3 ms·
I understand what you mean, I think I'm wired in a similar way. However I'm skeptical whether you can spead that kind of 'love' to a wider audience without comi
by DeepDuh 14y ago
I understand what you mean, I think I'm wired in a similar way. However I'm skeptical whether you can spead that kind of 'love' to a wider audience without coming from the applied side of things. I believe the power to describe some daily live phenomenon in a mathematical model and then use mathematical tools to predict behavior could be a very eye opening experience for many children - and I think we could design exercises that follow such a path, even with very basic algebraic tools.
Simultaneously we could also come from the other end - describing a new world in a structured language (programming) - in order to awaken desires to learn new expressions. I remember, when I was a kid I wanted to program an 'Asteroids' clone, but I couldn't get the flying behavior quite right. I was excited when I learned about vector geometry - finally I had the tool I need to model that.
- gbog 14y agoI see also what you mean, but this might apply more to programming or physics than to math. Being completely "useless" is a feature, not a bug, for math (and poetry, music, metaphysics, astronomy). Pure speculation or useless braingames is a thing many humans enjoy, see Rubix-cube or Sudoku.