Everything2
Near Matches
Ignore Exact
Full Text
Everything2

Math is hard

created by tregoweth

(idea) by Andukar (1.7 y) (print)   ?   (I like it!) 1 C! Sat Feb 03 2001 at 0:43:03

Hard though you might think math, there is a part of your brain that has no problem doing highly complex differential calculus almost instantaneously. Now before you ask me what I'm on, let me elaborate a bit. Consider a common physics problem: A projectile is launched at a given velocity -- assuming no friction, calculate it's path. Some of us may find that question difficult, some may not. Now let's add in air friction. The question suddenly becomes more complicated. Add in a wind blowing at a given speed in a given direction and the complexity becomes magnified again.

Now, have someone throw a ball at you outside in the wind. Do you have any problems catching it? For most people the answer would be no. True, we may not be given precise information, and we may not be able to say how long the ball will stay in the air, when it reaches it's maximum height, or how fast it's going -- but we can catch it. We can quickly calculate the path it will take and react in order to catch the ball. It may not be the kind of math we normally think of, but it is math nonetheless. Math that functions so quickly and elegantly that we can instantly recieve the pertinent information.

Some math is easy for everyone. The areas of specialty simply differ.


(idea) by dmd (2.3 mon) (print)   ?   (I like it!) Sat Feb 03 2001 at 3:06:45

Halfway through writing my response to Andukar, I noticed the appearance of Anark's writeup, which says most of what I was thinking, and more clearly than I could have put it.

I'd have to disagree with Andukar's statement "it is math nonetheless". Mathematics and physics describe the world, but they aren't actually the world.

Take as an example an equation describing the y-component of projectile motion in two dimensions:

vy = v0 sin θ + ayt
If someone were to fire a projectile, its motion will, in fact, be precisely predicted by that equation.1 But is the projectile actually using the equation to move? Is the universe itself actually running numbers through equations to determine what it will do next? Clearly not, as this would require an endless stack of places-to-run-the-numbers, which themselves would have to operate on such rules. (cf. Douglas Hofstadter)

The equations describe the events of the universe; they do not specify the events.

1With the usual caveats about air resistance, relativistic speeds, external forces, etc., which are not relevant to the discussion.

(idea) by XCthulhu (1.3 y) (print)   ?   (I like it!) Sat Feb 03 2001 at 3:37:13

"Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics; I can assure you that mine are still greater." --Albert Einstein

I agree with Anark that the math that your mind computes via instinct is not the same as regular differential calculus. Fortunately, this means that your brain is simple enough to be saved from the horrible details. And good thing too, because as one forms more and more complex logic systems, things start to fall apart, and eventually everyone is forced to admit some built-in short comings in math. Even more insidiously, these short comings can be proved within such complex systems, by the very axioms of such systems! Thanks to a brilliant mathematician named Kurt Gödel, and Proposition VI in "On the Formally Undecidable Propositions in Principia Mathematica and Related Systems I" (1931), we can now state that there will always be parts of General Mathematics no-one will ever correctly understand. Kind of sad really. Oh well, off I go to rationalize out some unprovable true statements.


Don't sweat it, it's just math.


(idea) by tailchaser (5.7 y) (print)   ?   (I like it!) 2 C!s Tue Mar 06 2001 at 23:30:23

I have to respond to Andukar's comment here, and specifically to his example about catching a ball. When you catch a fly ball, you do not calculate anything about projectile trajectories or air friction or wind velocity or anything. You use a rather simple and beautiful motor/perceptual hack.

Consider: when you look at a ball coming towards you in the air, it appears as a point in your two-dimensional visual field. Now, if the ball is to the left of the center of your visual field, you move left; if it is to the right of the center you move right; if it is above the center you move back; and if it is below the center you move forward. If you keep the ball in the center of your visual field, it will run right into your face, unless you have a glove in front of it (hopefully you will!).

If you don't believe me, try catching fly balls with only one eye open sometime. It's hard, because with no depth perception you can't figure out the ball's velocity or when it's going to hit you. There has been quite a bit of research which indicates that this is, in fact, the actual algorithm which baseball players use to catch fly balls.1

So can we generalize anything from this? Not conclusively, but I would argue that this and other similar phenomena indicate that we do not in fact do nearly as much computation as we sometimes appears to. (Walking is another example that comes to mind; nowhere in our brain is the trajectory and landing point of our foot calculated when we take a step; we simply swing our leg and let the physics of gravity and pendulums take care of the details.) On the other hand, some behaviors, such as language and social behavior, are different; we do do a lot of complicated unconscious processing for these things. The difference is that evolution has kindly put into our brains a dedicated "language computer", but not a dedicated "mathematics computer". The ability we as humans have in mathematics (which is not inconsiderable) is due to the more general cognitive capacities (catgorization, generalization, etc.) that we have. So, I would say, math really is hard. On the other hand, I think it's also a lot of fun, and I think it would get boring fast if it was always as easy as breathing.


1. I regret that I can't give any references to this research. A web search provides some discussion of this phenomenon, but no links to the original research. If anyone could provide me with some references, please /msg me.

(idea) by RimRod (16.5 hr) (print)   ?   (I like it!) 2 C!s Sat Oct 06 2001 at 21:43:42

Barbie dolls have long been thought of as a grotesquely stereotypical "perfect" woman in some circles--those disgusted with Barbie's perfect proportions note that an anatomically correct life-size Barbie would be 7 feet tall with a 40-inch bust, 22-inch waist and 36-inch hips...and her legs would be 5 feet long.  But, it took an incident in the late 1980's to bring mainstream attention to this issue for the first time:

Mattel released a Teen Talk Barbie which could say over 200 different sentences.  Among these were "Math is hard!" and "Let's go shopping!"  Activist groups throughout the country were outraged that Mattel would program Barbie with such overtly sexist sayings, and the doll became the butt of countless jokes in the media and on the late night talk show circuit.

Tall tales of a "Barbie Liberation Organization" quickly spread, spinning stories of groups that would go into department stores and switch the speech chips in the Teen Talk Barbie and Talking Duke G.I. Joe dolls--consumers were allegedly shocked to find Barbie screaming "VENGEANCE IS MINE!" and Dukes who pondered, "Let's plan our dream wedding!"

Mattel quickly pulled the dolls from the shelves and reprogrammed Barbie without the offensive sayings, but the damage had already been done--many more people than ever before began to see that Barbie might just be everything that its opponents had been claiming for many years--materialistic, impossibly proportioned, and subservient.


printable version
chaos

The number you have dialed is imaginary Zero divided by zero Barbie What do theorems look like?
Inefficient hello world programs Prostitute Barbie 1=2 Stupid math tricks
Barbie Liberation Organization proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Node More Mathematics the almost indestructible pistachio
What I want to be when I grow up Dividing by zero Talking Everything Barbie The universe makes my head hurt
What is the Earth's Carrying Capacity? Proof of the Intermediate Value Theorem proof of the fundamental theorem on symmetric polynomials The math Project
scenario spinning Hard-on a fun math game Epimenides' paradox
Y'know, if you log in, you can write something here, or contact authors directly on the site. Create a New User if you don't already have an account.
  Epicenter
Login
Password

password reminder
register

Everything2 Help


cooled by Gritchka

Cool Staff Picks
Nodes your grandma would have liked:
Fred Phelps
Nystagmus
Antietam
High Society
Vicar or whatever
Brazil
All the gold you can eat
Comfort women
Limited liability company
Wilfred Owen
Mystery Science Theater 3000
The Who
Benford's Law
New Writeups
antigravpussy
One fly amongst many(person)
sam512
Moon Base Shackleton, 1978(fiction)
Pavlovna
toy boy(person)
XWiz
tear jerker(review)
Heitah
Anarchy is Order(idea)
jessicaj
July 26, 2008(dream)
Berek
ABBA(person)
devolution
k-hole(place)
Nadine_2
The Sound Of Madness(review)
SwimmingMonkey
Conversations with Fo Fo, the Loneliest dog in Purgatory(fiction)
locke baron
lynx(thing)
Simulacron3
Reality, Dimensions and the Natural Ontology(essay)
SubSane
Making Love to a 9-Foot Woman(person)
Ouzo
Thoughts(idea)
antigravpussy
I fall silent, listening. The breadcrumbs are talking about us(person)
Everything 2 is brought to you by the letter C and The Everything Development Company