- Thread starter
- Admin
- #1

- Jan 26, 2012

- 4,191

Thought this Tim Gowers post was quite interesting.

- Thread starter Ackbach
- Start date

- Thread starter
- Admin
- #1

- Jan 26, 2012

- 4,191

Thought this Tim Gowers post was quite interesting.

- Admin
- #2

- Feb 29, 2012

- 342

This applied to Calculus I only though. Multivariable Calculus, or Calculus II, is as Tim described. A few results were proved in the course but most were "accept and do it". If it serves as any excuse, multivariable calculus is quite hard and the conceptual basis requires so much of many different areas, such as multivariable analysis, topology and geometry.

Differential Equations, or Calculus III, is the embodiment of the text. Recipes for all basic differential equations, huge lists where all you have to do is apply the method again and again to get it imprinted on your brain (until immediately after the test, obviously).

I don't have much time now to continue this post, I'll see to it when I'm back. However it'd be very interesting if others shared their experience in this respect.

Cheers!

- Thread starter
- Admin
- #4

- Jan 26, 2012

- 4,191

I suppose you can go into existence and uniqueness theorems, and that's good and you should do that. But the fact is that there is no method of solving an arbitrary ODE, much less an arbitrary PDE. If there was, someone would have gotten the $1M prize from the Clay Institute for solving the Navier-Stokes equations. And we'd have heard about it.

The consolation of DE's is the application. No area of mathematics is more applied than DE's, because so many physical laws, once you've applied them in a particular circumstance, come out as a DE.

- Jan 26, 2012

- 890

You point to the comments, which are quite interesting in themselves, but the blog post itself is also rather interesting, demonstrating something of the nature of the small group tutorial system practiced at some of our better institutions.Thought this Tim Gowers post was quite interesting.

Tim's acount is very much like how many of us would like (and try) to conduct the help we give here. But it is also obvious that many students do not like it and prefer to have a list of "stuff" to memorise. This is not new, in the mid 80's I had an engineer working for me who complained (I don't recall to whom) that they were being asked to do stuff that was not in their degree course, notes or text books (I think we transfered them to the trials group where original though was not required).

(To balance the books somewhat I also had a good maths grad working for me who was so interested in understanding everything we were doing they never actually finished any work).

CB

- Jan 26, 2012

- 890

You point to the comments, which are quite interesting in themselves, but the blog post itself is also rather interesting, demonstrating something of the nature of the small group tutorial system practiced at some of our better institutions.

Tim's acount is very much like how many of us would like (and try) to conduct the help we give here. But it is also obvious that many students do not like it and prefer to have a list of "stuff" to memorise. This is not new, in the mid 80's I had an engineer working for me who complained (I don't recall to whom) that they were being asked to do stuff that was not in their degree course, notes or text books (I think we transfered them to the trials group where original though was not required).

(To balance the books somewhat I also had a good maths grad working for me who was so interested in understanding everything we were doing they never actually finished any work).

CB

I know it is a breech of etiquet to reply to ones own post, but sometimes one must because of the way memory works.

1. When I was doing A-levels back in the late 60's, the only course on which it was intimated that you were required to think for yourself was Eng-Lit. (though we were taught derivatives using difference quotients etc)

2. A-level maths was routine and uninteresting, only when I got to university and saw real maths did it become interesting (as in non-trivial). (note: I was intending to do theoretical physics and was enrolled for joint maths and physics. I dropped physics after the first year because it was just not interesting enough - or rather not as interesting as real mathematics)

CB

- Feb 29, 2012

- 342

I've come to terms with DEs because I realized how much trouble they are. The problem is not understanding that it is incredibly hard to solve any given DE, but rather that there isbrilliant person(I mean that! Some of these methods are incredibly complicated and would have required an immense imagination to invent them.) dreamed up the method a long time ago. I'll give DE's this: it's not hard to check if a given solution solves the original DE.

I suppose you can go into existence and uniqueness theorems, and that's good and you should do that. But the fact is that there is no method of solving an arbitrary ODE, much less an arbitrary PDE. If there was, someone would have gotten the $1M prize from the Clay Institute for solving the Navier-Stokes equations. And we'd have heard about it.

The consolation of DE's is the application. No area of mathematics is more applied than DE's, because so many physical laws, once you've applied them in a particular circumstance, come out as a DE.

More than also motivating the study of solutions to DEs, I find the most intriguing part of this area is

The balance of which you speak is hard to achieve, but immensely satisfying in my humble opinion. If you are completely careless about how things in your surroundings work, you lack the minimum curiosity necessary to advance past natural limitations that will be placed around. If you try to fully understand everything you will never take any steps, because a certain degree of acceptance is required to move forward. (This may have felt tautological, but nevertheless I decided to comment.)You point to the comments, which are quite interesting in themselves, but the blog post itself is also rather interesting, demonstrating something of the nature of the small group tutorial system practiced at some of our better institutions.

Tim's acount is very much like how many of us would like (and try) to conduct the help we give here. But it is also obvious that many students do not like it and prefer to have a list of "stuff" to memorise. This is not new, in the mid 80's I had an engineer working for me who complained (I don't recall to whom) that they were being asked to do stuff that was not in their degree course, notes or text books (I think we transfered them to the trials group where original though was not required).

(To balance the books somewhat I also had a good maths grad working for me who was so interested in understanding everything we were doing they never actually finished any work).

CB

As you've said it yourself, it is not new. I strongly believe the reason that such mindset exists is precisely because you can keep the "is-this-going-to-be-on-the-test-or-not", getting "good" grades with poor comprehension of the material. People will not question your knowledge, but rather the numbers/letters assigned to it. They would rather trust your A than test if you actually earned it.

Obviously I have no authority, but your contributions are most fruitful. By all means, do breech! I am not familiar with this A-level math courses you have all spoken of, we don't have that here in Brazil (as far as I know). Your situation is not at all uncommon: I had considered theoretical physics for sometime before I chose mathematics. Upon entering university, I wasn't disappointed about my decision: the basic physics courses were horrible, to say the least. Consequently, I despised physics for a while until my taste came back, together with the understanding that the subject is intrinsically beautiful, disregarding the awful institute that carries the burden of teaching said courses.I know it is a breech of etiquet to reply to ones own post, but sometimes one must because of the way memory works.

1. When I was doing A-levels back in the late 60's, the only course on which it was intimated that you were required to think for yourself was Eng-Lit. (though we were taught derivatives using difference quotients etc)

2. A-level maths was routine and uninteresting, only when I got to university and saw real maths did it become interesting (as in non-trivial). (note: I was intending to do theoretical physics and was enrolled for joint maths and physics. I dropped physics after the first year because it was just not interesting enough - or rather not as interesting as real mathematics)

CB

- Admin
- #8

- Jan 26, 2012

- 4,041

Only thing I really have to add is that I think the main importance of a slower approach is that teachers can push for students to view the topics through an analytical approach at an earlier point in their math development. Some form on analysis can be introduced in basic algebra even but in my experience the idea of proof or analysis isn't focused on in the US system until finishing the calculus series. For me that was in linear algebra but it might be different for others.

Single variable calculus doesn't require knowledge of geometry or algebra that hasn't been seen before so it's definitely both possible and feasible to derive formulas, focus on concepts over memorization, etc. As Fantini said though the geometry of multivariable calculus jumps a bunch of levels and I don't know if spending a lot of time in the theory of the Jacobian for example (forgive me if there is a better example) becomes worth it at the time in the timeline of one semester. So perhaps there becomes a time when one can say they appreciate that someone else proved this or that but knowing the proof backwards and forwards isn't necessary. That might be true for some and never true for others but that point should certainly be beyond single variable calculus.

Somewhere between being able to prove everything and memorizing everything is where different people need to be, but we are definitely on the latter side right now in the US and it's a serious problem.

- Jul 7, 2012

- 13

- Admin
- #10

- Jan 26, 2012

- 4,041

If you are solidly ahead of the material you study in math class then I would talk to your teacher about it. Demonstrate that you're really interested in math and already know these topics so would like to continue moving forward at an accelerated pace. At my high school the math nerds studied in a supply closet by themselves but not all teachers would be ok with that. Maybe you can ask for different homework and tests. Math teachers usually love a student who loves math at your age.

- Jul 7, 2012

- 13

My math teacher doesn't like me.

- Feb 29, 2012

- 342

- Thread starter
- Admin
- #13

- Jan 26, 2012

- 4,191

One important point: the teacher has to love math, and pass that love on to the kids.

Then you're teaching "with the grain", and I think the results would be tremendous. This approach, I think, answers the vast majority of the criticisms I hear, including:

1. Kids these days can't add! (Solved in the first stage.)

2. Kids these days can't solve problems! (Solved in the third stage.)

3. Kids these days can't follow an argument! (Solved in the second stage.) Also heard as, "Kids these days can't prove anything!"

4. Kids these days hate math! (Solved by all three stages being "with the grain", and taught by a teacher who loves math and loves the students.)