Worth calling out the key observation: it takes practice, and lots of it (for most people, anyway) to get good at math. Just reading about it does zilch.
Worth calling out the key observation: it takes practice, and lots of it (for most people, anyway) to get good at math. Just reading about it does zilch.
If you want to learn fast, you need a balance of both that works for you. Some people will spend months grinding hard problems on their own in a single chapter to make sure they really understand. Some people will read too fast and have to go back because they don't have solid foundations, and only thought they understood.
Reading is about as important as doing exercises. You're not going to reinvent all of math on your own. You get insights from both.
Some intuition can be conveyed through text, or geometry and visualization. A good explanation can make things click.
I think you may be right about your own experience, that you get most of your intuition from exercises, but I'm confident this varies. Some people get much more than zilch from a good text, in addition to doing exercises.
The real world is harder than a classroom, but we don't have to make classroom learning as hard as research. It's okay to start with help and increase the difficulty gradually. You don't have to do everything on your own!
The school was then always disappointed by by their performance in mathematics competitions. After all, the other teams were "wasting" their times unimportant reading about algebra, geometry, and combinatorics while our team was "practicing" math with hours of manual long division nightly.
The practice is certainly vital, but it's useless without a good text to guide you. Unless you're lucky and grab a good one on the first go, you'll need to read a few texts to find the good one.
I'd say that reading is as important to learning mathematics as breathing. You'll be a lousy mathematician if you spend all your time focused on your breathing, but you'll be worse one if you skip breathing entirely.
BTW: I think time not doing exercises is just as important; it's when your mind tries to piece together the data. Coincidentally(?) time resting, after physically exercising, is when your muscles strengthen.
A downside is you lose the thread if you skip exercises (e.g. do alternate ones) - the exercises are an integrated whole. But it's a lot to do all of them.
I hadn't gotten the impression that these helped show why exactly the axioms were choosen - though could well be there and I just didn't see it.
EDIT: The exams at the end of high school can be considered standardized tests, but they are taken at your own school, graded by your own teacher and only verified by the national test organisation. They are not multiple-choice tests.
why not. Its not exactly rote learning like a parrot. You just learn tricks and patterns in problems. Tests usually have a limited amount of patterns.
OTOH, you are not supposed to solve every problem in the exam, so perhaps you can get the best grade even if you skip all the problems where there's no pattern to apply. In that case, that's a loop hole which the exam creators should plug.
Can you link me to finnish high school question that is asking for 'sketch a proof to a given (simple) lemma you've never proved before '
I agree that this cannot be rote learnt .
Fall 2023: "Prove that 2^12345678910 - 1 is divisible by 1023."
Spring 2022: "Using induction, show that the sum of the numbers on the line n of Pascal's triangle equals 2^n."
Here's the full exam from fall 2023: https://yle.fi/plus/abitreenit/2023/syksy/matematiikka_pitka...
That is indeed a tough proof to solve sight unseen. Any reason you say that students are seeing that question for the first time in the test. Seems like a famous questions, even chatgpt got the proof correctly .
The high school curriculum and the text books are not focused on proofs or famous questions. Further, the goal of the exam is to find out your position in the normal distribution of your peers' math skills. You are not supposed to be able to beat everyone else by rote learning (so if you can do it, it's quite a hack!).
I don't think ChatGPT is a good comparison, because it has obviously memorized much more than a human could, and a test to poke its strengths and weaknesses would look different.
Sometimes, you just know a thing or don't, and for me, spaced repetition cards helped a ton with the static things you just have to memorize (or derive). Knowing definitions is important—you're absolutely right that it's just one piece of the puzzle though.
Essentially we need to get fundamentals first.
Then apply the knowledge and get challenged (feedback loop) -> build a project, play in front of others, speak the language.
Improve - not by force, but by understanding (remembering something and understanding something are two different things).
Synthesise - learn about a topic in a different manner or try to find similar concepts in completely different context /
Use mentors to amplify the knowledge and get feedback quicker.
Immerse yourself in practicality (work in a field, live in a country etc.)
or like learning to write - you got to spend lots of time practicing and memorizing your letters before you can start getting to words and sentences and novels.
If you search long enough and look for older courses (before all of these online learning platforms like Canvas became popular), you can usually find lots of worked examples. There is no central location to find what you're looking for, but you should be able to find supporting resources.
Some like Hubbard and Hubbard's Vector Calculus come with a solutions manual.
Some like Knuth's Concrete Mathematics contain full solutions.
There's also whole genre of books like Schaum's Problem books and their Outlines which contain thousands of solved problems. And they're quite cheap.
For any given math subject X, you can probably search for an "X problem book".