Re: What does it take to get a handle on math?
From: Matthew Stoker (matt.stoker_at_nospam.motoroladotcom)
Date: 07/02/04
- Next message: Matthew Stoker: "Re: Binary codes"
- Previous message: Peter Webb: "Re: For ANY sets A, B: If A is proper subset of B then set B has more elts than set A."
- In reply to: john: "Re: What does it take to get a handle on math?"
- Next in thread: John Creighton: "Re: What does it take to get a handle on math?"
- Reply: John Creighton: "Re: What does it take to get a handle on math?"
- Reply: John Creighton: "Re: What does it take to get a handle on math?"
- Reply: Herman Rubin: "Re: What does it take to get a handle on math?"
- Reply: David Ames: "Re: What does it take to get a handle on math?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 15:35:16 -0700
john wrote:
>
> I struggle with the same thing. When do I stop? I am in calculus now. I am middle aged.
>
I'm in the same boat. I'm a Chemical Engineer with an interest in
Quantum Mechanics, but the math escapes me sometimes. There are plenty
of books written for the layman, but they gloss over the math and don't
really provide any insight or deep understanding of the fundamental
concepts. On the other hand I've muddled through a few more advanced
books, only to get bogged down in the math or confused by unfamiliar
nomenclature.
It seems really difficult to find good intermediate-level* textbooks in
math and other technical fields. In particular, I think to go forward
requires a buddy with similar interests, so you can help each other
through when one of you gets bogged down.
*Intermediate-level in this case refers to that of a first-year graduate
student in a non-related technical field.
> On 07 Jul 1997, Daniel Lawton wrote:
>
> ><pre>
> >I'm an electronics engineer with a burning passion for building things.
> >Mostly I build simple things like digital cameras, power supplies, and
> >emulators for particular computer systems. But I'd like to be building
> >more cutting edge things so that my competition wouldn't be hot on my
> >heels every minute. I've got a couple of ideas, but I need more
> >mathematics to design what I want to build.
> >
> >I went to a very good bookstore, naively thinking I'd buy a bunch of
> >math books, read them, and then be able to do what I wanted. Now I'm
> >on book 3, still trying to get a grip on advanced calculus, and I've
> >realized that there are so many specilizations in the math field that
> >I'm not sure if it's possible to get a handle on the subject. The
> >engineers I work with keep asking me why I'm bothering to be so
> >thorough and when I expect to have learned enough to do what I want to
> >do, but I've developed a taste for math and want to be able to follow
> >general math discussions with good understanding. I've talked to a
> >couple of physics engineers, and find them disdainful of mathematicians
> >in general. And the only mathematician I had access to recently gave
> >up the field and took up a career teaching insurance underwriters to
> >use calculus to maximize their profit. Everyone seems to have forgotten
> >nearly all of the mathematics they learned to get their degrees. That
> >makes me wonder if the math training was all necessary in the first
> >place, or just the product of the publish or perish educational system.
> >
> >What I want to know is, is it reasonable to keep purchasing math books
> >and plowing my way through them? Is it possible to come to the point
> >where you can handle just about any type of mathematical equation
> >without having to study up on that particular topic?
> >
> >Or is it better to just specialize in the particular topic I need at
> >the time and give up on the idea of learing mathematics in general.
> >Don't even mathematicians end up specializing and forgetting most of
> >what they've learned? And if I did want to get a grip on math in
> >general, what should the sequence of reading be? I tried to read some
> >books on the topics I'm interested in, and was stopped by my inability
> >to read the equations used. Now I can read 3/4 of the equations, but
> >there's still that 25% left and it seems like it might take me 5 or 10
> >years to reach 100%. Or is it possible that some of the discussions
> >I've been reading are written by basically senile mathematicians,
> >extremely adept and specialized in their particular field of interest,
> >mainly because they are hoping to discover some new idea and get it
> >named after them? Is there a discipline of mathematics that is
> >beneficial in and of itself, or just and endless series of
> >specilizations that no single person could ever really follow?
> >
> >Dan
> >
> >
> >
> ></pre>
-- /------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Matt Stoker | email: matt.stoker@motorola.com | | Motorola, SPS EL722 | Phone: (480)413-2744 | | 2100 E Elliot Road | Pager: (888)645-8163 | | Tempe, AZ 85284 | Fax: (480)413-4511 | |------------------------------------------------------------------| | Motorola Document Classification | | [X] General business information | | [ ] Motorola internal use only | | [ ] Motorola confidential proprietary | \------------------------------------------------------------------/
- Next message: Matthew Stoker: "Re: Binary codes"
- Previous message: Peter Webb: "Re: For ANY sets A, B: If A is proper subset of B then set B has more elts than set A."
- In reply to: john: "Re: What does it take to get a handle on math?"
- Next in thread: John Creighton: "Re: What does it take to get a handle on math?"
- Reply: John Creighton: "Re: What does it take to get a handle on math?"
- Reply: John Creighton: "Re: What does it take to get a handle on math?"
- Reply: Herman Rubin: "Re: What does it take to get a handle on math?"
- Reply: David Ames: "Re: What does it take to get a handle on math?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
