When writing a proof, I look at the assumptions and try to figure out what they imply. I then look at the conjecture and figure out what would imply it. I try to step inward from either end until I figure out what the linchpin of the proof will be (or the crux as ygolo said). Once I've done that, I pick a method, work from assumptions to linchpin, and then the rest sort of topples into place (hopefully). It's the first parts that are difficult. Sometimes I play a bit with the assumptions, but I try to keep it abstract and avoid playing with specific cases.
User Tag List
Thread: MBTIc Math thread

02042008, 11:02 AM #11"Having is not such a pleasing thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true." Spock
MBTI: INTP
Enneagram: 5w6  SP/SX
Oldham: Solitary, Idiosyncratic

02042008, 05:39 PM #12
Generally when I prove something first I have to believe it is true (working examples and whatnot). Once I convince myself then I try to understand what the statement is saying as completely and simply as possible. I think of the first step and the last step, and then the middle steps tend to come to me all at once (or at least in large chunks).
My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14  August 14)
http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

02052008, 03:07 AM #13
How could I neglect linear algebra?
I am absolutely fascinated by Singular Value Decomposition.
Eigenvalue decomposition was interesting, but nothing compared to the power and universality of the SVD.
It is absolutely vital for signal processing and information recovery.
Any favorite theorems in particular, for analysis, topology, or various other branches of math? LaGrange's Theorem (which Urchin mentioned) is my favorite group theory theorem.
StoneWeierstrass theorem may be my favorite result from analysis, but I haven't studied enough to have a deep understanding of it.
I suppose, by now, you can tell I am more an applied math type.
I haven't studied enough topology to pick a favorite but Baire category theorem fascinates me, though I have close to zero understanding of why that is true.
nemo, do you have any clear picture/understanding of StoneWeierstrass or the Baire Category theorems?
Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
Robot Fusion
"As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
"[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
"[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

02062008, 11:48 AM #14
This is part of the magic of my childhood. I know it's long, but I promise that it's worth watching.
"Having is not such a pleasing thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true." Spock
MBTI: INTP
Enneagram: 5w6  SP/SX
Oldham: Solitary, Idiosyncratic

02062008, 12:52 PM #15
Thanks for sharing, it is nice.
I like math, but it is always less interesting and engaging to me during the actual, stepbystep functional analysis. (Though I should clarify that I haven't played around with this spherewarping, topology stuff yet) It's probably because the numbers in any given exercise all exist in a vacuum, and do not really have a point beyond the exercise itself (wonders of high school, I guess). I'm looking forward to a time where they have some other, more tangible significance.
And before anyone asks, yeah, I'm not perfect at maths, though I get by. Blame this disinterest!Last edited by Nadir; 02062008 at 01:08 PM. Reason: Some clarifications
Not really.

02072008, 02:49 AM #16
Here's a question. I couldn't think of any place more appropriate than here.
I'm not sure of the answer (partly why I'm asking here) but I think I know.
If you can use the numbers 1 2 and 3 in any combination you want, and you're allowed to use any of the 3 as many times as you want, how many sets of three can you get?
I think it's just 3^3 = 27, but I'm not sure. I can't think right now.we fukin won boys

02072008, 11:07 AM #17
Does order matter? If so, it's 27. If not, it's 10. The way I did it was kind of a hack, because there are so few possibilities. I'm sure there's a better way to do it than simply counting them, but I'm not wellversed in probability, and this gets the job done. I guess you could make a tree diagram. That's kind of what I did in my head.
"Having is not such a pleasing thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true." Spock
MBTI: INTP
Enneagram: 5w6  SP/SX
Oldham: Solitary, Idiosyncratic

02072008, 02:09 PM #18
Order does not matter. It can be 123, or 333 or 312 or 223... doesn't matter. You can use any of the three numbers as many times as you want to create as many sets of 3 as possible.
The way I did it was, I thought, to create an actual cube.
Bottom later would look like this
Code:111 222 333
Code:321 321 321
Code:123 312 231
I'll see if I can actually put together a cube like this (in paint or IRL or something) and see if it works. Seems like it would 'cause there are 3 variables.we fukin won boys

02072008, 02:13 PM #19
Hmm.... I'm thinking that's not right now. I'm sure it can be turned into a cube, but I don't think that the model I gave is any good.
we fukin won boys

02072008, 03:51 PM #20
If I'm reading you correctly, it is a matter of combinatorics. I may have interpreted you incorrectly but I agree with Urchin.
Think of this way, you have 3 options for a shirt (first slot), 3 options for pants (second slot), and three options for a tie (third slot).
You have three independent choices and three things to choose from for each choice. So yes, it is 3^3.
But the orderindependent version can be thought to be equivalent to the following:
You have a giant(infinite) vat of pingpong balls numbered 1 to 3, and choose 3 ping pong balls from there. You subsequently forgot which order you chose them. How many distinguishable possibilities are there?
It is 10, like Urchin mentioned, but how do you do it more generally? With choosing r balls from n types of balls? That is an interesting question, imo.
The short answer is it is C(n+r1,r), where C is the choose function.
I tried typing the "star" and "bar" explanation but I didn't like the formating.
So, here is a link.
Nocapszy, if you like these types of questions you'll like Discrete Math (which is the mathematics behind computer science).
The following source has explanations of the basics.
Discrete Math Project  Permutations with Repetition
Also note, that these basics come in four flavors:
1)permutations without replacement
2)combinations without replacement
3)permutations with replacement
4)combinations with replacement
You'll find that transforming your counting problem into one of these is the most likely source of answers. That along with generating functions will fulfill most people's combinatorics type questions.
Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
Robot Fusion
"As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
"[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
"[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield
Similar Threads

The EveryMemberOfMBTIc Appreciation Thread
By spirilis in forum The Fluff ZoneReplies: 18Last Post: 10182008, 10:21 PM 
The EveryoneWho'sNotaMemberofMBTIc Appreciation Thread
By ThatsWhatHeSaid in forum The Fluff ZoneReplies: 5Last Post: 10172008, 02:35 PM 
MBTIc Appreciation Thread
By ThatsWhatHeSaid in forum The Fluff ZoneReplies: 49Last Post: 10162008, 02:19 PM