3 ms·
I dunno, I'm objectively fairly good at maths (I got a first in the Cambridge MMath), but the reason I learned so much from the course was because I spent almos
by Smaug123 8y ago
I dunno, I'm objectively fairly good at maths (I got a first in the Cambridge MMath), but the reason I learned so much from the course was because I spent almost the entire time failing miserably to get anywhere on problem after problem. Sure, eventually you make the breakthrough - but only after hours of failure. Every avenue you try that doesn't work out is a frustration - often a blank-wall kind of frustration - and there are lots and lots of them before you succeed. Further, every avenue I try feels equally fruitful at the beginning, and frequently reaching the end is highly nontrivial even when you're on the right path, so "if it feels hard, you're on the wrong track" isn't a very easy thing for me to apply.
- joe_the_user 8y agoWell, the question I'd ask is whether you began approaching simpler math as being hard? Getting used to going up against brick to solve really hard problems is useful once you have a toolkit needed to solve those problems. But getting the relatively simple manipulations of the toolkit should be easy - and math undergrad work (at least at not super-advance school) is about putting together the toolkit.