I am not sure what exactly going deeper at logic/patterns means if not getting into mathematical logic. It is incredibly easy to read mathematics you know and incredibly difficult to read mathematics that you don’t due to how dense it is. It might be the case that your impression is due to comparing these two.
I am training to become a mathematician and I do not know of a single person for whom learning mathematics is not slowly and with a lot of effort, I do not think you are particularly exceptional in that but I know very little about your particular scenario.
I am not sure what exactly going deeper at logic/patterns means if not getting into mathematical logic.
I am not sure how to properly express the difference, but it has to do with math being more, um, hard-edged and rigid (in the sense of a rigid mechanical construction as opposed to a reed bending with the wind).
To use a quote from Conan Doyle, a logic/patterns ability would allow one to “from a drop of water … infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other.” Mathematical logic cannot do that.
Definitely less rigorous formalization and more gestalt pattern recognition.
In general, I think of math as dealing with well-defined “things”—you may not know the shape/properties/characteristics at the moment, but they exist, they are precisely defined, and they are not going anywhere. In contrast to math, statistics deals with fuzzy amorphous “things” that you will likely never know in precise detail, that mutate as more data becomes available, and that usually require interpretation and/or some guessing to fill in the gaps.
Cutting edge math is actually mostly about converting fuzzy stuff, at least the parts of math I am interested in(Algebraic Geometry—Grothendieck/Weil for example). Both the mentioned mathematicians worked in a field where people had some stuff that worked but no foundations.
Also, the foundations of math have been changing for quite a long time and continue to do so. I think your reaction to mathematics might be to badly taught mathematics rather than mathematics as practiced. However, I don’t see an easy way to fix it.
To teach mathematics well would require a high amount of mastery and we don’t have enough people like that around.
I think your reaction to mathematics might be to badly taught mathematics rather than mathematics as practiced.
I doubt it—I generally teach myself things and just ignore bad instruction. The underlying cause is likely to be the curse of the gifted—I’m lazy and when I run into walls I usually go around instead of starting a wall disassembly project. And I was never attracted to math sufficiently to apply a lot of effort.
I am not sure what exactly going deeper at logic/patterns means if not getting into mathematical logic. It is incredibly easy to read mathematics you know and incredibly difficult to read mathematics that you don’t due to how dense it is. It might be the case that your impression is due to comparing these two.
I am training to become a mathematician and I do not know of a single person for whom learning mathematics is not slowly and with a lot of effort, I do not think you are particularly exceptional in that but I know very little about your particular scenario.
I am not sure how to properly express the difference, but it has to do with math being more, um, hard-edged and rigid (in the sense of a rigid mechanical construction as opposed to a reed bending with the wind).
To use a quote from Conan Doyle, a logic/patterns ability would allow one to “from a drop of water … infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other.” Mathematical logic cannot do that.
So something more like intuitive pattern-recognition/completion than rigorous formalization?
Definitely less rigorous formalization and more gestalt pattern recognition.
In general, I think of math as dealing with well-defined “things”—you may not know the shape/properties/characteristics at the moment, but they exist, they are precisely defined, and they are not going anywhere. In contrast to math, statistics deals with fuzzy amorphous “things” that you will likely never know in precise detail, that mutate as more data becomes available, and that usually require interpretation and/or some guessing to fill in the gaps.
Cutting edge math is actually mostly about converting fuzzy stuff, at least the parts of math I am interested in(Algebraic Geometry—Grothendieck/Weil for example). Both the mentioned mathematicians worked in a field where people had some stuff that worked but no foundations.
Also, the foundations of math have been changing for quite a long time and continue to do so. I think your reaction to mathematics might be to badly taught mathematics rather than mathematics as practiced. However, I don’t see an easy way to fix it.
To teach mathematics well would require a high amount of mastery and we don’t have enough people like that around.
I doubt it—I generally teach myself things and just ignore bad instruction. The underlying cause is likely to be the curse of the gifted—I’m lazy and when I run into walls I usually go around instead of starting a wall disassembly project. And I was never attracted to math sufficiently to apply a lot of effort.