Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ π -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

Pages: **1**

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 102,826

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.****If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.** **A number by itself is useful, but it is far more useful to know how accurate or certain that number is.**

**Online**

**ShivamS****Member**- Registered: 2011-02-07
- Posts: 3,648

Nice article!

Offline

Why did I miss out this quality post?

'And fun? If maths is fun, then getting a tooth extraction is fun. A viral infection is fun. Rabies shots are fun.'

'God exists because Mathematics is consistent, and the devil exists because we cannot prove it'

I'm not crazy, my mother had me tested.

Offline

Now again, to understand Opinion 37 really deeply, I need to program it. how do I do that?

'And fun? If maths is fun, then getting a tooth extraction is fun. A viral infection is fun. Rabies shots are fun.'

'God exists because Mathematics is consistent, and the devil exists because we cannot prove it'

I'm not crazy, my mother had me tested.

Offline

**ShivamS****Member**- Registered: 2011-02-07
- Posts: 3,648

He said you need to program math, not English.

Offline

But to understand the difference between math and english, I need to come up with some program. Hmmmmmm

'And fun? If maths is fun, then getting a tooth extraction is fun. A viral infection is fun. Rabies shots are fun.'

'God exists because Mathematics is consistent, and the devil exists because we cannot prove it'

I'm not crazy, my mother had me tested.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 102,826

Is it possible you over examined it? Why must you program to program?

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.****If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.** **A number by itself is useful, but it is far more useful to know how accurate or certain that number is.**

**Online**

**ShivamS****Member**- Registered: 2011-02-07
- Posts: 3,648

I agree with most of what he said, but just a few details I do not agree with:

1. He said that 99% of mathematicians can't program non-trivially. I am sure he means mathematics majors or graduate students, because most mathematicians in the industry or academia can probably program pretty well. As for mathematics students, especially at the top universities, they are required to program efficiently and well. I do understand his perspective that at many universities, students are merely taught to code (that is, just learn the syntax and create trivial programs).

2. He said that programming mathematics is the best way to learn. I have used that method several times and have found it to be very effective and it is probably one of the best methods of learning or practising mathematics. However, methods such as teaching it, doing problems/proofs etc are very effective as well and I do not know how to quantify effectiveness of learning. Therefore, I wouldn't say it is the most effective way.

3. He also said that programs are better than the usual proofs. I think programs are a good way to prove something, but I wouldn't go as far to say they are a better method than standard proofs because once again, I do not know how to quantify it.

Sorry if I sound like I am too exacting.

Offline

Pages: **1**