No Big Bang

[Pekka]

Well it's like this... You don't need to be talented at math if you're programming, in fact very basic mathematics will do. However, I have never seen a good programmer who is not at least very sufficient doing math also. There must be many exceptions out there but.. that's the way it goes.

I guess it demonstrates the ability to have certain set of logics. When some people are discouraged seeing math, it *LOOKS* difficult, all these weird symbols and operators, get stuck with the mechanics of everything.. it's just understanding the simplicity of it. It's really not that difficult, but some people imagine it to be difficult and they get frustrated etc. They could do it, but their minds just aren't set to it. They'd rather do something else, like have a new hair cut or getting a career pumping gas.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Pekka
Well it's like this... You don't need to be talented at math if you're programming, in fact very basic mathematics will do. However, I have never seen a good programmer who is not at least very sufficient doing math also. There must be many exceptions out there but.. that's the way it goes.

I guess it demonstrates the ability to have certain set of logics. When some people are discouraged seeing math, it *LOOKS* difficult, all these weird symbols and operators, get stuck with the mechanics of everything.. it's just understanding the simplicity of it. It's really not that difficult, but some people imagine it to be difficult and they get frustrated etc. They could do it, but their minds just aren't set to it. They'd rather do something else, like have a new hair cut or getting a career pumping gas.

So they set themselves up for failure by being intimidated by the unfamiliarity and reputation of advanced mathematics?

That will set them back for a while but eventually they will have an epiphany of sorts and begin to learn if they do in fact want to learn the topic. This assumes of course that they otherwise had the ability to do so.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


It can literally take a hundred times longer for some students to learn than others.

I learned most of what I know of single-variable differential and integral calculus in ~10 hours.

I simply find it incredibly frustrating to work with the students who take much longer. I have to guide them through steps I literally never even thought about when I learned the subject, because they seemed so self-evident. And even after they've finished, I'm never sure if I've imparted a broad knowledge or simply knowledge of how to do a single problem.

but you didnt state whether you dislike them because of their lack of ability

[KrazyHorse]

I don't dislike anybody simply because they're handicapped.

[MRT144]

admit it kh, you cant stand to be around those without lesser intelligence unless they present their womanly goods to you. you think anyone with handicaps should be gassed and beaten, after being gassed.

admit it

[Ecthy]

I could have done with some big bang tonight.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MRT144
admit it kh, you cant stand to be around those without lesser intelligence unless they present their womanly goods to you. you think anyone with handicaps should be gassed and beaten, after being gassed.

admit it

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=160471

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Why do you think physics really got started with Newton? Do you think that the development of mathematics and the development of physics were in lockstep by chance? History, for instance, is a very broad, flat subject. You pick what you want to learn and you learn everything about that area. You don't need to understand the details of Asian history in order to study the American Civil War. At most you might need some general knowledge about it. Physics is built, as I said, like a pyramid. You need virtually every piece, or else the apex will not hold. Many of those pieces are mathematical.

Well that isn't completely true, since to understand the American civil war you need to understand the socio-political relationship between north and south, which resulted in disputes on import tariffs from Europe which are linked to Europe’s supremacy at the period which is a direct result of the Mongol invasion and the black death together with the early period of migration after the fall of the Roman empire. That allowed cultural synthesis of belief systems and coincided with the rise of Christianity and so planted the seeds of the 14 to 17 century rise out of the shadow of Islam.

You see KH , all fields highly complex fields are prone to over-simplification, and the statements above could lead many complete laymen to disastrously wrong conclusions and leave them open to ideological manipulation.

And this is fact: You do have to know most of the history of the human race if you want to understand (and not just bloody memories) a particular period.

I have always seen human history as a chain of cause and effect, you need broad knowledge, but if you could somehow block out my memory of the 20th century and asked me to predict what happens I would probably get most of the big events right.

[KrazyHorse]

Horse****. I know history PhD candidates. Most of those studying American history are completely outclassed in their knowledge of European history (outside of a few, very specialised subjects where European events intruded on American history) by me, a rank amateur who has read a number of works on European history from the fall of the Roman Empire to the present day. I knew one PhD candidate in history who had literally never taken a single European history course, and who would never need to take one (either as an undergrad or a graduate student)

This is not said to insult history students. The nature of the discipline promotes this type of isolated knowledge. And coming from this background is the reason why Mr Fun thinks that it should be possible to break off a chunk of physics and learn it in isolation.

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Horse****. I know history PhD candidates. Most of those studying American history are completely outclassed in their knowledge of European history (outside of a few, very specialised subjects where European events intruded on American history) by me, a rank amateur who has read a number of works on European history from the fall of the Roman Empire to the present day. I knew one PhD candidate in history who had literally never taken a single European history course, and who would never need to take one (either as an undergrad or a graduate student)

This is not said to insult history students. The nature of the discipline promotes this type of isolated knowledge. And coming from this background is the reason why Mr Fun thinks that it should be possible to break off a chunk of physics and learn it in isolation.

Most historians memorize history and that’s what I despise, they offer only descriptions
(I can’t seem to remember the term, I think its used in physics too, for describing something in great detail and but having no understanding as to why it is so).
This may be hard to understand but there is beauty in the flow of history and the way connections are made among civilizations, you see influences can reach a country century’s after the parent culture has died, like the light of long dead stars reaching us. And history is like the sea in that respect; there are wrinkles and tiny chaotic waves on the surface, which change rapidly but the undercurrent stays strong. Its useless to memorize the waves its only useful to recognize the currents and those currents are global.
A holistic view is difficult to achieve but is the only one that gives any practical application to history, the only one which can make predictions and the only one which can help to reduce the horrible subjectivity of the matter (time helps, but also makes the material evidence scarcer).

[_BuRjaCi_]

Oh and another thing you should not mistake, someone with a PhD for someone who is intelligent.

[_BuRjaCi_]

Please don’t misunderstand me. The way a few monkeys interact on a piece of rock can not be compared to the complexity of our universe in any way. All I’m saying is that even that is beyond the grasp of the average individual.

[Pekka]

So they set themselves up for failure by being intimidated by the unfamiliarity and reputation of advanced mathematics?

That will set them back for a while but eventually they will have an epiphany of sorts and begin to learn if they do in fact want to learn the topic. This assumes of course that they otherwise had the ability to do so.

Yeah... and of course almost anyone can learn the topic more. It's just a mindset, that you set to do this, keep it simple, avoid confusion and mixing things up.

Anyoen can consider it learned, when they can understand the simplicity of it. When it all seems complex, it means they haven't yet been able to get it well enough. There's a difference understanding the simplicity of it and trivializing it and being dumb about it though.

[dannubis]

Originally posted by _BuRjaCi_
Oh and another thing you should not mistake, someone with a PhD for someone who is intelligent.

QFT, sadly enough

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
This is not said to insult history students.

Good.

The examples given allow a different interpretation: both the American Civil War and Asian history can be viewed as instances of structural developments that adher to a logic higher than the intra-cultural interpretations we're used to.