Plus, unit record equipment was cool.
1. ... (mathematical topics at the beginning of history of which I am ignorant of)
2. pythagoras theorem
3. ...
4. euclid geometry
5. ...
6. algebra
7. ...
8. calculus
9. ...
10. set theory
11. ...
12. number theory
13. etc. etc. (you get the point)
Maybe there's already something that lays out topics like this. I haven't searched too hard.
If you're sensitive to that singular world view warping the learner's prospect, you could at each point explain similar ideas from other cultures that pre-date that chronology.
For example, once you've introduced calculus and helped a student understand it, you can then jump back and point out that ancient Egyptians seemed to have a take on it, explain it, ask the student to reason did they get there in the same way as the Western school of ideas did, is there an interesting insight to that way of thinking about the World?
Another ideas is how ideas evolved. We know Newton and Leibniz couldn't have had access to direct Egyptian sources (hieroglyphs were a lost language in their life times), but Greek ideas would have been rolling around in their heads.
Mathematics: From the Birth of Numbers, by Jan Gullberg
and
Mathematics: A Cultural Approach, by Morris Klein
https://bogart.openmathbooks.org/ctgd/ctgd.html
And more directly, a quick browse showed up a book called:
"Mathematical Notation: A Guide for Engineers and Scientists" which looks like it addresses your issue directly.
Starting in elementary school you slowly build up topics, mathematical intuition and notation more or less in unity. E.g. starting with whole numbers, plus and minus signs before multiplication, then fractions and decimal notation. By the end of high school you may have reached integrals and matrices to work with concepts from calculus and linear algebra…
It makes little sense to confront people with notation before the corresponding concepts are being taught. So it feels like you may have a different perspective on notation as a layperson that are no longer obvious to more advanced learners.
Although the math in the book is relatively basic I enjoyed it tremendously because it gives the historical development for everything and even describes the characters of different mathematicians, etc. The historical context helps so much with understanding.
Much better than how I was taught in my schooling.
This approach was to align with the Soviet philosophy of dialectical materialism, which claims that all things arise from a material need. Not sure I'm fully onboard with the philosophy as a whole, but Kolmogorov's book was really eye opening.
The only reason that "logarithm" sounds like advanced math is because it was so useful that mathematicians, well, used it. Since this terminology is just logarithms without saying the word, if it is more useful it, too, will probably be used by mathematicians, and then it will similarly come to sound like advanced math. So what's the point of running away from a name for what we're doing that fits with what it's actually called, if eventually we'll just have to make up a new, even less threatening name for it?
(I'd argue that "logarithm" is frightening less because it sounds like advanced math than because it's an unfamiliar and old-fashioned-sounding word. I'm not completely sure that "magnitude" avoids both these issues, but it's at least arguable that it suffers less from them.)
Magnitude is an existing and important concept in maths - it would be extremely confusing to just overload it to mean something else.
[1] eg the Beaufort scale for wind force
For other people, you need to swim in the original problem for a while to see the light.
On the other side, I don't think those who are involved in curriculum development are very skilled in the applications of mathematics. I am often reminded of an old FoxTrot comic where Jason calculated the area of a farmer's field using calculus.
I had brilliant teachers.
Napier's bones, were for adding exponents, hense multiplication. Brilliant and nessary for the development of the slide rule, and the foundation of modern engineering, until the pocket calculator.
Bouncing between the two is where the action is.
And units: if I had it all to do over, I would pore over the units sooner rather than later.
I was recently struggling to model a financial process and solved it with Units. Once I started talking about colors of money as units, it became much easier to reason about which operations were valid.
The history of mathmatical advancement is full of very grounded and practical motivations, and I don't believe that math can be separated from these motivations. That is because math itself is "just" a language for precise description, and it is made and used exactly to fit our descriptive needs.
Yes, there is the study of math for its own sake, seemingly detached from some practical concern. But even then, the relationships that comprise this study are still those that came about because we needed to describe something practical.
So I suppose my feeling is that, teaching math without a use case is like teaching english by only teaching sentence construction rules. It's not that there's nothing to glean from that, but it is very divorced from its real use.
I mean, imagine a programming course where students spend the whole first year studying OpenGL, and then in the second year they learn that those APIs they've been memorizing can be used to draw pictures :D
I think this is already enough context to root the mental effort deeper.
Take logs, add 2 + 3 = 5 and then raise it back to get 10^5.
Almost every student gets it right away, and then I tell them looking up things backwards in the power table is called taking a logarithm.
I really enjoyed this author's work, BTW. Just spent several hours reading the entire first five chapters or so. What an excellent refresher for high school math in general.
So we were taught logarithms as a tool first.
It gives the history / motivation behind logarithms and suddenly it became so much clearer to me. Pretty much multipling huge numbers by adding exponents , well I think I've understood that correctly?
I think why I'm so interested in programming and computing is because I fascinated by the history of it all. It somehow acts as a motivation to understand it.
He covers the inverse of the exponential, Henry Briggs' log tables and goes on to e^ix = cos x + i sin x
The audio is also available https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/flptapes.html
a * b = f(a + b) - (f(a) + f(b))
Normally, a sliderule at distance x has the value of log(x) written on it, which allows doing multiplications by moving along the sliderule, since log(ab) = log(a) + log(b).
Now imagine a sliderule onto which values of x^2/2 are written. This also allows you to multiply two numbers, because ab = (a+b)^2/2 - (a^2/2 + b^2/2).
We were told in an off-hand way that logs could be to any base, even ‘e’, but not to worry about that for a few years.
And logs are frankly more confusing than the other operations because more than anything else they feel like an algebraic expression in the form of an operation. Other operations intuitively feel like a process, whereas logs feel like more like a question.
Maybe that's just because I never learned them super well though, maybe they're not actually that inherently different ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> One of the anomalies in the history of mathematics is the fact that logarithms were discovered before exponents were in use.
One can treat the discovery of logarithms as the search for a computation tool to turn multiplication (which was difficult in the 17th century) into addition. There were previous approaches for simplifying multiplication dating back to antiquity (quarter square multiplication, prosthaphaeresis), and A Brief History of Logarithms by R. C. Pierce covers this, where it’s framed as establishing correspondences between geometric and and arithmetic sequences. Playing around with functions that could possibly fit the functional equation f(ab) = f(a) + f(b) is a good, if manual, way to convince oneself that such functions do exist and that this is the defining characteristic of the logarithm (and not just a convenient property). For example, log probability is central to information theory and thus many ML topics, and the fundamental reason is because Claude Shannon wanted a transformation on top of probability (self-information) that would turn the probability of multiple events into an addition — the aforementioned "f" is the transformation that fits this additive property (and a few others), hence log() everywhere.
Interestingly, the logarithm “algorithm” was considered quite groundbreaking at the time; Johannes Kepler, a primary beneficiary of the breakthrough, dedicated one of his books to Napier. R. C. Pierce wrote:
> Indeed, it has been postulated that logarithms literally lengthened the life spans of astronomers, who had formerly been sorely bent and often broken early by the masses of calculations their art required.
I had a slide rule in high school. It was more of a novelty item by that point in time, only one of my math teachers even knew what a slide rule was, but that didn't stop me from figuring out how it was used and how it works. It didn't take much to figure out that the sliding action was solving problems by addition, and the funky scales were logarithmic. In other words: it performed multiplication by adding logs.
That said, I did encounter references to its original applications in other places. I studied astronomy and had an interest in the history of computation.