Goddamn this shit is annoying.

['andersom']

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. 

[TheoK]

It's a possible false root of a second grade equation 

[odeon]

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.

[odeon]

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.

[RageBeoulve]

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?

[Lestat]

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.

[Jack]

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.

[Jack]

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.

[Jack]

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.

[DirtDawg]

So they still use paper to do maths on despite computers 

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. 

 

[DirtDawg]

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!!

 

[odeon]

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.

[odeon]

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.

[Jack]

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.

[神]

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.

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.