I used to be a math major once upon a time, and let me tell you, once you get beyond simple calculus, math ain't exactly a matter of automatic brain-deadness. In fact, I quit math because it became pretty clear to me that I did not have the inventiveness necessary to make a real contribution in the subject.<br><br>
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
&[censored] on you, on my behalf. <p><hr></blockquote><p>Why, did I give the impression that I felt like you had other people bad-mouthing me on your behalf?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The fact that I have to keep explaining my actions to you means that you must be having problems understanding the issue or you must be continually trying to bait me.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Not at all. You seemed to be having your own problems in this thread before I even said a word. The 'full of themselves' comment just happened to be directed at my career choice, so I chose to speak my mind.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>If all you can come up with is "it is not me so it must be you" then you really have no argument.. If so, why continue with it?<p><hr></blockquote><p>My argument was that since I'M not the one having misunderstandings and words with MULTIPLE members on this forum, I don't think it's me who's having the communication problem here. <br><br>Let's just agree to avoid each other, since it's obvious we rub each other the wrong way.<br><br>(and now you can repeat yourself and tell me that you mean no harm to anyone...blah blah blah blah)<br><br>
I was up to Calculus in high school, but I didn't take the course in my senior year because I thought the teacher teaching it was too stupid (he had one of the students in the class actually teach most of the lessons in the Advanced Trigonometry class). When I went to college and only had to take Math for General Education for a graphic design degree, it was the easiest class ever —I sat in the back of the classroom and worked on my design compositions. <br><br>I had said in HS that math was the only vocation where there's a set of rules that never get broken—and that was boring to me. If only I had been exposed to theoretical math and chaos theories earlier, I might have become a scientist. Knowing what I know today, I almost wish I had gotten into Astrophysics. I took an upper-division Astrophysics course and it was one of the easiest 'A's I earned in college—yet there were physic majors struggling with it. I couldn't figure out why when it was so fascinating. I was so giddy and geeky about the subject that I used to hang out after class just so I could walk the professor back to his office and talk more about the day's lecture.<br><br>
Well, I got into math for exactly the reason that got you out of it--I mean, I was looking for certainty, and math seemed to offer precisely what I wanted. Then I took a course on number theory in college (my first college course was integral calculus, which I'd had in high school, and so I never went to the class--in fact, on the night of the midterm, I was . . . well, I sorta wasn't, if you know what I mean . . . and the only reason I found out there was an exam was that another kid on my floor was taking the same class. I aced the test, which gives some idea of how easy I found it). Number theory was taught by a gentleman who had first gone to divinity school, had an MDiv, in fact, and then had shifted to math. He was enthralling. But the course challenged every assumption I'd made about math. In fact, the first day of class we were told very gently that we had to forget everything we knew about the way numbers functioned because the first half of the term would be dedicated to defining a series of number systems that might or might not duplicate the "actual" number systems. So we invented whole numbers and the rules that make whole numbers work. And we invented integers and the rules that make integers work, and so on. One result of that part of the class was a deep sense that the certainty of math was a result of the invention of number systems--with emphasis on invention. We came up with alternative systems, with very different rules, which were as consistent as the "actual" number system. And then, of course, we came to the major catch of any consistent system: you can't prove that it's "true." Another way of putting it is that the statement "system A is true" (a self-reflective statement) adds a level of complexity that isn't contained within the consistency of the system itself. You have to go outside of the system to demonstrate its "truth." Well, I said to myself, so much for certainty <br><br>edit: A really fabulous book that explains the problem, among other equally fascinating issues, is Jacob Bronowski's Origins of Knowledge and Imagination. I recommend it to anyone who is at all interested in teh problem of knowledge (epistemology) and its metaphysical implications.<br><br><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by yoyo52 on 01/29/04 10:05 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>A really fabulous book that explains the problem, among other equally fascinating issues, is Jacob Bronowski's Origins of Knowledge and Imagination. I recommend it to anyone who is at all interested in teh problem of knowledge (epistemology) and its metaphysical implications.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Thanks for the tip, I'll check the book out in Borders this weekend, that's something that always interested me.<br><br>Az.<br>That which is dreamed can never be lost, can never be undreamed. - The Sandman
Az. That which is dreamed can never be lost, can never be undreamed. - The Sandman
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>If you truly understood people and what makes them tick,then you would not be posting such messages to me. Your messages would have a different timbre to them. <br><br>Something which I cannot say I have seen as yet, from watching your posts over the last year or three.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I'm still laughing... <br><br><br><br>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.