NO NO NO, math is not whatsoever about "accepting." Math is 101% about questioning and learning the logic behind the theorems. As I see it (and I'd say that I know a good amount more than most people do), and as I know it, math is 200% logical (unless you start studying advanced set theory and the foundations of math — things get real weird real fast. It is still very logical then, too). Math is applied logic, rhetoric, and argumentation. Math is not just learning to memorize formulae and use them to "find x." What you study in elementary through highschool is simply the byproduct of thousands of years of proofs and logic. I'm sad to see that you changed your (proper) approach to math and adopted this new mindset (which, sadly, 99.9% of people have ;-; )Math is about accepting. I did not understand that as a kid. I thought it was supposed to be logical, that it would somehow make sense, hence the frustration when I always got to the conclusion that it didn't. So I was really bad at math simply because I had the wrong attitude. Instead I excelled in language-based classes and history, being the absolute worst among my peers at math. But when I got older, I realized that math is not so much about questioning, but about accepting that it is what it is. And that was when I realized the beauty of math.
That teacher needs to loose their job. Math is so beautiful, and people can understand it if they're shown it properly and think about it correctly. The square root of -1 is only "imaginary" in name. At the time of discovery it had a very simple purpose: find solutions to basic equations like x^2+1=0. And at the time people discovered it, it was called "imaginary" because the did not think that it existed. But then people started studying the number and found out that such "complex numbers" (numbers of the form a+bi, where a and b are real numbers, and i is the square root of negative one) lead to BEAUTIFUL and very interesting things (look up the Mandelbrot set if you want an example :3). A beautiful equation involving "imaginary numbers" is e^(i*pi)=-1. Just, wow! Now, in reality, these "imaginary numbers" aren't so imaginary. They show up almost always in physics and engineering. The engineers who use them the most are electrical engineers. Don't ever let a teacher discourage you from pursuing math!When it comes to daily math--figuring out tips, dividing a bill, tax percentages, etc.--I'm a whiz. I never struggled with math until college algebra. i is the square root of -1, which is an imaginary number, and it was the unravelling of my confidence in math. I still don't understand it. In high school, after raising my hand for the tenth time to say I didn't understand, my teacher actually said to me, "You're never going to get it, so you need to just give up." That teacher was such a great motivator.
That teacher needs to loose their job. Math is so beautiful, and people can understand it if they're shown it properly and think about it correctly. The square root of -1 is only "imaginary" in name. At the time of discovery it had a very simple purpose: find solutions to basic equations like x^2+1=0. And at the time people discovered it, it was called "imaginary" because the did not think that it existed. But then people started studying the number and found out that such "complex numbers" (numbers of the form a+bi, where a and b are real numbers, and i is the square root of negative one) lead to BEAUTIFUL and very interesting things (look up the Mandelbrot set if you want an example :3). A beautiful equation involving "imaginary numbers" is e^(i*pi)=-1. Just, wow! Now, in reality, these "imaginary numbers" aren't so imaginary. They show up almost always in physics and engineering. The engineers who use them the most are electrical engineers. Don't ever let a teacher discourage you from pursuing math!
-Kanye69
If you have any questions about e or ln, you can pm me. In actuality, e and ln are constructions which are best explained in a calculus course — not precalculus. When explained to precalculus students, the teachers aren't even able to fully explain or define themI just took a couple of math classes. One was integral calculus. It was pretty neat, and it was exciting anytime I'd figure out something about it that I'd gotten wrong or just not gotten. I had a few holes in my mathematical background that affected my understanding, though. One of them is e. I'm not clear on what logs and e are about, and I never did get around to going back to a pre-calculus text (or trig text, or wherever an explanation of logs would be found, including online sources) and getting to a clear understanding of it. I did learn some methods of integrating functions that involve e and ln, but that doesn't mean I knew what I was doing. I should have just figured everything out / looked those things up and clarified them in my mind as they came up, instead of keeping on putting them off and moving onto the next thing. I did the latter, and I feel like I have a B or C understanding of the subject, when I could have had an A+ understanding with a little more diligence. Math can be fun, but there's a saying that the physical science professors used to say, back when I was young. "It's just mathematical masturbation at this point." I've never been particularly inspired by the idea or practice of mathematics. It has its utility, and I've always admired the perspective that says that mathematics is beautiful. I tried to relate to that perspective when I was young. For better or worse, it doesn't move me very much.
If you have any questions about e or ln, you can pm me. In actuality, e and ln are constructions which are best explained in a calculus course — not precalculus. When explained to precalculus students, the teachers aren't even able to fully explain or define them
-Kanye69
I learned about e and ln in my second year algebra course in high school. They're tough. I'd have to brush up on them, but I'm fairly certain there's a rhyme and reason to them. What that is, I can't remember.Interesting. I never took pre-calculus, and I'd assumed they were something I'd missed from that. Maybe the reason I missed them was that I wasn't paying attention in 1st term calculus back when I took it. Thanks for the offer. I'm sure I can find explanations about them online or in a library book.
The only part of math I can't appreciate is geometric proofs. I couldn't stand writing them in high school.