Difference between revisions of "Thinking Mathematics"
(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...") |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| 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. | ||
| − | 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). |
| + | |||
| + | 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. | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
| Line 7: | Line 13: | ||
* [[Duolingo for math]] | * [[Duolingo for math]] | ||
* [[Braid for math]] | * [[Braid for math]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==What links here== | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{Special:WhatLinksHere/{{FULLPAGENAME}} | hideredirects=1}} | ||
[[Category:Learning]] | [[Category:Learning]] | ||
Latest revision as of 04:13, 8 November 2021
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.
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).
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.
See also
What links here
- Duolingo for math (← links)
- Braid for math (← links)
- Tinkering in math requires loading the situation into working memory (← links)
- Thinking Physics for math (redirect page) (← links)
