[HN Gopher] "When are we going to use this in our everyday life?" ___________________________________________________________________ "When are we going to use this in our everyday life?" Author : susam Score : 162 points Date : 2022-10-04 19:31 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (flavoracle.tumblr.com) (TXT) w3m dump (flavoracle.tumblr.com) | _dain_ wrote: | I suspect this exchange never happened, but at any rate: | | When the teacher justifies the subject not on its own merits, but | for its alleged nootropic effects, that's how you know it's | either a waste of time or the teacher himself doesn't know what | it's for. Same for "it builds critical thinking" -- another 100% | reliable hallmark for a bunch of BS meant to waste young people's | lives on classroom exercises and homework. 21st century version | of digging holes in the desert to build character. | | Calculus is useful for hundreds of things; if the teacher has to | resort to this dodge he ought to be ashamed of himself. What a | waste of an opportunity to tell them about its applications in | civil engineering, in control theory, in statistics, in orbital | mechanics, in 3D graphics, etc etc. If I had heard what that | teacher said it would have killed my interest stone dead. Just | another hoop I have to jump through, for my own good. | | And this isn't to say that everything must be justified on | utilitarian grounds -- Shakespeare is not "useful" for anything | but we have it in schools because it's inherently worthwhile, | it's part of what makes life worth living. | posharma wrote: | Tumblr is still around? | wizofaus wrote: | It's hard not to wonder then whether it would be beneficial to | keep solving differential equations on a weekly basis to keep our | brains in shape even long after we've finished our formal | education... | NotYourLawyer wrote: | Nobody solves differential equations by hand anymore. Almost | without exception, the interesting ones have no closed-form | solution. | aaaaaaaaaaab wrote: | But when there's a closed-form solution it's like God winking | at you. | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | Sure, but people manipulate them by hand plenty. The task is | making them more amenable to solution by either A) converting | it into one of the few closed form solutions, or B) | converting it into a form more amenable to numerical | solution. | JackFr wrote: | I had the experience of coming upon a differential equation, | in the course of some research, which I could not solve | explicitly. Mathematica choked on it and my boss and his | office neighbor (both math PhD's) were unable to solve it | explicitly. When I was about to give up set off to do it | numerically my boss's neighbor suggested they call another | fellow they both new. Two days later he delivered two neatly | written sheets of paper with an explicit solution which | featured a really novel (to all of us) substitution which | facilitated the solution. | | Now in the grand scheme of things the differential equation | we were looking at might not be 'interesting' in the sense of | being representative of a class of problems in a rich branch | of math, but it was sure interesting to us, as it modelled | the behavior of the system we were studying. We all were | pretty sure there wasn't a closed form solution (but | certainly weren't going to spend time proving that) and were | pleasantly surprised. The solver did not get a co-author | credit in the eventual paper, but he did get a shout out in a | footnote. | seba_dos1 wrote: | It absolutely would and I really wish I had done that. Starting | again after many years is incredibly hard, I feel like I would | need to start much lower than differential equations to get | back in shape :) | munificent wrote: | I have had to answer this question to my kids (one of whom abhors | math). The explanation I gave is this: | | For many subjects, most kids will end up never using them. But, | we have no way to _predict_ which subjects will be useful for | which kids. Without the ability to do that, our priority is | maximize each child 's opportunity. We never want a kid to be in | the situation where they _would_ have been interested in a | subject and a career path but never ended up discovering that and | using it because we didn 't expose it to them. | | So we teach some of every subject to every kid. That way no | matter which path they end up following, they are as prepared for | it as we can make them. | | (Also, yes, I agree that math is good general training for | cognitive rigor. Also, numeric literacy is vital for all adults | since we live in an ecomonic world and participate in a democracy | where statistics are necessary to understand policies.) | vlunkr wrote: | I don't really agree with this. It seems to be based on the | assumption that the entire purpose of school is to prepare you | for a job. Obviously that's important, but education also | simply enriches your life. Some of the electives I took in high | school and college have had a great impact on the way view | things, or the way I live my life, despite having nothing to do | with my career. | | Also, lots of math is optional (depending on your school and | career.) You may not use calc or trig regularly, but most | people use some algebra and geometry. | ethanbond wrote: | Problem with this is that it's not very comforting to someone | who feels extremely frustrated (not enriched at all) by the | experience they're going through. That's true even if you | know with certainty they'll feel enriched by it later on. | agalunar wrote: | > Obviously that's important, but education also simply | enriches your life. | | You should read the Aims of Education speech given by Abbott; | you might really enjoy it. | | https://college.uchicago.edu/student-life/aims-education- | add... | twelvechairs wrote: | What we definitely should teach kids that isnt taught is | discounted cash flow analysis as almost everyone has a loan at | some point in life and few know how to calculate them | habnds wrote: | I definitely learned a present value calculation in high | school at some point, it's not an actual DCF but does teach | that fundamental principal about the time value of money. | jakub_g wrote: | Also, understanding basics of statistics. | nicolashahn wrote: | I agree with this. A less tactful way of explaining it: | | "When am I ever going to use calculus in my life??" | | You? Probably never. But we're teaching everyone on the off | chance that one of you goes on to do something useful with it. | Enabling that one person to find a way to make rockets more | efficient or something is well worth the tradeoff of wasting | the rest of the class's time, from a societal point of view. | tshaddox wrote: | Who will grow up to routinely do calculus mentally or on | pencil and paper? I guess some people will be calculus | instructors. Are there any other examples? | michaelt wrote: | Anyone who does a STEM degree? | | I mean, if you're an engineer and you don't know the | relationship between position, velocity and acceleration - | you're going to have a bad time. | scarface74 wrote: | Consider the number of people that go through a typical | Calculus class and the debt people get into go to college. | Are you sure that ROI makes sense? | | If you want to force everyone to learn Calculus for "the good | of society", then don't force the onerous debt of student | loans on private individuals. | pydry wrote: | Something like that did happen in one of my classes and the | kids who didnt want to learn it said "why dont you just teach | [ smart kid ] then? If anybody is gonna design rockets itll | be him. | bee_rider wrote: | The problem with this way is that calculus is needed to get | through, like, a basic engineering degree, I assume | economics if you are doing it with any rigor. I suspect | these aren't like careers for the top 1% braniac kids, they | are normal B+ student fields (I mean I know everyone gets | straight A's in highschool now, but you know what I mean). | jjoonathan wrote: | Do _you_ want to tell a parent that their kid has already | decided not to design rockets? | ackfoobar wrote: | https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/why-i-couldn39t-be-a- | math-... | edflsafoiewq wrote: | Alternatively https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/never | tialaramex wrote: | Funny as that comic is, it's very unclear at a young age, | and even when they're a bit older it's far from obvious. | Even at first degree stage, some of the apparently best | qualified teenagers who turned up for their first classes | this week are going to _flunk_ out anyway, and some of the | kids who struggled and seemed like they 'd be lucky to get | their degree will be potential Fields Medal winners in | 10-15 years. Their prior record, even now they're adults, | is at best _somewhat_ predictive and nowhere close to | definitive. | misterprime wrote: | Perhaps also/instead: | | These lessons help bring you up to speed with foundational | concepts and ways of thinking that took humanity a very long | time to discover and develop. Learning these things while you | are young will, at a minimum, help you keep up with others and | avoid being scammed, or at best, help you quickly reach the | current limit of our understanding and possibly expand our | capabilities. | | You can also think of it like stretching and exercising your | brain. You may not need to actually do that work, but it's | still good for you and helps make other work easier. | striking wrote: | I think a lot of the time it is just too abstract to grasp. I | think the first time in my life where I was really happy to | have learned calculus for my own intrinsic benefit was a few | weeks ago, when I set up Home Assistant in an effort to | automatically minimize heat in my apartment. It wasn't enough | to tell the shade to come down at a certain temperature, | because the apartment would already be too hot. So instead I | could take the _derivative_ of the temperature of my apartment, | allowing me to get out ahead of the worst part of the blast of | sun. After all, if the temperature is increasing very quickly, | we should act to stop it. | | I've used a decent amount of calculus in my life, but that was | the first time I had been actually happy to have learned it. | FatCatsClub wrote: | tomjakubowski wrote: | If you hadn't learned calculus or what a derivative is, do | you suppose you would have eventually figured out to measure | the change in temperature and respond to that? | | I wonder how much of the value of the course is just in the | repeated observation that the rate of change (and so on) is | useful to measure | Jensson wrote: | Humans has terrible intuition for these things, it was just | 300 years ago humanity figured these things out but once we | did we did all these things afterwards in just 300 years. | Learning this one thing is the key to so many things. | | Basic math and physics education helps build intuition for | it, but without people are really bad. | hutzlibu wrote: | "Basic math and physics education helps build intuition | for it, but without people are really bad." | | Erm, in some abstract ways yes - but actually people are | very good at extrapolating current physical events. "It | is getting hot fast? Oh not, it might even get hotter, | lets look for shade." | | Or throwing a ball. You would need calculus to correctly | calculate the flight path of the ball, yet we can do so, | without and very fast. | | Where our intuition fails often, is understanding the | reason why things happen. For this physics and math | should be taught from very early on. | diceduckmonk wrote: | It seems like this is a solution that should have been baked | into the smart device. For example, the Nest thermostats | preempts your arrival home and commences toward the desired | temperature. | ryukafalz wrote: | The problem is, the automations you might want and the | combination of devices you might want them to act on is | large enough that manufacturers can't possibly foresee them | all. When you want to do something ever so slightly outside | the stock functionality, it's helpful to have a little | knowledge. | | And let's not forget, it's helpful to be able to augment | smart devices that already exist to do things like this | rather than throwing them out and buying a newer one that | can do it on its own. | aaaaaaaaaaab wrote: | You invented a PID controller! | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller | arjvik wrote: | Technically just the D component :) | moffkalast wrote: | The real way to motivate someone to learn a thing is to give | them a project or something they actually want to achieve | instead of trying to absorb some drivel without a reason why. | That's where self learning shines. You give a great example | there. A notable one of mine would be learning vector math | and quaternions through trying to make games years ago, but | the list is endless and not limited to math or physics. | | Most teachers and professors just parrot their subject | material year after year after year without EVER giving a | reason what any of that is used for or where should we apply | it. It's just learning for learning's sake. | | I suppose it's no surprise that when people are finally given | the option to learn in a practical way at the odd subject | that allows for some project work most students can't seem to | think of a damn thing they want to do. It's like a systematic | suppression of creativity to make education more like a | factory production line. | imbusy111 wrote: | It's called a PID controller. | nickff wrote: | > _" So we teach some of every subject to every kid. That way | no matter which path they end up following, they are as | prepared for it as we can make them."_ | | We tend to waste a lot of time teaching subjects which they're | unlikely to use, and fail to teach them about the ones that | they would really benefit from. A basic understanding of | criminal and civil law, along with accounting and statistics | would be extremely useful to almost everyone as individuals and | as citizens. Music, history, and calculus are useful to some | people, but not nearly as many. | leogout wrote: | I would say that these subjects are more likely to turn into | vocations than the teaching of how law and economy works. | | I see it like when I learned about programming, I was | frustrated to learn about language theory, complexity, | graphs, etc. I wanted to learn langages, frameworks, | specifics for being ready to work right at the end of my | degree but it would have made me more fragile and less | versatile to future changes. Although law and economy are | less likely to change as fast as the latest cool tech stack | so this example is not the best. | scarface74 wrote: | We are subjected to the law everyday and we all need to | know about money to support our addictions to food and | shelter. | MajimasEyepatch wrote: | I've never liked how people say that statistics is useful but | calculus is not. I do not believe that you can actually | understand statistics without understanding at least some | calculus. So much of statistics is about areas under curves! | nickff wrote: | The problem with this is that the first classes in calculus | are usually focused on continuous functions, which don't | really exist in statistical datasets. The math has a lot in | common, but most people don't really see or use that to | their advantage, as evidenced by the literature on | "transfer of learning". | galdosdi wrote: | Have you actually studied calculus based | probability/stayistics though? Your comment seems | characteristic of my own former thinking from when I had | only taken an algebra based intro stats course (AP | statistics) and hadn't yet learn it the calculus based | way a few years later. | | There is a lot of cool stuff you miss out on in the basic | stats course because of having to dumb it down to avoid | the calculus. Some I remember off hand: | | - proof of the central limit theorem, which gives the | shocking result that if you sum several uniform | distributions you get rapidly more precise approximations | of the normal distribution, which looks similar to | exp(-x^2) if I recall. This central result is the | foundation of all statistical sampling. This is why in | real life if you see something follow a normal | distribution you can guess it is probably caused by a | moderate to large number of somewhat independent factors, | and vice versa. This is genuinely useful, but if you | don't know it you won't miss it - poisson distribution | which relates the mean time between events to the | probability of failures. Obviously very applicable to a | lot of real life tbings | notacop31337 wrote: | I feel that music and calculus are very different to history. | I believe that history should be a fundamental course taught | all the way through, we can't understand where we're going if | we don't understand where we came from. | Bayart wrote: | > Music, history, and calculus are useful to some people, but | not nearly as many. | | I couldn't imagine not introducing my kids to History, Music, | the Classics and so on. I value them far higher than my | experience with Computing, Finance, Law, what have you. What | a pointless life to only have interest into things that are | productive. | geraldwhen wrote: | I would rather analyze deep finance than listen to music. I | just don't enjoy music, at all. | | Spreadsheets and algorithms on the other hand I find highly | entertaining. I love many board games for this same reason: | it's an opportunity to build novel algorithms in strange | domains to achieve a specific purpose. | | And most can see that boardgames are more similar to | "productive things" you find disdainful than music. | deanCommie wrote: | The problem is kids just don't know. | | I spent my entire university degree convinced that I was | going to go into the video game industry. It took only a few | months to realize that it's not what I wanted for a career, | and I've spent the next 20 years loving my industry but doing | anything but gaming. | | I was an arrogant teenager that thought I knew what I was | doing. I disrespected the arts, music, history, and focused | exclusively on stuff like Math and Calculus. | | Now I don't feel like a well-rounded adult, and I wish I | spent more time when I was younger on music and humanities. | winphone1974 wrote: | Your experience is what I think of whenever someone | discounts a liberal arts education. It seems like the | perfect second degree! | tshaddox wrote: | It seems like what you're arguing for is to identify the most | generalized, broadly applicable subjects possible. And that | makes sense. Learning to read and write is probably the most | obvious example, because it's about as broadly applicable a | skill as one can imagine. | | The argument doesn't seem to apply very well to calculus | though, does it? | bee_rider wrote: | I think this is a much more honest answer. | | We don't know who is going to be an electrical engineering | student, and of those folks even many of them might manage to | get through the degree without needing calc (you can memorize | lots of answers and then get a career plugging in discrete | components I guess), but we do know _somebody_ is going to have | to design the antennas. | psychlops wrote: | Now, about how you use football in everyday life..... | AnimalMuppet wrote: | I'm 60. I learned things in high school football - about | physical conditioning and discipline, and being able to push | myself - that have been valuable over the last 40 years. | abraxas wrote: | Maybe I'm lucky. I'm on my fifth job (out of six) where calculus | knowledge has been incredibly useful. I'm not even into ML or | data analysis. Just a run of the mill software | engineer/architect. | eterevsky wrote: | The problem with this explanation is that it doesn't answer the | question "why calculus in particular". Why not chess or video | games or crossword puzzles? All of them improve your mental | abilities. | | It's useful to understand calculus because it is a basis for | science and engineering. Understanding calculus will bring you | one step closer to understanding how things work. | ActorNightly wrote: | Yep. By the analogy of working out for the football game, | people should be taught the following | | * computer skills * finance math * formal logic/critical | thinking/rational philosophy/bias identification * | electrical/plumbing/auto/construction repair skills * cooking * | principles of fitness | imgabe wrote: | When are you ever going to have to explain a sonnet or tell | someone the the date of the battle of Gettysburg or dissect a | frog or know what a precipitate is or... basically any specific | thing you learn in school? | | It's not that you have to do each thing every day, it's that they | give you a broad understanding of the context of what humans know | about the world and how it works so you can understand it. | Calculus is part of that too. | | What would school look like if we only taught things that are | used every day? I guess kids would learn how to drive a car and | put on pants and sit in a chair and read emails and that's about | it. | | You know how TV shows with long-running story arcs will have | "Previously on..." before an episode to catch people up with | what's happening? School should be a 12 year long "Previously | on..." the whole of human history so people can go into the world | knowing what's happening and how we got to where we are. | DrewADesign wrote: | I have a learning disability related to some incredibly common | cognitive issues that impact symbol recognition. I can abstractly | reason about the concepts vastly more easily than most and can do | fairly complex problems in my head quite easily- speaking to a | math PhD candidate a year or two ago, he said "you know, you | think about math exactly like a mathmetician does. I can't | believe you're not interested in pursuing math in school." My | cognitive profile, however, makes doing calculations on paper | painstakingly difficult- high school geometry (passed in summer | school with a D) was about my limit before failure was | guaranteed. | | This shut the door to every college opportunity I was aware of. I | ended up graduating in a night school program while working full | time. Only after two decades when SATs and high school grades | were no longer relevant did I start a BFA program, and soon after | I realized how abjectly the system had failed me. I always | assumed I was a fuckup with no discipline (which is what I was | told) and played the part accordingly. Cognitively, I tore my | program to shreds. A solid 4.0 GPA while having the time of my | life takes more than the responsibility gained during adulthood. | I could have easily competed in a serious ivy league degree | program given the opportunity. | | Sure, learning traditional math calculation can benefit many | people- but not everybody is cut out for it, and that's _fine_. | Student should certainly be encouraged to pursue it, but using it | or any other individual skill as gatekeepers for an enormous | number of educational paths that may perfectly suit slightly | different cognitive profiles is fucking stupid. | abetusk wrote: | This is a weak argument and, taken to the extreme, could have bad | results. | | We teach calculus because it's a prerequisite for many scientific | and engineering careers. It's not a mental exercise, it has | direct, practical use for many types of scientific and | engineering disciplines. | | We can argue whether people actually use calculus in their | everyday lives (I would argue so but it's maybe overly broad) but | I think the best reason is because it teaches us how the world | works and has direct, practical utility for a variety of fields. | | On the other end, if the best argument really was that it was | good 'mental exercise' then why not teach sudoku in class? Or | minesweeper? Why not have people do a crossword puzzle for their | final exam? | | We want education that has enriches and enables students, not | mental machinations for the sake of it. | MrSqueezles wrote: | Yeah, the idea sounds like a black-or-white fallacy. The choice | isn't, "calculus or nothing". There may be things we could | teach that would be equally important that people would be more | likely to use. | robswc wrote: | I think the easiest answer to this is "does it hurt to learn it, | though?" | | Many things you learn aren't directly applicable to everyday | life... but learning how to think and _learn_ is priceless. | | I also assume there's more objective reasons... like teaching 100 | things, knowing full well most people will only remember 10... | but that's still better than 0. | | Yea, there's a time cost associated with learning but its | certainly not the worst price to pay. | davnicwil wrote: | A lot of the stuff you learn in school is basically just a peek | under the hood of how something works. So in the best case you | leave with kind of a shallow sample of quite a few really deep | subjects. | | This shallow knowledge is fairly useless by itself, for sure, | beyond the very practical basics, but it gives you a _bit_ of a | hook into a variety of core disciplines that you can later - | maybe much later - use to connect to other things you do go deep | on, even and perhaps especially in completely unrelated fields. | | I think really this is the value of an education done right, | almost making you aware of what you don't know and giving you | _just_ enough context on it that it 's not a completely unknown | unknown, or unapproachable or unknowable 'magic'. | | So by itself any one thing you learn might be pretty useless, all | together as a big picture it starts to get a lot more useful. But | to get to that big picture you just have to grind through the | hard, small, useless seeming stuff piece by piece! | adhesive_wombat wrote: | I still remember the lecture when it all lined up, like the | Omega molecule in that Star Trek episode. | | Everything from Newton's laws, the quantum mechanics of a | single electron, bulk materials (Ohm's law), semiconductors | devices, communications theory (esp. Shannon's limit, Nyquist | etc), Norton and Thevenin models, logic gates, ALUs, frequency | domain operations, state machines, coding theory, all of it. | | It was a lecture where we basically figured out the required | ADC clock jitter upper limit to get a certain number of bits at | a certain sample rate[1]. At some point something fundamental | like conservation of energy was invoked and I had a holy-shit | moment when it all made sense. | | However, I do question how much of the grinding away at the | maths is necessary and how much is tradition that may have made | sense in slide rule and table days. Perhaps a more holistic and | intuitive method with an emphasis on "if you need to do this in | detail, remember this is where you go". Personally, I can | barely remember any domain equations at all, other than Ohm's | law![2] | | [1] It popped out as something like femto or attosecond and the | lecturer said something like "and consider this when buying | expensive audio files" (this was back when they were hard to | get). | | [2] as the same lecturer as above told us on the first day in | campus: "honestly, all you need is Ohm's law, everything else | we're going to teach you is just that in a dress, you just need | to know how to get back to it". | kazinator wrote: | Misuse of _literally_ in first paragraph. Math concepts never | exist figuratively or metaphorically in a curriculum. They are | always there, spelled out in literal letters and everything. | | The goal of math is to show you how ideas can be precisely put | into symbols, and then symbols can be shuffled around to bring | about clear reasoning according to rules that we can objectively | verify to be true or false. | | Just because you don't factor quadratic equations or divide | polynomials in real life doesn't meant that math doesn't leave an | imprint on your ability to reason. | | The use of variables comes from math. When people use sentences | like "customer C ordered from a company P", that is familiar | because of the math you took in school. Math warns you of edge | cases like that C and P potentially being indistinct. | | What's next? Drop gym class because 99%+ people don't need to | shoot a basketball through a hoop in their job of personal life? | Some lunatic parents being opposed to gym is a thing. | | Math is needed by people who go into engineering, tech, | scientific and business fields. Those fields have more math | courses. When you end up working in those fields, you will not | necessarily use _that_ math either, but the concepts relevant to | your job couldn 't be transmitted in their most rigorous forms | without the mathematics. | | Math education is like a booster rocket. You can't declare it | having been unnecessary just because it's not there any more once | you have reached orbit. | | Nine months into life, you don't need a placenta any more, so | what was the use of clinging to that? | | What are toddler toys good for? The only grownups using a BusyBox | are embedded engineers. | | The "you're not going to end up using it" argument is pseudo- | intellectual and hollow, based on the idea that anything used at | any stage of development having to be justified by its | indefinitely continued presence and utility, rather than a needed | temporary benefit or a boost to the next stage, or other | scaffolding role. | adhesive_wombat wrote: | Kinda, yes. | | But also, specifically for calculus, thinking of things of the | areas or slopes of other things, and how incremental changes | affect them, is a very simple and powerful lens for lots of | things. | | Of course, lots of teachers just hammer the fiddly memorisables | until the wonder is dead because they're easy to test and/or they | don't have an intuitive feel of the underlying meaning | themselves. | | And, for calculus, the fiddlies have never been so needless to | know as everything non trivial is a computer job and no one is | limiting things carefully to closed forms. Few people need the | chain rule specifically, they'd be much better served with | knowing that there's a thing called the chain rule and what that | _means_ , rather than the exact painful calculations and lists of | forms. | nedsma wrote: | Bravo! | ozim wrote: | I don't like this answer but I kind of see how it fits this | specific scenario - answering bunch of high-schoolers and keeping | them somewhat motivated. | | For me real answer is "if you manage to learn yourself calculus - | you will learn how to learn anything". | | Most of the time when I just pushed through at university I | noticed ways I retain knowledge - how after first repeating steps | time after time without understanding I was starting to grasp | things because I did something 10 times and somehow things fall | in place, how trying different approaches helps to connect the | dots, how building mechanical movements on basics help me speed | up understanding of more complex stuff. | | Just like you have to grind multiplication table to later solve | longer equations quickly. | | Now lets say you don't solve equations - but whole approach | applied to filling in taxes, like first you fill in forms as an | example 10 times, try to calculate all on your own 10 times - and | yes you are wrong because you don't understand all fields and why | you have to fill them in and with which value. If you do it 10 | times on your own you submit 11th that you know is most likely | correct. | | You also learn how you feel when you are wrong - so you get | intuition that "this is stupid" starts to be "I don't understand | it yet - have to dig through a bit more". Well high-schoolers by | default mark things "this is stupid" if they don't understand | something which is also meta answer for such question - but | telling them that they don't understand is not proper answer in | class setting :). | yamtaddle wrote: | > I don't like this answer but I kind of see how it fits this | specific scenario - answering bunch of high-schoolers and | keeping them somewhat motivated. | | The great thing about kids is that they'll often accept shitty | arguments as long as they seem legit at first glance. I mean, | so will plenty of adults, but kids especially. | | Which is handy since, as an adult, shitty arguments are most of | what I've got. | didibus wrote: | I think it begs the question, but is Calculus the best and only | way to exercise your brain? | | What if you did programming instead? Or learned anything else? | More practical math maybe even like Linear Algebra? | | It reminds me of how my teachers justified why we were learning | Latin, it'll make you better at languages, it'll be easier for | you to learn other languages after... But all this is true if you | learn Spanish instead, and you also happen to have learned a | practical skill while you're at it! | [deleted] | saint_fiasco wrote: | Surely there are ways to exercise one's brain that also happen to | be useful in everyday life. | | It's hard to pick something that everyone would find useful and | engaging, so I understand why schools just pick an arbitrary | subject and stick with it. | | It would be nice if they were honest about it. If they were, they | might say something like "We could train your brains with | something fun like chess practice, or something useful like | programming classes and statistics. But we already have calculus | teachers around because some kids will become engineers or | whatever, and we don't want to hire a thousand teachers for a | thousand niche subjects so we'll use the teachers we already | have". | weaksauce wrote: | > We could train your brains with something fun like chess | practice, or something useful like programming classes and | statistics. | | except probability and stats does require calculus. maybe not | at the high school level but if you are doing it in college | it's almost certainly going to have some needing of calculus. | eastbound wrote: | How can one be a citizen if they don't understand stats, and | how to cheat them? The citizenship should only be automatic | if you pass that class. | | Which is what the majority at 18 intends to do. | [deleted] | tonymet wrote: | Expecting immediate or predictable payoff with any activity will | set you up for failure or at least mediocrity in life. | NotTheDr01ds wrote: | Quoted from some source or are you just extremely quotable. | Serious question - That is a great viewpoint! | m463 wrote: | I remember reading "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" and | remembered the section where he was evaluating math textbooks. | | He was annoyed that kids would have to learn number bases that | were not 10: | | "Translating from one base to another is an utterly useless | thing." | | But honestly that is something from math class that I use EVERY | day (ok, ok, maybe not weekends) | macawfish wrote: | You could easily use the reasoning from calculus in your everyday | life. For example, understanding even just the basic gist of | stokes' theorem could be useful just as a basic cognitive tool. | But a lot of people are never challenged to think about this. | Like imagine not having any intuition for flux. There are people | who have none. That's cognitive impairment if you ask me. | harrisonjackson wrote: | The way I explain it to my kids is all about opportunities. I am | not going to force them into a career path that uses calculus but | I am going to make sure they have as many opportunities as | possible to make their own choices later in life and that means | right now they will do the math homework. | magila wrote: | Football players lift weights because it is known to be one of | the more effective ways to build muscle strength. Do we have | evidence to support the claim that learning calculus is | particularly effective at improving general cognitive ability? | passion__desire wrote: | Good question. Maybe rigorous mathematical expositions should | be replaced with visual metaphors or explanations that will get | the idea across without children going through tiresome process | of manipulating symbols and calculations. | rileyphone wrote: | "The power to understand and predict the quantities of the | world should not be restricted to those with a freakish knack | for manipulating abstract symbols." | | http://worrydream.com/KillMath/ | mr_toad wrote: | Most people can't do more than the simplest derivations in | their head, the symbols are just a notational placeholder, | and also used to communicate with others. | | The abstraction is the what you have to have a knack for, | not the symbols themselves. | thraizz wrote: | diet_jerome wrote: | Can I get some evidence to show that practicing calculus will | make you more intelligent? | umanwizard wrote: | I've never understand why people bitch about having to study | math, but are seemingly fine studying history, literature, etc., | which are just as useless in everyday life. | almenon wrote: | Studying history is extremely important for doing your civic | duty as a citizen and voting. | yamtaddle wrote: | Various forms of entertainment are typically much improved by | significant history and higher-level literacy training. People | like entertainment. | | High school math's only helpful for entertainment if you like | recreational math puzzles or maybe Factorio or something. | | You'll notice it takes far less convincing to get kids to | understand the value of addition and arithmetic and maybe even | very basic algebra. This is because they can immediately use it | for play and entertainment. You're locked out of a ton of board | games, even, if you can't do simple arithmetic with small | numbers. "How much more money do I need to buy that video game | I want?" is a question they're motivated to answer. | | When it's common for people to encounter and eagerly choose to | engage with entertainment the enjoyment of which is greatly | enhanced by knowing how to find a second derivative, I expect | math will stop being _particularly_ prone to this kind of | scrutiny. | pshc wrote: | My take is that studying history and literature aids in | understanding human behavior and connecting with different | people, valuable in many situations, but not sufficient by | itself as having hard skills/opportunity/leverage/etc are just | as important. | UniverseHacker wrote: | because those don't take as much effort as math | divbzero wrote: | My teacher's answer to the same question was: "You will use it on | your test next week." | mkl95 wrote: | > "It's the same thing with calculus. You're not here because | you're going to use calculus in your everyday life. You're here | because calculus is weightlifting for your brain." | | There are many non calculus things that are weightlifting for | your brain, including many math fields that high schoolers don't | even know about. Calculus is taught to teenagers for historical | reasons, do not overthink it. | wvenable wrote: | A great many things that humans depend on every day require | some understanding of calculus. If we stop teaching teenagers | the vast amount of knowledge that humans have accumulated over | centuries then progress will stop. | nightski wrote: | I've only maybe used differentiation/integration a few times in | my professional career (use it more on personal projects | actually). That said, having a solid intuition about | first/second order derivatives, rates of change, is incredibly | valuable when thinking about the world. I probably use this | intuition quite a bit in day to day life without even realizing | it. I do wish more probability & statistics was taught earlier | on though. | mkl95 wrote: | I agree on the intuition. But once the intuition and the | fundamentals are there, should teenagers spend months | crunching calculus heuristics? It's still the way it's taught | in Europe and it's incredibly inefficient. | sarchertech wrote: | "Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things. You | just get used to them." | | --John von Neumann | | I'm sure there's room for improvement, but intuition and | understanding are usually the result of repetition. | mkl95 wrote: | Ironically, if von Neumann was alive today he would | probably encourage kids to use some number crunching | software rather than "getting used to it". In that sense | civilization may actually have regressed since the von | Neumann / Feynman days. Ditching pen and paper for | sophisticated computing tools gave us nuclear power and | moon landings within 20 years. | sarchertech wrote: | Would he? And no one is arguing that working engineers | should be taking derivatives by hand. | mr_toad wrote: | Who's going to write the software if no one knows | calculus? | ajuc wrote: | Calculus (and the rest of math) is taught because development | of human civilization depends on some people knowing it and | developing it further. And if you don't start early it's hard | to catch up not to mention developing it further. | | And it's also training your brain (but that can be done by | other things like puzzles or games). | mkl95 wrote: | I'd say this used to be true, but calculus has become a | historical artifact even at some engineering fields. We have | become very good at building abstractions. Matrix / linear | algebra on the other hand is something we unconsciously do | all the time for high level tasks such as rearranging UIs. | hjkl0 wrote: | The question includes this part: | | > There are literally math concepts taught in high school and | middle school that are only used in extremely specialized fields | or that are even so outdated they aren't used anymore! | | So a more appropriate analogy would be doing the wrong exercises | for the type for the type of sport being played. It's still | exercise, so probably increases the chances of winning somewhat? | roflyear wrote: | Yeah I like this better. If 99% of the people are not going to | use 99% of the things taught in that class, certainly there are | subjects that are equally beneficial on a problem-solving basis | that are also useful. | pshc wrote: | Calculus is a workout for the brain, but closed form symbolic | manipulation has few use-cases in normal life. | | Now take stats and probability? Also a great way to expand one's | mind, and key to decoding truths and understanding the dynamics | of the world. | Waterluvian wrote: | I used to be irritated about all the crap I suffered through. | School was very difficult for me. University was a complete | breeze, which shocked me. | | But as an adult I look back and am glad that I was exposed to all | those subjects and concepts. I forgot most of them but I remember | the broad concepts enough that I am at least literate when smart | people are talking. This applies to the arts more than the | sciences for me. | | I'm still angry that the website kidnaps me and ruins my back | arrow. | sbf501 wrote: | I was trying to fix a curtain the other day and cursed myself for | not paying attention in 6th-grade Home Economics class. And not a | month goes by when I don't hear my 10th grade American History | teacher's voice in my head. Or my 8th grade teacher's grammar | class when I can remember how to reword passive voice in a | document, or whether I used a dangling participle in it. :) | | I'm pretty sure the idea that "90% of what you learn is school is | a waste" is just some bullshit spun by adults who got poor | grades, various BS artists hawking something (or even their own | persona), or people that want to restructure schooling in the US | (which might not be a bad thing... in some cases). | tibbon wrote: | I wish my teachers had given me better answers to this question. | As a teen I was definitely motivated by practicalities. No one | could answer when I was going to use matrix math in life. The | answer, which is glaringly obvious now is in machine learning. I | really wish I had done better in math in particular, enabling | more advanced programming, machine learning, 3d modeling | concepts, DSP programming, etc. | | But also, things don't have to be practical to be worth learning. | I just think some of the subjects I struggled with in retrospect | had much better examples of when they'd be used, and a huge | opportunity was missed. | sergiotapia wrote: | But even this answer is bullshit. The real answer is these are | just hoops you need to jump through to get a good job. My | daughter will most likely grow up to become a great artist, she | has talent for it and she loves it. I can't see her ever doing | algebra and beyond in her career or interests. Why do we continue | to torture kids with this one size fits all? It's terrible | aaaaaaaaaaab wrote: | I was always good at art. Until the age of 14 I wanted to be an | artist. I paid no attention to math - I spent most of those | classes practicing graffiti lettering in my notebook. It was | around this time that we got Internet in our household, and I | wanted to create a custom website for my artworks, because I | found deviantART lame. So I started looking into how websites | are made, and ended up cobbling together a basic PHP page on a | free hosting provider. I was fascinated by web programming, so | I decided that I would go on to get a software engineering | degree, but I still considered graphic design and illustration | my main forte. The first class on the first day of university | was Introduction to Linear Algebra, which started with | matrices, determinants and Gauss-Jordan elimination. I vividly | remember it was that first 2-hour lecture that made me realize | math was actually awesome! It sounds stupid, but it was at that | lecture that I realized for the first time that _vectors are | just lists of numbers_. Like, what the hell? It all made sense, | and it was beautiful! | | As the years went by, each new topic that I've learnt seemed | like some kind of revelation: the fundamental theorem of | calculus, Fourier- and Laplace transforms, Cauchy-Riemann | equations, the central limiting theorem, Markov chains, | quaternions, Galois theory, and the list goes on. I felt like I | was living in Plato's cave before, being oblivious to this | infinitely complex and fascinating world. | | I still love making all kinds of art, but it is mathematics and | software engineering where I feel truly at home. (the pay is | also nice) | | Anyway, my point is that you shouldn't assume someone with | artistic talents wouldn't find math enjoyable, or that they | wouldn't be talented in it if they gave it an honest try. It | can "click" at any point in life, not just high school - but if | it "clicks" it's going to be an awesome journey. | theptip wrote: | There is a good analogy to weight training here. | | A sports team doesn't use bodybuilding (maximum hypertrophy) | techniques, or powerlifting (max strength) they use functional | power training like Olympic lifts or power cleans. If you only | had powerlifting it would be better than nothing, but it's not as | good as the best. | | Similarly, perhaps it's beneficial to view calculus as "brain | training", but that doesn't mean it's the best modality. For | example I think Statistics could provide the same challenge, | while also being more applicable to the real world. | softwarebeware wrote: | I'm sad to see this because we literally do use calculus every | day of our lives. We just don't often recognize it. The weather | report is made using calculus. The calculation of the minimum | payment on your credit card bill is made with calculus. Calculus | is used in computer animation and video games. It's part of | statistical analyses that affect government and financial | institution decisions. It's used in manufacturing. | | It's impossible to live a day in the modern world without | calculus. | | It's a huge missed opportunity to liken it to working out. | ergocoder wrote: | > I'm sad to see this because we literally do use calculus | every day of our lives. We just don't often recognize it. The | weather report is made using calculus. | | This is like claiming David Beckham uses advanced physics to | kick his free kick. | | Calculus is important to the world, sure. But it's not | important to regular people to spend time and money learning | it. In some cases, these people take out student loan to learn | calculus which doesn't help them pay back the loan. | ActorNightly wrote: | The issue is that calculus in itself with symbolic algebra is | next to useless for average person. However intuitive concepts, | like area under a curve, are not. | adhesive_wombat wrote: | I "solve for x" all the time, though, admittedly, outside of | work, it rarely gets more complicated than a simple | expression with a fraction or two. | | However, what is aggressively useful is dimensional analysis. | When I'm doing a calculation and need to quickly check that | the formulation is right, checking the units works every | time. | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | You're getting a lot of answers about how you don't need calc | to use things other people have made with calc. This turns the | answer into "so that you can avoid weird mysticism about how | the world works." | | If you don't know how other people made the things you use, | then 1) you're pigeonholed into being totally dependent on | them, and 2) you're likely to get all sorts of weird beliefs | about how the stuff you depend on works (like crystal | healing/homeopathy/etc in the bio realm). | softwarebeware wrote: | Totally! Reminds me of Foundation by Isaac Asimov where | scientists turn into the equivalent of priests in some | cultures. | kowbell wrote: | The "when are we going to use this" question is about when "we" | ourselves will directly use it - not when we will use something | that uses it. | | I don't have to use any calculus to get a weather report, etc., | because other people do that for me and give me their results - | it's part of their job. | | Calculus is indispensable and is used in our everyday life - | but most of us won't use it ourselves, or need to know the | specifics, or really even know the broader parts of it. | MajimasEyepatch wrote: | You probably don't need to know how to compute a derivative, | but there are tons of related concepts that are helpful for | reasoning about systems in the world. You can always Google | the chain rule, but having a general sense of the trend is | often all you need. | | For example, you don't have to remember how to derive it, but | knowing that y'' = y is a positive feedback loop (exponential | growth) but y'' = -y is a negative feedback loop | (oscillating) is really useful in all sorts of common sense | scenarios. | | Learning is about concepts more than facts or algorithms. | thfuran wrote: | >knowing that y'' = y is a positive feedback loop | (exponential growth) but y'' = -y is a negative feedback | loop (oscillating) is really useful in all sorts of common | sense scenarios. | | I'm not sure what sorts of situations you keep finding | yourself in, but I think they're pretty atypical. | lamontcg wrote: | positive and negative feedbacks happen in climate systems | and economic systems. | | if you want to have a chance of understand the economic | news it is a good idea to have familiarity with them. | [deleted] | treis wrote: | The problem with this is that people don't really retain | information like that. College is 15 years in the past for me | and I'd bet that if you handed me every exam I took in college | I'd flunk everyone of them. And probably quite badly too. I'd | wager most people are the same. So how can it be so important | if we all remember so little. | ALittleLight wrote: | This is like saying we use quantum physics every day of our | lives because _physics_. It 's true, I guess, but you don't | have to know anything about quantum physics and the vast | majority of people don't need to know anything about calculus. | | It's also clearly not the reason we are educating children in | calculus. We can know this because we don't teach children to | do weather calculations, we don't test them on statistical | analysis, and so on. | | The real reason public schools teach calculus is that they | started doing it at some point for some reason and then never | quit because they are bureaucracies resistant to change. All | the people involved have a kind of status quo bias preventing | them from saying "yeah, I guess that was useless, let's teach | something else." | | If I'm wrong, we could imagine a test. Take a comprehensive | calculus exam from senior year of highschool or freshman year | of college. What grade do you think the average adult would get | on this test? How about top ten percentile adults for | intelligence, wealth, or whatever? If, as I do, you think the | average score would be F, can you explain why it's important to | teach the general population of kids something that the general | population of adults demonstrably do not know? | [deleted] | nicolashahn wrote: | You can use all of these things without you personally knowing | calculus. The point of the question is that it's posed by the | people who aren't going to go on to create weather reports, | credit card payment systems, video games, etc. | yamtaddle wrote: | Maybe we can try, "you have to learn calculus so you can land | a job that lets you pay for things & services that handle | calculus for you, so you never have to think about it again". | | ... except most of those are cheap. So. Hm. | alistairSH wrote: | Except the kids taking high school calculus likely ARE going | to do those things one day. Maybe not all of them, but some. | | Heck, I don't use calculus directly in my daily life. But I'm | glad I took it because I recognize where it is used, and how, | and that helps me understand my world better then without. | softwarebeware wrote: | > The point of the question is that it's posed by the people | who aren't going to go on to create weather reports, credit | card payment systems, video games, etc. | | I don't think so. If you're in high school and you ask this | question, you surely do mean something like "what activity | will I possibly doing in my future career that would require | calculus" and in that case the answer that you may be a | financial analyst, a meteorologist, an electrical engineer, | etc. is right on. It's exactly what kids want to know. | | But now there's this myth that "you won't ever use calculus | in real life" which is totally wrong. | yummypaint wrote: | I would argue that saving money and personal financial | planning uses calculus concepts, and that they are enhanced | by formally knowing calculus. It makes questions like "how | much money will i have after x years given my mortgage, | income, and assets?" approachable. It isn't feasible for most | people to hire a human financial planner, and i wouldn't want | to use automated tools without understanding enough to be | able to perform sanity checks. | sofixa wrote: | You don't use it in those cases, you get what you need from | someone else using calculus. In the same way you don't use | cooking when you go at a restaurant. | geuis wrote: | I highly doubt it was worth the 20 seconds of my time it took to | load that page, dismiss the egregious popup, read the article, | then fight whatever javascript was overriding the back button | just to get back here to leave this comment. | Archelaos wrote: | The main problem with teaching calculus at school is, that only a | few pupils really come to understand it. For most pupils, the | educational outcome is the opposite of a meaningful | "weightlifting for the brain". In order to pass their tests, they | try to memorise some recipes that they have made up from sample | solutions. Instead of learning to think systematically, they are | taught to somehow muddle through and feign understanding where | they know nothing at all. | nradov wrote: | It would be better to change the required mathematics curriculum | in high school and college to focus more on statistics and less | on calculus. Sure it's useful to understand the basic principles | underlying calculus. But even in engineering work, only a small | fraction of engineers actually use calculus. Statistics is just | as good for strengthening the mind, and is more broadly | applicable to many real world fields. | yamtaddle wrote: | I've long held a notion that doing exactly the opposite of what | lots of math PhDs think we should do in primary and secondary | school would be the right path--take math education _much | farther_ from "real math". Focus almost completely on math as | a tool for solving real problems. | | I have a feeling the people who were going to become math | majors would do so anyway, under such a system, and the rest of | the kids would learn and retain more math than they _in fact_ | do with how we teach it today-- "here's 6 weeks on how you | solve quadratic equations, without a hint of a reason for doing | this, feeling motivated yet?" | agentultra wrote: | You need to learn how to think. How to solve problems. How to | express your ideas clearly. Maths is excellent training. | | And it can be enjoyable for its own sake without being practical! | seba_dos1 wrote: | I never understood people asking those questions. High school | stuff is so basic that it's less about learning a particular | subject and rather more about getting to know some common | language that can be used to discover the world around. I hated | some of the subjects I wasn't interested in back then, like | biology or history, but I'm still glad that something has | remained in my head because now I can have at least some basic | clue in conversations surrounding those subjects and have some | reasonable starting point in case I actually decide to pursue | some understanding of a given topic. I believe that's the whole | point of high school education after all. | | And not even talking about the fact that if you don't know | <SUBJECT_NAME_HERE/>, you're simply not going to notice all the | places where applying it could be useful. | munificent wrote: | _> High school stuff is so basic_ | | For many kids, that's not true of all subjects. Some find | certain courses very difficult. | seba_dos1 wrote: | I said that it's basic, not that it's easy. Learning basic | history wasn't easy for me either. | ajsnigrutin wrote: | The problem with a lot of high school subjects is, that you | have to memorize a bunch of dates and years, random names of | random plants and animals, that you then immediately forget | after you pass the exam. | | For example, (for me), the "important things" about world war 2 | is, who, why and how... what was before, what made people make | decisions they did, how did it start, what happened during, and | why and how it ended... the exact date when some named general | attacked some small city somewhere is pretty irrelevant | (atleast not a thing you should keep memorized), but a lot of | history classes focus on exactly that... on which date which | unit/general took over which town where did they break through, | etc... I'd prefer half less memorization data and a googling | class for kids to find the dates needed, and more focus on the | whys and hows, because history repeats itself, while dates and | names don't. | tsimionescu wrote: | To be fair, rote memorization is one of the most improtant | and transferable cognitive skills you can develop. | | Also, even if I agree that history classes often go | overboard, having some notion of the years and even dates | that some things happened is important to having a general | understanding of history. If you know the who, what, why of | WW II but have only a vague idea of when it started and when | it ended, or when some of the major events within took place, | you'll have a very hard time correlating with other events. | It matters for example that WW II happened only 20 years | after WW I, not 5 years after, not a century after. You won't | get a decent picture of the sequence of events if you don't | know some rough dates at least - especially for events | happening in different parts of the world, with more indirect | linking. | sedawk wrote: | > To be fair, rote memorization is one of the most | improtant and transferable cognitive skills you can | develop. | | To say so is missing the whole point parent comment is | trying to make. Memorization is an important skill, that is | one thing but saying memorizing random stuff to build that | skill is entirely a different claim. I bet there are better | ways so learn and hone memory skills than memorize history | place/time/dates and kill a student's interesting in | learning. | [deleted] | seba_dos1 wrote: | There are certainly many ways in which education could be | improved to be more effective, and the way math is often | being taught isn't an exception there. Many people rely on | memorization for learning math as well, which is as | counterproductive as it gets. | rv3392 wrote: | FWIW, history teaching seems to have moved away from just | looking at dates - at least where I am. | | I graduated high school <10 years ago and most of our history | classes (including WW1 and 2) were spent on what, why and | how. A significant amount of time was spent looking at the | leadup and aftermath of both WW1 and WW2 as well as the ideas | of the time. We pretty much didn't look at troop movements, | generals, battles, etc. apart from mentioning the really | significant ones. Same goes for pretty much every other unit | of history (mediaeval Europe, colonialism in Asia and Africa, | etc.). | | Maybe this is a reflection of differences in teaching styles | in different parts of the world? | conductr wrote: | My teachers were moving away from date memorization back in | the 90s. These things were mostly approached as a lecture | that talked about exactly what you wrote about WW2. Is your | experience outdated or did I just get lucky? I went to | American public school if it matters. | ajsnigrutin wrote: | Former yugoslavia, then slovenia... I had to know every | goddamn date and every goddamn village on the exams. And | ok.. WWII was the start of the socialist yugoslavia... but | I had to know the same for napoleon and the french | revolution, and he barely passed here. Franco revolution, | the same.. and soviet one too. Also a bunch of caesars too. | | Geography was the same... ok, countries and capitals.. | sure.. but a bunch of mountains and rivers and streams, | where exactly the source is, and where and into which river | it flows into... not just the major ones, even the crappy | minor ones. Also stuff like, what is the greatest export of | nigeria and other countries that are far enough, that I | didnt need to know. | | Of course I forgot all of that data probably days after the | exam, and never cared for 99% of it, and googled the last | percent when needed. | forgotusername6 wrote: | The most use I ever got from my high school English literature | class was at a bar in college. An older, much more | sophisticated English major was talking to me about her | favourite line from Macbeth and I was able to finish her | sentence. It felt amazing. You never know when it might come in | handy. | skizm wrote: | "You won't, but the smart kids might." -some smbc that I can't | find | dnissley wrote: | I used to hate math up until about 8th grade when I had the | realization that math problems are just puzzles and when looked | at in that way can be fun and interesting. Eventually this lead | to the realization that so many other things can be viewed in the | same way, and that fostering this ability to change how I view | things was pretty crucial to leading a happy life. | | School is terrible at helping foster such an attitude though, | perhaps because it is incredibly difficult to do so at scale | (even at classroom scale), but also because most teachers don't | have this ability within themselves. | gumby wrote: | My kid hated maths in school. I told him that unfortunately he | was just "learning the alphabet" and it would just take a long | time. This didn't console him. | | Then in grade 11 he did physics and calculus and suddenly it | all made sense! He was super excited. | | Years later he says "I guess this is just more learning the | alphabet" but it sounds to me like he's trying to convince | himself. :-/ | ergocoder wrote: | > It's the same thing with calculus. You're not here because | you're going to use calculus in your everyday life. You're here | because calculus is weightlifting for your brain. | | I doubt that there is no other ways (e.g. lower cost, more | effective) to weightlift for your brain than learning calculus. | | Also, the professor has a conflict of interest here (e.g. making | calculus sound important because he teaches calculus). It's like | me holding a shit coin and pumping it up, but yeah let's ignore | that conflict of interest. | wildrhythms wrote: | The mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell. | | https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/mitochondria-is-the-powerhous... | didgetmaster wrote: | I learned a lot in calculus and physics classes in high school | and college that I have never used over my 35 year career. But | learning those principles was tangentially beneficial in many | ways. It taught me how to solve problems and think through | several steps to come up with an answer. When I hear or read | stories about outer space, power generation, or communication | signals; I have a framework that I can build upon to understand | the issue. | | I have kids now in high school and when I help them with some | math problems some of it comes back to me, but many of the | formulas I memorized so many years ago are long gone from my | memory. But that is ok. | deathanatos wrote: | IDK if that's the reason I'd given for calculus. I might not | literally solve integrals, but the base knowledge of what an | integral is, what a derivative is, yes, I absolutely use those. | I'm also a SWE/SRE, so ... there's that. But how often I see | graphs _from products whose entire job is metrics_ that are just | labelled wrong, e.g., w / the base unit instead of the rate, or | what actually use the base unit instead of the rate, making for a | difficult UX1. If the devs of those products understood ... | calculus (let alone stats!) maybe the products would be less | garbage? As it is, I still need to know that as a user. | | But yeah, I've not taking a literal integral in a while. Usually | I'm doing some sort of very crude integration. | | Similar w/ the CS degree and everybody in this field going "it | isn't needed" and then going "why isn't the database answering | this query quickly, when there is an index on those fields?2" and | follow that with a discussion of how B-trees work (or rather, | don't)... | | And should I ever _need_ to solve an integral, I will _recognize | that problem when I see it_ , and know what Wikipedia articles I | need to page back into my brain. | | 1what I mean here is, e.g., like what Azure Metrics does. E.g., | there's a graph I use that measures throughput, but the unit is | just "Bytes". But each point is "number of bytes transmitted | during the window of time represented by that point" so it's | really "bytes / 5 minutes" or something. But of course, then, you | zoom, and now it is "bytes / 10 mintues" ... but the axis doesn't | tell you that. This has the effect that as you zoom in or out ... | _the numbers change!_ Which makes no sense (obviously the effect | of zooming a graph does not go back in time and alter the | readings) ... but only if you were properly measuring bytes /sec. | (But as it is, there's a constant / divisor caught up in there.) | | (And that ignores harder problems with zooming metrics, like | aliasing or resolution, or other metrics problems like | percentiles on aggregates or efficient computation of calculated | values and where to put windows, etc. ... but _pfft_ I 'm in the | stone age over here.) | | 2and it's almost always a 2D range query or a range + exact value | and the exact value is the second column in the index... | xyzzy4747 wrote: | They should just replace some of the math classes with finance | classes. | renewiltord wrote: | At no point in my life have I ever related to people who can ask | this question. The closest I got is thinking if the names and | dates I was memorizing about the Wars were worth anything. In the | end, it turned out that I either have a tremendous memory through | either that training regimen or that I have a memory that gives | me an advantage in that test protocol: either one is a winner. | And either is worth it. | pipeline_peak wrote: | A lot of kids at least need to have the opportunity of being | exposed to something before they can decide if it's for them or | not. | | The amount of kids who purely decide to take Calculus is next to | nothing. They need applied interests to see the usefulness of | higher math. For a lot of us, that was software or programming. | kylehotchkiss wrote: | And I still will never forget that my school never taught me how | to write a check, how to file taxes, how to find jobs, how to | find community in life. All that stuff about photosynthesis sure | helped though!! | WheelsAtLarge wrote: | "Bingo!!" said the teacher. "It's the same thing with calculus. | You're not here because you're going to use calculus in your | everyday life. You're here because calculus is weightlifting for | your brain." | | Total BS... | | There are better ways to exercise your brain that will be many | more times better than Calculus. This is HW so one that comes to | mind is programming. But there are so many more. Here are a few, | understanding and fixing a car, understanding music and playing | music, art appreciation, literature and understanding the human | condition and on and on. Recent research has shown that doing | daily exercise is a great way to keep a healthy body and brain, | rather than sitting on your butt learning a useless subject. | | Yes, there are professions where Calculus is needed and there are | people that truly enjoy math. Cool, take all the math you need | and want to learn. You should take it. | | Anyone that tells you that Calculus is a good way to exercise | your brain is just trying to justify their job. Don't for a | minute believe that it's the best way to use a limited resource | like your time. | | Source: Me, it took me 3 semesters of Calculus to figure out that | it was useless to me and 90+% of the people that take any of it. | behringer wrote: | Programmer here. I wish I knew more calculus. It's really tough | to learn outside of school and much older. | WheelsAtLarge wrote: | "tough to learn outside of school and much older." | | Be very careful with this way of thinking. People around me | have used it to justify not taking the time to learn | something. In short, giving up before they try. This attitude | will hinder any possible growth. I guarantee it. | | what's tough is following thru, not the subject you are | trying to learn. If you can't learn on your own take a class | at a local college. It will force you to show up and try. But | thinking that you can't learn because you are older is not | true. | tayo42 wrote: | Why? There's so many resources now. I actually tried to | relearn calculus recently. I ran into the same problem I had | the first time in college, it felt like learning for learning | sake and didn't have a strong enough motivation for it | danielvaughn wrote: | Yep. Even just linear algebra. I'm trying to get into | graphics programming and it's very difficult without a solid | understanding of that stuff. | halikular wrote: | Sorry, but that's not any excuses for you not to start | learning! Looks like your problem is procrastination which we | all struggle with. Old age is also not as bad we're lead to | believe for learning. It's all about getting into the habit | of studying. That can come after an idea that turns into a | goal and is kept in motion by brute force will. Alternatively | the peer pressure from school or a course can keep you going | and meeting goals effortlessly. | | There are now many easily accessible online resources, from | 3blue1brown's "essence of" series [1], Khan academy [2], or | Brilliant.org's courses [3]. | | [1] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZHQObOWTQDMsr9K-r | j53... | | [2] https://www.khanacademy.org/math/calculus-1 | | [3] https://brilliant.org/calculus/ | tenebrisalietum wrote: | Basically it's two things: | | 1. answering the question "how do we get the next x" for a | function x=y. | | If x=y, then if you increase x, you also increase y, so | dx/dy=1. Figuring out dx/dy is fun when dealing with things | like 3x^2+5x+7=y. | | But take the game of Pong, for example. A simple Pong game | has a ball and the direction of the ball can be controlled by | two variables - horizonal velocity (H) and vertical velocity | (V). | | Each frame, you take the ball's X and Y and add H and V to | it, to move the ball. When the ball collides with something, | just multiply by -1 (to flip the sign) to reverse the ball. | | If you divide V by something like 0.0001 each frame, you will | implement gravity. | | Want the ball to have a gravity or other "pull" that results | in it hitting a point in a specific number of frames? Well | ... someone who knew what they were doing would know what to | do. That's all I got. | | 2. If you have a few points for x=y, you should be able to | figure out dx/dy somehow. I think that's called integrals. | itishappy wrote: | Minor correction: | | > If you divide V by something like 0.0001 each frame, you | will implement gravity. | | You will implement air resistance. Air resistance is | proportional to the velocity, gravity is a constant offset. | | V(n+1) = V(n) - drag * V(n) - gravity | treis wrote: | >If you divide V by something like 0.0001 each frame, you | will implement gravity. | | That'd be a wild ride. | ludston wrote: | Indeed. I'm pretty sure that the research shows practicing | music is a much, much better workout for your brain than doing | calculus. Not only that, but practice in music is supposed to | directly correlate with increases in mathematical ability. | punnerud wrote: | "Training the brain to not give up", also called "grit", is a | more precise way to say it. | | Programming, music, art ++ isn't as good as calculus on this. | WheelsAtLarge wrote: | Learning to play a music instrument or learning to paint, | well, is the definition on not giving up. So, no... | bibanez wrote: | Never heard it put that way! Still, it takes grit to graps | any deep formal topic, and there are those in all the | disciplines you mentioned. | | Harmony for music, Composition for Art and programming for | systems are some examples | coldtea wrote: | Grit is useless without focus. Calculus, and math in general, | provides focus: it cuts through the BS. | | We aren't living in an era of people suffering because they | did too much calculus they don't need. | | We are, on the other hand, living in an era where people are | lied to, fooled, prayed upon, and duped everyday, because | they can't understand math. | | We also live in an era where people could do amazing things, | even as amateur hobbyists with some math and science | knowledge, but are drowned in BS doom-scrolling, binge- | watching of crap, and the like... | itishappy wrote: | Strongly disagree. To extend the original metaphor, calculus is | an exercise, not a whole workout. Sure, if you only do squats, | you may not end up looking as good in a tank top as the guy who | does arms all day. On the other hand, you're never going to | reach peak physical performance if you skip leg day. | | Good luck trying to understand any modern ML paper without a | solid understanding of calculus, for example. | molticrystal wrote: | One use of class + 1 of what is needed is that it demonstrates | mastery of the previous material when it integrates such. For | example, calculus shows mastery and a decent understanding of | algebra and trigonometry among other topics of the level taught | previously. | coldtea wrote: | > _There are better ways to exercise your brain that will be | many more times better than Calculus. This is HW so one that | comes to mind is programming._ | | And become a programmer who doesn't know calculus? | dopidopHN wrote: | Calculus in itself yes. But the statistics / probability or | optimisation stuff you can execute are nice ( eg : gradient | descent ) | | Or even linear algebra. I think it made me better at grasping | highly formal stuff. | WheelsAtLarge wrote: | Yes, a statistics course is so much more useful. It's not | emphasized in school but it will truly help through out your | life if you understand it. | Jensson wrote: | > But the statistics / probability or optimisation stuff you | can execute are nice ( eg : gradient descent ) | | You learn gradient descent in calculus, it is based on | derivatives... | Tade0 wrote: | I think there a better argument to be made here and it's: you | need to understand what's possible and what's not in a broad | spectrum of fields. | | Case in point: a lot of bad cooking/cleaning advice comes from | the lack of understanding of high-school level chemistry. | Smoosh wrote: | Just this week I have watched two videos on YouTube where the | presenter is trying to address the comments on their previous | videos where people are suggesting (something like) "connect an | alternator to the wheels on an electric car to generate "free" | energy to run the car". | | These comments show a thinking, inventive mind wishing to be | useful and improve things, but such a basic lack of | understanding of physics. I can only think that these people | weren't paying attention at High School, were (poorly) home | schooled, or have some sort of incapacity to understand/believe | the established laws of science. | | Yet they think that they can invent simple solutions which have | somehow eluded the experts in the field. Perhaps it is some | form of Dunning-Kruger effect. | lordnacho wrote: | There's a number of angles to this. | | Want a fancy job? This is one of the hoops to jump through. Same | as leetcode further down the line, you won't do it at work but | you will do it to get work. But that's also a pretty tragic take | on it. | | Practice for other things, sure, that is also a way to see it. | You won't bench press the other team but you will make yourself | stronger. But for what? A sport you'll never play? What are you | preparing for? | | Here's another one. Math, especially pure math, is a thing that | is totally separate from observation. It just sort of exists | without being anywhere, and yet there's all this depth to it. You | can get a puzzle that cannot be solved by any anything other than | thoughts, and you can keep building on these puzzles that don't | exist. Go nowhere and explore. | | Lastly I note that it's mostly math class that gets asked this | "what's the point" question. But you may as well as this about | everything else you do in school, and you will mostly find that | you'll have spent years to learn French for 4 weeks of actual use | in France, dissected frogs for no reason, and learned how to play | the recorder. All things that I'm sure you can find positives for | despite the superficial benefits being quite small. | ergocoder wrote: | > But you may as well as this about everything else you do in | school | | And we should constantly question that... | | > Same as leetcode further down the line | | Leetcode is free and has proven sufficiently enough to get us a | 6-figure job. | | > All things that I'm sure you can find positives for despite | the superficial benefits being quite small. | | Except that the cost of going to school is expensive. Even if | schools are free for you, it is paid by tax money. We should | always aspire to teach useful subjects with decent ROIS in | schools. | jrumbut wrote: | I would say that you don't really master the most advanced | topic you learn. | | Attempting algebra is how you solify your knowledge of | arithmetic, attempting calculus is how you learn algebra and | finally master arithmetic. | allturtles wrote: | > Lastly I note that it's mostly math class that gets asked | this "what's the point" question. | | I think it tends to come up as a way of resisting something | hard and unpleasant, and math tends to be the subject that most | often feels hard and unpleasant to a plurality of young people. | Of course most of us, if we had been freed from HS math as | teenagers and left to our own devices, would not have gone off | to do something really useful. We would have instead spent that | time on something far more useless, like browsing HN. :-) | eastbound wrote: | Also, we would be gullible to whatever new trend is invented | by the people who do master those topics. I have interns | upset because I don't want to pay them in bitcoins or give | them shares in the company, while we're quietly churning 1m$ | ARR with just two engineers and myself (and others are doing | orders of magnitude better). The same interns getting tired | after 3 lines of documentation and suggesting that every | documentation page should be a video, generated by those | american SAAS for a hefty price. They are basically | illiterate trying to cover their lack of skills. | | The divide between those who use and those who get used is | getting wider. And I don't appreciate belonging to the first | group, knowing how little my wisdom is. | kcexn wrote: | I think math feels hard and unpleasant to most students | because the way it is taught is often extremely outdated. | | In primary school for example, we learn maths by memorising | times tables and solving thousands of basic arithmetic | problems. This was important in a time before calculators as | being able to compute functions is a skill that students | might need. | | Today though, arithmetic should be taught, not because it | might be useful, but because from arithmetic we can discover | interesting properties about numbers themselves. I think | maths would have been more interesting if you showed students | how properties of pure numbers have this nice association | with any set of real world objects that can be ordered. | chinchilla2020 wrote: | There are also some counterpoints to it. | | I still cannot see a value in studying classical literature. At | least not one that does not have 1000 better tradeoffs for | other subjects. | | There are also aspects of studying that can 'nerdify' the brain | and make you weaker at interpersonal skills. There are very few | CEOs, influencers, actors, and musicians that are good at math. | In fact, I think the artistic/athletic pathways in life can be | damaged by beginning to condition someone for office work. | JackFr wrote: | > I still cannot see a value in studying classical | literature. | | And that is the real tragedy of modern education. | adhesive_wombat wrote: | Reminds me of a sci-fi short story where the military | leaders against an alien (?) invasion keep demanding | "harder and sharper" human tools for the war. Finally they | need a poet and find they don't have any any more.[1] | | Though I think that the way classical literature is taught | is probably enough to sicken all but the most die-hard | readers. Endless dissection of things on a word-by-word | basis. Shakespeare (say) wasn't a godlike superhuman | imbuing every single word with dozens of layers of meaning. | Sometimes it's just a fart joke. | | Exactly the same as maths teachers drilling integration | rules to death and having everyone conclude, not | unreasonably, "this is pointless bullshit". Or history | teachers listing dates and names. | | [1]: edit: not aliens, and it's by Alfred Bester: https://a | rchive.org/details/New_Worlds_029v10_1954-11/page/n... | CodeSgt wrote: | You're welcome to explain why you disagree with the OP and | what true value can, in your view, be derived from studying | classical literature. | | I likely agree with you, but if you're just going to make a | vaguely disparaging statement in the negative without | elaborating or contributing to the discussion then you | really might as well not comment at all. | heavyset_go wrote: | You'll better understand contemporary media and culture by | being familiar with the foundations they're built upon. Much | of modern media are either nods or homages to, or direct | knockoffs of, classics. Creators weave allusions to other | works in their own work all of the time, and you won't pick | up on or appreciate them without familiarity with what | they're alluding to. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-10-04 23:00 UTC)