Jan Coffey wrote:
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Really. What's the difference between your visualization and my memory? Are you saying your memory is so poor that you can't remember 1+1=2, you have to "visualize" it? Can you remember phone #s, and addresses?
Jan Coffey wrote:
to be able to do this.I never memorized anything by rote and I always did lousy in school but has always been very good at taking standardized tests. Why? The questions can be analyzed and wrong answers eliminated logically.You have to have a lot memorized (even if it is not -as I said- by rote)
But you have to memorize math too - you don't just figure things out every time you do a problem do you?
Actualy yes, I do.
Unless you use your fingers every time you add, you have memorized basic addition.
No, I do it every time. And no, I don't need my fingers to do it. I can just
see it. Not that it is a vision, it's an abstraction, I process it every
time.
Even if I did use my fingers I could count to 1023 on them anyway. :)8^)
No I got bored long before I figured anything out. 8^Do you figure out pi every time you need to use it?
No I do have pi "memorized" to 3 digits, but when is that suficient? It's one of those things I use a computer for. Why waste your brain on remembering something if you can look it up in the same amount of time? Knowing why pi is pi is what is really importat anyway.
Commutative, distributive and associative principals? Is everything in math _easy_ to figure out?
Yes, once you understand the idea it is easy to figure out.
Most of these ideas are things we figure out long before we are tought them anyway. Being tought them just shows us nuances we were never chalanged to dicover...and lables, and in learning them we are chalanged to understand the reprocusions, the next level.
Have you ever worked a rubix cube? You did right, you got the solutions and
you applied them like program.
Things are named in counterintuitive ways yes.No, thing behave in counterintuitive ways. I remember being flummoxed by thermodynamics in chemistry - as was the rest of the class (but I don't remember why)
Or perhaps they are counterintuitive.And there are areas which seem...odd...seem not to quite fit, to not quite be right. I allways assume these are becouse we are working with impricise models. But sometimes maybe theyare just odd due to some incorect predjudice one must overcome.
Remembering is different than memorizing? Must be one of those language tricks.
Remembering the outcome of an experiement, or gaining an understanding of a system which you can then recal are differnt than memorization.
Besides weThere is no structure? Structure is no there? No structure is there? No is there structure? There no is structure? etc.
can use tools to store much of this information. The kind of inforation you
are talking about now has structure. It fits into the abstract, and therefore
has nodes on which the information can hang. English is direct, brutal, flat,
there are no mappings, no associations, no structure.
Now that I can agree on. But you talk in absolutes as if everyone was your we. They aren't, but AFAIC, the more we's the better. 8^)And though math may be governed by stricter rules, we use language much more frequently and thus memorize through familiarization.
Well, your "we" might, but my "we" doesn't.
Doug
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
