2 ms·

I consider it "intuition". The real math behind this is inescapable and formal. For someone like me, any article that says zero-math equates to having some intu

I consider it "intuition". The real math behind this is inescapable and formal. For someone like me, any article that says zero-math equates to having some intuitive description of whats going on, which is gold. I'll eventually get to the math pieces, but having an intuitive understanding of the topic makes it much easier to grok the math later on

rxhernandez 9y ago
A brilliant mentor of mine(who went to MIT for his undergraduate and graduate degrees if that matters to anyone) used to decry lectures that were too mathematical rather than being more intuitive. I feel the same as it's far easier to develop the mathematics after having been given only the intuition than to develop intuition after having been given only the mathematics. Obviously there should be a balance but I prefer that my graduate mathematics courses err on the side of being too intuitive rather than too mathematical because I can generally figure out the maths on my own after the lecture.
sriku 9y ago
Perhaps "math" is overloaded to sometimes refer to the actual doing of mathematics and at other times to the act of communicating mathematical ideas - which is where symbols/logic/rigour begin to feature. As for "intuition", I usually seek refuge in Jeff Raskin's theorem "intuitive = familiar" - i.e. you don't lose the content of a statement made using the word intuition if you replaced it with the word familiar .. but now suddenly it is less "mystical" and clearer. Plus it points. To the subjectivity of intuition. - that what is familiar to one may not be familiar to another and so there are different "intuitive" explanations. So "intuitive understanding of topic" = "understanding a topic based on what you're already familiar with". Explains why quantum mechanics doesn't feel "intuitive". There is nothing in our experience that makes the phenomena "familiar" to us.

rxhernandez 9y ago

A brilliant mentor of mine(who went to MIT for his undergraduate and graduate degrees if that matters to anyone) used to decry lectures that were too mathematical rather than being more intuitive. I feel the same as it's far easier to develop the mathematics after having been given only the intuition than to develop intuition after having been given only the mathematics. Obviously there should be a balance but I prefer that my graduate mathematics courses err on the side of being too intuitive rather than too mathematical because I can generally figure out the maths on my own after the lecture.

sriku 9y ago

Perhaps "math" is overloaded to sometimes refer to the actual doing of mathematics and at other times to the act of communicating mathematical ideas - which is where symbols/logic/rigour begin to feature. As for "intuition", I usually seek refuge in Jeff Raskin's theorem "intuitive = familiar" - i.e. you don't lose the content of a statement made using the word intuition if you replaced it with the word familiar .. but now suddenly it is less "mystical" and clearer. Plus it points. To the subjectivity of intuition. - that what is familiar to one may not be familiar to another and so there are different "intuitive" explanations. So "intuitive understanding of topic" = "understanding a topic based on what you're already familiar with". Explains why quantum mechanics doesn't feel "intuitive". There is nothing in our experience that makes the phenomena "familiar" to us.