[HN Gopher] The Math Myth ___________________________________________________________________ The Math Myth Author : paulpauper Score : 34 points Date : 2022-06-06 21:52 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.econlib.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.econlib.org) | 8bitsrule wrote: | I've used calculus very little, algebra quite a lot. One of the | side-benefits of learning calculus (apart from reading others' | work) is how much solving those problems reinforces your algebra | skills. | | Solving one scary calculus problem thrown at me as an undergrad - | an integral - resulted in a solution which broke it into 16 | separate integrals. _Days_ of algebra were involved. | eli_gottlieb wrote: | What in the actual fuck? Apparently I must be in "the 10%". | xqcgrek2 wrote: | I have a hard time believing the claims in the article. I use | vector calculus and linear algebra everyday and so do my | colleagues | rrss wrote: | I'd like a job where I used more math - can you share your job | & industry? | Manuel_D wrote: | You might not be writing out integrals and derivatives by hand, | but I think most engineers use calculus a lot more frequently | than they realize it. | | * If daily user growth is increasing linearly, total user count | is exponential over time. | | * If I have a radially symmetric shape it's center of gravity is | going to be centered on the axis of symmetry - if the density is | uniform. But if the density isn't uniform, where will the center | of balance shift? | | This is single dimension and multi-dimensional calculus, | respectively. I bet most engineers use at least the former, at an | intuitive level, on a regular basis. | flopquads wrote: | "total user count is exponential over time" No, it's quadratic | over time. | xvedejas wrote: | If daily user growth is increasing linearly, total user count | is squaring over time. | | Exponential growth would be when daily growth is proportional | to the current number of users, which is different. | majormajor wrote: | American high school education does seem still unfortunately | calculus mono-focused, with little of even what makes calculus | interesting considered, just ram a bunch of rules for derivation | and integration into your head. | | A broad base of at least some of stats, linear algebra, and | others seems like it would be more useful to most even in STEM to | me. I've met folks who were great at those who struggled with | geometry and/or calculus, and vice versa. Yet plenty of need for | people good at all sorts of those. | discreteevent wrote: | I originally studied EE and we did a lot of math. Fourier series, | Laplace transforms ... Never used any of it. The most I've used | has been some simple statistics and a cubic spline for some curve | fitting. Even ML seems to just use basic linear algebra. That | said, trigonometry can be quite useful for DIY jobs. | devnulll wrote: | I've used more Geometry & Trig working on my Model Train Set | than I have as a professional software engineer. Figuring out | table spacing, track radius, overhang from trains, is basic | stuff. | | I needed to buy a bunch of precisely cut curved wood for a 2nd | level (laser cut wood! So Awesome!), and had to actually re- | learn the basics of trig in order to provide the details to | have everything made. | t_mann wrote: | I find it hard to believe that anyone working as a programmer / | software engineer wouldn't be using any actual computer science | (as in data structures, algorithm complexity,...). I could | believe that most people working as engineers in civil/mechanical | engineering would mainly use Excel, but not that they wouldn't be | using exponential functions. | | But I guess his point is rather that most graduates of | engineering schools don't even work as engineers at all, which | might be true, I don't know (I even have difficulty believing | that given the number of people I know who weren't even trained | as engineers and are now working as software engineers). | contravariant wrote: | > This is a conjecture that desperately needs resolving with | solid statistics and in-depth interviews. | | Ironic that a hypothesis that most people won't need mathematics | should require solid statistics to resolve. | AlbertCory wrote: | I was curious about Bryan Kaplan, since he seemed hard to | categorize, so I did some research. | | Hate to say it, but he looks like a Malcolm Gladwell wannabe with | some attention-grabbing book titles. Perfect for a TED talk. | orzig wrote: | I disagree with many things he says, but don't think he can be | dismissed so easily. How many other public intellectuals have | even attempted, let alone nailed, anything like this? | | https://www.econlib.org/my-complete-bet-wiki/ | culi wrote: | Nice you managed to categorize the work of this person who's | been around 20 years longer than Gladwell. The important thing | is that you found a way to place yourself above them without | ever making a real criticism :) | blip54321 wrote: | Since finishing school, I've used very little of the math I | learned in school. | | I've used a lot of math. Most of it built on high school algebra | and geometry. Does that mean that's all I needed to learn? | | No. | | The key thing I do use is more ephemeral: Mathematical maturity. | In my current job, I use math I never learned in graduate school. | I'm able to learn it quickly because I learned a lot of math back | then. My math classes were a way to develop mathematical | maturity. | | Which specific math I learned in graduate school was almost | incidental. What I picked up was the ability to learn new math. | kazinator wrote: | In programming, you're doing math whenever you convince | yourself that a rewritten piece of code means the same thing as | the original (by thinking about it, rather than just running | it). | culi wrote: | I mean, at a certain point, you're just abstracting logical | thinking in general and calling it "math". You can say the | same about baking, working out your schedule ahead of time so | you can pick up your kids and have time to buy groceries, or | trying to sort your playlist of non-album singles in a way so | that you optimally position each song in a way that minimizes | how jarring the switch from one track to the next is | | I feel like the whole point of "math" is to abstract these | natural patterns so we can like... write them down and | investigate them further. We have a limited mental capacity | so we abstract it into a syntax/system of meaning so that we | can let the paper or the computer do some of the memory work | for us. | | If you're doing it in your head, sure that's a skill, but is | it really math? | burrows wrote: | Do you use "math" and "deductive reasoning" to refer to | distinct activities? | jfengel wrote: | Deduction is used in a lot more than just the classes | labeled "mathematics". Which makes one question just to | what degree the mathematics classes are even useful. | Perhaps deductive reasoning could've been taught to do | more useful things than factoring polynomials. | obviouslynotme wrote: | I am one of the exceptions that uses higher level mathematics on | a regular basis at work. I agree with his theory that teaching | everyone calculus, or preparing to take it, is not necessary for | most. | | The problem I have is that he is looking at averages. In my | experience, there are five tiers: counting, arithmetic, algebra, | calculus, and higher math. The USA is simultaneously sending more | people to the top two and bottom two, with the bottom two going | from a small few to a real population segment. I don't even know | if the worst public schools teach anything anymore or if they are | just pseudo-prisons to capture taxes. | | I won't even go into the woeful state of logical and statistical | knowledge. I don't know why those aren't core requirements for | graduating high school. | yunyu wrote: | I have used very little algebra/calculus/pre-college content, but | have used a lot of linear algebra/discrete mathematics. Would | this be a common exception to the rule? | samus wrote: | I think the author had purely calculus in mind. Discrete | mathematics is indeed crucial to understand computer science. | Statistics are very important too, especially in our post-fact | world, to be able to call out obvious bull**** when you see it. | devnulll wrote: | > Discrete mathematics is indeed crucial to understand | computer science. | | FAANG engineer here, having worked in multiple companies you | would recognize as a principle (or higher) engineer. I've | also taken Discrete math when I was a CS undergrad. | | I've never used any of the advanced math learned in school, | and I've had the pleasure of working on some of the largest | and most complex systems ever made. Lots of basic Excel. The | "math" I have needed for work (such as TLA+ modeling, | percentile distributions, etc) was always learned "on | demand". | contravariant wrote: | That makes sense to me. I find that calculus requires quite a | lot of additional knowledge to make it applicable, whereas it's | often relatively straightforward to rephrase a problem in terms | of linear algebra or discrete mathematics. | kenjackson wrote: | He discusses how specificity is key in sports, but actually the | consensus now is to avoid specialization for as long as possible. | Playing other sports helps you in your primary sport, especially | when it comes to injury reduction. The book Range by Epstein | covers this well. | | The article also seems to be focused on a certain kind of math. | Boolean algebra is a type of math that is used regularly in CS | and EE. It is so fundamental that if you don't get it you | probably can't code anything non trivial. | natly wrote: | Range is kind of a niche book I'm not sure it represents the | consensus yet. | lynguist wrote: | I've read that the Olympic gold medalist in archery | specifically practiced the piano, basketball, and painting just | to improve his archery skills. Skills translate. | epgui wrote: | Wow, this is exactly the sort of anti-intellectualist drivel that | makes me lose faith in humanity. | | And oh, the irony of dismissing the case for mathematics as a | thinking aid as "self-serving nonsense" for which the author has | "a very low opinion"! | | Perhaps if the author had a better attitude towards education and | was capable of appreciating the value of mathematics (or more | generally, science) in everyday life (to say nothing about the | importance of this in democracies), then he would not hold this | infantile opinion. | | Sorry, not sorry. | | Edit: the point is not whether you "use it" when you're out and | about doing your groceries. If you're judging the value of maths | and science by this measure, you're missing the point, and you're | at such a low level of insight that your perspective is useful to | nobody. Rule of thumb: don't listen to anti-intellectualists. | B1FF_PSUVM wrote: | > anti-intellectualist drivel | | You're barking up the wrong tree. At worst it's elitist, not | anti-intelectual: | | _" The math myth is the myth that the future of the American | economy is dependent upon the masses having higher mathematics | skills."_ | | Just doubting the need for higher math skills to be massified, | not against their being necessary, perhaps to an elite. | barry-cotter wrote: | > Perhaps if the author had a better attitude towards education | and was capable of appreciating the value of mathematics (or | more generally, science) in everyday life (to say nothing about | the importance of this in democracies), then he would not hold | this infantile opinion. | | The author has a doctorate, teaches at a university, has | written several books and home educated two of his sons to a | level where they published academically before they entered | university. He's also more well read in philosophy and | literature than average though that is a low bar to clear. | | If you have an argument more compelling than name calling you | should share it. | epgui wrote: | My argument is that the value of mathematics is not in | whether it's useful in everyday life (the first-order | utility), but that it is in fact in how it helps you to think | better (the higher-order utility). | | The author, as decorated as he may be, seemingly fails to | appreciate the latter: in his own words, he has a "very low | opinion of this self-serving nonsense". The exercise of | fleshing out the argument against the higher-order value of | mathematics, you will note, is left as an exercise to the | reader. | | This is by definition an anti-intellectualist position: | defending such a position, which goes contrary to what should | be the default position in general, should require a very | high burden of proof, not an offhand dismissal. | kazinator wrote: | A lot of people wouldn't be able to muster 8th grade math skills | and do something usefl with Excel. Maybe there is a non-strawman | version of the Math Myth is that the economy would benefit if | more people could do that. | vsareto wrote: | There is a lot of statecraft behind governments promoting this | myth, so I wouldn't be reading into it too much. The countries | listed want as high as possible of a population of scientists, | and they will forecast doom and gloom to try and convince anyone | with a passing amount of patriotism to work in those fields. | There never was a clear proof that we needed more. | nicodjimenez wrote: | I started a math tools company (mathpix.com) and I could not | agree more! US needs humanities far more than STEM. US is | extremely strong at STEM and extremely weak at humanities. This | includes understanding of the real world and human affairs. Young | people now have zero understanding of religion, the military, | geopolitics, or really how to think critically about ANYTHING | related to social sciences. The truth about the reason for the | death of social sciences in the US is a dark and complex one, I'm | not even so sure that truth is even important. What matters is | what's next, and it had to start with a little bit of realist | humanities education for young people. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-06-06 23:00 UTC)