[HN Gopher] How to Study Mathematics (2017) ___________________________________________________________________ How to Study Mathematics (2017) Author : qnsi Score : 80 points Date : 2021-03-20 18:13 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.math.uh.edu) (TXT) w3m dump (www.math.uh.edu) | erichahn wrote: | Bad rules. My suggestions ask yourself the following all the time | 1) Do I ~really~ understand what the definition / theorem is | supposed to tell me. 2) A proof is just a reason why something is | true in maths. Do you understand ~why~ a statement is true? 3) | Exercise all the time. You won't learn math by memorizing | definitions, theorems and proofs. | qsort wrote: | How is this disagreeing with the OP? It specifically says that | memorizing e.g. theorems is bad. | ZephyrBlu wrote: | Although the title is "How to Study Mathematics", I think a more | accurate title would be "How to Study Mathematics _as a | Mathematician_ ". | | I am studying some maths right now with the goal of understanding | some statistical methods. Having a rock solid understanding of | all the underlying maths is counter-productive to my end goal | though (Applying the statistical methods), because it would be | extremely time consuming. | | If you want to learn maths for the sake of understanding maths, | then this could be the right approach. But it's definitely not a | pragmatic approach. | hyperpallium2 wrote: | > How to make sense of a proof | | > When you finish you should know why each step follows from what | came before. You may not see how anyone could have thought to do | the proof that way, but you should be able to see that it is | correct. | | Knowing _that_ something is true is not the same as knowing _why_ | it is true. | | I don't know what the problem is with understanding, but here's | three thoughts: | | 1. You need a deeper level understanding - you can't understand a | problem at the same level you encountered it. Perhaps, | understanding different but related areas, so you see the same | problem from a different perspective. Perhaps understanding the | formal system that is used to define terms used in the problem | description. | | 2. You need familiarity, which creates the feeling of | "intuition". If you know how it behaves in all situations, you | will feel you understand it, even if you don't. So, just lots of | practice/exercises. | | 3. You need to fully understand the components from which the | problem is formed. For example, the natural numbers and addition, | and build up from there. | bollu wrote: | Also, use computers! I use SAGE extensively to get a feeling for | lots of mathematical objects! | | 1. Grobner bases: http://bollu.github.io/computing-equivalent- | gate-sets-using-... 2. Localization: | https://github.com/bollu/bollu.github.io/blob/8cd335687ff3ef... | 3. More broadly, an answer on math.stackexchange on how to debug | math: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1769475/how-to- | debu... 4. (WIP) continued fractions to compute pi: | https://bollu.github.io/fractions/index.html | | And so forth. I find the computational aspects of most theories | to be very rich, and it's really gratifying to code something up | and "read off" the results. | yoaviram wrote: | Slight tangent - any suggestions on none conventional ways to | teach children math? | jdlyga wrote: | I would love to get back and really learn math. I was really | interested back in High School with Geometry and Algebra. But my | interested totally burned out with poorly taught and punishing | Calculus classes in College. | ipnon wrote: | It's a long journey with many paths. The best you can do is set | aside time everyday. I do an hour and it adds up quickly. | no_wizard wrote: | What would anyone recommend to someone who really only had high | school math[0] to get up to speed on enough math to handle more | advanced computer science concepts? | | I'm really interested but all the material I can find is either | for kids (which just isn't sufficiently stimulating for an | adult) or aimed at college kids with a decent background in | math that is fresh | | [0]: not even calculus just what they called technical math | which is like all practical example based curriculum. One of my | life regrets here to be honest | flir wrote: | I'm working my way through this: https://pimbook.org/ | | I'm not very far in so I can't exactly recommend it, but I am | enjoying it. In places where I'm rusty, I'm falling back on | Khan Academy. | dvfjsdhgfv wrote: | In theory, any introduction to discrete mathematics would do. | In practice, there are many differences in depth and breath | of the material. You probably will do well if you choose | Rosen, but there are several great alternatives, such as | Levin[0] that you can start right away with. | | http://discrete.openmathbooks.org/dmoi3.html | ivan_ah wrote: | I have two books that might be a good fit for you since they | are specially written for adult learners in mind. | (disclaimer: I wrote these books and I have a financial | interest in promoting them) | | The _No Bullshit Guide to Math & Physics_ [1] is a condensed | review of high school math, followed by mechanics (PHYS 101) | and calculus (CALC I and II). It's not as rigorous as other | more proof-oriented textbooks, but it still covers all the | material. | | The _No Bullshit Guide to Linear Algebra_ [2] is all about | linear algebra and also includes three chapters on | applications, so you 'll learn the fundamental ideas but also | what they are used for IRL. | | Both books come with exercises and problem sets with answers, | which is essential for learning. In fact one could say all | math learning happens when you try to solve problems on your | own, not just reading. | | [1] https://minireference.com/static/excerpts/noBSmathphys_v5 | _pr... [2] https://minireference.com/static/excerpts/noBSLA_v | 2_preview.... | | See the reviews on amazon for what people say. | [deleted] | dvfjsdhgfv wrote: | That's a shame, Calculus is a fascinating subject and a basis | for many interesting applications. Basically, there are two | ways to approach it: to pass your exams (and there are just a | couple of rules to learn, it's not that complicated), and to | really understand what it's about. If you choose the second | approach, you don't even need to memorize any formulas, because | you will be able to reconstruct all of them as you need them. | Moreover, you won't be conceptually limited to the geometric | interpretation (which is invaluavle in giving some intuition in | the early phases but might get in your way later). | SkyMarshal wrote: | "Calculus Made Easy" might help you get back into it. Lots of | discussion over the years on it: | | https://hn.algolia.com/?q=calculus+made+easy ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-03-20 23:00 UTC)