3 ms·
> It's not exactly the same exactly because the difference in symbols maps to different patterns Does this mean that these should be treated differently? a) "
by mlajtos 3y ago
> It's not exactly the same exactly because the difference in symbols maps to different patterns
Does this mean that these should be treated differently?
a) "3 * 2 = 6"
b) "III + III = VI"
c) "tres et tres aequalis sex"
d) "ln(2) + ln(3) = ln(6)"
While symbols (and even patterns) are not the same, you could see that all these examples point to the same thing.
> And why is your assessment of the ability to generalize limited to only this math representation which people don't use?
I think people fail to generalize even in even simpler situations. I can't think of anything obvious that would apply to adults, but this is a nice example for children: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_(psychology) & video demonstration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnArvcWaH6I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnArvcWaH6I
- eviks 3y agoYou could see that mostly because the first example does everything as that's what everyone knows, the second is similar and solidifies the pattern, which you could then match to the rest The question is, what does it tell you when people struggle with Roman LCX*ML more vs the more familiar first pattern besides the fact that training/familiarity makes it easier? And it's telling you have to reach for the kids
- mlajtos 3y agoOh, I see your point now. Multiplication in Roman numerals is strikingly different (and much harder) than addition. So representation of the pattern might be so alien that it's unrecognizable even though the pattern is known.