Is Algebra necessary?

[BEWD]

Math is a thought process as well as a tool. When you see math as nothing more than symbols on a page you will never truly master it. It is when you can see beyond the symbols that you start to appreciate what math can be.

Learning about our own mind and our own culture is interesting, but at the same time there is so much of it that if we were ignorant about we wouldn’t be much worse off.

Anthropology is much more than just Cultural Anthropology(which in its own right isn’t just twiddling one’s thumbs and pulling theories out one’s ass). Sorry to interject but felt I had to get that out there, carry on gentleman.

[PozerWolf]

I get the strange impression I have a leech, I should go to the doctors to get that looked at.

Some leeches are known to be good for the skin. But then again, that all depends on the leech. See what your doctor has to say about it!

[LoyalSol]

Some leeches are known to be good for the skin. But then again, that all depends on the leech. See what your doctor has to say about it!

I think he is going to say that this leech sucks your IQ and makes you stupid, but oh well. I’ll have to tell you later.

[Fulaani]

I think overall the education system places entirely too much emphasis on math. The vast majority of jobs require the four basic functions of math, so requiring students to take advanced math provides little utility outside of funding math departments and giving math teachers jobs. In addition, math is a lot like foreign language in that you tend to lose it quickly if you don’t use it. And since most math has little value in most jobs the skill is quickly lost.

Learning math helps develop the mind. You don’t need to apply it all later in life to reap the benefits of studying it while in your formative years.

[pedoviejo]

Think about that the next time you get on a plane.

Engineer 1: "Hey guys what are the chances the wings just fall off?"
Engineer 2: "Hmm…according to these calculations about x%"
Engineer 3: “That’s low enough to pass, build it and put people on it.”

Shut the fuck up please.

[Tekno_Virus]

[media=youtube]aUmcjbSHYq0[/media]
[media=youtube]J5mx-Mg8KSY[/media]
[media=youtube]yo0nSYxFV94[/media]

[liero116]

Ok, when I was in school I swore up and down that I’d never need math, but without it, making games is much more difficult. I do algebra on a nearly daily basis.

[pedoviejo]

You sure like to call other people wrong. Especially considering this is ultimately about education and development, something that you don’t really seem qualified with at all. I’m not going to say my points are irrefutable facts, but you sure seem to think highly of yours when you flat out just tell people they’re wrong.

I don’t like telling people they are wrong. I like telling you that you are wrong because you are.

[Warrior_s_Dreams]

To think of it in another way, each of those dimes are physically unique (unless you want to count repeated molecular structures in quantum physics, but that gets into different realities and really crazy stuff)

What you’re doing isn’t so much thinking as trying to sound smart by using poorly thought-out arguments in conjunction with words you don’t understand. You don’t even understand elementary algebra, so it’s laughable at best that you are trying to use quantam physics to justify your position, ESPECIALLY since a preferred interpretation of quantam mechanics is an unsolved problem in physics.

If I have 1 dime the size of the Empire State Building, and two dimes in my hand, I still have 3 dimes. But quantifying them by just saying “I have 3 dimes in total” doesn’t mean much. This is because every instance of ‘having 3 dimes’ is completely unique. We could theoretically have an infinite variety of 3 dimes.

And your example where you make liberal use of the word “dime” is just a poor attempt at being clever. Dimes have a fixed circumference. So if a dime is the size of the Empire State Building, it is no longer a dime. It might look like a dime, but is that giant dime worth 10 cents? Of course not, so of course quantifiying this “dime” wouldn’t mean much … it’s because you intentionally counted something that isn’t a dime (in the sense that it could be counted as currency). Of course you dont have three dimes, you have two dimes and a giant novelty that looks LIKE a dime. But you didn’t disprove anything because you never had three dimes to BEGIN with.

And no, you you cannot have an infinite variety of three dimes because there are only a finite number of dimes in the world. (Don’t tell me “but i said theoretically” because you should have said “hypothetically” instead). Since the order in which you would have them doesn’t matter, there are xC3 (read: x choose three) ways to have three dimes, where x repreesnts the total nubmer of dimes that are available to be had. No I didn’t just make that up. Of course you would know what “n choose r” means if you had bothered taking a high school stats class but you never bothered learning algebra …

If numbers attempt to represent those dimes in terms of mass or dimension, then you face the infinite number having to be rounded issue. What you round off and consider unimportant is completely subjective. The more decimal places a number takes up, the more accurately it represents an object in physical space. But you cannot work with infinite numbers, so math approximates.

While it’s certain that some number abstractions are more accurate than others, all of those abstractions in truth have a probability of accurate reflection. In essence, you’re saying “For what we’re doing now, rounding this number here will suffice in the vast majority of circumstances.” However, it will never be 100% truth. Something might have a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999% chance of being right, but there’s still that chance it’s wrong.

And the way you coin these vague idiosyncratic terms and phrases to make yourself sound smart: imperfect abstraction, infinite number having to be rounded issue, infinite numbers, 100% truth, probability of accurate reflection. It’s just pseudo-intellectual fluff.

The only person who cannot work with infinite decimal representations, or to use your flawed terminology “infinite numbers,” is you. Everybody else realizes that they are numbers, and that because they possess that property, you can perform algebraic operations on them and get another number. If I add sqrt(2) to itself, I get 2sqrt(2). See? I just worked with “infinite numbers.” Fishjie can work with “infinite numbers.” 1/3 + 2/3 = 1. Most people here can. The only difference is that they don’t make excuses like you do.

The pure arrogance displayed by many math savvy people astounds me. Get the fuck off your pedestal. You’re not somehow superior to other modes of thinking, just different. And whenever anyone speaks out against math the zealots come out in droves like some hyper-conservative church stuck in steep religious doctrine. But if you want to keep white-knighting math (math must be a real sexy bitch), that’s your freedom. Just don’t expect me to listen to it.

No. When someone who lacks mathematical aptitude comes into a thread called “Is algebra necessary” and single-handedly demonstrates through their mischaracterization of numbers why algebra is necessary, and people call you out on it, that is not arrogance. That is people who actually know what they are talking about calling you out on your ineptitude. Your gross misuse of jargon that you clearly aren’t familiar with has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that you are an intellectual fraud and a charlatin. It is one thing to post things, be mistaken, and learn from it, but when you continually refuse to listen to people who actually have a clue about what they are talking about trying to correct your mistakes, I can’t think of anything more unintelligent. When you try to accuse us of being arrogant to cover up your own math anxiety and ramble off unscholoarly gibberish and refuse to have it scrutinized because you don’t think you should have to … THAT is arrogant .

[Matriarch]

What you’re doing isn’t so much thinking as trying to sound smart by using poorly thought-out arguments in conjunction with words you don’t understand.

On the contrary, I feel like I’m talking to a brick wall with you. It’s easy to think people are stupid when you don’t understand them. This will be my last attempt to communicate with you.

You don’t even understand elementary algebra, so it’s laughable at best that you are trying to use quantam physics to justify your position, ESPECIALLY since a preferred interpretation of quantam mechanics is an unsolved problem in physics.

And your example where you make liberal use of the word “dime” is just a poor attempt at being clever. Dimes have a fixed circumference. So if a dime is the size of the Empire State Building, it is no longer a dime. It might look like a dime, but is that giant dime worth 10 cents? Of course not, so of course quantifiying this “dime” wouldn’t mean much … it’s because you intentionally counted something that isn’t a dime (in the sense that it could be counted as currency). Of course you dont have three dimes, you have two dimes and a giant novelty that looks LIKE a dime. But you didn’t disprove anything because you never had three dimes to BEGIN with.

I used the example of quantum (notice I spelled it right, you misspelled it multiple times) physics because theoretically, all patterns of matter eventually repeat in the infinite expanse of the universe. Why is this important?

Because EVERYTHING in known existence is a unique pattern of matter. Why is this important? Because there are no two dimes that are exactly the same. The example of the huge dime was simply being facetious. In addition, all matter is constantly in flux, so even if you had a dime that was exactly like another, it wouldn’t be that way forever.

So even if we have 3 normal dimes, they’re all different, all unique. That’s why I said any set of 3 dimes is completely unique. You’re approximating the concept of a dime into a number (1 in this case). And while 1 might equal 1, one dime does not equal another. And while quantifying them as a 1 can be useful, it is by no means a perfect reflection of an object in physical reality.

And no, you you cannot have an infinite variety of three dimes because there are only a finite number of dimes in the world.

False. Dimes are constantly in flux, like all matter. The same dime isn’t even the same dime it was 30 seconds ago. The variety of even one dime is infinite, much less a combination of 3.

Also, because space is infinite, we cannot truly quantify the number of dimes in existence. That is why on a quantum level, all matter will eventually repeat, although by the time it does you’re probably in another dimension, reality, etc.

We have yet to ever find a set of matter that perfectly matches another set of matter. Ever. And even then it would change in the next instant unless you could place it in a place where no outside forces could act upon it. But when you finally have a fixed dime and it’s perfectly identical to another fixed dime, then sure, we can truly say 1 dime = another 1 dime.

And the way you coin these vague idiosyncratic terms and phrases to make yourself sound smart: imperfect abstraction, infinite number having to be rounded issue, infinite numbers, 100% truth, probability of accurate reflection. It’s just pseudo-intellectual fluff.

At least I spelled quantum right.

No. When someone who lacks mathematical aptitude comes into a thread called “Is algebra necessary” and single-handedly demonstrates through their mischaracterization of numbers why algebra is necessary, and people call you out on it, that is not arrogance. That is people who actually know what they are talking about calling you out on your ineptitude. Your gross misuse of jargon that you clearly aren’t familiar with has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that you are an intellectual fraud and a charlatin. It is one thing to post things, be mistaken, and learn from it, but when you continually refuse to listen to people who actually have a clue about what they are talking about trying to correct your mistakes, I can’t think of anything more unintelligent. When you try to accuse us of being arrogant to cover up your own math anxiety and ramble off unscholoarly gibberish and refuse to have it scrutinized because you don’t think you should have to … THAT is arrogant .

I’ve stated my points, and I feel we’ve reached a point where this exchange isn’t going to go anywhere. I feel it’s obvious you don’t understand what I’m attempting to communicate. Perhaps I could say it in a different way, perhaps you just don’t understand, perhaps it’s just a combination of both.

I’m willing to admit that I don’t know all there is to know about math, but I definitely feel you don’t know enough to be condescending to anyone.

But no matter what you want to say about math, I think it’s obvious that the current approach to math in our education system is in desperate need of an overhaul. Just because it happened to work for you doesn’t mean it’s a great thing.

But the most important thing is, I spelled quantum right. Have a great night!

[AmigoOne]

Oh. My. God.

[Hotobu]

I said to myself I wasn’t going to reply to this thread again, but… damn I just can’t resist this.

You guys can abstract physical objects into numbers all you want, but it’s merely an imperfect abstraction.

You can say that we have 3 dimes, but that’s only a partial representation of what those dimes actually are in the physical world. That’s what I meant when I said numbers are limited in their function. To think of it in another way, each of those dimes are physically unique (unless you want to count repeated molecular structures in quantum physics, but that gets into different realities and really crazy stuff), so while adding them together might be useful, it is in no means fully representing those dimes.

If I have 1 dime the size of the Empire State Building, and two dimes in my hand, I still have 3 dimes. But quantifying them by just saying “I have 3 dimes in total” doesn’t mean much. This is because every instance of ‘having 3 dimes’ is completely unique. We could theoretically have an infinite variety of 3 dimes.
.

What’s hilariously ironic is that the person who wrote this was the one who was talking about how math should have real world uses, yet posts the single most abstract thing said in this thread. Now you’re talking about dimes the size of the Empire State Building? How silly is that?

“But quantifying them by just saying “I have 3 dimes in total” doesn’t mean much”

The fuck are you talking about Ms. Math should be taught with real world tangible examples? It means everything if I want to buy something that costs $.30.

This excerpt and the whole post is pseudo-intellectualism at its finest. Talking about repeated molecular structures to rationalize some BS example for different types of dimes? First of all I guarantee you don’t have the qualifications to even begin to understand WTF you’re talking about beyond some Wikipedia’d simplification.

Seeing as you like to make *appeals to authority *I wonder what’d happen if you were to go to one of your philosophy people, tell them about the context for that post and show it to them. Something tells me it’d never happen because you’d be embarrassed to put your name to such drivel. That’s the type of post that if you come back and look at it sometime in the future will have you saying, “where the fuck was I even going with that shit?”

[petran79]

Problem with Math and Sciences in general, but particularly Math, is that once you abandon it, its all over. It is impossible at an older age to establish a contact again.Physics and Chemistry at least are about natural phenomena so they are easier to understand.
Math though requires abstract thought in order to be able to progress to the next level. this makes Mathematics much more demanding as a teaching subject and requires constant devotion from the student. Of course Physics are based also on Math, but at least there you have something in front of you.

whereas with Arts, Literature, History, Social Sciences, it is much easier to get in contact anytime. Language is something you hear every day.I havent read a sociology book for years but I will not have any problem reading it now. I will also not have any problem reading any history or art book. Whereas with Math that I havent touched since I was 17, I wouldnt understand a thing. Even though I did opt for natural sciences when I was in high school but ended up in sociology.

so Algebra, Geometry, Calculus etc are necessary and they should establish at least an elementary abstract thought. when I was at school we had separate class for Geometry and Algebra, though only 1-2 times a week. Now though all these subjects were fused into Mathematics. I really liked Geometry for a while

Out of all school subjects, the one I remember the least is Mathematics. I remember Geometry though.

[Pertho]

The only thing I’ve learned is that some people need to take some time and reread things before they reply to shit. On the plus side I’m gonna cozy up to my quantitative research methods book tomorrow.

[pedoviejo]

Imagine if this dumb shit started talking about Schrodinger’s Cat? Hahahahahaha

Now I know why authority figures don’t like it when people read of Wikipedia.

[fishjie]

yeah… there’s only a finite number of dimes in the world.

anyway, back to math just being cool in and of itself…

one time i was smoking pot with my friend who had never taken advanced math, so i was explaining to him how you find the area under a curve. i said, you can approximate the area by drawing rectangles underneath the curve, and then summing up the areas of the individual rectangles. by drawing smaller and smaller rectangles and summing the areas you get a more accurate answer. by drawing an infinite number of rectangles of width 0 and summing those up, you get the exact area. he agreed that this was very clever and his mind was blown. and then i explained to him that this was calculus, math that deals with infinitesimally small numbers. and then i went on to explain that newton and leibniz both invented that shit independently being the nerd ballers that they were. newton doing it because he wanted to figure out why orbits were elliptical, but first he had to figure out calculus, THEN use this newly created branch of math to figure out the orbits. that’s pretty amazing. we both agreed, math is COOL!

[media=youtube]danYFxGnFxQ[/media]

[Hotobu]

yeah… there’s only a finite number of dimes in the world.

anyway, back to math just being cool in and of itself…

one time i was smoking pot with my friend who had never taken advanced math, so i was explaining to him how you find the area under a curve. i said, you can approximate the area by drawing rectangles underneath the curve, and then summing up the areas of the individual rectangles. by drawing smaller and smaller rectangles and summing the areas you get a more accurate answer. by drawing an infinite number of rectangles of width 0 and summing those up, you get the exact area. he agreed that this was very clever and his mind was blown. and then i explained to him that this was calculus, math that deals with infinitesimally small numbers. and then i went on to explain that newton and leibniz both invented that shit independently being the nerd ballers that they were. newton doing it because he wanted to figure out why orbits were elliptical, but first he had to figure out calculus, THEN use this newly created branch of math to figure out the orbits. that’s pretty amazing. we both agreed, math is COOL!

Oh it’s funny you mention this. Check this out http://fliptomato.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/medical-researcher-discovers-integration-gets-75-citations/

tl;dr a Biologist “discovered” this method and published it as a way to count areas under curves. He got cited 75 times.

[LoyalSol]

snip

You know I work with Quantum Physics for a living and I think you are out of your mind on some of that stuff.

[alejandrosh]

Think about that the next time you get on a plane.

Engineer 1: "Hey guys what are the chances the wings just fall off?"
Engineer 2: "Hmm…according to these calculations about x%"
Engineer 3: “That’s low enough to pass, build it and put people on it.”

This is precisely why there will always be math errors, and why anything based on math will never fully reflect or understand the physical world (sorry science). So why do we use it? Because it’s the best thing we have. Who knows, maybe someday math itself will be phased out because of these limitations.

Who the hell makes planes like that? How does that example proof that math is limited?

[fishjie]

Oh it’s funny you mention this. Check this out http://fliptomato.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/medical-researcher-discovers-integration-gets-75-citations/

tl;dr a Biologist “discovered” this method and published it as a way to count areas under curves. He got cited 75 times.

LOLOLOLOL