OH LAWD

[Anonymous No.9857747]

I just picked this up on the advice of the wiki, as I'm going to go back to college soon.
I figured I was just covering my ass to make sure I have the absolute basics down, but I'm being absolutely slapped around by these problems, and I'm only on #7 of the entire book.
To be clear I am solving them, and (afaik) understanding the logic used to solve them quickly with differing (read:longer than ideal) amounts of examination afterwards. But I feel like the clear expectation based on the questions given is to be able to reflexively output the answers, and I'm barely even approaching that on the best of my responses, and I just feel so buffeted about by the different approaches and angles taken to determine the correct answer.
And this is what I assume to be the piss easy introductory tutorial of the easier basic math approaches in the wiki.
Jesus Christ this is what I get for running scared from math until I'm 26.
I fear that my ability to logically intuit these things will just run out of steam partway through this book, and I won't be able to advance, which scares me greatly. I actually did fairly well in math in school when I applied myself, I don't remember it being even remotely as difficult as this when I was engaged with the same subjects.
I know that children are capable of much quicker and more robust learning but what gives?
Were my schools (greater town area population of >250k in a semi-isolated area) just awful?
Am I doomed to be a brainlet now?
Am I just being panicky and this will all pass with sustained effort?

[Anonymous No.9857841]

>>9857747
>Am I doomed to be a brainlet now?
>Am I just being panicky and this will all pass with sustained effort?
the latter

[Anonymous No.9857921]

>>9857841
>>Am I just being panicky and this will all pass with sustained effort?
yah

[Anonymous No.9857930]

>>9857747
You are a good guy and aren't afraid of anything.

[Anonymous No.9859226]

>I know that children are capable of much quicker and more robust learning but what gives?
Think about it this way: children are only taught to work mechanically through problems of certain, previously defined types, through the use of determinate formulae and solving strategies. On other hand, Gelfand actually challenges you to think for yourself: currently you're struggling with formulating the same arithmetic operations for a different base (binary). Children would've just been given the definitions for binary base and then told to work on some easy as shit exercises. That's why you think they learn "quicker" (they have less to learn) and "more robustly" (it's easier to incorporate a mechanical method than to exercise creativity in a problem).

Keep going at it and be confident on yourself.

[Anonymous No.9859258]

>>9859226
This.
The saddest day of my life was when I went to college and figured out that I had never actually been taught math. Only algorithms to solve a problem.

[Anonymous No.9859271]

>>9859258
imagine if you'd been taught from the very beginning. imagine.

[Anonymous No.9859282]

>>9859271
The worse part is that my high school was in the top 20 of my state which contains 1000+.
I can't imagine how it is for the bottom 20...

[Anonymous No.9859292]

>>9857747
Where is this book in the wiki?

[Anonymous No.9859293]

>>9859282
Try a shit high school from Brazil.

[Anonymous No.9859543]

>>9859292
http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki/Math_Textbook_Recommendations
also this image

[Anonymous No.9859805]

>>9857747
>But I feel like the clear expectation based on the questions given is to be able to reflexively output the answers

No, Gelfand's questions are designed to force you to think about what's going on rather than the mindlessly crank turning of doing the same steps/patterns as the given examples like in other lesser books. This leads you to a deeper understanding of what's going on and having it stick with you.