/sci/ - Science & Math

You're not math retarded.
You're just regular retarded and probably mediocre in every other subject

>>5488119
>You're just regular retarded and probably mediocre in every other subject
Can't say I have ever had any trouble in any other subject unless math is involved. Includes very high level subjects.

>>5488121
that doesnt mean you are smart you fucking idiot

>>5488101
Every other subject?

You have to be an artsfag or in highschool. "Every other subject" when referring to science or engineering includes relevant knowledge of math.

The reason I'm calling you regular retarded is because you are probably underage

Yes and no.
Technically it is possible to be more developed in other fields of intelligence, like spatial, musical and bodily intelligence, meaning you'd be better in arts, music and physical education, but in subjects that include general intellect like physics or chemistry you cannot apply the same rules.

>>5488130
It's given that if I am bad at math, I am bad at anything that involves math.
>>5488124
Okay, then modify for "not retarded" in other subjects

>>5488101
Do you do your homework?
If you don't understand math after knowing the basic components behind the math and being explained the formulas, then you're probably retarded in some way. If you simply don't understand math because you don't study or do fuckall, then you're a lazy fuck who should go back to elementary school.

>>5488137
People use "hurr math just wasnt for me" as a cop out to not putting the time in to learn it from the ground up.

These are usually people that try to skip forward through shit everywhere else in their life but realize they can't with math and just say hurr i cant math xD

>>5488137
Math might be the easiest subject once you understand it. It's like playing tetris with numbers, not very hard at all.

If you don't understand it however, which might be the result of improper education, then you're fucked. It's a wall.

Is there a place to learn math from ground up online?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyscalculia

>>5488138
I beg to differ. I've never studied in my life because I've come to terms with the fact that I just can't pay attention enough to the material in front of me without thinking of something else. That being said, I've always scored at least above average in any subject I've taken, math being the most successful. Of course, there have been times where I won't understand something, but opening a book has never led me to the answer; just letting my mind ponder the subject at no decided time has always seemed to do it for me.

>>5488138
Fucking insanely hard to concentrate on homework
But yeah, I try, but it's mostly just repeating what was done earlier in class like, 20 times. It still doesn't make sense why I would be doing this, or what the final result even is. I just know if they say "if a boat is on a ramp, how much force would it take to keep it on the ramp?" I am using vectors or some shit.

>>5488145
http://www.mathtutor.ac.uk/
khanacademy
patrickjmt
mit ocw
interactmath.com

>>5488154
Your mind doesn't just create advanced math formula. You must have studied at one point.

Unless you're implying you've reinvented math in the few short years you've been in school which has taken humanity 10.000 years to develop and perfect.

>>5488158
>mathtutor
I finally found a chick I would not bang

I take "studying" to mean taking time outside of class to review the subject, of which I never have, because it has proven to be detrimental -- I only get frustrated with myself because if I need to learn chemistry, etc... I'll be thinking of a physics problem early. Vice verza. I really only pay attention to what interests me.
Obviously I'm not a prodigy or a genius -- I don't reinvent the math, someone shows it to me and I think about it and understand it; the point I was trying to make was studying isn't a full proof plan to get by on. I'd even go as far as to say that, for the majority of people that study to get by, it does not demonstrate a knowledge of the subject, because they're only trying to memorize the subject, not understand it.

>>5488143
>math
>numbers
lel

No. You are just lazy.

I'm not insulting you. That's just the honest truth. You scrape through life doing the minimum you can. You don't throw yourself into things, you just read around a little here and there. Your post itself gives great evidence of this:
>but smart enough in every other subject?
You said smart 'enough'. Not smart. Like you're content with mediocrity. You just want enough to get by.

Here's the thing about Maths. You can't be smart 'enough' in maths. You can't just read around here and there and get 'the gist' of it. If you skip one or two parts of maths, you don't get the later stuff. That's that. Until you go read in detail the parts you missed, you have very little chance of doing the later stuff. If you skip one or two parts of a novel, it's fine. You can bullshit your way through your exam or essay based on the parts that you have read. You can read around and get the 'gist of it'. You can't do this with maths. It's all or nothing. Either you know how to do something or you don't.

You can try and progress through maths doing the bare minimum. But you'll never find it easy. The person that says "Oh I'll read that stuff in detail later on, I don't need to understand it I'll just try formulae until it works" will always find it extremely hard going.

>>5488156
>It still doesn't make sense why I would be doing this, or what the final result even is.

Because you haven't taken the small amount of time to understand it. Slow down. Stop being in such a rush. Read it again and actually try and understand why you need vectors. How do they work. Why are they used in this problem.

Your mentality is that you see a problem and just think "Right just start searching for formulae and plugging shit in until I get something that looks right" "Where are some questions to copy the method".

>>5488147
The intro states that its difficulty in basic arithmetic, not abstract maths. Assuming that OP can count then this link is irrelevant.

>>5488158
Do you know of anything like that for other subjects?
I know of codeacademy which is for programming.

>>5488181
There are very few math topics that aren't quantitative in a major way.