The Art of Mathematics

This was worth a chuckle. I recall taking pre-calculus/calculus in high school from a particularly passionate teacher. He really enjoyed his job and I felt like I got a greater appreciation for mathematics from his teaching. He did live graphing of equations with a then-novel overhead-transparency peripheral display for his computer. He included lots of practical engineering applications. After reflecting on this article I wonder if he were unconstrained in the curriculum whether he would've been yet more inspiring still.

"if riding a bike was taught at school, no one would know how to do"

People naturally learn things at the right dose and context. Music is a huge pleasure and desire. And music school doesn't really teach you music, it barely put you on rails and keep you digging in music for 5+ years (which makes one learn anything). They don't teach you what groove/swing/funk means (it's not even described except with informal tags).

I had the same sense about maths. You go through the motion, but the actual thinking process, the reasoning behind even ~obvious notions like variable, equality, finite domains .. You have to read books about history to know that.

If I remember correctly, this is much more common with more elementary math books which are presumably trying to be more informal and 'user friendly'. You might seek out a book pitched at a more advanced level which will be much more formal (and pedantic) if that is the kind of thing that's bothering you.

Also many books will have an 'index of notation' inserted at either the beginning or the end, so make sure to look for it - if it's there, the author might assume you know the convention and won't necessarily define everything in the exposition.

-----

One note about abstraction in mathematics vs computer programming. When model something in a program, you are often modeling a particular thing, or kind of thing, so it makes sense to give it a descriptive name. Contrast that with, say, a number: I have a small or medium or large pile of apples. I make the adjective more precise and say I have a 3 or 6 or 25 -pile of apples. Then i notice there's nothing special about apples, I can do the same thing for piles of rocks or tea bags. And I can do the same thing for non-piles, like links in a fence, or countries, or more abstract things like counting permutations or combinations or discrete transformations of whatever you can imagine.

The point being: in mathematics you are not working with a particular kind of thing, you are noticing patterns satisfied by many very very different kinds of things (hence the lack of descriptive names - there is often not much to describe). You stop asking questions about what it is, and learn to characterize things entirely by the logical properties they satisfy. Its a different thought process than what you might be accustomed to.

My first year linear algebra textbook is nothing like this. On page 1 (the very first page after the Roman numeral pages including the title page, table of contents, and forward) is a bright yellow box defining the set R^n.

The remainder of the book is chock full of these definition boxes. Additionally, there are blue boxes for remarks, green boxes for examples, mauve boxes for theorems, and red boxes for exercises.

It's really that straightforward. You could probably skip all of the prose text and just use these boxes to learn what you need to get through the exercises and pass the course. Other math texts I've read may not have this nice colour scheme, but they're still pretty easy to follow.

The exercises, on the other hand, will challenge you to think creatively and demand that you learn how to apply the definitions and theorems properly in your proofs.

Within electrical engineering the design process is 1. pen/paper + math 2. simulation 3. building/testing. You learn quickly that jumping straight to 3, or even 2, is a /bad/ idea. This is because in order to isolate where the problem lies, you need to know what is expected. A similar process is used within any engineering discipline.

There is a such a thing as software engineering, where in the interest of safety the software system is documented completely. But in the vast majority of case, I hold the outre opinion that programming cannot in good conscience be considered engineering.

In conclusion: If you are working in engineering or applying math, you should learn math properly, and shouldn't treat it as a black box.

As is, this realization is completely useless since I don't really have any useful way to apply it, but it's a fun way of looking at slugs.

And while we're at it, we can also see that there is a reduction of dimension in the process of hashing but that it is not a projection since the hash of a hash generally isn't itself.

I'm almost sure about what I just said (I'm not a mathematician), but please correct me if I'm wrong !

No. this is neo-platonic bullshit. In this context is here must be a type-error. What could be imagined in not what really is - reality is one, interpretations are infinite. Stock Market is the result of human (and computer) actions - the result of actions of all institutional participants. This is what it is.

A model could be created to be superimposed on these partially-observable stochastic processes (and, boy, there is no shortage of these, and no one is right, of course) but it will be only a model, usefulness and applicability of which depends upon who is using it and for what means (usually, bullshitting).

Geometry is closer to "what is" because it abstracts out "concrete" patterns this universe is able to produce (and lots of imaginary bullshit, of course).

Let me stress is a gain - maths are generalized and abstracted out patterns of what is, plus abstract sectarian bullshit. Reality comes first, (it is a closure) interpretations and abstractions are bound by it.