numbers".
you didn't read the whole thing. skip to page four if you don't like his music/painting parallels.
Oh sigh, thank you simpleton for an opinion that holds oh so much weight.
On October 15 2010 15:11 Cube wrote: This sums up my feelings on the subject quite nicely. In my high school at least, we never even talked about "proof" or why we were doing what we were. The beauty of the subject is lost amid the demands of a confused and poorly thought out curriculum.
On October 15 2010 15:06 SonuvBob wrote:
On October 15 2010 14:57 kineSiS- wrote: Why do we have mathematics in school?
We don't, we just have the jumble of numbers you mentioned. Math is far more interesting than what they teach in school (in the US, at least).
it's like this in Canada too.
However, I feel like that wasn't what I meant with the question, I did clarify, I hope you can readjust your response according.
And sonuvbob... that was not my intention, I never applied a blanket statement on Mathematics as being a "jumble of numbers".
you didn't read the whole thing. skip to page four if you don't like his music/painting parallels.
Oh sigh, thank you simpleton for an opinion that holds oh so much weight.
On October 15 2010 15:11 Cube wrote: This sums up my feelings on the subject quite nicely. In my high school at least, we never even talked about "proof" or why we were doing what we were. The beauty of the subject is lost amid the demands of a confused and poorly thought out curriculum.
On October 15 2010 15:06 SonuvBob wrote:
On October 15 2010 14:57 kineSiS- wrote: Why do we have mathematics in school?
We don't, we just have the jumble of numbers you mentioned. Math is far more interesting than what they teach in school (in the US, at least).
it's like this in Canada too.
However, I feel like that wasn't what I meant with the question, I did clarify, I hope you can readjust your response according.
And sonuvbob... that was not my intention, I never applied a blanket statement on Mathematics as being a "jumble of numbers".
you didn't read the whole thing. skip to page four if you don't like his music/painting parallels.
Oh sigh, thank you simpleton for an opinion that holds oh so much weight.
care to elaborate?
" you didn't read the whole thing, skip to page four if you don't like his music/painting parallels."
hah mockery. please, just answer the question and stop trying to discredit me.
i'm not discrediting you, i'm asking you to read the entire text before deciding it is irrelevant. And i'm not going to answer your question in my own words, since I feel the words in the aforementioned text are better than what i could write on the subject.
On October 15 2010 15:37 Cube wrote: i'm not discrediting you, i'm asking you to read the entire text before deciding it is irrelevant. And i'm not going to answer your question in my own words, since I fell the words in the aforementioned text are better than what i could write on the subject.
as an aside, stop being an ass.
EVERYTHING YOU'VE SAID SO FAR IS IRRELEVANT TO MY QUESTION, GET OUT OF THIS THREAD.
On October 15 2010 15:37 Cube wrote: i'm not discrediting you, i'm asking you to read the entire text before deciding it is irrelevant. And i'm not going to answer your question in my own words, since I fell the words in the aforementioned text are better than what i could write on the subject.
as an aside, stop being an ass.
EVERYTHING YOU'VE SAID SO FAR IS IRRELEVANT TO MY QUESTION, GET OUT OF THIS THREAD.
On October 15 2010 15:44 SonuvBob wrote: None of his responses seem to be related to the contents of the quoted posts. I think something might be broken in his head.
Maybe his teachers didn't teach him enough of this 'maths' we've been hearing about.
On October 15 2010 15:52 Lemonwalrus wrote: I would argue that Algebra is more useful irl than Geometry. But maybe my everyday life is different than the average person's, idk.
i would argue that algebraic geometry is more useful IRL than geometry or algebra, but maybe my life is different than the average person's, idk.
actually i lied, abstract algebra is probably more useful, my bad.
On October 15 2010 15:52 Lemonwalrus wrote: I would argue that Algebra is more useful irl than Geometry. But maybe my everyday life is different than the average person's, idk.
Yea i guess that the average guy doesn't deal with vector spaces and triangularizations on a daily basis =D
On October 15 2010 15:26 Disregard wrote: Discrete math for Computer Science/Engineering bleh...
I rather have my linear algebra with it's sexy matrices.
As for math in liberal arts. The ability to derive equations based off data and observations is integral to understanding how to keep yourself in a fiscally responsible situation. Although with encouraging the students into using critical thinking, which if one can think and ask questions and verify things all things critical to journalism which is in liberal arts or writing which is also in liberal arts. Even painting and graphic design all has roots with math. How do you know keep certain ratios and things known to be ascetically appealing., though statistics and science all which have strong roots in math.
If you ever were going to understand something not just do something math will help you =p
i love analysis, and find zero usefulness in it when not doing it for the sake of learning. I think algebra is more fun, and more practical than geometry. The rationalization and decision making process one learns with proofs in geometry are one thing, but other than that the whole .. .. discipline? idk the right word, kind of lackluster.
LW, I would argue he is trying pretty hard, and its actually incredibly funny. :-p i love analysis, and find zero usefulness in it when not doing it for the sake of learning. I think algebra is more fun, and more practical than geometry. The rationalization and decision making process one learns with proofs in geometry are one thing, but other than that the whole .. .. discipline? idk the right word, kind of lackluster.
LW, I would argue he is trying pretty hard, and its actually incredibly funny. :-p
I am a computer science student and I love math. That said, I think the more advanced stuff is not as important as people try to make it sound. Most people can do very well without linear algebra...
I'd like people to study more statistics though. Especially people from the "non-exact sciences".
I too love math, but am intimidated, since as i learn more, i learn about more i don't know. Looking to get more into number theory, abstract algebra, and eventually topology at the moment... while doing my CS degree. (what i understand of cryptography is really neat).
On October 15 2010 16:22 Cube wrote: I too love math, but am intimidated, since as i learn more, i learn about more i don't know. Looking to get more into number theory, abstract algebra, and eventually topology at the moment... while doing my CS degree. (what i understand of cryptography is really neat).
Good taste .
About the part of your being intimidated, I think it's okay as long as you're enjoying it (personal experience from what I've seen). Sure you're going to see a lot of kids who can figure out p-adic langlands soon after high school (I have someone in mind ^^), but I also see plenty of late-boomers who do well in things like number theory.
I guess you know what you're getting into, but modern number theory is really nothing like classical/elementary number theory. You're going to have to learn a lot of algebraic geometry (especially those cohomology theories over fields beside the simple C, and all those grothendieck revolution stuff), representation theory, modular / automorphic forms (maybe not so much directly with modularity if you're working with shimura varieties), algebraic number theory (so, class field theory i guess), etc.. to name a few.
On October 15 2010 16:22 Cube wrote: I too love math, but am intimidated, since as i learn more, i learn about more i don't know. Looking to get more into number theory, abstract algebra, and eventually topology at the moment... while doing my CS degree. (what i understand of cryptography is really neat).
Good taste .
About the part of your being intimidated, I think it's okay as long as you're enjoying it (personal experience from what I've seen). Sure you're going to see a lot of kids who can figure out p-adic langlands soon after high school (I have someone in mind ^^), but I also see plenty of late-boomers who do well in things like number theory.
I guess you know what you're getting into, but modern number theory is really nothing like classical/elementary number theory. You're going to have to learn a lot of algebraic geometry (especially those cohomology theories over fields beside the simple C, and all those grothendieck revolution stuff), representation theory, modular / automorphic forms (maybe not so much directly with modularity if you're working with shimura varieties), algebraic number theory (so, class field theory i guess), etc.. to name a few.
i'm hoping to gain a basic understanding by taking university courses, and then work from there
On October 15 2010 16:22 Cube wrote: I too love math, but am intimidated, since as i learn more, i learn about more i don't know. Looking to get more into number theory, abstract algebra, and eventually topology at the moment... while doing my CS degree. (what i understand of cryptography is really neat).
Good taste .
About the part of your being intimidated, I think it's okay as long as you're enjoying it (personal experience from what I've seen). Sure you're going to see a lot of kids who can figure out p-adic langlands soon after high school (I have someone in mind ^^), but I also see plenty of late-boomers who do well in things like number theory.
I guess you know what you're getting into, but modern number theory is really nothing like classical/elementary number theory. You're going to have to learn a lot of algebraic geometry (especially those cohomology theories over fields beside the simple C, and all those grothendieck revolution stuff), representation theory, modular / automorphic forms (maybe not so much directly with modularity if you're working with shimura varieties), algebraic number theory (so, class field theory i guess), etc.. to name a few.
i'm hoping to gain a basic understanding by taking university courses, and then work from there
Great! Hope you take the courses from actual number theorists!
On October 15 2010 16:50 OneOther wrote: haha this op is clearly trying a little too hard to be a smartass. it is too bad that he can't hide his bad writing and grammar through thesaurus
The sad thing is, a lot of the replies are like that too. People who would rather read equation-less books about string theory than learn any physics. People who can tell you everything about what NP-complete means and yet couldn't solve a differential equation.
The "maths is so beautiful I am so smart" crowd are ruining it !!!
Some define it to be a jumble of numbers with confusing orders of operations and tiring algebra...
However, I'd like to put it more eloquently and define it in one word. sex is an art...
However, it is necessary not to stray from the main point of contention that will be discussed today and for possibly many days and weeks from this point on.
Why is sexematics in school?
It's a waste of time some say, others argue its intriguing.
Personally, I think sex is an important and essential subject within the school curriculum. It's a rudimentary subject that seems so simple when first discovered, like a book's first page, is actually complex and intricate with connections intertwined throughout the whole being that it is.
First of all, it is necessary that we learn. By removing a subject from the school curriculum, it's obvious that we are learning less and therefore it is a detriment to our overall bank of knowledge.
Secondly, it is useful in life. Everyday, sex is involved, the number of sections of the sidewalk on your block, or the intricate structure of the skyscraper you saw commuting to work... sex is a fundamental subject, and not only essential it is so much more than just a practicality.
sex is art. Theories created by great minds enrapture young and budding students that wish to learn. Physics, Economics, so many more subjects revolve around sex or utilize sex in such a manner that it is vital.
And to stop here, I wish to let my fellow people discuss this subject. I have discussed why sex is a necessity in order to localize the more broad and open question...
Why do we have sexematics in school?
EDIT:
So I think I haven't made my question quite clear. Here's what I mean:
On October 15 2010 15:14 mieda wrote: More clarification/verification please:
Do you mean how did sexematics enter liberal arts education historically? Or do you want to discuss "Why should we have sexematics in liberal arts?"
And maybe you left the question, "What do you think sex is?" intentionally vague and very open-ended just to get aimless first responses from people here. I assure you, if you leave the question "What is purpose of sex?" as it is, then you're going to get tons of trolling responses.
In order to set boundaries, and working in conjunction with Mieda, I ask this question....
How did sexematics enter liberal arts education historically?
If you lack the historical background in order to answer this question with comprehension and cognizance, then I also ask this...
Why should we have sexematics in Liberal Arts?
I also would hope that a sort of quid pro quo would be established here, that the effort put into my response would be put into yours.
On October 15 2010 16:50 OneOther wrote: haha this op is clearly trying a little too hard to be a smartass. it is too bad that he can't hide his bad writing and grammar through thesaurus
The sad thing is, a lot of the replies are like that too. People who would rather read equation-less books about string theory than learn any physics. People who can tell you everything about what NP-complete means and yet couldn't solve a differential equation.
The "maths is so beautiful I am so smart" crowd are ruining it !!!
OP ...Uh.... no-one said you had to do maths in school? I didn't do maths in my senior years and still passed and went to university. Not doing maths does not allow me to enter some courses like science or engineering etc but its completely viable.
Anyways asking why they teach basic maths is the same as asking why we don't teach history for the sake of history anymore. Leaning historical dates is useless if children aren't taught the meaning of context and why those events happened. Society wants people to be able to think somewhat critically as well as independently and you need a curriculum that teaches logic and thought for that.
Of course I can only speak about my education though. But I imagine if you arent raised in some horridly backwards education system your experience would be similar.
On October 15 2010 15:26 Disregard wrote: Discrete math for Computer Science/Engineering bleh...
I rather have my linear algebra with it's sexy matrices.
As for math in liberal arts. The ability to derive equations based off data and observations is integral to understanding how to keep yourself in a fiscally responsible situation. Although with encouraging the students into using critical thinking, which if one can think and ask questions and verify things all things critical to journalism which is in liberal arts or writing which is also in liberal arts. Even painting and graphic design all has roots with math. How do you know keep certain ratios and things known to be ascetically appealing., though statistics and science all which have strong roots in math.
If you ever were going to understand something not just do something math will help you =p
Mmm matrices, what would I ever do without them. Use Dirac notation I guess.
On October 15 2010 15:23 alffla wrote: FUCK I HATE MATH.
well i love trig and geometry and stuff rolf but other than that anythign more complicated i start to lose interest.. >_>
I bet I could make you enjoy the complicated looking math in there within a week! The problem with how math is presented in many cases (and I like math) is that there is no motivating force behind it - it's just here is this and that and there and blah blah blah, which I must say is boring as fuck and would not grab my attention. And I like math, so that's saying something.
Or, I could answer the question of why tensor products with composite states (ok not that short and dirty, but threads are threads), and why define a unitary operator? with conservation of probability and its relation to real measurements - real quantum gates, and so on. Imho it's a lot easier to learn a certain subset of math when it has direct impact and use on a subject which on a higher level you have deep interest in. That's why learning all the math surrounding quantum is easy for me - the math is motivated by the quantum which is motivated by quantum computing/information.
if it hasn't already come up, this is a very enlightening piece on some of the issues with math education right now, by an extremely well regarded teacher and mathematician. It's definitely worth the read for those of you who hated math ^^
for the record this is a systematic demolition of pretty much every defence of the mathematics curriculum in both linear argument and pseudosocratic dialogue. It's a thing of beauty that will bring tears to your eyes. You should read it.
iirc it has something to do with the Cold War and how the pure sciences were mass taught in schools so that each side could out technologise (is that a word??) each other. The trend carried through and created many jobs and has become acceptable as common subjects nowadays.
Okay, okay I kind of bsed that last line, but I believe my first statement is fairly accurate.
Some math courses are completely unnecessary. Differential equations for software engineers? I think they're more like a tradition than anything. Yes they help you think and abstract and whatever but for some areas there are better problems to be solved that make you think and abstract and are actually related to your area. Some of those courses are just like having a sudoku solving class, that while cool and hard and whatever, isn't really applicable.
The question of "why should we have x" is misguided. It is implicit that there needs to be a collective decision in what everyone gets. But in education specially, this isn't and can't be a collective action, for if the student wants to, he will never learn x, even if it were required by law.
Education isn't some object a central planner can easily regulate, like how many seatbelts a car has, or the concentration of fluoride in the water. No, it is much more personal, something that should be left for the student, and its parents whilst a minor. Not just because it's the most moral path, but also the most pragmatic for the purpose of specialization, and therefore superior wealth in society.
I keep coming back to this OP and smacking my gob at how + Show Spoiler +
it is.
By now no one takes this seriously anymore and nobody cares, but the irony in anyone asking how mathematics entered the liberal arts historically and then huffing about the effort being put into their posts must be pointed out for me to be able to type a few pages about Mary Wollstonecraft.
On October 15 2010 18:28 tomatriedes wrote: I have a feeling this OP doesn't really want a debate- he wants someone to say the answer that he's already decided is the 'right' answer.
Algebra is directly useful in a small minority of jobs, yet it's required to get a high-school diploma. If not everyone can understand algebra and more jobs require a diploma than require algebra, do you see the problem? (hint: do the math)
Math up to algebra should be required though, I agree.
On October 15 2010 15:18 Uranium wrote: Are you serious? Everything IS math. Our own existence could be described perfectly (in theory) using only mathematical functions, thereby proving that WE ARE MATH. MATH IS REAL.
English is purely an invention of our own and not a "rudimentary subject" as you call it. Math is the most elementary subject and everything that you can possibly imagine is actually just math in some form or another.
I don't think the socks I'm wearing right now are math and I am sure your math professor would agree. But if you did mean that everything - except you there - follows the laws of logic, then yeah, that's true. But it doesn't mean everything is logic. My socks for example aren't. They're a type of clothing.
On October 15 2010 15:18 Uranium wrote: Are you serious? Everything IS math. Our own existence could be described perfectly (in theory) using only mathematical functions, thereby proving that WE ARE MATH. MATH IS REAL.
English is purely an invention of our own and not a "rudimentary subject" as you call it. Math is the most elementary subject and everything that you can possibly imagine is actually just math in some form or another.
I don't think the socks I'm wearing right now are math and I am sure your math professor would agree. But if you did mean that everything - except you there - follows the laws of logic, then yeah, that's true. But it doesn't mean everything is logic. My socks for example aren't. They're a type of clothing.
How many socks are you wearing? One on the left foot, one on the right foot?
On October 15 2010 15:18 Uranium wrote: Are you serious? Everything IS math. Our own existence could be described perfectly (in theory) using only mathematical functions, thereby proving that WE ARE MATH. MATH IS REAL.
English is purely an invention of our own and not a "rudimentary subject" as you call it. Math is the most elementary subject and everything that you can possibly imagine is actually just math in some form or another.
I don't think the socks I'm wearing right now are math and I am sure your math professor would agree. But if you did mean that everything - except you there - follows the laws of logic, then yeah, that's true. But it doesn't mean everything is logic. My socks for example aren't. They're a type of clothing.
How many socks are you wearing? One on the left foot, one on the right foot?
1 + 1 = 2
Math bro
Yeah, but it still doesn't make my socks math. As I said, try consulting your math professor. Dictionary may be helpful too.
On October 15 2010 15:18 Uranium wrote: Are you serious? Everything IS math. Our own existence could be described perfectly (in theory) using only mathematical functions, thereby proving that WE ARE MATH. MATH IS REAL.
English is purely an invention of our own and not a "rudimentary subject" as you call it. Math is the most elementary subject and everything that you can possibly imagine is actually just math in some form or another.
I don't think the socks I'm wearing right now are math and I am sure your math professor would agree. But if you did mean that everything - except you there - follows the laws of logic, then yeah, that's true. But it doesn't mean everything is logic. My socks for example aren't. They're a type of clothing.
How many socks are you wearing? One on the left foot, one on the right foot?
1 + 1 = 2
Math bro
Yeah, but it still doesn't make my socks math. As I said, try consulting your math professor. Dictionary may be helpful too.
When someone says that everything is math, it usually means everything can be described by math. He's not really stating that the objects you wear are made of an logical language system. He's likely stating that everything existing can be explained using math.
Your statement that socks are just clothing can be similar to stating that you wear objects on your feet that have a specific mass, length, width, and depth in a three dimensional space (A mathematician could explain a sock through math better than I). They are both two different languages, you simply chose to use the word sock, specific to a few languages, to define the things you put on your feet.
Everything currently can be explained by math, but when people find new objects (quarks, mesons, probability events, chemical and evolutional equilibriums, and compounds) they have to rely on math to define it first, then it's up to all the other languages to describe the event in their own way so that it can be more comprehensible. It's all about definition. Now run along and learn a new language from your math professor.
I'm really glad to see how many people here on TL feel that math is so important. I majored in math in college, but unfortunately I still don't have a great grasp of how math gets used in the real world. I just studied the theoretical stuff and it's really all I'm good at. For me there is too much ambiguity and uncertainty in real-world or like modeling applications. But so long as everyone says it's important, I can feel glad that I am good at it.
I also agree with some of the posts about how lousy the math education is here in America. Kids learn to hate math, and considering the way they are taught the subject, I completely understand where they are coming from. It's ironic that so many people think math is about memorizing formulas and procedures. The reality is that by approaching math as something to memorize, people manage to spend years in math classes without developing even the slightest bit of mathematical reasoning. Kids graduate high school in this country without knowing how to add fractions. They only know how to divide fractions by "invert and multiply", but sometimes they forget which fraction to invert.. And they can't multiply general polynomials, because if either factor has more than 2 terms, FOIL no longer applies. It's a sad state of affairs. I am hoping to change it =p.
Honestly, aside from basic arithmetic (you know, not real math), not everyone needs math. It only is needed for science. Calculus was invented purely for the purposes of physics, differential equations for bunch of other natural sciences, so on and so forth. It became so important during the cold war era when people realized that in order to beat the commies (or the bourgeoisie bastards depending on which side of the iron curtain you were on), reading up on Shakespeare or trying to find historical evidence that Aristotle had gay sex with boys weren't gonna help. That is when you started seeing a lot of resources being put into math and science. Because pre-university curriculum had to be pretty much the same for everyone, even people who were not going into the sciences had to learn it.
Turns out though, you need to have a decent amount of logic and brainpower to do high school math. So it became a sort of a measuring stick for humanities majors also.
And because of the way math is taught, many people go to college and think "oh I did awesome in Algebra in high school" or "calculus is so easy" and decide to major in math, only to realize real math is a pain in the ass that only masochists should attempt to do. And they struggle in agony while us physicists laugh at them and play with our lasers and magnets. But then again, we think we are better than everyone else so its not very surprising. Except for engineers. We know we are better than them
On October 19 2010 07:25 DragonDefonce wrote: Honestly, aside from basic arithmetic (you know, not real math), not everyone needs math. It only is needed for science. Calculus was invented purely for the purposes of physics, differential equations for bunch of other natural sciences, so on and so forth. It became so important during the cold war era when people realized that in order to beat the commies (or the bourgeoisie bastards depending on which side of the iron curtain you were on), reading up on Shakespeare or trying to find historical evidence that Aristotle had gay sex with boys weren't gonna help. That is when you started seeing a lot of resources being put into math and science. Because pre-university curriculum had to be pretty much the same for everyone, even people who were not going into the sciences had to learn it.
Turns out though, you need to have a decent amount of logic and brainpower to do high school math. So it became a sort of a measuring stick for humanities majors also.
And because of the way math is taught, many people go to college and think "oh I did awesome in Algebra in high school" or "calculus is so easy" and decide to major in math, only to realize real math is a pain in the ass that only masochists should attempt to do. And they struggle in agony while us physicists laugh at them and play with our lasers and magnets. But then again, we think we are better than everyone else so its not very surprising. Except for engineers. We know we are better than them
Some define it to be a jumble of numbers with confusing orders of operations and tiring algebra...
However, I'd like to put it more eloquently and define it in one word. sex is an art...
However, it is necessary not to stray from the main point of contention that will be discussed today and for possibly many days and weeks from this point on.
Why is sexematics in school?
It's a waste of time some say, others argue its intriguing.
Personally, I think sex is an important and essential subject within the school curriculum. It's a rudimentary subject that seems so simple when first discovered, like a book's first page, is actually complex and intricate with connections intertwined throughout the whole being that it is.
First of all, it is necessary that we learn. By removing a subject from the school curriculum, it's obvious that we are learning less and therefore it is a detriment to our overall bank of knowledge.
Secondly, it is useful in life. Everyday, sex is involved, the number of sections of the sidewalk on your block, or the intricate structure of the skyscraper you saw commuting to work... sex is a fundamental subject, and not only essential it is so much more than just a practicality.
sex is art. Theories created by great minds enrapture young and budding students that wish to learn. Physics, Economics, so many more subjects revolve around sex or utilize sex in such a manner that it is vital.
And to stop here, I wish to let my fellow people discuss this subject. I have discussed why sex is a necessity in order to localize the more broad and open question...
Why do we have sexematics in school?
EDIT:
So I think I haven't made my question quite clear. Here's what I mean:
On October 15 2010 15:14 mieda wrote: More clarification/verification please:
Do you mean how did sexematics enter liberal arts education historically? Or do you want to discuss "Why should we have sexematics in liberal arts?"
And maybe you left the question, "What do you think sex is?" intentionally vague and very open-ended just to get aimless first responses from people here. I assure you, if you leave the question "What is purpose of sex?" as it is, then you're going to get tons of trolling responses.
In order to set boundaries, and working in conjunction with Mieda, I ask this question....
How did sexematics enter liberal arts education historically?
If you lack the historical background in order to answer this question with comprehension and cognizance, then I also ask this...
Why should we have sexematics in Liberal Arts?
I also would hope that a sort of quid pro quo would be established here, that the effort put into my response would be put into yours.
funnily enough, this just about makes more sense than the OP's version
On October 15 2010 15:18 Uranium wrote: Are you serious? Everything IS math. Our own existence could be described perfectly (in theory) using only mathematical functions, thereby proving that WE ARE MATH. MATH IS REAL.
English is purely an invention of our own and not a "rudimentary subject" as you call it. Math is the most elementary subject and everything that you can possibly imagine is actually just math in some form or another.
I don't think the socks I'm wearing right now are math and I am sure your math professor would agree. But if you did mean that everything - except you there - follows the laws of logic, then yeah, that's true. But it doesn't mean everything is logic. My socks for example aren't. They're a type of clothing.
How many socks are you wearing? One on the left foot, one on the right foot?
1 + 1 = 2
Math bro
Yeah, but it still doesn't make my socks math. As I said, try consulting your math professor. Dictionary may be helpful too.
When someone says that everything is math, it usually means everything can be described by math. He's not really stating that the objects you wear are made of an logical language system. He's likely stating that everything existing can be explained using math.
Your statement that socks are just clothing can be similar to stating that you wear objects on your feet that have a specific mass, length, width, and depth in a three dimensional space (A mathematician could explain a sock through math better than I). They are both two different languages, you simply chose to use the word sock, specific to a few languages, to define the things you put on your feet.
Everything currently can be explained by math, but when people find new objects (quarks, mesons, probability events, chemical and evolutional equilibriums, and compounds) they have to rely on math to define it first, then it's up to all the other languages to describe the event in their own way so that it can be more comprehensible. It's all about definition. Now run along and learn a new language from your math professor.
That's now what it means though. They can mean that by it, but it actually means something else. People should say what they mean, or at the very least mean what they say.
And thank you for the encouragement. I do learn math from my professors five days a week.
math is a pain to learn for some people just outta pure interest but no one can argue that it isn't useful.
i guess from what i can remember; people i knew back in highschool including myself always questioned when would i ever need to know say.. quadratics in order to become like a police officer or an english teacher or a journalist or camera operator, etc.
well maybe you dont need to know it.. but a lot of jobs require aptitude tests and whether the job itself requires math or not, those tests do (mostly simple but you never know)
people these days dont just want one certain type of person. they want a well rounded person. so even if you're in the arts, it couldn't hurt to be adequate with math
In my opinion the reason math is required as part of a general education its not so much about being able to do the math, but about being about to think is a certain way. This "mathematical" way of thinking about situations is very useful to have.
On October 21 2010 07:09 Zortch wrote: In my opinion the reason math is required as part of a general education its not so much about being able to do the math, but about being about to think is a certain way. This "mathematical" way of thinking about situations is very useful to have.
What are some "mathematical" modes of thinking that you have in mind and are referring to?
Unfortunately in USA, most people come out thinking math is about executing/applying series of rules/algorithms to compute something (integrals, derivatives, coefficients of fourier series, multiplying two integers, etc.). Rarely do they learn to think through things logically, creatively, and be able to give precise argument/proof for why certain facts/propositions/theorems are true using definitions, quoting previous theorems.
The latter set of skills is what most idealists would have in mind, but it's so poorly executed by teachers / curriculum now. Sure the idea is great, but it's like D- noobs trying to copy Flash by turtling in base all day long (and getting raped in couple minutes), i.e. execution (how to) for teaching is terrible.
USA had this "new math" thing in the 50's where people actually learned the language of set theory and learned to really prove things from the basic principles. Where did that go?
The reasons for including math in general education is great, but I really think teachers (in k-12 in USA, say) ought to stick to those ideas.
Just simply thinking logically and deductively is one example that mathematics and help to teach. Later on, being able to think abstractly becomes essential. A lot of people have trouble with ideas like "Let f be a function." or "Let x be a real number." and through math they can learn to deal with this sort of abstract notion. Then this sort of thinking can be applied to some other situations (maybe haha). Its not necessarially "mathematical" thinking - maybe that was a poor word choice on my part - so much as ways of thinking that arise naturally and commonly in mathematics and thus can be learned through the study of math.
However, as you pointed out these nice ideas are not always taught very well in practice.
On October 21 2010 07:38 Zortch wrote: Just simply thinking logically and deductively is one example that mathematics and help to teach. Later on, being able to think abstractly becomes essential. A lot of people have trouble with ideas like "Let f be a function." or "Let x be a real number." and through math they can learn to deal with this sort of abstract notion. Then this sort of thinking can be applied to some other situations (maybe haha). Its not necessarially "mathematical" thinking - maybe that was a poor word choice on my part - so much as ways of thinking that arise naturally and commonly in mathematics and thus can be learned through the study of math.
However, as you pointed out these nice ideas are not always taught very well in practice.
I see. I find that also quite important.
There's something I've always had a qualm with in K-12 mathematics in this country (USA). When people teach arithmetic, why do they only teach rules and algorithms for computing addition, multiplication, or division of natural numbers? For example, most people learn how to compute 56*13, say, by the rule 6*3 = 18, then 1 goes above 5, etc. etc. I think it's very rare to find a class where they actually prove that this rule works by using distribute law (which is another rule/law that ought to be discussed more and proved I think) by decomposing 56 = 50 + 6 and 13 = 10 + 3, after having memorized the basic multiplication results for digits of base 10.
There some other things in the current math education where math is reduced to a series of rules/algorithms to follow.
I think the problem may be that tests / assessments in mathematics put too much emphasis on these rules/computations aspects of math, which leads most students to feel that that's what math is all about. I find important what you find important (the kind of thinking you mentioned) but way too many teachers in this country just put easy-to-grade computational problems in their tests. Result: Students learn to think of math as a set of unmotivated rules/algorithms.
Here's a suggestion, tell me what would be wrong with this:
* Teach how to really prove results, and put them on tests as well as the computational kind of math * In fact when we teach arithmetic just do (elementary) number theory. Prove euclidean algorithm in class and in tests, show representations of integers with different bases, how to add/multiply/divide and prove they work, show unique factorization into primes, etc. for example what you may find in niven & zuckermann's book. * Instead of the calculus we have now, where students just memorize derivatives and integrals without any motivation, just do real analysis - follow rudin or something. We already have enough of those "calculus for other science majors" running amok, we don't need to do this for an actual math class.
I'm not saying throw out computational math. Computational math is very much part of mathematics, but doing only computation doesn't help students to think "mathematically" at all.
If we're to really teach students how to think "mathematically," then I find the above suggestions quite reasonable. Do exercises in constructing rational numbers from the integers (that are constructed from Peano Axioms) properly, learn that there's something to do to go from rationals to reals (either by dedekind cuts or cauchy-sequences) to have it satisfy nice properties (existence of inf, sup, etc.), and do the god-damn epsilon-delta proof instead of hand-waving "oh limit of x^2 as x goes to 3 is 9 because it looks like it." It will genuinely teach students how to handle abstract data!! One of the merits of doing math is (and should be!) that you learn to write things with precision with solid, valid logical arguments from the definitions and givens.
Not everyone can handle a high level of abstraction. Probably a lot of you guys were pretty good at math as students and now take the ability to absorb such concepts for granted.
Yes addition and division rules should be explained and justified but just imagine trying to get a group of third graders focused enough to pay attention to you...they'd rather have an efficient way of being "right."
Personally, although I dislike the heavy emphasis on computation and algorithm, I think if students in general were smart enough (I'm obviously talking math smart, not other types of intelligence) to find it trivial there would have been less of it.
Although I really do think that math education in the us could be improved greatly at least in calculus. As it is now, ap calculus is not much different than 6th grade word problems and arithmetic.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://zs1.smbc-comics.com/comics/20091116.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.marriedtothesea.com/050909/raising-our-hands.gif)
![[image loading]](http://images.travelpod.com/users/pierrez/worldholdon.1173252120.destroyed_building.jpg)
