Andrew and others wrote
>
> Sounds like my understanding of the square root of -1. I have no idea how
> imaginary numbers or used but admire the idea that we can not only
> conceive of them, but use them. I suspect that true mathematicians are
> those who have an aesthetic appreciation of the discipline. Philosophers
> who practice analytical logic are similar (Thanks for nothing, Dr
> Russell). Why is it such a bad response - could it not have intrinsic
> beauty and would that not be reason in itself? This echoes my own struggle
> with quadratic equations (failed, 9th grade). Asking, "But what are they
> FOR?" was probably the wrong question. It didn't ever get me an answer.
> Andrew Fildes afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx www.soultheft.com Author/Publisher:
> The SLR Compendium - http://www.blurb.com/books/3732813
>
>
>
> On 10/04/2013, at 7:36 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
> > Many years ago whilst struggling a bit with determinants in an algebra
> > class I asked the math prof if he could describe a real world usage of
> > determinants. I figured if I knew how and why it was used it would
> > facilitate understanding the concept. His response was: "Sit down, Mr.
> > Norcutt. I want you to appreciate it for its intrinsic beauty."
> >
> > A few years later in a real world work environment I did discover a
> > practical usage on my own. But no thanks to the teacher... who was the
> > highly respected head of the math department.
> >
> > Chuck Norcutt
> >
> >
> > On 4/9/2013 11:47 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
> >> We either know it or we don't. If we don't,
> >> it's because the teacher hasn't given a good enough explanation as to
> >> application.
> > --
I can relate to all that, and what Ken wrote too.
At junior High School I failed "School Certificate" maths.
Later I failed 'University Entrance' maths. Actually, I gave up early in the
year.The 'teacher' was an arrogant orifice who worked fine with the brilliant
students and ignored the rest.
Well, I got my B.Sc. with a pretty good grade average ( 2 x A, 4 x B, 2 x C)
despite that. Even passed Physics 1 because I understood the logic of the
processes although I couldn't do the mathematics.
Topped my class in Forestry.
Later I did extra-mural Economics 1 at a third university - distance learning,
and passed. For people like me they taught us Calculus, enough to do the
job. I learned to use it for the purpose but never understood it. And still
don't
and never found another use for it.
After all that I tried to find the answer to my self-imposed question - ' Am I
intrinsically stupid at maths, or was it in large part the teachers?', so I
took
myself off to night-school to try UE maths again. Soon gave that up - could
not at all relate to what the teacher was saying. Persuaded the National
Correspondence School that I was a valid pupil, enrolled, and passed 56, 58
in the two exams.
So I still didn't answer my question. I think now that the teacher(s) were a
large part of the problem, and I 'DO' learn quite well on my own from good
text-books, as i have shown several times.
These days, and for many years past now, I reflect that I could never be
admitted to class for either of my degrees because of failure in maths ...
lucky timing :-).
Rote learning works well for me, followed by understanding of the principles.
But put a few brackets, squares, square roots and what-not in there and I'm
stuffed. My mind and eyes glaze over.
AND I might well give this TOPE a miss. Night photography does nothing for
me. :-(
Brian Swale
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|