Thinking Mathematics - Revision history

Issa at 04:13, 8 November 2021

2021-11-08T04:13:49Z

Issa at 00:45, 17 July 2021

2021-07-17T00:45:40Z

Issa at 00:43, 17 July 2021

2021-07-17T00:43:37Z

Issa at 20:14, 13 April 2021

2021-04-13T20:14:08Z

Issa at 20:11, 13 April 2021

2021-04-13T20:11:05Z

Issa: Created page with "is there a Thinking Economics? basically a Thinking Physics for econ. actually, is there a Thinking Mathematics? (maybe AOPS books are it?) it feels like math would w..."

2021-04-13T20:10:22Z

Created page with "is there a Thinking Economics? basically a Thinking Physics for econ. actually, is there a Thinking Mathematics? (maybe AOPS books are it?) it feels like math would w..."

New page

is there a [[Thinking Economics]]? basically a [[Thinking Physics]] for econ.

actually, is there a Thinking Mathematics? (maybe AOPS books are it?) it feels like math would work less well for some reason, but i am having trouble articulating why. maybe because you need to introduce a lot of terminology and concepts into someone's ontology first before you can even ask the question? probability/combinatorics is like one of the few branches where you don't need to do this (and this might be why the AoPS book is so enjoyable).

==See also==

* [[Duolingo for math]]
* [[Braid for math]]

[[Category:Learning]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:13, 8 November 2021
Line 4:		Line 4:

	actually, is there a Thinking Mathematics? (maybe AOPS books are it?) it feels like math would work less well for some reason, but i am having trouble articulating why. maybe because [[Tinkering in math requires loading the situation into working memory\|you need to introduce a lot of terminology and concepts into someone's ontology first before you can even ask the question]]? probability/combinatorics is like one of the few branches where you don't need to do this (and this might be why the AoPS book is so enjoyable).		actually, is there a Thinking Mathematics? (maybe AOPS books are it?) it feels like math would work less well for some reason, but i am having trouble articulating why. maybe because [[Tinkering in math requires loading the situation into working memory\|you need to introduce a lot of terminology and concepts into someone's ontology first before you can even ask the question]]? probability/combinatorics is like one of the few branches where you don't need to do this (and this might be why the AoPS book is so enjoyable).
		+
		+	UPDATE: i think the thing that makes Thinking Physics possible is that you can pose the question to anyone, in a way that is understandable to them, without first having to lecture them about a bunch of definitions or what a mathematical proof is or whatever.

	There are a few books like Creative Mathematics by H.S. Wall and 'the essence of mathematics through elementary problems' that might be trying to do this, but i have not looked at either of them in depth.		There are a few books like Creative Mathematics by H.S. Wall and 'the essence of mathematics through elementary problems' that might be trying to do this, but i have not looked at either of them in depth.

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:45, 17 July 2021
Line 4:		Line 4:

	actually, is there a Thinking Mathematics? (maybe AOPS books are it?) it feels like math would work less well for some reason, but i am having trouble articulating why. maybe because [[Tinkering in math requires loading the situation into working memory\|you need to introduce a lot of terminology and concepts into someone's ontology first before you can even ask the question]]? probability/combinatorics is like one of the few branches where you don't need to do this (and this might be why the AoPS book is so enjoyable).		actually, is there a Thinking Mathematics? (maybe AOPS books are it?) it feels like math would work less well for some reason, but i am having trouble articulating why. maybe because [[Tinkering in math requires loading the situation into working memory\|you need to introduce a lot of terminology and concepts into someone's ontology first before you can even ask the question]]? probability/combinatorics is like one of the few branches where you don't need to do this (and this might be why the AoPS book is so enjoyable).
		+
		+	There are a few books like Creative Mathematics by H.S. Wall and 'the essence of mathematics through elementary problems' that might be trying to do this, but i have not looked at either of them in depth.

	==See also==		==See also==

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:14, 13 April 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	'''Thinking Mathematics''' or '''Thinking Physics for math''' is a hypothetical book that teaches math in the style of [[Thinking Physics]].
		+
	is there a [[Thinking Economics]]? basically a [[Thinking Physics]] for econ.		is there a [[Thinking Economics]]? basically a [[Thinking Physics]] for econ.

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 * [[Duolingo for math]]
 * [[Braid for math]]
 [[Category:Learning]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 is there a [[Thinking Economics]]? basically a [[Thinking Physics]] for econ.
-actually, is there a Thinking Mathematics? (maybe AOPS books are it?) it feels like math would work less well for some reason, but i am having trouble articulating why. maybe because you need to introduce a lot of terminology and concepts into someone's ontology first before you can even ask the question? probability/combinatorics is like one of the few branches where you don't need to do this (and this might be why the AoPS book is so enjoyable).
+actually, is there a Thinking Mathematics? (maybe AOPS books are it?) it feels like math would work less well for some reason, but i am having trouble articulating why. maybe because [[Tinkering in math requires loading the situation into working memory|you need to introduce a lot of terminology and concepts into someone's ontology first before you can even ask the question]]? probability/combinatorics is like one of the few branches where you don't need to do this (and this might be why the AoPS book is so enjoyable).
 ==See also==