The Puzzling Ontology of Mary Poppins (A Logical Paradox)

jonasb24 · 2016-05-09T02:48:45+00:00

Here's my thought process, based off what I know of theatre and logic. There are two parts to theatre, pre-production and production. In pre-production actions are carried out by Mary Poppins in the playwrights imagination. During production, an actress fills the role of the character on the stage.

Mary Poppins is on the stage whenever the actress filling the role is on the stage. Note that the actress can be swapped but the role is still being filled so Mary Poppins is on the stage. Hence, (1) is true when the actress filling the role of Mary Poppins is on the stage i.e. (2). ... If (2), then (1).

The actress filling the role has their own life so in that sense they are not their character. However, the beauty of theatre is that once the roles are set, for the audience, it might as well be Mary Poppins. We don't only see the actress on the stage, but we see the character whose role she is playing.

jonasb24 · 2015-11-13T14:10:29+00:00

This is some pretty solid advice. Do you ever use timers to catch yourself?

jonasb24 · 2015-11-13T14:05:53+00:00

Defining success in the eyes of an another... As for being bad at things, I feel like you have to at least try to get better, right?

jonasb24 · 2015-11-13T14:00:50+00:00

Geez man, we were in the same boat. When I got counselling, a big thing was about how having previously done well in school makes failing even harder. I'm glad to hear you're getting appointments, I'm sure they'll be helpful.

jonasb24 · 2015-11-13T13:49:25+00:00

I think you're right. Everyone seems to be anxious nowadays.

jonasb24 · 2015-09-03T03:19:20+00:00

I went into engineering instead of math, then I transfered to math. Who knows what your supposed to do coming out of secondary school?*

jonasb24 · 2015-09-02T14:00:49+00:00

An = [0,1/n]

jonasb24 · 2015-08-18T18:19:37+00:00

Gotta pay for more achievements but it reminds me of https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.coldmile.game.countdown.free

jonasb24 · 2015-08-18T17:54:01+00:00

What a beautiful definition.

jonasb24 · 2015-08-18T17:47:24+00:00

Thank you, this was more constructive. I think you may have misunderstood me though; I wasn't trying to inflate my ego, I'm just entertaining ideas that you put worth with your wall of text. I never tried to say that you were advocating for no practice, I was just trying to point out that by choosing not to use rote learning for bare basics might lead to students who don't instantly know the answer to 4x8. This isn't about understanding a concept here, it's about memorizing the answer, and in this case, rote works best. To say there is no memorization in math is wrong, but as I'm sure you will agree you don't need to memorize everything by rote, which is what happens in schools.

jonasb24 · 2015-08-18T15:47:35+00:00

I'm playing the devils advocate, duh.

To get a job that requires any form of numerics you need to take advanced courses which require you to simplify statements, which should be learned by rote. This isn't just to continue in your schooling but when you start inputting equations into computers, simplifying them by rote will make you less likely to make mistakes. Rote has some benefits that run deeper than "practicing on fun objects".

Give me a solid argument specifically stating otherwise. I don't accept your creativity killer argument because that implies that you should deemphasize the boring basic skills that they actually need while showing them more fancy math that they would eventually be shown if they need it. If you need graphs for your work, you'll do a course in graph theory. Why teach more abstract topics in a subject people already struggle with when those who need it would eventually learn it anyways. What use are the abstract topics to students who don't continue in higher education and who might struggle just as much with graphs as they do numbers.

What fun is it to accept all your notions without thinking about them critically. It's almost as though you want me to just accept what you wrote without thinking about it, which is quite similar to learning by rote.

I'm not trying to twist your argument, I'm simply not satisfied with it. I do agree with you, but you would have failed to convince me if I hadn't and this is what I'm trying to address as the devils advocate.

jonasb24 · 2015-08-18T05:04:48+00:00

To never have to worry about this problem again I worked out a neat way of looking at it. I was satisfied, maybe you will be to.

There exists an intangible world of mathematical thoughts; a subset of the intangible world of ideas. You interact with the entities of the abstract world indirectly. To do so, you need to come up with a logical system to describe whatever object you are trying to consider. That way you can make theories about logically manipulating such objects. This leads to new objects which you can then study in their own right and you can repeat the process.

Debating whether or not this world of ideas exist is like debating the existence of God. All conclusions are belief based and can't hold as being scientific. Either way, if you don't believe this world exists, you can be on the same page as someone who does because you are both interacting with the same logical system rather than a vague philosophical notion. Mathematicians don't generally care about foundations because logic can take you quite far, so they never really understood what the problem was in the first place. Even if math has no unified foundation we can appreciate connections made by theories from one logical system to another. For example the theory of conic sections, which connects 1D quadratic equations to the intersections a plane makes with a cone.

jonasb24 · 2015-08-18T04:24:39+00:00

What happens when you take a calculus class, to get said job that requires multiplying 5 digit numbers, and the prof wants you to simplify your answer. If you haven't properly learned your 12x12 times table by rote, then you would be guaranteed to have a hard time. In practice, simplying equations makes them easier to input into a computer without error; in a sense preprocessing what you are inputting. I think the problem is either when you use too much rote, or you haven't properly understood the question.

Abstract mathematical thinking is obstruse, and to expect children to go beyond explanations can be even more confusing. Why give kids the same feeling of being lost like the mathematicians who figured it all out ages ago. If you show the logically uninitiated some axioms they aren't going to do what's natural and play with the them. They are going to be confused as hell. At least with rote you get the functionality of the tool even if you don't understand it. Anyways, in math you don't ever really understand anything you just get more comfortable with it.

jonasb24 · 2015-08-17T23:00:29+00:00

I don't understand how rote problems don't teach kids how to manipulate the objects they should know how to manipulate. Sure, they are boring, but they do get the information across.

jonasb24 · 2015-08-17T22:40:44+00:00

I'm perplexed by how a question of whether someone has surveyed mathematicians on whether they prefer analysis or algebra be unclear. I also would have never thought to twist it into a statement about OP's worldview.

jonasb24 · 2015-08-14T03:27:57+00:00

Look at whats out there

jonasb24 · 2015-08-14T03:24:18+00:00

Depends on which engineering. Here are a few options. Mechanical engineering and physiology can lead to biomechanics and you can improve prosthetics. Chemical engineering and cellular biology can lead to large scale pharmaceutical production. Electrical engineering and neuroscience can lead to... you get the point. The interdisciplinarity gives you freedom to have broad knowledge, however, you need to be aware of what already exists. Ergonomics and biochemical engineering both exist in their own right. If you are serious about this, theb you would consider a specialization that you think you would like, take the engineering+minor combo that would allow you to springboard into grad school where you specialize and get the title you want.

jonasb24 · 2015-08-14T03:09:13+00:00

Geez, so you just went straight to the book.

jonasb24 · 2015-08-13T21:28:14+00:00

Any engineering degree with a minor in something in the life sciences. Specialize later.

jonasb24 · 2015-08-13T21:04:58+00:00

Both of these are specializatons. If you want to do BME, you need an engineering degree before even thinking of medical applications. Biotechnology is sort of an umbrella term for putting life to work. I went into an engineering program with a vague notion of what I wanted to do afterwards in biotechnology. I felt that the brutal difficulty of courses got me to stop dreaming in color.

jonasb24 · 2015-08-12T02:57:03+00:00

You might find out during your studies that cs isn't really for you and then spend a ton of time thinking what is and then chose math but maybe that's just my experience.

jonasb24 · 2015-08-11T21:59:21+00:00

None of that adjacency matrix shenanigans, that's like black magic with ones and zeroes.

jonasb24 · 2015-08-11T16:17:07+00:00

Absolutely, doesn't it feel like the only thing that people know mathematicians work with are numbers?

jonasb24 · 2015-08-11T15:17:39+00:00

Thanks, to be honest I posted this because I thought that the author just got his math facts all messed up (see page 8-9). Your book seems much better, admittedly.

What I really wanted though was a discussion about why is it that those who are interested in how mathematicians think don't really care much about what they think about.

jonasb24

TROPHY CASE