/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15074554]

Am I the only one who cannot learn from principles? If you give me axioms and laws I am almost useless at solving problems in the field. I can't make mathematical "understanding" from them. I have to look at worked examples and follow each step

[Anonymous No.15074583]

>>15074554
There's nothing to learn from principles, anon. You only learn from applying them.

[Flattering Anon Makes You Feel Great No.15074601]

>>15074554
It's possible that your IQ is too high and that you need to dial it down on occasion. Maybe as soon as you register these axioms, your fluid intelligence and crystallized intelligence engage in a sublime dance in which hundreds and hundreds of derivative propositions, theorems, and corollaries occur to you subconsciously, and maybe this mass of new data overwhelms you with aesthetic indecision as you can't decide which of the dozens of viable approaches to proving/solving something is the most elegant. If, instead, you dial down your IQ and assimilate the axioms as a 110-IQ grunt would, with essentially a tabula rasa of derived material, you may find that this rather barren mental landscape enables you to pursue the one and only withered flower of viability that presents itself.

[Anonymous No.15074613]

>>15074554
An axiomatized theory is the last step in building a body of knowledge.
Any normal kid would lose his mind if you forced him to learn about abstract vector spaces starting from first principles. If you start from concrete geometric vectors and n-tuples, everything will sound a lot more understandable. Only after making some practice with concrete instances of an abstract concept you will be able to move on and appreciate the concept in its full generality. That's how it usually works in math, science, and any other endeavor. Concrete examples always precede the abstract generalization.

[Anonymous No.15074649]

>>15074613
And yet I felt like I never truly had a grasp on math until I studied logic and philosophy. I could do math at a high level, but didn’t feel like I understood it’s fundamental beauty like the greats did until then.

[Anonymous No.15075066]

>>15074649
If you had started straight from logic and philosophy you might have failed to appreciate that beauty though.
I think you need both the concrete and the abstract to appreciate math, and it is usually better to start from the concrete and work your way up to more abstract notions.

[Anonymous No.15075130]

>>15074554
This would suggest that you do not spend enough time upon your own.
Lock yourself in a blank room for 8 hours -- it will force you to become creative.

[Anonymous No.15075136]

>>15074613
>have to make him learn geometric vectors and n tuples
>but he cannot grasp the axioms of these
>needs more pre requisites
>so on ad infinitum
It's impossible to learn anything

[Anonymous No.15075170]

>>15075136
>but he cannot grasp the axioms of these
Those axioms are pretty intuitive, it should be viable for him to learn them.

[Anonymous No.15075676]

>>15074613
this
unless you're actually autistic and a genius nobody learns through axiomisation, rather it's a way is generalising things into their simplest to see how they could work in other settings and what is truely necessary to understand something

[Anonymous No.15076008]

>>15075066
I understand linguistically it makes sense, but it's funny that you are calling things that that could be considered a priori abstract, when an axiom is literally by definition the lowest level of abstraction.

[Anonymous No.15076065]

>>15074554
It takes time for the tools to sink in for you to be able to solve problems. Same things happens when you learn programming primitives to build larger programs or physics equations to solve complex problems.

Keep doing examples and you'll eventually start getting it.

[Anonymous No.15076071]

>>15076065
Shut the fuck up worthless talentless non genius trash

[Anonymous No.15076079]

>>15076071
>t. high scorer on internet IQ exams

[Anonymous No.15076127]

The way it's explained in the axioms doesn't cover the fact that there will be a lot of sets A corresponding to impossible events, so thinking about it in this way is absurd, you probably end up with an infinite amount of impossible events depending on the way F is defined.

[Anonymous No.15076252]

>>15074554
You should be able to apply them and if you can't then you are stupid. I am not stupid and I apply all. I am big man with brain of big size. You are not a big man

[Anonymous No.15076257]

>>15074601
I wish I had a flattering anon to see me through every self-doubt.

[Anonymous No.15076270]

>>15074554
The problematic aspect of these "principles" is that many of them are founded on convenient word salads rather than intuitive and understandable notions. The people who appeal to them and invented them didn't even know what they really meant so it's not surprising that you don't understand them.

[Anonymous No.15076318]

>>15074554
Read this pdf, its highly appropriate here

[Anonymous No.15076920]

>>15076318
It's interesting but what does it mean, in practical terms? Play games with the axioms?

[Anonymous No.15077848]

>>15076270
>>15076318
Ill freely admit im not pro when it comes to mathematics but it really feels like these are whats actually going on these days, just a bunch of nonsense shat onto a page