I solved the first puzzle in the matter of minutes, yet just looking at the second one made me give up. It seems to me that there might be even more bifurcations, even within the difficulty level and similarity of presentation.
(the second term inthe equation, to me, resembles a description of loosely plated hair (of indefinite length), and in particular, of the non-spilled part; but how to describe the spilled part as a continued fraction? Sorry for the rant.)
I suspect that all that shows is that you aren’t used to the relevant bits of mathematics, and being confronted with unfamiliar and weird-looking notation intimidates you. There’s no shame in that, and it says basically nothing about your intelligence or your natural aptitude for mathematics.
(Remember that the Raven matrices are designed to have as little dependence on prior knowledge as possible; mathematical questions, almost by definition, are not.)
I agree with your overall response, but your note that “weird-looking notation intimidates you” kind of surprised me.
From my perspective, it’s not a question of intimidation so much as it is a recognition that the question is targeting a different audience (one who knows such notation).
If you encounter new notation, there is no way to derive the answer anyway by simply “facing” it head on (i.e. without being intimidated), you actually have to look up the notation and any associated information you didn’t already know, which requires a higher activation energy (and enthusiasm) than trying your hand at a question with known notation.
Seconding this, weird notation makes many folks lose morale easily. I guess one watershed moment comes when, having conquered enough notation in specific cases, one realizes it’s just a formal symbol pushing game in general, and then new weird looking notation doesn’t cause a morale crisis.
Novel math papers often just invent new notation as they go.
I’m reminded of Graham’s number (g notation) as an example where new notation (kind of) was invented for the purposes of a math paper.
I read a riveting blog post a few months ago introducing several concepts and building up to graham’s number in a very accessible read if anyone’s interested:
I solved the first puzzle in the matter of minutes, yet just looking at the second one made me give up. It seems to me that there might be even more bifurcations, even within the difficulty level and similarity of presentation.
(the second term inthe equation, to me, resembles a description of loosely plated hair (of indefinite length), and in particular, of the non-spilled part; but how to describe the spilled part as a continued fraction? Sorry for the rant.)
I suspect that all that shows is that you aren’t used to the relevant bits of mathematics, and being confronted with unfamiliar and weird-looking notation intimidates you. There’s no shame in that, and it says basically nothing about your intelligence or your natural aptitude for mathematics.
(Remember that the Raven matrices are designed to have as little dependence on prior knowledge as possible; mathematical questions, almost by definition, are not.)
I agree with your overall response, but your note that “weird-looking notation intimidates you” kind of surprised me.
From my perspective, it’s not a question of intimidation so much as it is a recognition that the question is targeting a different audience (one who knows such notation).
If you encounter new notation, there is no way to derive the answer anyway by simply “facing” it head on (i.e. without being intimidated), you actually have to look up the notation and any associated information you didn’t already know, which requires a higher activation energy (and enthusiasm) than trying your hand at a question with known notation.
Seconding this, weird notation makes many folks lose morale easily. I guess one watershed moment comes when, having conquered enough notation in specific cases, one realizes it’s just a formal symbol pushing game in general, and then new weird looking notation doesn’t cause a morale crisis.
Novel math papers often just invent new notation as they go.
I’m reminded of Graham’s number (g notation) as an example where new notation (kind of) was invented for the purposes of a math paper.
I read a riveting blog post a few months ago introducing several concepts and building up to graham’s number in a very accessible read if anyone’s interested:
http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/11/1000000-grahams-number.html