INTENSITY²
Start here => What's your crime? Basic Discussion => Topic started by: RageBeoulve on October 31, 2013, 03:40:03 PM
-
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-
-
Come on it's easy the answer is 3 :M
-
Come on it's easy the answer is 3 :M
:LOL:
Really though. Factoring equations is the stupidest thing I have ever encountered in school. The AC method makes it just a tad easier to manipulate things, but its still annoying as fucking fuck.
-
So they still use paper to do maths on despite computers :M
-
My new HP calculator can solve symbolic algebra. :M
-
I see fury, and hear "FFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-" about annoying and too easy math a few times a week.
My mother heart bleeds for you. :hahaha:
-
Does anyone actually use that crap in real life...or is it just another course to frustrate you and waste your time?
I've always wanted to know.
-
Does anyone actually use that crap in real life...or is it just another course to frustrate you and waste your time?
I've always wanted to know.
I think it changes the way you view conceptual math, just being able to figure out those kinds of equations. that's about the only benefit I can see. I was talking to my physics professor about that, and he worked as a military engineer for like thirty some years. He says they use calculus for builds and shit, not ALGEBRA.
So I dunno.
-
Does anyone actually use that crap in real life...or is it just another course to frustrate you and waste your time?
I've always wanted to know.
You do in many ways. I leatrned algebra in high school using only word problems that described real life situations, such as car leases, etc. With word problems you have to find the numbers yourself and figure out the apropriate equation before workking it. I was very strong in word problems because of that. I forgot most of it though. :(
-
They use some of it in physics but not all or even most of it.
It's an old tradition to learn more maths than you will ever need. Plato stated that no one should be allowed to be a "philosopher king" without studying maths for 30 years first :zombiefuck:
-
They use some of it in physics but not all or even most of it.
It's an old tradition to learn more maths than you will ever need. Plato stated that no one should be allowed to be a "philosopher king" without studying maths for 30 years first :zombiefuck:
I hate it when you ask why something works the way it does, and the teacher will say "That's just the way this method works, dear." Like these people are supposed to be mathematicians, and they never tried to take these methods apart and examine how they work?
"Method." "Standard model."
The fuck is up with that shit? How about this is the root of how this works, now go figure it out? Fuck a bunch of memorization. That's not understanding how something works at all.
-
Does anyone actually use that crap in real life...or is it just another course to frustrate you and waste your time?
I've always wanted to know.
Yes. Some use it all the time.
-
I always wished I wasn't fucking dyscalculic.
Aside from more mundane day to day needs, Lack of almost all math really holds me back from being able to better understand a lot of the quantum physics and particle physics concepts I find interesting
-
I always wished I wasn't fucking dyscalculic.
Aside from more mundane day to day needs, Lack of almost all math really holds me back from being able to better understand a lot of the quantum physics and particle physics concepts I find interesting
Kaku's books cater to the mathematically disinclined physicist. He did it intentionally because he strives to give physics to the masses. It's good.
-
I always wished I wasn't fucking dyscalculic.
Aside from more mundane day to day needs, Lack of almost all math really holds me back from being able to better understand a lot of the quantum physics and particle physics concepts I find interesting
I'm not too bad, I just hate sitting still. Plus all the taught "methods" sometimes seem like sorcery to me for some reason. I usually have to mess around with things and figure out my own way.
-
I always wished I wasn't fucking dyscalculic.
Aside from more mundane day to day needs, Lack of almost all math really holds me back from being able to better understand a lot of the quantum physics and particle physics concepts I find interesting
Unfortunately quantum physics is an area that requires a decent understanding of mathematics. Without maths it becomes very philosophical and counter-intuitive in nature.
-
Had to do a lot of algebra like that to work out t-tests, ANOVAs, etc. when I was doing a stats class. I am pretty shit at maths so it was a surprise that I passed.
It is when they talk about unknown numbers and stuff like that, that I get a headache. I don't like stuff to be unknown. ;)
-
I always wished I wasn't fucking dyscalculic.
Aside from more mundane day to day needs, Lack of almost all math really holds me back from being able to better understand a lot of the quantum physics and particle physics concepts I find interesting
Unfortunately quantum physics is an area that requires a decent understanding of mathematics. Without maths it becomes very philosophical and counter-intuitive in nature.
Without mathematics, it's still theory, comprehensible theory but without the theoretic equations is still comprehensible.
-
I always wished I wasn't fucking dyscalculic.
Aside from more mundane day to day needs, Lack of almost all math really holds me back from being able to better understand a lot of the quantum physics and particle physics concepts I find interesting
Unfortunately quantum physics is an area that requires a decent understanding of mathematics. Without maths it becomes very philosophical and counter-intuitive in nature.
Without mathematics, it's still theory, comprehensible theory but without the theoretic equations is still comprehensible.
Comprehensible, but impossible to test. One could develop theories till the cows come home, but without knowing how to crunch some numbers, there isn't a way to prove a thing. Especially since most of the things the theory is based on are too small to detect.
-
I always wished I wasn't fucking dyscalculic.
Aside from more mundane day to day needs, Lack of almost all math really holds me back from being able to better understand a lot of the quantum physics and particle physics concepts I find interesting
Unfortunately quantum physics is an area that requires a decent understanding of mathematics. Without maths it becomes very philosophical and counter-intuitive in nature.
Without mathematics, it's still theory, comprehensible theory but without the theoretic equations is still comprehensible.
If you say so. I'd go nuts over the stuff that gave the theory its name. It's the counter-intuitive part to me.
It's a bit like the general theory of relativity and speeds approaching the speed of light. There are lots of thought experiments involving classical mechanics applied on relativistic speeds, "proving" that there is no such limit. All wrong.
-
I always wished I wasn't fucking dyscalculic.
Aside from more mundane day to day needs, Lack of almost all math really holds me back from being able to better understand a lot of the quantum physics and particle physics concepts I find interesting
Unfortunately quantum physics is an area that requires a decent understanding of mathematics. Without maths it becomes very philosophical and counter-intuitive in nature.
Without mathematics, it's still theory, comprehensible theory but without the theoretic equations is still comprehensible.
Comprehensible, but impossible to test. One could develop theories till the cows come home, but without knowing how to crunch some numbers, there isn't a way to prove a thing. Especially since most of the things the theory is based on are too small to detect.
Quite the contrary. There are easy ways of confirming quantum physics phenomena.
-
I always wished I wasn't fucking dyscalculic.
Aside from more mundane day to day needs, Lack of almost all math really holds me back from being able to better understand a lot of the quantum physics and particle physics concepts I find interesting
Unfortunately quantum physics is an area that requires a decent understanding of mathematics. Without maths it becomes very philosophical and counter-intuitive in nature.
Without mathematics, it's still theory, comprehensible theory but without the theoretic equations is still comprehensible.
Comprehensible, but impossible to test. One could develop theories till the cows come home, but without knowing how to crunch some numbers, there isn't a way to prove a thing. Especially since most of the things the theory is based on are too small to detect.
Your statements contradict each others. I almost agree. It's impossible to truly prove things on the atomic level, numbers or not. Proof has nothing to do with understanding.
-
I always wished I wasn't fucking dyscalculic.
Aside from more mundane day to day needs, Lack of almost all math really holds me back from being able to better understand a lot of the quantum physics and particle physics concepts I find interesting
Unfortunately quantum physics is an area that requires a decent understanding of mathematics. Without maths it becomes very philosophical and counter-intuitive in nature.
Without mathematics, it's still theory, comprehensible theory but without the theoretic equations is still comprehensible.
If you say so. I'd go nuts over the stuff that gave the theory its name. It's the counter-intuitive part to me.
It's a bit like the general theory of relativity and speeds approaching the speed of light. There are lots of thought experiments involving classical mechanics applied on relativistic speeds, "proving" that there is no such limit. All wrong.
That's just because you've studied physics from a mathematical perspective. Have read about relativity quite a bit and having a decent grasp, but what made me truly comprehend it was a brief youtube designed for children. Because of a simple visual aide, I truly understand what happens to a photon at speeds of light, and if you tell me I don't simply because I haven't studied calculus, I'll be irritated with you.
-
I always wished I wasn't fucking dyscalculic.
Aside from more mundane day to day needs, Lack of almost all math really holds me back from being able to better understand a lot of the quantum physics and particle physics concepts I find interesting
Unfortunately quantum physics is an area that requires a decent understanding of mathematics. Without maths it becomes very philosophical and counter-intuitive in nature.
Without mathematics, it's still theory, comprehensible theory but without the theoretic equations is still comprehensible.
Comprehensible, but impossible to test. One could develop theories till the cows come home, but without knowing how to crunch some numbers, there isn't a way to prove a thing. Especially since most of the things the theory is based on are too small to detect.
Quite the contrary. There are easy ways of confirming quantum physics phenomena.
They could actually prove many phenomena already during Einstein's own lifetime.
-
What's been proven at the quantum level?
-
For instance that light behaves like particles and a wave: double slit experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment)
-
For instance that light behaves like particles and a wave: double slit experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment)
Very good, Lit. I glazed over the math part. I have to wake up and go to work in two hours. I'll read it again tomorrow. :)
-
Litigatus est vir doctus :M
-
Indeed. understood the article without the math, and wont argue about words like 'demonstrating the fundamentally probabilistic', because it's a really good example of as close at it probably gets.
-
I always wished I wasn't fucking dyscalculic.
Aside from more mundane day to day needs, Lack of almost all math really holds me back from being able to better understand a lot of the quantum physics and particle physics concepts I find interesting
Unfortunately quantum physics is an area that requires a decent understanding of mathematics. Without maths it becomes very philosophical and counter-intuitive in nature.
Without mathematics, it's still theory, comprehensible theory but without the theoretic equations is still comprehensible.
Comprehensible, but impossible to test. One could develop theories till the cows come home, but without knowing how to crunch some numbers, there isn't a way to prove a thing. Especially since most of the things the theory is based on are too small to detect.
Quite the contrary. There are easy ways of confirming quantum physics phenomena.
You wot m8? Besides smashing particles together at the speed of light, i'm pretty sure there isn't a way to plumb those depths.
Tell me your secretses.
-
That experiment I posted about is visible with your bare eyes. You can also observe things in space that wouldn't be there if it weren't for quantum mechanics.
-
That experiment I posted about is visible with your bare eyes. You can also observe things in space that wouldn't be there if it weren't for quantum mechanics.
Yeah but that's just seeing the effects of something you assume is because of quantum mechanics. There is no way to actually prove that's whats actually happening without detecting the way particles actually behave.
-
But you do detect them, though not with your bare eyes.
But on the other hand you can't know for sure that anything you are experiencing exists "for real". Someone could be dreaming everything that we hold for "true" and "real" and we would never know.
-
But you do detect them, though not with your bare eyes.
But on the other hand you can't know for sure that anything you are experiencing exists "for real". Someone could be dreaming everything that we hold for "true" and "real" and we would never know.
Actually we CAN detect them and observe their behavior using the LHC, but that's so expensive its ridiculous.
-
:nerdy:
-
Didn't really mean to get into this discussion, but there's no way around the understanding that quantum theory is thought theory, largely tested in imaginary experiments using abstraction. Not trying to negate the importance of math within the realm of physics; that would be silly. Just took offense to seeing Lestat being told he can't understand a concept, because he isn't able to communicate that concept as an abstraction using mathematical symbols which represent ideas. Was just trying to tell him that there are people who are skilled at communicating these concept in an abstraction he can in fact understand, and that abstraction is written language.
-
The moomintroll is a math nerd :M :nerdy: :nerdy: :nerdy: :nerdy: :nerdy: :nerdy: :nerdy: :nerdy: :nerdy: :nerdy:
-
Jack accepts this about him. :M
-
Didn't really mean to get into this discussion, but there's no way around the understanding that quantum theory is thought theory, largely tested in imaginary experiments using abstraction. Not trying to negate the importance of math within the realm of physics; that would be silly. Just took offense to seeing Lestat being told he can't understand a concept, because he isn't able to communicate that concept as an abstraction using mathematical symbols which represent ideas. Was just trying to tell him that there are people who are skilled at communicating these concept in an abstraction he can in fact understand, and that abstraction is written language.
Unfortunately, yes. Quantum theory is still thought theory in many respects. And I HATE abstract stuff getting in my science.
-
What's been proven at the quantum level?
Spectral lines are a consequence of quantum physics.
-
What's been proven at the quantum level?
And btw, "quantum level" is not equal to "quantum physics". There are observable effects of the latter, providing empirical evidence of what happens at the former.
I know, I'm splitting hairs.
-
I always wished I wasn't fucking dyscalculic.
Aside from more mundane day to day needs, Lack of almost all math really holds me back from being able to better understand a lot of the quantum physics and particle physics concepts I find interesting
Unfortunately quantum physics is an area that requires a decent understanding of mathematics. Without maths it becomes very philosophical and counter-intuitive in nature.
Without mathematics, it's still theory, comprehensible theory but without the theoretic equations is still comprehensible.
Comprehensible, but impossible to test. One could develop theories till the cows come home, but without knowing how to crunch some numbers, there isn't a way to prove a thing. Especially since most of the things the theory is based on are too small to detect.
Quite the contrary. There are easy ways of confirming quantum physics phenomena.
You wot m8? Besides smashing particles together at the speed of light, i'm pretty sure there isn't a way to plumb those depths.
Tell me your secretses.
See above.
-
That experiment I posted about is visible with your bare eyes. You can also observe things in space that wouldn't be there if it weren't for quantum mechanics.
Yeah but that's just seeing the effects of something you assume is because of quantum mechanics. There is no way to actually prove that's whats actually happening without detecting the way particles actually behave.
Testing and observing makes the theory likely, though. It's what physics is about. You formulate a theory that attempts to explain observed phenomena, and then test the theory by making predictions and trying to observe those. Very often you'll have to revise the theory.
Not every test is visible to the human eye, of course. You will need particle accelerators and whatnot to confirm a lot of those predictions, but some--like spectral lines--are readily observable.
-
Didn't really mean to get into this discussion, but there's no way around the understanding that quantum theory is thought theory, largely tested in imaginary experiments using abstraction. Not trying to negate the importance of math within the realm of physics; that would be silly. Just took offense to seeing Lestat being told he can't understand a concept, because he isn't able to communicate that concept as an abstraction using mathematical symbols which represent ideas. Was just trying to tell him that there are people who are skilled at communicating these concept in an abstraction he can in fact understand, and that abstraction is written language.
You're right, of course, but my point was not to claim that the concept cannot be explained to the layman (it can), only that it cannot make sense without a basis in mathematics. As I said, it is rather counter-intuitive at that level because we relate best to what we can see and readily observe.
There is little in the concept when expressed in what basically is a spoken language that makes quantum mechanics more likely than classical mechanics.
-
What's been proven at the quantum level?
Spectral lines are a consequence of quantum physics.
Well.. :apondering:
Yeah. Or something totally different that we'll discover in the future. Oh science. You so crazy.
-
What's been proven at the quantum level?
And btw, "quantum level" is not equal to "quantum physics". There are observable effects of the latter, providing empirical evidence of what happens at the former.
I know, I'm splitting hairs.
Don't btw me about observable effects of imagined probabilities, or what to call it. The vast majority of what science has actually observed has raised more questions than answers. I know, I'm splitting hairs.
You're right, of course, but my point was not to claim that the concept cannot be explained to the layman (it can), only that it cannot make sense without a basis in mathematics. As I said, it is rather counter-intuitive at that level because we relate best to what we can see and readily observe.
Know what you told him; no to repeat it. Lestat should say fuck you.
-
He can if he wants to. :dunno:
-
The vast majority of what science has actually observed has raised more questions than answers.
Does this bother you? Because it is not a bad thing. For better or worse, it's what physics is about. Observing and reformulating and observing.
If the questions raised by an observation are all over the place, all kinds of things can still be learned from it. It's supposed to be an iterative process.
IMO it's only a bad thing if nothing is learned and the same mistakes are repeated with the next observation.
I'm a big fan of experimental physics.
-
You keep saying it can't make sense. Math is simply coding, symbols that represent ideas. Spend my day working with symbols that represent ideas. When providing others with information, I can't simply present them with my abstraction; they don't know the rules or understand the logic my abstraction. They must also be provided an interpretation they can understand. If I do that for them, they do in fact understand the meaning without actually needing to understand my abstraction. For some reason I think you know how to do that too.
-
That you are 14 and in high school would certainly explain your behavior.
But how can you be half bald at 14?
-
That you are 14 and in high school would certainly explain your behavior.
But how can you be half bald at 14?
Bad genes. Ima drive this little fucker across state lines and take his virginity. :trollface:
-
You keep saying it can't make sense. Math is simply coding, symbols that represent ideas. Spend my day working with symbols that represent ideas. When providing others with information, I can't simply present them with my abstraction; they don't know the rules or understand the logic my abstraction. They must also be provided an interpretation they can understand. If I do that for them, they do in fact understand the meaning without actually needing to understand my abstraction. For some reason I think you know how to do that too.
I'm saying it cannot make complete sense when expressed in a language that lacks the vocabulary to explain the core of the theory.
You can still describe the more notable properties of the theory using that language, for example, the quantified energy levels or the wave-particle duality, and you can relate to, and make some sense of, observable phenomena using those basic properties, but the basic logic will be missing because the language required to explain that logic is missing.
Now, if that makes you want to say "fuck you", so be it.
There's a lot I want to say here but every time I try, I feel I am not explaining it properly and so delete what I write. Very frustrating. Sometimes the written languages don't seem to be enough either. :P
-
Sometimes it's good to say "fuck you" just because! :arrr:
-
Oh, and saying that math is simply coding, symbols that represent ideas, is a bit like saying that spoken languages are simply words that represent communication.
It's true, in a sense, but it does not adequately explain why one would use math rather than music to describe algebra.
-
Sometimes it's good to say "fuck you" just because! :arrr:
Because it's BRAVE. :viking:
-
Oh, and saying that math is simply coding, symbols that represent ideas, is a bit like saying that spoken languages are simply words that represent communication.
It's true, in a sense, but it does not adequately explain why one would use math rather than music to describe algebra.
It's clear I'm saying both math and written language are abstractions that can represent the same ideas. It's true in a sense because it's true.
-
You keep saying it can't make sense. Math is simply coding, symbols that represent ideas. Spend my day working with symbols that represent ideas. When providing others with information, I can't simply present them with my abstraction; they don't know the rules or understand the logic my abstraction. They must also be provided an interpretation they can understand. If I do that for them, they do in fact understand the meaning without actually needing to understand my abstraction. For some reason I think you know how to do that too.
I'm saying it cannot make complete sense when expressed in a language that lacks the vocabulary to explain the core of the theory.
You can still describe the more notable properties of the theory using that language, for example, the quantified energy levels or the wave-particle duality, and you can relate to, and make some sense of, observable phenomena using those basic properties, but the basic logic will be missing because the language required to explain that logic is missing.
Now, if that makes you want to say "fuck you", so be it.
There's a lot I want to say here but every time I try, I feel I am not explaining it properly and so delete what I write. Very frustrating. Sometimes the written languages don't seem to be enough either. :P
We would probably communicate better with each other in code.
-
Oh, and saying that math is simply coding, symbols that represent ideas, is a bit like saying that spoken languages are simply words that represent communication.
It's true, in a sense, but it does not adequately explain why one would use math rather than music to describe algebra.
It's clear I'm saying both math and written language are abstractions that can represent the same ideas. It's true in a sense because it's true.
But that's where I disagree. I'm saying that they cannot be used interchangeably. They have things in common and they have differences.
Say "fuck you" using mathematics.
-
The're nothing mathematical that can't be expressed with words. Already said I'm not trying to negate the importance of math in physics. I'm saying fuck you, quantum theory can't make sense to me.
-
Oh, and saying that math is simply coding, symbols that represent ideas, is a bit like saying that spoken languages are simply words that represent communication.
It's true, in a sense, but it does not adequately explain why one would use math rather than music to describe algebra.
It's clear I'm saying both math and written language are abstractions that can represent the same ideas. It's true in a sense because it's true.
But that's where I disagree. I'm saying that they cannot be used interchangeably. They have things in common and they have differences.
Say "fuck you" using mathematics.
Well, something like this: 5=2
-
Oh, and saying that math is simply coding, symbols that represent ideas, is a bit like saying that spoken languages are simply words that represent communication.
It's true, in a sense, but it does not adequately explain why one would use math rather than music to describe algebra.
It's clear I'm saying both math and written language are abstractions that can represent the same ideas. It's true in a sense because it's true.
But that's where I disagree. I'm saying that they cannot be used interchangeably. They have things in common and they have differences.
Say "fuck you" using mathematics.
Well, something like this: 5=2
That's swearing in a Pipi Longstocking way. :zoinks:
-
It's a possible false root of a second grade equation :nerdy:
-
The're nothing mathematical that can't be expressed with words. Already said I'm not trying to negate the importance of math in physics. I'm saying fuck you, quantum theory can't make sense to me.
Fair enough, re quantum theory.
The symbols in an expression can always be read aloud, if that is what you are referring to, but it's not the same thing. A simple logarithmic curve implied by a symbolic formula is basically not possible to express in words but is easy to understand--and communicate with--when reading the language it is written in.
It's like musical notation. Notes can be translated to words, to an extent, but it all falls apart when trying to express multitimbrality.
For a long time ago, I used to compose music. I wrote choir pieces by transcribing the music in my head to musical notation. The process is not unlike writing a story; for me, is about the same but using a notation suitable for that.
I'd plus you for the discussion if you weren't opposed to karma, btw.
-
Oh, and saying that math is simply coding, symbols that represent ideas, is a bit like saying that spoken languages are simply words that represent communication.
It's true, in a sense, but it does not adequately explain why one would use math rather than music to describe algebra.
It's clear I'm saying both math and written language are abstractions that can represent the same ideas. It's true in a sense because it's true.
But that's where I disagree. I'm saying that they cannot be used interchangeably. They have things in common and they have differences.
Say "fuck you" using mathematics.
Well, something like this: 5=2
I suspected someone would suggest something like that. Not the same thing, though, is it? A better comparison with your example is to fuck up the grammar or write something nonsensical.
Come to think of it. 5=2 is pretty much what Randy used to post here, expressed in mathematical notation.
-
That you are 14 and in high school would certainly explain your behavior.
But how can you be half bald at 14?
Where the hell did this come from?
-
Interestingly, I've never been able to read music either, I can SORT-OF learn tab, although I am very poor at remembering it, and while actively being instructed it takes too long, takes me hours to figure out, note by note, (guitar/bass) just one or two bars at most. I gave up eventually with my guitar classes, used to take some 1-to-1 lessons with an instructor that lived relatively locally, but fucked it off, because I was more or less just wasting his time, not out of any desire to piss him about, but because whilst I was there, and he could actually show me the fret positions and fingering patterns, that I could do, but when the lessons were over, I was completely unable to work on anything any further than what I had just been shown, leaving me with no way to make any progress.
Its to do with learning and perception of the mathematical concepts behind the learning of music and its notation, rather than any effect on playing ability, as when someone has taken the time to show me, bit by bit, the notes to play, I've been told I'm actually pretty good. Or rather, used to be, I ended up pawning my guitar, bass and amp, knowing I'd never be able to progress any further than I have already.
-
The symbols in an expression can always be read aloud, if that is what you are referring to, but it's not the same thing.
No that's not what I'm referring to.
-
The symbols in an expression can always be read aloud, if that is what you are referring to, but it's not the same thing.
No that's not what I'm referring to.
I still can't believe you said that, phonetic expression of the symbol. I don't believe that what you think I'm talking about. You know I'm talking about conveying actual meaning. No, it's not fair enough to concede with that level of condescension. Stop being a coward and tell me directly that I'm so stupid that all the books in the world won't make me get it.
-
My daughter attended kindergarten at four in a small Montessori school, and began bringing home very difficult looking long division, containing only the problem and the answer. She was being taught long division with theory and beads. I protested this, claiming it's impossible for someone to do long division without knowing how to perform the steps of solving the problem using multiplication and subtraction. A division problem with only an answer doesn't display she understands the answer, and there's an order to learning these things. I refused to believe my four year old could understand the answer of a long division problem without understanding the mathematical steps it takes to reach it. But she did understand the answer, because she knew the right answer, because someone presented it to her in a way she could understand. But she's mathematically special like you, and if she did her job in my workplace, I'd sometimes have to rely on or defer to her. Still, though we do very different things, the three of us do something very similar to math. We work within coded algorithms which make our information universally meaningful, with disregard to human language. Complex math isn't the only code you know which I don't understand the algorithm, but that doesn't mean it can't still be meaningful to me. I understand the answer.
-
So they still use paper to do maths on despite computers :M
Sorry, but actually assessing one for the ability to factor polynomials is only possible if the student can do so with pencil and paper.
Teachers MUST insist. I am having this argument with my son, this year (and mostly losing the argument), but it is up to HIM to prove that he gets it and using a computer to take shortcuts does NOT get it done!
The process MUST reside within his own brain. Pencil and paper is the ONLY way an instructor can tell that a computer was not used.
:police:
-
Does anyone actually use that crap in real life...or is it just another course to frustrate you and waste your time?
I've always wanted to know.
Yes. Some use it all the time.
SOME!!
:headbang2:
-
The symbols in an expression can always be read aloud, if that is what you are referring to, but it's not the same thing.
No that's not what I'm referring to.
I still can't believe you said that, phonetic expression of the symbol. I don't believe that what you think I'm talking about. You know I'm talking about conveying actual meaning. No, it's not fair enough to concede with that level of condescension. Stop being a coward and tell me directly that I'm so stupid that all the books in the world won't make me get it.
It has *nothing* to do with being stupid. It has *nothing* to do with being condescending.
Nothing.
If you think that is what I'm saying, I must be expressing myself very poorly, and I apologise.
This is what I have been trying to say:
We are talking about languages as methods used to convey abstractions with. These methods are used for conveying different types of abstractions because they are very different from each other. They are not interchangeable. They overlap but they are not interchangeable.
I do not for one second believe that you are too stupid to "get it". Quite the contrary--I know you well enough to know the opposite. I do think, however, that the reading the wrong books would not provide the right abstractions. Would that mean you were too stupid? Certainly not.
I'm quite convinced that there are books that explain quantum physics well enough to provide a sound basis in the reasoning behind, and effects of, the theory, but I don't believe that the theory will make absolute sense or provide the most logical explanations for the phenomena it is trying to describe without it being explained with the help of the language it was conceived in.
I believe that such books at best are like abridged novels.
I hope I've been able to explain what I think this time around. Otherwise I'd better stop.
-
Oh, and having now read your reply re your daughter, I would like to add that I do not claim to know where to draw the line. A sufficiently "right" abstraction might point the reader in the right direction because we are not discussing absolutes. People are different, and will interpret abstractions differently.
-
I really hate apologies, and don't know how else to interpret that sentence. If you truly think I'm suggesting that you should speak letters and numbers loudly and slowly for me so I can understand them, then I must be expressing myself very poorly. I think I want to stop talking about this.
-
That you are 14 and in high school would certainly explain your behavior.
But how can you be half bald at 14?
Bad genes. Ima drive this little fucker across state lines and take his virginity. :trollface:
Wow, I wish I had been seduced by beautiful women when I was 14. It might not be legal, but then all men just want sex, etc.
-
That you are 14 and in high school would certainly explain your behavior.
But how can you be half bald at 14?
Bad genes. Ima drive this little fucker across state lines and take his virginity. :trollface:
Wow, I wish I had been seduced by beautiful women when I was 14. It might not be legal, but then all men just want sex, etc.
I had sex for the first time when I was like 12 or 13 or something.
-
Are you really 14, or what?
-
Are you really 14, or what?
I dunno man. Why don't you tell me?
-
That you are 14 and in high school would certainly explain your behavior.
But how can you be half bald at 14?
Bad genes. Ima drive this little fucker across state lines and take his virginity. :trollface:
Wow, I wish I had been seduced by beautiful women when I was 14. It might not be legal, but then all men just want sex, etc.
I had sex for the first time when I was like 12 or 13 or something.
It must be really disturbing to NOT be able to actually remember. I feel for you.
I can remember details of my FIRST as clearly as my last, maybe even a bit more so, but do not tell my wife such.
:hide:
Seriously, do you not remember or you attempting a gestalt in regards to your massive sexlife?
-
Are you really 14, or what?
I dunno man. Why don't you tell me?
How can you not know your age?
-
That you are 14 and in high school would certainly explain your behavior.
But how can you be half bald at 14?
Bad genes. Ima drive this little fucker across state lines and take his virginity. :trollface:
Wow, I wish I had been seduced by beautiful women when I was 14. It might not be legal, but then all men just want sex, etc.
I had sex for the first time when I was like 12 or 13 or something.
It must be really disturbing to NOT be able to actually remember. I feel for you.
I can remember details of my FIRST as clearly as my last, maybe even a bit more so, but do not tell my wife such.
:hide:
Seriously, do you not remember or you attempting a gestalt in regards to your massive sexlife?
Makes sense, to remember the first time better, than the last time with someone you have sex with a lot of times. Not that it was better, the first time. But memories of the last will merge with memories of the second last etc. Together, they will form a great memory of sex with your wife, I am sure.
-
Are you really 14, or what?
I dunno man. Why don't you tell me?
How can you not know your age?
How can you not, when it is clearly listed in my information?
-
Why would you even list your real age there? Parts is supposedly female too, but post pictures of himself being a fat bald male roof worker. Information in your profile is like throwing dice here.
I just noticed that I am 112 in my profile. Pay respect to the elders.
-
I know that Parts is a man. I have received snail mail from him.
You, sir, are a :tard:
-
I really hate apologies, and don't know how else to interpret that sentence. If you truly think I'm suggesting that you should speak letters and numbers loudly and slowly for me so I can understand them, then I must be expressing myself very poorly. I think I want to stop talking about this.
Which sentence?
And no, that is not what I think you are suggesting.
-
Why would you even list your real age there? Parts is supposedly female too, but post pictures of himself being a fat bald male roof worker. Information in your profile is like throwing dice here.
I just noticed that I am 112 in my profile. Pay respect to the elders.
Mostly because most of us already know each other well, and have for years. ;)
-
That you are 14 and in high school would certainly explain your behavior.
But how can you be half bald at 14?
Bad genes. Ima drive this little fucker across state lines and take his virginity. :trollface:
Wow, I wish I had been seduced by beautiful women when I was 14. It might not be legal, but then all men just want sex, etc.
I had sex for the first time when I was like 12 or 13 or something.
It must be really disturbing to NOT be able to actually remember. I feel for you.
I can remember details of my FIRST as clearly as my last, maybe even a bit more so, but do not tell my wife such.
:hide:
Seriously, do you not remember or you attempting a gestalt in regards to your massive sexlife?
Actually, its not disturbing at all. I don't know why everyone always seems so shocked that I don't remember things like that. I barely remember anything before my early twenties in fact.
-
I really hate apologies, and don't know how else to interpret that sentence. If you truly think I'm suggesting that you should speak letters and numbers loudly and slowly for me so I can understand them, then I must be expressing myself very poorly. I think I want to stop talking about this.
Which sentence?
And no, that is not what I think you are suggesting.
The're nothing mathematical that can't be expressed with words.
The symbols in an expression can always be read aloud, if that is what you are referring to, but it's not the same thing.
Let it go.
-
I really hate apologies, and don't know how else to interpret that sentence. If you truly think I'm suggesting that you should speak letters and numbers loudly and slowly for me so I can understand them, then I must be expressing myself very poorly. I think I want to stop talking about this.
Well, ya know, it happens.
-
That you are 14 and in high school would certainly explain your behavior.
But how can you be half bald at 14?
Bad genes. Ima drive this little fucker across state lines and take his virginity. :trollface:
Wow, I wish I had been seduced by beautiful women when I was 14. It might not be legal, but then all men just want sex, etc.
I had sex for the first time when I was like 12 or 13 or something.
It must be really disturbing to NOT be able to actually remember. I feel for you.
I can remember details of my FIRST as clearly as my last, maybe even a bit more so, but do not tell my wife such.
:hide:
Seriously, do you not remember or you attempting a gestalt in regards to your massive sexlife?
Actually, its not disturbing at all. I don't know why everyone always seems so shocked that I don't remember things like that. I barely remember anything before my early twenties in fact.
Kind of interesting, but disturbing.
I will have a difficult time relating to this aspect of your persona, since I remember things from when I was two and three with distinction. I am now fifty eight and honestly, I do get some trouble with current memory, so Alzheimer's away, here we go!!
???
Really, losing my glasses is a bitch!!
Just to help those just behind me, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS put them down in the same place!! It makes it much easier to remember where they are!
:LOL:
-
That you are 14 and in high school would certainly explain your behavior.
But how can you be half bald at 14?
Bad genes. Ima drive this little fucker across state lines and take his virginity. :trollface:
Wow, I wish I had been seduced by beautiful women when I was 14. It might not be legal, but then all men just want sex, etc.
I had sex for the first time when I was like 12 or 13 or something.
It must be really disturbing to NOT be able to actually remember. I feel for you.
I can remember details of my FIRST as clearly as my last, maybe even a bit more so, but do not tell my wife such.
:hide:
Seriously, do you not remember or you attempting a gestalt in regards to your massive sexlife?
Actually, its not disturbing at all. I don't know why everyone always seems so shocked that I don't remember things like that. I barely remember anything before my early twenties in fact.
Kind of interesting, but disturbing.
I will have a difficult time relating to this aspect of your persona, since I remember things from when I was two and three with distinction. I am now fifty eight and honestly, I do get some trouble with current memory, so Alzheimer's away, here we go!!
???
Really, losing my glasses is a bitch!!
Just to help those just behind me, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS put them down in the same place!! It makes it much easier to remember where they are!
:LOL:
:lol1:
DD, I find my self looking for my reading glasses, when they are on my head in my hair. I find myself swapping my glasses from my hair to my eyes, when they are not on top of my head.
Glasses that don't have to be worn permanently are an absolute bitch.
-
Yeah, hyke, looking forward to that in a few years.
-
That you are 14 and in high school would certainly explain your behavior.
But how can you be half bald at 14?
Bad genes. Ima drive this little fucker across state lines and take his virginity. :trollface:
Wow, I wish I had been seduced by beautiful women when I was 14. It might not be legal, but then all men just want sex, etc.
I had sex for the first time when I was like 12 or 13 or something.
It must be really disturbing to NOT be able to actually remember. I feel for you.
I can remember details of my FIRST as clearly as my last, maybe even a bit more so, but do not tell my wife such.
:hide:
Seriously, do you not remember or you attempting a gestalt in regards to your massive sexlife?
Actually, its not disturbing at all. I don't know why everyone always seems so shocked that I don't remember things like that. I barely remember anything before my early twenties in fact.
Kind of interesting, but disturbing.
I will have a difficult time relating to this aspect of your persona, since I remember things from when I was two and three with distinction. I am now fifty eight and honestly, I do get some trouble with current memory, so Alzheimer's away, here we go!!
???
Really, losing my glasses is a bitch!!
Just to help those just behind me, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS put them down in the same place!! It makes it much easier to remember where they are!
:LOL:
:lol1:
DD, I find my self looking for my reading glasses, when they are on my head in my hair. I find myself swapping my glasses from my hair to my eyes, when they are not on top of my head.
Glasses that don't have to be worn permanently are an absolute bitch.
I wear my glasses most of the time, except when I sleep.
I always thought it was cool to just toss your glasses up to the top of your head if you do not want them. Problem is MY hair is TOO oily to get away with that. I keep my hair buzzed at about one eighth of an inch, wash it every day and it is still too oily to allow my glasses to touch it.
If I throw my glasses up onto my head (to look cool or NOT!) I can not see through them until I wash them in soapy hot water.
:GA:
-
That you are 14 and in high school would certainly explain your behavior.
But how can you be half bald at 14?
Bad genes. Ima drive this little fucker across state lines and take his virginity. :trollface:
Wow, I wish I had been seduced by beautiful women when I was 14. It might not be legal, but then all men just want sex, etc.
I had sex for the first time when I was like 12 or 13 or something.
It must be really disturbing to NOT be able to actually remember. I feel for you.
I can remember details of my FIRST as clearly as my last, maybe even a bit more so, but do not tell my wife such.
:hide:
Seriously, do you not remember or you attempting a gestalt in regards to your massive sexlife?
Actually, its not disturbing at all. I don't know why everyone always seems so shocked that I don't remember things like that. I barely remember anything before my early twenties in fact.
Kind of interesting, but disturbing.
I will have a difficult time relating to this aspect of your persona, since I remember things from when I was two and three with distinction. I am now fifty eight and honestly, I do get some trouble with current memory, so Alzheimer's away, here we go!!
???
Really, losing my glasses is a bitch!!
Just to help those just behind me, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS put them down in the same place!! It makes it much easier to remember where they are!
:LOL:
I don't think I really ever assigned much importance to the details of things. It only makes sense to me that I wouldn't remember details about the first time I had sex, because I really didn't give a shit about the girl I fucked. I remember she was a few years older, and I was mostly interested in what it was going to feel like, and what her tits felt like.
I don't even remember her name, what her face looked like, or what color her hair was. I remember smelling pussy for the first time, and that's it. Lol.
-
Does anyone actually use that crap in real life...or is it just another course to frustrate you and waste your time?
I've always wanted to know.
Yes. Some use it all the time.
I don't use factoring, but I do use my multiplication tables daily at work, and my ability to do proportions. 8)
-
I always wished I wasn't fucking dyscalculic.
Aside from more mundane day to day needs, Lack of almost all math really holds me back from being able to better understand a lot of the quantum physics and particle physics concepts I find interesting
Kaku's books cater to the mathematically disinclined physicist. He did it intentionally because he strives to give physics to the masses. It's good.
Hooray, I know who Kaku is! I often see him and Neil deGrasse Tyson on science channels. :nerd!: