3 ms·
> because his generation had a better general education in math than the people at 20s. Which we hear a lot these days but which is extremely difficult to prov
by hkpack 2y ago
> because his generation had a better general education in math than the people at 20s.
Which we hear a lot these days but which is extremely difficult to prove. Formal education only helps you so far and only for some small percentage of students.
I had access to what you mean by good math education through school and University, had private tutors at school and so on. I can say that with my peers there is a huge spectrum of innate math abilities. Only about 5% probably absorbed naturally everything we've been tutored through the school (1-2 persons in a class of 30).
I am not gifted with math, so I have OK formal knowledge, however few of my friends who worked in humanities all their life are much better at "head math" than I ever was.
Also, I live in a country which have aggressive math curriculum from young age. Looking how my kid goes through it I can say for sure, that it is massive waste of kids energy to be pushed for general population.
- wslh 2y ago> Which we hear a lot these days but which is extremely difficult to prove. I would say that is extremely easy to prove but writing a solid paper on that consumes a lot of resources. That is why conjectures are part of the scientific method: we can discuss about things that we think are true or not before making a multi-year effort to prove the point in a scientific way. The problem is when people confuse scientific publications with truth. In math that would be easier for the practitioners but in social sciences we know that we can publish ala Sokal affair.