No Big Bang

[Impaler[WrG]]

Make that < 0.0001 % in many cases

I was grouping all such peer reviewed journals across all fields and all the people qualified to read any of them. No person can read them all Inteligably and any individual journal would be inteligable to only a fraction of that <1% group.

[KrazyHorse]

Ah.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by MrFun



I understand what you're saying about the necessity of mathematics in order to know physics inside and out. I guess this means I cannot satisfy my intellectual curiosity of the issues (relativity with quantum mechanics) because I have no proficiency in mathematics.

Your understanding will only be limited to the extant that you are unable to understand the relevant mathematics for a given issue.

You don't like mathematics true, but are you sure you wouldn't be able to understand it with a context to place it in that interests you?

You won't need to be a mathematician. You'll just need to know what the math underlying the theories is and means. To look at the math and draw the appropriate conclusions without someone having to take your hand and tell you every conclusion you draw from them.

[KrazyHorse]

You assume that everybody can understand mathematics.

True mathematical understanding is restricted not only by what I'd class as general intelligence, but by a division in the kinds of intelligence.

Years of trying to teach students the rudiments of calculus and calculus-based physics have imparted that lesson on me.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You assume that everybody can understand mathematics.

True mathematical understanding is restricted not only by what I'd class as general intelligence, but by a division in the kinds of intelligence.

Years of trying to teach students the rudiments of calculus and calculus-based physics have imparted that lesson on me.

Do you think someone could tell if they weren't understanding mathematics without the guidance of a teacher?

I've never even dabbled in topology for instance but I assumed that with time it could be understood. From your teaching experience does it appear that each area of mathematical study requires a different 'kind' of intelligence which a student may or may not innately possess and cannot be acquired?

conversely does (modest) success with Calculus courses and the earlier mathematics serve to demonstrate the possession of such intelligence and give confidence to a teacher (or student) that someone can be taught the other areas as well?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Do you think someone could tell if they weren't understanding mathematics without the guidance of a teacher?

Yes. Work out problems. If you can do them then you understand the subject. It's that simple.

[KrazyHorse]

(I'm assuming that you also have a solutions guide to help you out in seeing if you've made a mistake)

[MRT144]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You assume that everybody can understand mathematics.

True mathematical understanding is restricted not only by what I'd class as general intelligence, but by a division in the kinds of intelligence.

Years of trying to teach students the rudiments of calculus and calculus-based physics have imparted that lesson on me.

do you hate those without that ability? do you look down on them?

[KrazyHorse]

conversely does (modest) success with Calculus courses and the earlier mathematics serve to demonstrate the possession of such intelligence and give confidence to a teacher (or student) that someone can be taught the other areas as well?

In my experience most people crap out at some point during calculus.

In general, if somebody is very comfortable with calculus then they stand a good chance of being able to learn the rest of the math that physicists need also.

However, you should be warned that physicist math is not mathematics math. Pure mathematics requires rigour; a detailed understanding of how to work well withing the context of the allowed rules. Some people gain the intuitive, "physics" understanding of a mathemtical discipline without gaining the full rigourous "mathematical" understanding of it. I've got a strong pure math background, so I can do both, but I'm much more comfortable operating with physicist math than mathematician math.

So while a good understanding of calculus is a hopeful indication for physics, it does not necessarily correspond well to pure mathematics.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MRT144


do you hate those without that ability? do you look down on them?

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.

[Geronimo]

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.

how do you know their background wasn't the issue rather than innate ability?

Suppose someone had been allowed to cruise through (or cheat through!) high school trig for instance. Or perhaps some of them had gotten all the pre-reqs done well in high school but then sat on their laurels and put off calculus until their intuitive grasp of those re-reqs had faded to uselessness.

Calculus isn't first principles.

[MrFun]

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.

Well, if you do not have a higher level of patience for students who do not learn the same pace as you do, thank god you're ultimate career goal is not teaching. (you said you have taught, but I'm assuming it was as an intern and this is not your ultimate goal for work)

[KrazyHorse]

how do you know their background wasn't the issue rather than innate ability?

Becausethey knew how to do algebra and trig well enough that it shouldn't have been.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MrFun



Well, if you do not have a higher level of patience for students who do not learn the same pace as you do, thank god you're ultimate career goal is not teaching

No, thank god it's not teaching students who don't have mathematical minds.

By the way, just so you know, teaching intro physics (or any class where the students are not physics majors) is generally considered a punishment in physics departments.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


By the way, just so you know, teaching intro physics (or any class where the students are not physics majors) is generally considered a punishment in physics departments.

ok