People who don't like math
Adam
math either:
1) isn't smart enough to do math
2) doesn't know what "real math" is
3) was turned away from math by a bad teacher
Personally, I don't particularly like math for the same reason that I
don't particularly like spinach. That is, there isn't a concrete
reason why I don't love math; it just doesn't satisfy my taste buds,
so to speak. Why is it so hard to accept the idea that different
people have different tastes?
Jon Cohen
"Adam" <namele...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4ef93799.02111...@posting.google.com...
> Why do math types assume that anyone who doesn't particularly like
> math either:
>
> 1) isn't smart enough to do math
You don't need to be a genius, just keen, interested and hard working. Some
people have a problem with the last one.
> 2) doesn't know what "real math" is
Sadly, maths does conjure up nightmarish images of multiplication tables and
trigonometry homework for most people.
> 3) was turned away from math by a bad teacher
I have seen this happen quite a lot actually, particularly in high school.
> Personally, I don't particularly like math for the same reason that I
> don't particularly like spinach. That is, there isn't a concrete
> reason why I don't love math; it just doesn't satisfy my taste buds,
> so to speak. Why is it so hard to accept the idea that different
> people have different tastes?
Great, you don't like it. Good for you. Nothing would ever get done if
everyone was a mathematician (Diversity being needed for a healthy
population and whatnot). We may just be closed minded bigots for only
talking about maths on sci.math but who knows... Maybe you would like to try
a different news group as this one doesn't seem to be right for you.
Jon
David C. Ullrich
>Why do math types assume that anyone who doesn't particularly like
>math either:
>
>1) isn't smart enough to do math
>
>2) doesn't know what "real math" is
>
>3) was turned away from math by a bad teacher
Why do you assume that that's what all math types assume?
>Personally, I don't particularly like math for the same reason that I
>don't particularly like spinach.
And people who love spinach might find that hard to understand.
I mean it's spinach for heaven's sake, what's not to love?
>That is, there isn't a concrete
>reason why I don't love math; it just doesn't satisfy my taste buds,
>so to speak. Why is it so hard to accept the idea that different
>people have different tastes?
David C. Ullrich
Doug Norris
>Why do math types assume that anyone who doesn't particularly like
>math either:
Why do anonymous posters like to assume what "math types" assume?
Doug
Mike H
> people have different tastes?
Because they're idiots who don't understand the difference between fact and
opinion.
Personally, I like math because it's fascinating and easy on the mind
(compared to the real world, anyway :-). As you grow older, your sense of
wonder and curiosity about the world diminish as you begin to understand it
more. Exploring advanced mathematics is a way to restore that child-like
sense of wonder. But not everyone is like that. Most people think math is
pointless and would rather spend their time doing something more fun, like
hanging out or playing games. It's not the job of mathematicians to force
their opinions on others.
Michael Barr
Whenever I try to understand why my wife (who certainly is at least as
intelligent as me) doesn't like math, it always comes down to HS trig
(which I hated also, but got past it). In truth, I didn't care much
for calculus either, although I can now see that both trig and
calculus are extraordinary achievements. What turned me on was
algebra. A friend has a theory that everyone has an abstraction
limit, beyond which they are lost. I love category theory, which most
mathematicians find too abstract, but am turned off by higher
dimensional categories. They may turn out to be the most important
kind of categories around (for quantum gravity, for example, which is
why John Baez keeps going on about them), but they will always be
terra incognita for me. So I have reached my level of abstraction and
stuck there. The OP hit his at the bottom rung and that is fine.
Except that I wish that everyone could understand some elementary
statistics and the like so that all the garbage math would disappear.
mathedman
Yor premiseis false. What's your basis for assuming that
all "math types" (whatever that means) assume?
Alfred Einstead
> Why do math types assume that anyone who doesn't particularly like
> math either:
>
> 1) isn't smart enough to do math
>
> 2) doesn't know what "real math" is
>
> 3) was turned away from math by a bad teacher
It's not an assumption but a deduction. The first question on
the first quiz I've given in the first moments of the first class
is "What is Math?" And I always get the wrong answer, something
along the lines: "Math is working with numbers" or the like;
and to the question "Are numbers the foundation of math?", something
like "Numbers are all there is".
Both conceptions -- which are almost universally held by everyone
outside of math -- are, to put it bluntly, dead wrong.
Most modern mathematics is non-numeric and, in fact, has little
or nothing to do with numbers per se. And most mathematicians
do not consider numbers as the foundation of math or (for
that matter) even anything more than a peripheral (but important)
part of math. Sets are considered the foundation, or otherwise
category theory or maybe logic.
And to the question "Why don't you like math?" (which was not
directly asked, but a similar set of questions asked), I'd get
something like "because I don't know how to do long division/
fractions/multiplication/etc.", take your pick; and to the
question "What do mathematicians do?", I'd get something
like "long division; multiplication; etc." again, take your
pick.
Both answers are, again, dead wrong. Technically, the
practice and study of the methods for working with a
mathematical structure are not even a part of mathematics
at all. It's a part of Computer Science -- the study of
computation and methods associated with it.
(And at the same time, most peoples' conception of Computer
Science as the study of computers and programming is also
dead wrong. Those latter items are respectively NOT
computer science, but computer ENGINEERING and software
'engineering' (more appropriately terms software authoring
or software composition)).
Mathematicians study various abstract mathematical theories
of diverse sorts; most of which very few people are even aware
of being able to be studied mathematicially (e.g. the theory
of knots; game theory; scheduling theory; queuing theory; etc.)
So, the fact that there is a serious communication problem is
NOT an assumption. It's a dead-set fact admitted to in as
many words by the very people holding the misconceptions.
If you still don't believe this, then just take the set of
questions I mentioned above, write up a survey with them
and then give them to a set of non-mathematician type people
and see what you get for answers.
Bob Pease
I think perhaps the snobbery is from the people who assume that "Math types"
are somehow emotionally crippled and artistically inept.
As a firm example, Once I exhibited rather nice watercolor in a local art
show.
a "Critic" who wrote the blurb in the program made the statement.
"the fact that this painting has an outstanding command of impressionist
techniques belies the fact that Bob actually is a Mathematics teacher."
The intellectual strength of her opinion belied the fact that I was not too
flattered by her laud.
But it was a good painting malagri lui..oops, Math types aren't supposed to
use French terms..(even if they have to guess at the spelling)
Ah well
Disgustibus non est pudendum!!
RJ Pease
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 11/13/02
Alfred Einstead
> Great, you don't like it. Good for you. Nothing would ever get done if
> everyone was a mathematician
Quite the opposite. If everyone were more mathematically inclined,
people would run a lot faster, because they would have had the
werewithal to actually pose the question of what the optimum
method for running is and then set about answering the mathematical
question underlying it.
Then the Packers would have won last week against the Vikings
because the return runner for the last kickoff the Packers
received would have set about an optimum running form that
would have sent him practically flying past everyone else
straight into the opposite end zone; and then the ensuing
kickoff would have been optimally set to maximimize the
likelihood of getting the ball back (and, again, running
it right past everyone else straight into the end zone).
I can do 400m in about 55 seconds without having to move the
legs more than 200 times a minute. 200 is considered a
"Sunday afternoon jogging" rate; so it's quite something to
see such speed coming out of such slow leg motion. Granted,
it's still not Olympic caliber, but it's quite fast still.
Alfred Einstead
> Why is it so hard to accept the idea that different
> people have different tastes?
Actually, what's hard to understand is why everybody
does not have a taste for everything, as I do. I mean:
all the subjects that would be covered in a typical
college curriculum. And I do mean EVERYTHING. My
transcript covers 20 years time, and my only regret
is that I only have 100 years time left.
Doug Norris
>Then the Packers would have won last week against the Vikings
>because the return runner for the last kickoff the Packers
>received would have set about an optimum running form that
>would have sent him practically flying past everyone else
>straight into the opposite end zone; and then the ensuing
>kickoff would have been optimally set to maximimize the
>likelihood of getting the ball back (and, again, running
>it right past everyone else straight into the end zone).
Right. And the Vikings' players would have done nothing, optimally, to
stop him. Uh-huh. Sure.
Doug
Steven E. Landsburg
Doug Norris <norr...@rintintin.colorado.edu> wrote:
> whop...@csd.uwm.edu (Alfred Einstead) writes:
>
>> Then the Packers would have won last week against the Vikings
>> because the return runner for the last kickoff the Packers
>> received would have set about an optimum running form...
> Right. And the Vikings' players would have done nothing, optimally, to
> stop him. Uh-huh. Sure.
Actually, all of the fans would have calculated both teams' optimal
strategies and correctly forecast the outcome, rendering the actual
play of the game quite unnecessary.
Steven E. Landsburg
--
Darren G. Lorent
> "Jon Cohen" <jonatha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Great, you don't like it. Good for you. Nothing would ever get done if
> > everyone was a mathematician
>
> Quite the opposite. If everyone were more mathematically inclined,
> people would run a lot faster, because they would have had the
> werewithal to actually pose the question of what the optimum
> method for running is and then set about answering the mathematical
> question underlying it.
>
> Then the Packers would have won last week against the Vikings
> because the return runner for the last kickoff the Packers
> received would have set about an optimum running form that
> would have sent him practically flying past everyone else
> straight into the opposite end zone; and then the ensuing
> kickoff would have been optimally set to maximimize the
> likelihood of getting the ball back (and, again, running
> it right past everyone else straight into the end zone).
Alas, the Vikings (also being mathematicians since everyone is!) would
have calculated the optimal defense. We end up pretty much where we
are (in football) but with smarter, and probably slower, less
coordinated, less athletic players. Oh no! I think a blood vessel in
my brain just berst! EVERYONE would be less athletic! Who's going to
sell the peanuts? I am sure that the vendors would realize that the
real money is in the beer!
Darren
Jon Cohen
> (And at the same time, most peoples' conception of Computer
> Science as the study of computers and programming is also
> dead wrong.
Nicely summed up by Dijkstra as "Computer science is as much about computers
as astronomy is about telescopes". Alas, no football analogies for me I'm
afraid :-)
[snip]
Jon
Bill Taylor
|> Most people... ...would rather spend their time... ...playing games.
But playing games IS math! Well, abstract games, anyway.
|> It's not the job of mathematicians to force their opinions on others.
Quite right! That's the job of ideologists and theologists.
Or of their secret police, to be precise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Taylor W.Ta...@math.canterbury.ac.nz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think I need to be saved from myself,
then I probably need to be saved from you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Galvin
> > (And at the same time, most peoples' conception of Computer
> > Science as the study of computers and programming is also
> > dead wrong.
>
> Nicely summed up by Dijkstra as "Computer science is as much about
> computers as astronomy is about telescopes".
Or as much as mathematics is about theorems and proofs.
Dr. Michael Ulm
> "Jon Cohen" <jonatha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Great, you don't like it. Good for you. Nothing would ever get done if
>> everyone was a mathematician
>
> Quite the opposite. If everyone were more mathematically inclined,
> people would run a lot faster, because they would have had the
> werewithal to actually pose the question of what the optimum
> method for running is and then set about answering the mathematical
> question underlying it.
>
>
> I can do 400m in about 55 seconds without having to move the
> legs more than 200 times a minute. 200 is considered a
> "Sunday afternoon jogging" rate; so it's quite something to
> see such speed coming out of such slow leg motion. Granted,
> it's still not Olympic caliber, but it's quite fast still.
This is not true. 200 strides are usually considered quite a lot
for anything but short distance running (which, granted, the 400m
is). For middle and long distance running the optimum rate is
considered to be at 180-200 strides per minute. A Sunday afternoon
jogger will do just over 100 (and I've seen many, even fast runners
that did just about 120 strides per minute).
However, 55 seconds for 400m _is_ quite fast. I am impressed. My PB
is 1:08, but then I'm more a long distance runner (and not a terribly
good one).
Michael.
--
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&#@#&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Dr. Michael Ulm
FB Mathematik, Universitaet Rostock
micha...@mathematik.uni-rostock.de
David C. Ullrich
wrote:
[content snipped]
>
>Ah well
>Disgustibus non est pudendum!!
Heh-heh. That's very funny.
David C. Ullrich
Nobuo Saito
Yeah, I don't force you to like math. Live and let live.
Why mathematicians do math? I guess, because there are vast mysterious
and wonderful lands before us waiting to be discovered.
Bob Pease
Thank you.
Interlingual puns seldom get a lot of traffic!!
My brother in Honduras has
"De putibus non est culandum" ( Spanish Slang/Latin)
**************8
Absolute worst..
By a Mexican Jesuit
"the proof that Ptolmey was gay is because his name was Psilomon!!"
Explanation,
That makes him Psilomon Ptolomeo
(Si Le monto lo meo!!)
( google gives references to Silomon Tolomeo in Costa Rica nerd subculture)
Dr. Sidethink
Dobbs University
Robert Israel
Darren G. Lorent <darren...@netscape.net> wrote:
>Alas, the Vikings (also being mathematicians since everyone is!) would
>have calculated the optimal defense. We end up pretty much where we
>are (in football) but with smarter, and probably slower, less
>coordinated, less athletic players. Oh no! I think a blood vessel in
>my brain just berst! EVERYONE would be less athletic! Who's going to
>sell the peanuts?
The graduate students, of course.
Robert Israel isr...@math.ubc.ca
Department of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2
David C. Ullrich
wrote:
>
>"David C. Ullrich" <ull...@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message
>news:90fotuombggfre9u8...@4ax.com...
>> On 19 Nov 2002 23:53:46 GMT, "Bob Pease" <bobp...@concentric.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [content snipped]
>> >
>> >Ah well
>> >Disgustibus non est pudendum!!
>>
>> Heh-heh. That's very funny.
>>
>>
>
>Thank you.
>Interlingual puns seldom get a lot of traffic!!
>
>My brother in Honduras has
>"De putibus non est culandum" ( Spanish Slang/Latin)
That one I don't get (although I suspect it would be
inappropriate for you to try to explain...)
>
>**************8
>Absolute worst..
>By a Mexican Jesuit
>
>"the proof that Ptolmey was gay is because his name was Psilomon!!"
>
>Explanation,
>That makes him Psilomon Ptolomeo
>(Si Le monto lo meo!!)
>
>( google gives references to Silomon Tolomeo in Costa Rica nerd subculture)
>
>Dr. Sidethink
>Dobbs University
>
>
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 11/13/02
>
David C. Ullrich
Gerry Myerson
"Bob Pease" <bobp...@concentric.net> wrote:
=> "David C. Ullrich" <ull...@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message
=> news:90fotuombggfre9u8...@4ax.com...
=> > On 19 Nov 2002 23:53:46 GMT, "Bob Pease" <bobp...@concentric.net>
=> > wrote:
=> >
=> > [content snipped]
=> > >
=> > >Ah well
=> > >Disgustibus non est pudendum!!
=> >
=> > Heh-heh. That's very funny.
=>
=> Thank you.
=> Interlingual puns seldom get a lot of traffic!!
The only one I recall is about the Frenchman who claimed he could make
a pun on any subject. He was brought before the King, who ordered,
"Make a pun about me!"
The Frenchman replied, "Mais le roi n'est pas un sujet."
By the way, in your earlier post, I think the word you were looking
for is malgre, accent aigu on the e.
--
Gerry Myerson (ge...@mpce.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
MatthewOutland
I hear japanese people do math because they think it makes them more
western since modern math was invented by westerners and japanese
mimic westerners because they got bored of mimicking chinese but also
because modern civilization is a creation of the white race and japan
is american colony.
Tim Mellor
Good spoon work.
Nobuo Saito
It's been a while. I didn't know you are interested in math.
Yeah, we mimicked Western technology and built the Zeros and they shot
down the Spitfires. How come?
MatthewOutland
Although Britain's poor performance in the pacific was largely due to
their preoccupation with germany, japan did do a good job against the
limeys. kudos to japan. Since japanese consider england
super-gpdculture wiuth super-god-language it must have made you happy.
But we americans whooped your ass.
Remember the battle of the philippine sea? It was nicknamed the
"great marinas turkey shoot" because the pilots were so bad. Also,
Japan went to war with the west because no matter how hard japanese
people tried to be white they were still asian so they attacked
america and Britain in a fit of racial envy. We estroyed japan by
burning all the cities to the ground, and replaced allthe buildings
with WHITE TECHNOLOGY after the occupation.
Also, japanese teenagers dye their hair blonde and I think it looks
dumb.
But all that math you enjoy wouldn't be possible without THE WHITE
RACE. So give me all your money because I am white and you worship
me. And I hear foregners steal all of japan's women because sleeping
with a white guy makes you better at math. And the movie brother is
boring.
Michele Dondi
>Why do math types assume that anyone who doesn't particularly like
>math either:
>
>1) isn't smart enough to do math
>
>2) doesn't know what "real math" is
>
>3) was turned away from math by a bad teacher
Having read most of this thread, I'll just throw in my 2 cents: I
think that it is both true that:
(i) Math isn't for "everyone", just like poetry isn't or painting and
a whole lot of other things AND
(ii) bad teachers and, what's worst, bad EDUCATION PROGRAMMES seem to
try hard at making Mathematics "kids' most hated subject".
To expand a bit: being a mathematician or even simply one with that
kind of mathematical sensibility that makes you just love it, means
having something that really resembles an additional sense on a layer
of deeper/higher intellectual perception. It's like having an eye,
inside of you, that lets you see things that others can't see and
somehow forces you to search for more and look at things that "normal
people" plainly ignore.
But OTOH most of Math that is taught as school is "making
calculations" and belongs to what had been studied/discovered before
the 20th century (although, of course, NOT ALL of pre-1900 Math is
taught) and the stress being posed on applications ("school will give
you the preparation to find a work") is in strict connection with the
fact that the chosen subjects are often boring if not even annoying.
I can remember my fourth high school year, here in Italy, spent at
doing trig for a whole year. That is, trig is not so bad after all,
but it's at most one day's work. It's interesting in a wider context,
isn't it?!?
I wouldn't like to give a political accent to my post, but I have been
told that in the USSR, updating courses for secondary schools teachers
included, e.g. group theory. In Italy, due to some kind of tradition
we have, the trend is studying the intersections between sin(x) and
(1/2)x-1/3.
Michele
--
Liberta' va cercando, ch'e' si' cara,
Come sa chi per lei vita rifiuta.
[Dante Alighieri, Purg. I, 71-72]
I am my own country - United States Confederate of Me!
[Pennywise, "My own country"]
John
> "Mike H" <mike...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> |> Most people... ...would rather spend their time... ...playing games.
>
> But playing games IS math! Well, abstract games, anyway.
>
>
> |> It's not the job of mathematicians to force their opinions on others.
>
> Quite right! That's the job of ideologists and theologists.
>
> Or of their secret police, to be precise.
Or, as the case may be, their not-so-secret police. What sets
these porkers apart is:
--Their beat: first-order logic with identity (FOL=) and the
theories that run under this logic.
--Their goal: to protect from FOL= from its discontents, including
those who maintain that FOL+ (whose axioms for identity are
weaker than those of FOL=) is a *better* logic for theorizing
than FOL=, granted that FOL+ 'runs' every theory that FOL=
does, along with many theories that are inconsistent with
FOL=.
--Their modus operandi: distortion, demeaning, baiting and goading,
in combination with--when these are ineffective--the
time-honored tactic of 'benign neglect'.
As with other police, the mission of these porkers is to 'protect
and serve'.
--John