3 ms·

In a previous life as a math nerd, I used to do memory and mental arithmetic tricks, so this post rings true -- i.e, these calculations are all in fact easy to

In a previous life as a math nerd, I used to do memory and mental arithmetic tricks, so this post rings true -- i.e, these calculations are all in fact easy to do with practice, even if they might not appear to be so at first. It appears that the only way to make math cool is by focusing on the least useful part of it, and further, by giving it an aura of mystery by making exaggerated or false claims, when in fact the purpose of math is to clarify. Sad. In this vein, see also my deconstruction of Arthur Benjamin's "mathemagics" performance: http://arvindn.livejournal.com/82413.html http://arvindn.livejournal.com/82413.html

albertni 18y ago
Yeah, it's a shame this part of math gets focused on so much. However, that doesn't mean there aren't cool tricks that are handy to know. For instance, to this day I still multiply 2-digit numbers mentally by using difference of squares, just by doing a*b = ((a+b)/2)^2 - ((a-b)/2)^2 (assuming a > b and a+b is even, otherwise cut one of the numbers by 1 and add it back in in the end). This immediately reduces doing two digit multiplication into doing two digit squaring, for which there are some additional techniques (or just brute memorization), so at the minimum you get a 100-fold decrease in required memorization (and likely more). Of course, the above formula is always true, though it gets less usable for higher digits and hopefully most of us can do one digit multiplication in our heads already =)
whacked_new 18y ago
I thought Art Benjamin's performance was obvious, but he does it under the guise of a "magician," so I would cut him some slack. After all, everybody knows magicians are entertainers. It's hard to be impressed when you can quickly deconstruct the process though. I was quite impressed by the Tammet documentary, but your analysis is pretty stunning. I actually took everything from the original video at face value, perhaps because I wanted to be amazed by synesthesia. I won't call it BS just yet -- there could be the possibility that the shape transformations he "sees" are the result of using algorithms in a subconscious manner, the clues of which only manifest themselves like play-doh imagery. It is rather suspicious that after the high-profile reports, there haven't been other publicized and scrutinized reports further documenting his abilities. In any case, thanks for supplying a kick of realism back into the picture.
- randomwalker 18y ago
  Whoa.. I think you've got me confused with the person who wrote the Tammet article?
  - whacked_new 18y ago
    Oh dear, HAHA, you're right! I was thrown off by "see also my ..." :-P
whacked_new 18y ago
In a somewhat related note -- has your training with math tricks given you a "deeper understanding" of numbers per se? Has it facilitated your prowess with abstract and purely symbolic math?

albertni 18y ago

Yeah, it's a shame this part of math gets focused on so much. However, that doesn't mean there aren't cool tricks that are handy to know. For instance, to this day I still multiply 2-digit numbers mentally by using difference of squares, just by doing a*b = ((a+b)/2)^2 - ((a-b)/2)^2 (assuming a > b and a+b is even, otherwise cut one of the numbers by 1 and add it back in in the end). This immediately reduces doing two digit multiplication into doing two digit squaring, for which there are some additional techniques (or just brute memorization), so at the minimum you get a 100-fold decrease in required memorization (and likely more). Of course, the above formula is always true, though it gets less usable for higher digits and hopefully most of us can do one digit multiplication in our heads already =)

whacked_new 18y ago

I thought Art Benjamin's performance was obvious, but he does it under the guise of a "magician," so I would cut him some slack. After all, everybody knows magicians are entertainers. It's hard to be impressed when you can quickly deconstruct the process though. I was quite impressed by the Tammet documentary, but your analysis is pretty stunning. I actually took everything from the original video at face value, perhaps because I wanted to be amazed by synesthesia. I won't call it BS just yet -- there could be the possibility that the shape transformations he "sees" are the result of using algorithms in a subconscious manner, the clues of which only manifest themselves like play-doh imagery. It is rather suspicious that after the high-profile reports, there haven't been other publicized and scrutinized reports further documenting his abilities. In any case, thanks for supplying a kick of realism back into the picture.

randomwalker 18y ago
Whoa.. I think you've got me confused with the person who wrote the Tammet article?
- whacked_new 18y ago
  Oh dear, HAHA, you're right! I was thrown off by "see also my ..." :-P

whacked_new 18y ago

In a somewhat related note -- has your training with math tricks given you a "deeper understanding" of numbers per se? Has it facilitated your prowess with abstract and purely symbolic math?