What good is math? - Page 10

Gillianren · #**271** (**permalink**) 14-July-2009, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Root

I may have been unclear. I meant to distinguish between learning music theory versus not learning music theory.

Arpeggios and sixteenth notes don't count as music theory. They're just part of music. Music theory is what's behind the actual notes on the page--as I mentioned earlier, the background of Bach's music, for example, or baroque music in general. I could go into greater detail, as I've studied more than a bit of both, but do you see the distinction? Also, do you play an instrument?

Jeff Root · #**272** (**permalink**) 14-July-2009, 10:24 PM

Gillian,

No, I lack several of the required talents for playing music. Primarily
the ability to control the motions of my hands and fingers quickly.
I did play several lines of 'Claire de Lune' on a good piano *once*,
for an audience of one, and he said it was good, but he might have
been damning my playing with faint praise.

That was nice to for
once be able to play on a decent piano. It was in the main hallway
of a hotel we were staying at. The version of 'Claire de Lune' that
I attempted was fairly simple, probably four notes at a time, max.
The tempo directions of "andante très expressif" and "rubato" are
favorable to me.

(My dad might be able to follow the directions
"wooden" or "en molasse".

)

I made some small edits near the end of my last post while you were
replying to it. They aren't relevant to your reply, but I'd like you to
see what I wrote without all the embarrassing mistakes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gillianren

Arpeggios and sixteenth notes don't count as music theory. They're
just part of music.

In that case, what Tom said clearly makes no sense at all. He basically
said that you don't need to play arpeggios and sixteenth notes in order
to play Chopin well. That is what you are disagreeing with.

I, on the other hand, think Tom said that you don't need to understand
what arpeggios and sixteenth notes are in order to be able to play them
while playing Chopin. That makes sense. And I agree with it.

You don't need to know how a transistor works in order to use your
computer well. You don't need to know how muscles work in order to
bow a violin. (If what I read is correct, it was only a few hundred
years ago that someone even figured out that muscles do their thing
by getting shorter.) You don't need to know about osmosis in order
to breathe. You don't need to know trigonometry in order to position
yourself to catch a high fly baseball. (Or avoid being hit by one.)

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

worzel · #**273** (**permalink**) 14-July-2009, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Root

It is nonsense, yes, but it isn't what Tom was saying. You and
kleindoofy both interpret what tommac said in such a way as to
make it nonsense. I'm convinced that your interpretations are wrong,
because I can interpret what he said such that it makes sense.

Only by interpreting what Gillianren said to mean that one must formally learn what these things are called rather than what they intrinsically are.

Quote:

I disagree that it is necessary to learn what scales, arpeggios, chords,
16ths, 32nds, triplets, key signatures, time signatures, modulations,
etc. are, or to learn anything about those things in order to be able
to use them in playing Chopin or anyone else's music.

I think this is where you and tommac are mistaken. As Gillianren said, these are not music theory per se, they are just the arithmetic of music. The point is that whether you learn these things formally, or intuitively, you will learn them if you are able to play music on any instrument, even if you don't know what they're called. To possibly over do the analogy, the number theory of music is about how those elements are put together and why those combinations work. But I think we'd agree that self taught musicians naturally develop an understanding of music theory anyway (often more so than trained performers, given the trained performer's reliance on written music).

Quote:

What is
required is an ability to distinguish notes by ear; a sense of time and
rhythm; an ability to control the motion of one's hands and fingers
precisely and quickly, and a good memory. All of those are natural
talents, and all of them are developed and improved through practice.

In reality, playing by ear, working out by ear and learning by rote, or composing, relies heavily on context and recognized patterns, such as the circle of fifths, common modulations, common chord sequences, etc. Just being able to identify each individual note irrespective of the context is a gift the vast majority of us can only dream of.

Quote:

I may have been unclear. I meant to distinguish between learning
music theory versus not learning music theory. I say that learning
music theory is completely unnecessary to the ability to play even
complex music well. Just as learning language theory is completely
unnecessary to the ability to speak well. In both cases there are
innumerable things that need to be learned and practiced. But the
theory of what those things are and why they work is not among
the innumerable things that need to be learned and practiced.

Yes, but we're talking about not knowing your scales, or 16ths, or 32nds, not not knowing the theory behind them. That's more akin to not knowing your vocabulary than not knowing your language theory.

Quote:

This is what I called "a gross misinterpretation" when kleindoofy
said essentially the same thing. (Quoted at the top of this post.)

So you say, but I quoted tommac saying exactly what you claim is a misrepresentation of what he said.

Quote:

Tom was not saying that loving the music or having a desire ("will")
to play it gives a person the ability to play it well. His was was saying
that a person can learn the music. Love of the music is just the
motivation for learning it. Not the means. Tom's point, then, was
that a person can learn the music without learning the theory which
describes the music. And, if they have all the other required talents,
they may learn to play that music well, without learning the theory
which describes it.

I think we are in agreement with what you say tommac was saying, but I'm not so sure that that is what he meant. He said, "don't need to learn or practice scales or learn about or practice 16th or 32nds", "You can just focus and play it", and, "learned just by loving the music".

Quote:

The burden of proof is on me to support the opposite of your first
statement here (that there are people who can play Chopin well
without being able to read the music), but is on you to support your
second statement. Of course, I only need to come up with a single
example supporting my assertion, while your second assertion appears
to require a rather difficult survey and statistical analysis. Your proof
will require math-- mine won't.

You mean, "Typically, one can play by ear only a fraction of what one can play by rote or reading". Doing a quick survey of my band, all 40 of us find that we can play more of a piece sooner and more accurately by being given the music than by being asked to play it by ear. Not surprising really, otherwise we could save ourselves a fortune in scores. How's that for a start?

Good luck finding someone who can't read music but who can can play [ the difficult works of ] Chopin by ear.

worzel · #**274** (**permalink**) 14-July-2009, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Root

In that case, what Tom said clearly makes no sense at all. He basically
said that you don't need to play arpeggios and sixteenth notes in order
to play Chopin well. That is what you are disagreeing with.

I, on the other hand, think Tom said that you don't need to understand
what arpeggios and sixteenth notes are in order to be able to play them
while playing Chopin. That makes sense. And I agree with it.

And I say that you do need to understand what they are, even if you don' know the official names for them.

Quote:

You don't need to know how a transistor works in order to use your
computer well. You don't need to know how muscles work in order to
bow a violin. (If what I read is correct, it was only a few hundred
years ago that someone even figured out that muscles do their thing
by getting shorter.) You don't need to know about osmosis in order
to breathe. You don't need to know trigonometry in order to position
yourself to catch a high fly baseball. (Or avoid being hit by one.)

But unlike music appreciation, music creation is not so innate, you do need to do a significant amount of learning, whether formal or not, to achieve any sort of success. That is not true for flexing a muscle or breathing. Computers are a better analogy. Like music creation, a lot of learning is required before you can use a computer well, even though you don't need to understand the theory of how computers (or music) works.

Gillianren · #**275** (**permalink**) 15-July-2009, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Root

No, I lack several of the required talents for playing music.

I suspected as much. You may note that most of those responding to you do play instruments. My first musical training came in first grade.

Quote:

In that case, what Tom said clearly makes no sense at all. He basically said that you don't need to play arpeggios and sixteenth notes in order to play Chopin well. That is what you are disagreeing with.

Yes.

Quote:

I, on the other hand, think Tom said that you don't need to understand what arpeggios and sixteenth notes are in order to be able to play them while playing Chopin. That makes sense. And I agree with it.

I disagree that he meant that, primarily based not so much on what he said but on his posting history.

Quote:

You don't need to know how a transistor works in order to use your computer well. You don't need to know how muscles work in order to bow a violin. (If what I read is correct, it was only a few hundred years ago that someone even figured out that muscles do their thing by getting shorter.) You don't need to know about osmosis in order to breathe. You don't need to know trigonometry in order to position yourself to catch a high fly baseball. (Or avoid being hit by one.)

And none of those are analagous, least of all the breathing one. Take the violin one--you don't have to know how muscles work, but you do have to know how to move your fingers and where to put them. You have to know the differences in the various notes you're supposed to be playing--all right, you may not need to know that one is called a half note and one is called a quarter note, but you do need to know when to play and for how long, when to rest and for how long, the difference at least in sound between staccato and vibrato, how to move the bow, and so forth. There are a lot of very specific skills that you do need to know in order to play a violin (or a viola!), and Tommac is consistently trying to skip all of them because he knows how the music goes in his head.

kleindoofy · #**276** (**permalink**) 15-July-2009, 01:43 AM

Hmmm.

I'm sorry I ever brought Chopin up, but this is the internet, so I have to live with it. As I wrote somewhere above, what now seems to have been about five years ago, the analogy math : music isn't very good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Root

... it isn't what Tom was saying ...

Yes it is, it's *exactly* what he was saying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Root

... I disagree that it is necessary to learn what scales, arpeggios, chords, 16ths, 32nds, triplets, key signatures, time signatures, modulations, etc. are, or to learn anything about those things in order to be able to use them in playing Chopin or anyone else's music. ...

Ok, let's have a look.

Chopin isn't Chopsticks.

That first example doesn't really look too hard. Ok, but you can only use 10 of your fingers, not toes and no nose. If you can stretch your right hand around 9 inches and still play with the middle fingers, go ahead. It takes *years* of practice.

In the other examples, if you don't know what 16ths, 32nds, triplets, key signatures, time signatures etc., you're pretty much up a creek.

Just wanting to isn't going to get anybody anywhere. Why did Chopin himself compose so many pieces entitled Études (= "study piece)? Simple, because he knew how hard it was. Those pieces train individual aspects of playing.

Theory? Nope.

Anybody who thinks they can play those pieces intuitively, without years of meticulous hard practice probably also think they can fly simply by jumping off a cliff: "You just focus."

Btw, I can't play any of those pieces. The difference is, I know it and I know why.

Jeff Root · #**277** (**permalink**) 15-July-2009, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gillianren

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Root

In that case, what Tom said clearly makes no sense at all. He basically
said that you don't need to play arpeggios and sixteenth notes in order
to play Chopin well. That is what you are disagreeing with.

Yes.

For reference, here again is what Tom said. The bolding is his:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac, post #26

I can personally tell you that you dont need to learn or practice
scales or learn about or practice 16th or 32nds to play chopin.
You can just focus and play it ... Sometimes it is easier to just learn
the piece without thinking about it too much ... it sometimes can help
you learn something but sometimes it just doesnt matter. there are
many great musicians that havent been trained and learned just by
loving the music.

Would it be correct to characterize your understanding of Tom's
assertion as saying that Chopin's music can be learned and played
well, leaving out such things as sixteenth notes and 32nd notes?

I don't believe that for a second. I don't believe that it is a correct
characterization of your understanding or a correct interpretation of
what Tom meant. But it is what you just agreed to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gillianren

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Root

I, on the other hand, think Tom said that you don't need to understand
what arpeggios and sixteenth notes are in order to be able to play them
while playing Chopin. That makes sense. And I agree with it.

I disagree that he meant that, primarily based not so much on what
he said but on his posting history.

Tom very frequently does not express himself clearly. I can usually
find a way to interpret what he says in a way that makes sense, even
if what he is asserting is wrong. When I can't find a way to make sense
out of what he has said, that failure can generally be attributed to a
failure of my imagination.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

kleindoofy · #**278** (**permalink**) 15-July-2009, 02:35 AM

If one doesn't "learn about" 16ths and 32nds, then one doesn't even know what they are. How can one then play them?

If one doesn't practice scales, how can one learn to play all those ... scales?

Quote:

You can just focus and play it

I'm sorry, but that's bull.

edit: No, I'm not sorry.

north · #**279** (**permalink**) 15-July-2009, 10:03 PM

look

mathematics has its place , no doubt

but also does the ability to picture in ones mind the physical dynamics and the consequences of

Einstein imagined first the relativity of light

the problem I think with mathematics is that , mathematics is constrained

mathematics looks down the path given , wrong or right or inbetween , the given path

but inherently does look for other paths unless told so

tdvance · #**280** (**permalink**) 15-July-2009, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Root

For reference, here again is what Tom said. The bolding is his:

Would it be correct to characterize your understanding of Tom's
assertion as saying that Chopin's music can be learned and played
well, leaving out such things as sixteenth notes and 32nd notes?

I don't believe that for a second. I don't believe that it is a correct
characterization of your understanding or a correct interpretation of
what Tom meant. But it is what you just agreed to.

Tom very frequently does not express himself clearly. I can usually
find a way to interpret what he says in a way that makes sense, even
if what he is asserting is wrong. When I can't find a way to make sense
out of what he has said, that failure can generally be attributed to a
failure of my imagination.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

I am really trying to figure out how one can play music involving scale patterns and 32/16th notes without learning and practicing such. Unless he was somehow born with the ability to play scales, etc. without practice, which I'd think is extremely rare.

I can tell you, I had to practice SOME scales to play much easier music on piano! And if you don't know what 16/32nd notes are, you might think you are playing the piece, but as an experienced amateur musician, I beg to differ. It would be like that little baby in "Look Who's Talking" sitting in a car, wiggling his feet and hands and saying, "I'm driving!"

north · #**281** (**permalink**) 15-July-2009, 11:11 PM

meanwhile back at the OP;

look

mathematics has its place , no doubt

but also does the ability to picture in ones mind the physical dynamics and the consequences of

Einstein imagined first the relativity of light

the problem I think with mathematics is that , mathematics is constrained

mathematics looks down the path given , wrong or right or inbetween , the given path

but inherently does look for other paths unless told so

Hornblower · #**282** (**permalink**) 16-July-2009, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by north

meanwhile back at the OP;

look

mathematics has its place , no doubt

but also does the ability to picture in ones mind the physical dynamics and the consequences of

Einstein imagined first the relativity of light

the problem I think with mathematics is that , mathematics is constrained

mathematics looks down the path given , wrong or right or inbetween , the given path

but inherently does look for other paths unless told so

Einstein, armed with an impressive intuitive grasp of concepts along wtih an already strong background in mathematics and physics, came up with a Bright Idea. Then he spent several years learning and crunching the additional advanced mathematical methods needed to show that the general theory would really work.

north · #**283** (**permalink**) 16-July-2009, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornblower

Einstein, armed with an impressive intuitive grasp of concepts along wtih an already strong background in mathematics and physics, came up with a Bright Idea. Then he spent several years learning and crunching the additional advanced mathematical methods needed to show that the general theory would really work.

to a point though , for instance

space-time warpage has been a contention with me

for instance , space has no substance associated with it

and time is the measurement of movement within a said space of an object

so fundamentally how does space-time , fundamentally have any physical properties , in and of its self to be warped or bent ?

Jeff Root · #**284** (**permalink**) 16-July-2009, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornblower

Einstein, armed with an impressive intuitive grasp of concepts along
with an already strong background in mathematics and physics, came
up with a Bright Idea. Then he spent several years learning and
crunching the additional advanced mathematical methods needed to
show that the general theory would really work.

Rather than saying that Einstein had a bright idea, I think I would say
that he recognized a connection, or a relationship, and then set about
trying to find a mathematical description of that relationship.

Did he have a theory before he worked out the mathematical
description? If not, what did he have? It was more than just
an idea-- even if a bright one.

Is the word "crunching" appropriate for anything that Einstein did?
Was there much number crunching involved?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

pzkpfw · #**285** (**permalink**) 16-July-2009, 09:34 AM

north, your last post sounds less like discussing the question and more like promoting your own ATM ideas (within the Q&A forum, that is a "bad thing").

Please be careful where you go with this.

worzel · #**286** (**permalink**) 16-July-2009, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornblower

Einstein, armed with an impressive intuitive grasp of concepts along wtih an already strong background in mathematics and physics, came up with a Bright Idea. Then he spent several years learning and crunching the additional advanced mathematical methods needed to show that the general theory would really work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by north

to a point

I doubt very much that Einstein's "great idea" with relativity would have even been thinkable without already having an exceptional grasp on Maxwell's equations and Newtonian kinematics.

mugaliens · #**287** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gillianren

Arpeggios and sixteenth notes don't count as music theory. They're just part of music. Music theory is what's behind the actual notes on the page--as I mentioned earlier, the background of Bach's music, for example, or baroque music in general. I could go into greater detail, as I've studied more than a bit of both, but do you see the distinction? Also, do you play an instrument?

Music theory is what I or any other musician does in front of whatever audience or microphone to envelope the hearts of others with respect to life extraordinaire by way of the performed note or beat.

The music theologians are always playing catchup!

worzel · #**288** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Music theory is what I or any other musician does in front of whatever audience or microphone to envelope the hearts of others with respect to life extraordinaire by way of the performed note or beat.

I would agree with that if you removed the word "theory" from that sentence.

Quote:

The music theologians are always playing catchup!

And you might have a point there if you swapped the word "theologians" for "theorists".

But, I think the relationship between the two is far more synergistic than the above suggests. I don't think anyone, not even Bach, could have written Bach's fugues without a lot of formal understanding of music theory. But then again, I can't really comprehend how anyone could write them anyway, so my intuition may not be very reliable here.

tommac · #**289** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 03:48 PM

Yes that was part of it ... but there was also another piece that clearly stated that Einstein's strength lied in his ability to reason. I believe and this is on memory that Kip uses the words stating that Einstein was relatively weak as a mathmatician compared to his ability to reason. I dont have the book here so I will find the exact pages when I get home.

Another quote I found was:

Quote:

Every boy inthe streets of Gottingen understands more about four-dimensional geometry than Einstein. Yet in spite of that, Einstein did the work and not the mathematicians.

Again I am not saying that Einstein sucked at math. I am saying that his logic and reasoning were much more advanced than his mathmatic ability.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Root

This is what Tom is referring to. From 'Black Holes & Time Warps'
by Kip S. Thorne, chapter 2:

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

tommac · #**290** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alainprice

I don't know where you got the idea that Einstein was bad at math, or avoided it.

In reality, like a good programmer, he was excellent at taking a coherent idea and translating into equations on paper. He could do stats, as he discovered that energy levels are quantized in the search for cavity radiation. He even formulated planck's constant but didn't realize it had any meaning yet.

Who said that? I dont know where you got the idea that I thought Einstein was bad at math. However, he did try to avoid using the complex 4-d math when working on GR. From what I have read about einstein, I feel that he believed that the world was beautifully designed in a way where everything could be derived from very simple and genralized laws. I believe that is why he continued to fight quantum physics later on in his career.

NEOWatcher · #**291** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

Who said that? I dont know where you got the idea that I thought Einstein was bad at math...

Partly from post 16...

Quote:

But einstein was relatively weak in math .... his main strength lies in his ability to reason and think through a problem

Which doesn't exactly say "bad", but when you constantly put down the importance of the math, and constantly try to remove math from Einsteins abilities because he didn't like math, then you are basically saying the same thing.

You can "see" things in the understanding of the math process without actually working out the math. There is insight gained in math.

You can understand what a parabola is by looking at it, but you can only understand how a parabola comes about and does some of the things it does by understanding the formula for a parabola, even without working out the math of a set of parabolas or working out the proof of a parabola.

The important thing though, the concepts of the parabola are still an understanding of the math.

Perikles · #**292** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

Another quote I found was: .

Quote:

Every boy inthe streets of Gottingen understands more about four-dimensional geometry than Einstein.

That quotation must take the prize for the most ridiculous hyperbole ever relating to Einstein. Presumably Göttingen no different to any other town, where most boys would not even know what a dimension was.

tommac · #**293** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 04:10 PM

Again, not sure who claimed that Einstein was "lousy" at math.

I dont believe that Logic & math are inseparable. I think that one can have logic without math but not math without logic. At the end of the day everything gets translated to thoughts and understanding. Math serves as a more precise language to help us understand things that are difficult to explain using words. But sometimes words are more easily translated into thoughts than math, I feel this is probably true for most people. To dismiss logic is in my opinion worse than dismissing math.

I believe that on some level people have a vague understanding of how things work. To get into a more granular understanding of how things work math is needed ... however one can have an understanding of the general idea of how something works ... even complex stuff without "doing" the math. I dont think I ever stated that it is not useful to understand the concepts. I just feel that it is not always necessary to do the math.

Just as you state here that Newton needed to invent calculus but einstein didnt ... if one agrees with current mainstream math ... or even if they trust / assume it to be right AND they understand the general concepts then why do we need to "do the maths". If the logic is sound and based on mainstream math is it needed to work through/ learn all of the complex calculations? Doesn't it suffice to say ... I know that 1+1 = 2 without having to do the proof of why 1+1 = 2? Now it one is claiming an exact number then the math is required, but if one is stating a change in the logic of a problem ... why is it necessary to "DO" the math.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

Not by a long shot. The popular myth of Einstein being somehow lousy at math is just that, a popular myth. He was in fact quite good at it. It was Einstein who was the driving force behind the mathematical development of GR, going to Grossman and others for help when he knew he needed new tools to develop the necessary math. Newton solved the problem by inventing calculus for himself. Einstein did not need to do that, he only needed to find the right tool already in the hands of mathematicians.

Logic & math are inseparable, at least in the context of the natural sciences. Math is the natural language of logic, so in order to understand the logic at any level beyond the most rudimentary, you must do the math.

For the most part, this too is a popular myth. You may think you "understand" an idea without the "complicated math" (which is often not really all that complicated, ust specialized). But in reality there are always key points left out or skipped over because the math, complicated or not, is still missing. This is something I have come to learn from years of trying to design talks and articles explaining those very ideas to totally non mathematical audiences. I have become quite skeptical & critical of almost all of the popular explanations I see because they are so over simplified that they just get it wrong, or get it so misleading as to make it essentially wrong.

if you can't or don't do the mathematics then you have literally no hope at all of ever really understanding general relativity, or really any other aspect of modern physics, beyond the legendary "cave man" level.

NEOWatcher · #**294** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

...I dont think I ever stated that it is not useful to understand the concepts. I just feel that it is not always necessary to do the math...

Post 5

Quote:

But you can understand some of the concepts without understanding the complicated math.

That has nothing to do with "doing" the math, but it does have all to do with "understanding" the math.

tommac · #**295** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Middenrat

Tommac already cited Kip Thorne's book, chapter Two, as evidence of Einstein's non-dominance in maths.
But Tommac, you most certainly cannot 'groove' on Chopin as you suggest. The results would be laughable, I'm chuckling as I type.

I agree that Chopin is less groovable than other more modern music styles. I think Chopin was probably chosen because of his mathmatic like complexity. However there is plenty of music and plenty of musicians that can groove without classical training or sometimes even any training. While I dont claim Hendrix was musically inept again I think he is someone who was more of the musical visionary than the precise classically trained musician. Both have their place.

Lets say that Einstein was more like Miles Davis while say newton was more like a Mozart. Again ... not saying that Miles didnt know about music ... in fact he is very strong in musical knowledge ... but his strength lied as a visionary ... one who could pick up his horn and totally be into the groove. Maybe playing from somewhere deeper within, not "Doing the maths" but just understanding what the rest of the music is doing.

gzhpcu · #**296** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

I believe that on some level people have a vague understanding of how things work. To get into a more granular understanding of how things work math is needed ... however one can have an understanding of the general idea of how something works ... even complex stuff without "doing" the math. I dont think I ever stated that it is not useful to understand the concepts. I just feel that it is not always necessary to do the math.

Just as you state here that Newton needed to invent calculus but einstein didnt ... if one agrees with current mainstream math ... or even if they trust / assume it to be right AND they understand the general concepts then why do we need to "do the maths".

You can "understand" QM and GR without having knowledge of advanced math. There are enough good books written for the layman, like Brian Greene's, for example.

However, if you wish to contest mainstream theories, then you need advanced math to understand them, and, more importantly, to even begin to contest them.

Here is a guide to what you need:
http://www.superstringtheory.com/math/index.html

tommac · #**297** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 04:31 PM

Please re-read the original question as I think you didnt understand it. This is not what was asked. It was a simple question and you seem to have missed the point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gzhpcu

I can't believe that someone could possibly ask what is good about math.

You can not build a theory in physics without math. I have had calculus (integral and differential), LaPlace transforms, etc.

It is only ATMers who think they can come up with physics "theories" with absolutely no mathematical background. Absolutely ridiculous.

Saying that Einstein was not good at math is also absolutely ridiculous.

tommac · #**298** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Argos

Chiefly differential equations.

Differential equations tutorial

There´s plenty of resources on the web.

Done ... I got a B in that class.

tommac · #**299** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 04:37 PM

Ug ... the point was that "relavite" to his ability to reason and logic, he was not nearly as strong in math as he was in his ability to reason and logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEOWatcher

I know responding to a suspended member might be futile, but there has been a lot of bantering about Einstein and mathematics that I think need to be backed up.

According to the Nobel Prize people about Einstein, here's a few key points.

So he clearly had the math background.

Clearly an understanding of existing math. You can't reconcile two things without understanding them clearly.

Now they don't address his early years, so here's some other facts.
In particular, look at the misconceptions paragraph explaining how he was never poor in mathematics.

tommac · #**300** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetlack

And i also think most everyone can get a good grasp of reasonably advanced maths if they put the time into it.

Dont want to take this thread on a tangent ... but I totally disagree. I would go as far as stating that the Average person could never grasp calculus let alone advanced math. Sorry if I have a very low opinion on the "average" person.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Good aliens are bad?	Teabinge	Life in Space	142	19-December-2008 09:45 PM
Good luck, bad luck; who knows?	Buttercup	Off-Topic Babbling	7	15-December-2008 09:53 PM
Some thoughts on 24 (WITH SPOILERS)	Glom	Small Media at Large	4	10-June-2006 10:19 PM
Changes to SW, Original Trilogy -- Your Opinions	Disinfo Agent	Off-Topic Babbling	21	19-May-2005 11:26 PM
Apollo 13 Hoax?	SAMU	Conspiracy Theories	209	24-November-2001 05:04 PM