/sci/ - Science & Math

I have never done a mathematical proof correctly in my life. I have always been very poor at thinking outside of the box. I can perfectly solve procedural problems in calculus and linear algebra, but the moment in which I have to debug something, solve a physics problem or rigorously prove a mathematical assertion, I can't reach a solution no matter how many hours I spend.


TL/DR anyone good at solving procedural problems but not ones which require thinking outside of the box?

>>10458606
>The universe is supposed to collapse into a black hole

what is a good book to properly learn calculus with all the required intuitions for brainlets? i have no issues with:

- finding the derivative of a function
- finding derivatives with fundamental theorem of calculus
- using derivatives in practical problems

the problems comes when i try to get from there to differential equations, books start moving "dx"s and "dy"s around, and i have absolutely no intuition of what is going on, what is symbolically allowed and what is not, like where can i move the "dx" and "dy" and where i can't, when do they cancel and why, and shit like that

i've started with it a few times but because i built no intuition about it, i can learn how to solve a few problems from the books, but i have no idea how to approach new problems or it's hard to retain the information because i have no intuition about what's going on

is there a definitive book to build that kind of intuition from the ground up?

I took math all the way through linear algebra and ODEs. Read the first chapter of spivak to get acquainted with proofs and I am legitimately lost. I have no idea how to do these proofs, it's all gibberish to me. Read some solutions online and it just seems incredible they're able to know how to solve these questions.

Am I just not cut out for mathematics?

My IQ was tested in the 130s btw

>>9927838
How is this not filtered yet? You post the same OP every time.

>>9753900
What the fuck are you talking about rigor if you don't even do the rigorous tasks?

It's like saying something is super difficulty but you aren't doing the difficult parts, yet you're still loathing to others about how hard your job is.

Fuck right off you brainlet cunt we all studied maths as well. But we didn't fuck up like you

>unique (up to isomorphism)

>"correlation does not imply causation"

>>9584621
>TFW I don't understand what we wrote

>>9527451
Yeah because taking one rock and then putting it with another rock doesn't always give you two rocks, it can sometimes give three

How do I calculate the radius of the largest sphere that fits between 4 identical spheres of radius r. Descartes theorem didn't help since I'm a brainlet.
I've read about cubic close packing but it's just not enough dumbed down information

>>9457560

> It just depends on the order of operators
> operator

Who is your operator? Choose your own destiny, hueman. Choose wisely, look for good.

>>9446134
wtf this doesn't make any sense

>>9432873
Can submarines swim?