[NF] Any NFs Talented at Math?

[Chloe]

hm.. confused now totally. :/

it's Lymes disease.

well maybe they changed one letter.

(you're also on European time? o god! boy!)

 

[entropie]

Intresting to know tho that its not called "Limes" in different languages

yea 15 past 8 am ROCK ON

 

[Chloe]

yea 15 past 8 am ROCK ON

yeah. we are the european nutties. here's also 8:17. :ninya:

 

[lunalum]

Thats not called limit thats the limes named after the roman river ! Do you Americans have to imperialize anything ?

So silly of me, sorry. I already told you I wasn't that great at this stuff

 

[phoenix13]

My best friend is an INFP (there's no question about it... we've been bffs since 2nd grade, and I assure you, she's 100% INFP). She got a perfect score on the math section of the SATs and GREs, scored the highest possible score in the AP calculus and physics tests, and is currently working on a PhD in physical chemistry at Stanford (a math-heavy discipline).

I see proficiency with numbers as a talent, something unrelated to personality type. What you do with that talent, however, is.

 

[Chloe]

I see proficiency with numbers as a talent, something unrelated to personality type. What you do with that talent, however, is.

yeah.. but one would expect (maybe) that person has developed the best talents / skills that has biggest preferences for. because no mather the talent you need to practice skill, especially math...
ex. i remember spending very much time in first 6-7 years (so from 3-4-7 what i remember) thinking about math stuff, i was imagining some riddles in my head, counting constantly something, and mostly doing stuff like YES, NO, IF -THEN, OR.. (basics of programing)... but I was def NF child despite that.
I wanna say I doubt I'd develop talent without spending time thinking like that wshile so young when brain still develops and it's plastic... so maybe there's inborn genetical predisposition for math talent - ex. better plasticy of brain to make better synapses in that brain areas... but personality type is thought to be inborn too... all in all it's more logical that one will develop skills that are linked to prefered function. but then again there's Ne which is much bigger factor in math than T.

 

[phoenix13]

all in all it's more logical that one will develop skills that are linked to prefered function. but then again there's Ne which is much bigger factor in math than T.

I'm saying it isn't linked to prefered cognitive function. And that last sentence is absurd.

 

[Wild horses]

Maths has always been a strong point for me, however, I wouldn't really see that as a surprise, whilst I would expect NTs to be strong at logic NFs are known to excel at abstract thought which moves Maths from a science to an art...

 

[Clonester]

Yes, I won a number of math awards in school and was in the enrichment/gifted math programs. I'm super fast at calculations.

The ENFP part of it is I loved the challenge of solving a math problem before everyone else. If I wasn't faster than someone else I would force myself to get better. I love challenges otherwise I can get bored with things.

 

[Chloe]

yep, to me also the challenge was big part of it, i like to compete, and win heh.
ha ha, look, it's even mentioned in ENFP profile : Amazingly, some ENFPs are adept at exacting disciplines such as mathematics.

function. And that last sentence is absurd.

If you mean that absurd is part about Ne being bigger factor than T; I strongly disagree.
Ne is for ideas, T is only to put on paper what you connected with Ne, and to sellect which of it leads somewhere.

 

[GirlFromMars]

I seriously suck at Maths! It's always been my weakest subject. My strongest subjects were English, Drama, Child Studies.

 

[LunaIndigo]

Oh God, I suck at math.

But I'm great at Sudoku.

 

[One Day]

I can learn certain math subjects quickly if I'm forced to learn it. Otherwise it's booooring. Not really my subject.

 

[sleuthiness]

I loved it, calculus included. English was my minor in college though.

 

[ygolo]

Aha, I found the problem, I think, that you mentioned on my visitor board.

prove that for ANY (real) positive numbers a,b,c and any not-negative number p this is true:

Here is my solution:

 

[Chloe]

wow great!
i will read it later, but I already see you did it the sa way i did - with grouping in beginning and then switching a*p,b*p,c*p, with b*p.
but with this you prove it's only true in cases when a,b,c is bigger than 1 ?

 

[LostInNerSpace]

ENFPs do have the capacity to do well with math. That's not going to transform me into one. When I think ENFP, I think dog. I like dogs. Wouldn't want to be one.

 

[ygolo]

wow great!
i will read it later, but I already see you did it the sa way i did - with grouping in beginning and then switching a*p,b*p,c*p, with b*p.
but with this you prove it's only true in cases when a,b,c is bigger than 1 ?

I don't think the proof suffers from that limitation. I believe it works for all positive a,b,and c.

The trick is to impose on order on a,b, and c without loss of generality. At that point, the inequality is true.

After that using the fact that the sum of squares of real numbers has to be non-negative provides the rest of what is needed.

 

[LunaIndigo]

Aha, I found the problem, I think, that you mentioned on my visitor board.



Here is my solution:

My brain just exploded...excuse me while I clean it up...

 

[Chloe]

I don't think the proof suffers from that limitation. I believe it works for all positive a,b,and c.

The trick is to impose on order on a,b, and c without loss of generality. At that point, the inequality is true.

After that using the fact that the sum of squares of real numbers has to be non-negative provides the rest of what is needed.

yep, i read it now, it's true.
that prove was 2003 in National competition in math here in Croatia for 1st year High School. i did it the same as you did until
1 b*p[(a2 -bc) + (b2-ac) + (c2-ab)] >= 0
then i've put
2 (a-b)*2= a2-2ab+b2 >= 0
3 (b-c)*2= b2-2bc+c2 >= 0
4 (c-b)*2= c2-2bc+b2 >= 0
since 2+3+4
is (2a2-2bc)+(2b2-2ac)+(2c2-2ab)>=0 which makes 1 true, after you divide it with 2 etc.

i like it because you dont have to have any real knowledge to do it, besides basic calculus. inequalities were always most interesting thing in math to me.