3 ms·
>I bet you can reason 1+3x=22 pretty easily without any words whatsoever I've tried to do it, but I can't. I had to do something like "ok, so we subtract one f
by hifromwork 2y ago
>I bet you can reason 1+3x=22 pretty easily without any words whatsoever
I've tried to do it, but I can't. I had to do something like "ok, so we subtract one from both sides and then it's easy, 3*7=21". Maybe I could do 2+8 but I still think the word ten "aloud".
- twiceaday 2y agoI was able to do it with no words. I 'saw' the steps as if on a piece of paper. I saw 3x=22-1=21, then x=21/3=7. But I have a degree in applied math. Perhaps not internally vocalizing is just being extremely familiar. It also happened very quickly, perhaps there was no time to vocalize anyways.
- hughesjj 2y agoTo be fair, math is a language in itself... with many dialects come to tcreditors. At the end of the day though, thought requires communication, even if internal. Even physics is modelled as some sort of 'message passing' when we try to unravel what causality really is. Similar to how a processor has cycles, I think/know similar (but unsynced) happens as part of what we call 'thinking'.
- danielmarkbruce 2y agoA decent number of folks can jump straight to the answer on something so straightforward, no steps.