unjurious

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by unjurious 6y ago

   You said it's "boring for the smart ones," which I took to mean that if we go by the methodology I'm suggesting, we'll bore all the smart students, they'll have less knowledge, and we'll produce fewer good
2. 2.▲
   by unjurious 6y ago

   Interestingly (I'm one of ther guys self-teaching as an adult), this is exactly how I'm learning. I'm doing a course that uses Jupyter to cover all of the major areas up to linear algebra. I also aced my Geometry class in hig
3. 3.▲
   by unjurious 6y ago

   I'm not really convinced that's the case. As I mentioned, the Russian system is apparently very much like this, and they don't seem to have a problem producing large numbers of advanced quantitative thinkers. I also take a li
4. 4.▲
   by unjurious 6y ago

   I responded to the comment above with some examples of the kind of thing I'm hoping for. I don't think a deep philosophical discussion about math is necessary. Just reinforce the idea that math is a symbol system for dealing with
5. 5.▲
   by unjurious 6y ago

   I think three things would have done it: 1. A clear explanation of a symbol system and how math is a symbol system to deal with issues of quantity, shape, structure, and logic. 2. Frequently converting between diagrams/drawings and sym