Is Higher-Level Math needed for everyone?

[Kopji]

Originally Posted by derchin

I had this discussion over at another forum and I asserted that it isn't necessarily needed for everyone and that everyone's careers require something else, something more specific, other than math. The member replied that higher level math is required if you actually want to achieve something.

Agree? Disagree?

Your assertion seems reasonable unless you made it on a forum where people are heavily invested in the proposition that knowledge of mathematics is essential to well-being and success.

My casual observation would lead me to think that a knowledge of mathematics is something of a curve where there are diminishing returns of happiness the more you know. After a certain point we might be happier or more successful applying those math skills toward becoming an artist or musician.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by derchin

I had this discussion over at another forum and I asserted that it isn't necessarily needed for everyone and that everyone's careers require something else, something more specific, other than math. The member replied that higher level math is required if you actually want to achieve something.

Agree? Disagree?

Sounds to me like that person is engaging in a little intellectual snobbery. A mathemetician will of course feel that everyone should know some maths. A computer programmer will of course feel that everyone should know some programming. A musician will of course feel that everyone should know some music. They can't imagine life without their personal field of expertise, so they mistakenly assume that it's impossible to get by without it.

[marplots]

I speak some math and some Spanish. I find both to be about equally useful. What I think might actually be more useful is the ability to pick up more (of either) when necessary.

[quarky]

Uno, dos, tres, quatro?

[marplots]

Originally Posted by quarky

Uno, dos, tres, quatro?

Spanish and math, but not at the same time!

[Richard Masters]

Yep. What would numerology and astrology be without math?

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by derchin

Agree? Disagree?

You can achieve more with 2 arms than with 1, with a full set rather than a half set of brain cells, or with higher level of math understanding. Doesn't guarantee that you will do better, but improves your chances.

For extra credit, how many math references was that?

[Richard Masters]

Originally Posted by fishbob

You can achieve more with 2 arms than with 1, with a full set rather than a half set of brain cells, or with higher level of math understanding. Doesn't guarantee that you will do better, but improves your chances.

For extra credit, how many math references was that?

more, 2, 1, full set, half set, higher-level, math, better(comparative), improves(increments), chances.

ETA: + extra, many.

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by Richard Masters

more, 2, 1, full set, half set, higher-level, math, better(comparative), improves(increments), chances.

Gonna be a millionaire real soon.

[quarky]

I get zeros and ones mixed up, but do pretty well with Roman numerals.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by AlBell

It's a new world jobwise in the US since 2008. Junk degrees have great difficulty unless flipping burgers or the like is what was wanted.

I know I'm gonna regret this but ... What happened iin 2008?

[jojonete]

Originally Posted by quarky

Originally Posted by jojonete

227 apples and 490 oranges?

You aren't, like a nerd, or something?

Let me check:

Option Explicit

Dim a, o, s

s = ""
For a = 1 To 1000
For o = 1 To 1000
If Abs (a * 100000 / o - 46327) < 0.6 Then s = s & a & "/" & o & "=" & (a/o) & vbNewLine
Next
Next

MsgBox s

In my nerd times, "a" would be named "apples", "o" would be named "oranges" and of course I would have calculated oranges as apples/0.46327, instead of looping until finding a match (that would divide execution time by about 1000). Ah! and the whole thing would have been written in strictly compliant ANSI C and compiled with gcc using all aggresive optimizations.
No, I guess I'm not a nerd any more

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

The solution is quite simple. 0.46327 is 46327/10000. So you have 46327 apples and 10000 oranges. Or, as you mention, those amounts times any whole integer.

I supposed the 0.46327 figure could be rounded. And, that < 0.6 in the code should read <=0.5, but I wrote it that way to make sure no rounding errors leave out a near-the-border but legitimate result.

Originally Posted by quarky

Uno, dos, tres, quatro?

Sorry, being Spanish I can't let this pass. It's "cuatro", not "quatro".

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by quarky

I get zeros and ones mixed up, but do pretty well with Roman numerals.

Then THIS Facebook page is for you.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Well, I hate to resort to personal anecdotes, but I'm in a well-paying job with no degree whatsoever. But I'm not in the US.

You probably have some useful skill then.

I think the math people would need the most is statistics to understand odds of things and not fall for various fallacies and trig. I can see needing that a lot for home repair work and the like.

On the other hand I am an engineer and I rarely do math. I model in 3d and guess when it looks right.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Sounds to me like that person is engaging in a little intellectual snobbery. A mathemetician will of course feel that everyone should know some maths. A computer programmer will of course feel that everyone should know some programming. A musician will of course feel that everyone should know some music. They can't imagine life without their personal field of expertise, so they mistakenly assume that it's impossible to get by without it.

But payday loan people and lotteries are happy for people to be innumerate.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

You probably have some useful skill then.

I think the math people would need the most is statistics to understand odds of things and not fall for various fallacies and trig. I can see needing that a lot for home repair work and the like.

On the other hand I am an engineer and I rarely do math. I model in 3d and guess when it looks right.

.
I used calculus twice as an aero engineer, in 30 some years.

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by jojonete

Originally Posted by quarky

Originally Posted by jojonete

227 apples and 490 oranges?

You aren't, like a nerd, or something?

Let me check:

Option Explicit

Dim a, o, s

s = ""
For a = 1 To 1000
For o = 1 To 1000
If Abs (a * 100000 / o - 46327) < 0.6 Then s = s & a & "/" & o & "=" & (a/o) & vbNewLine
Next
Next

MsgBox s

In my nerd times, "a" would be named "apples", "o" would be named "oranges" and of course I would have calculated oranges as apples/0.46327, instead of looping until finding a match (that would divide execution time by about 1000). Ah! and the whole thing would have been written in strictly compliant ANSI C and compiled with gcc using all aggresive optimizations.
No, I guess I'm not a nerd any more

Although no interactive read/eval/print loop can implement strictly compliant R6RS Scheme, I used one anyway:

> (rationalize (exact 0.46327) 1/100000)
82/177

> (inexact 82/177)
0.4632768361581921

> (rationalize (exact 0.46327) 1/200000)
227/490

> (inexact 227/490)
0.463265306122449

At that point, I was pretty sure quarky had just made up his 0.46327, so I didn't post at that time.

Moral of the story: Knowledge of higher-level math programming languages makes it easier to tell when someone's just pulling numbers out of the air.

BTW, most implementations of Scheme use Alan Bawden's implementation of the rationalize procedure, which uses continued fractions.

[quarky]

Gosh.

I think I'll be going back to Ponylandistan, where the cool kids are.
They don't square the square root of negative one.

[quarky]

Originally Posted by jojonete

Let me check:

Option Explicit

Dim a, o, s

s = ""
For a = 1 To 1000
For o = 1 To 1000
If Abs (a * 100000 / o - 46327) < 0.6 Then s = s & a & "/" & o & "=" & (a/o) & vbNewLine
Next
Next

MsgBox s

In my nerd times, "a" would be named "apples", "o" would be named "oranges" and of course I would have calculated oranges as apples/0.46327, instead of looping until finding a match (that would divide execution time by about 1000). Ah! and the whole thing would have been written in strictly compliant ANSI C and compiled with gcc using all aggresive optimizations.
No, I guess I'm not a nerd any more


I supposed the 0.46327 figure could be rounded. And, that < 0.6 in the code should read <=0.5, but I wrote it that way to make sure no rounding errors leave out a near-the-border but legitimate result.


Sorry, being Spanish I can't let this pass. It's "cuatro", not "quatro".

My quatro was for Suzi Quatro.
And Complexity, wherever he may be.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by quarky

Gosh.

I think I'll be going back to Ponylandistan, where the cool kids are.
They don't square the square root of negative one.

Ponylandistan. Keeping it real.

Dave

[Cuddles]

The big problems with this question are the definitions of "higher-level maths" and "need". What I'd consider higher-level maths is the kind of horrible stuff I learned at university that I hardly even need now as a professional physicist. But I suspect what many people consider to be higher-level is actually the maths I was learning in school aged 16, which I'd consider much more useful just in every day life.

As for need, it again depends on how you define it. Clearly higher maths isn't strictly necessary for survival, since an awful lot of people obviously manage without it. But can it make your life easy, even if you're not in a job that specifically depends on advanced maths? Absolutely. Statistics has already been mentioned, and it comes up here quite frequently just how terrible people are at understanding probability and assessing risks. Or what about algebra? This is where the above point comes in as well, since it seems to be considered fairly advanced by many people, even though I'd consider it one of the most basic parts of maths and pretty much impossible to learn any maths at all without. The trouble is, people use it without even noticing. I want to order four burgers, three portions of chips, and a coke. How much does it cost? 4x + 3y + z = C. You don't have to write it all down and go through the workings like by line for it to be algebra.

And that's far from the only example of things generally considered more advanced turning up in every day life. A-level classical mechanics covers virtually everything you do day to day. Push things along a surface? Forces, friction, etc.. Balance things against each other? Statics. Open a stuck drawer? Levers. Accelerate and brake? Calculus. Swing something on a rope? Simple harmonic motion. Throw a ball? There's another recent thread about someone finally working out to calculate it's path after over 400 years of people failing to do so.

Sure, you don't need to be able to sit down and do all the maths in advance every time you do one of these things. But is it useful to actually understand what's going on and why things behave a certain way? How could it not be? It's not (well, not often) going to save you in a life or death situation, but it will make it that much easier to choose the right length stick to use as a lever, or to balance all your plates on the table without tipping it over, or to not lose thousands of pounds on the lottery because you think you have a system, and so on.

[Ladewig]

I wonder what percent of Americans understand math enough to know that if the Richter scale is logarithmic, then 4 is not twice as big as 2.

[Metullus]

I get this question a lot from my 8th grade geometry students. My answer is "come back in a few years and tell me how much math is too much math." Most of them will complete at least AB Calculus during their Junior year in High School... Not a bad thing.

Some will complete Multi-variable Calculus before graduating.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

I wonder what percent of Americans understand math enough to know that if the Richter scale is logarithmic, then 4 is not twice as big as 2.

Given that 18% believe the sun revolves around the Earth, I'd guess an order of magnitude less, namely 2%.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by SezMe

Given that 18% believe the sun revolves around the Earth, I'd guess an order of magnitude less, namely 2%.

Ouch.

The cited poll is discouraging. Two percent believe that the 13 Colonies won their independence from France. Gives quite a different tenor to "Lafayette, we are here."

[quarky]

Knowing some math is like knowing a little bit about everything.
Yet, I suppose, one could become Pope with only rudimentary arithmetic skills.

Does anyone know how much $ a Pope earns?
Or what the odds are of you becoming the next Pope?

Popes aren't elected every four years, so the math of that probability is complex...and yet, we have the past history to extrapolate from.

Do I have better odds of winning the lottery than becoming the next Dalai Lama?



Does anyone know how much money the Dalai Lama makes?
In terms of the first Dalai Lama, adjusted for deflating?

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by quarky

Or what the odds are of you becoming the next Pope?

If you are not a Cardinal: 0
If you are: 1/122

OK, those are probabilities, not odds, but you can do the math.

[Jorghnassen]

Originally Posted by SezMe

If you are not a Cardinal: 0
If you are: 1/122

OK, those are probabilities, not odds, but you can do the math.

That's assuming all cardinals are equally likely to become Pope, which is not the case.

[Jodie]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Depends on how you define higher math.

College-level statistics is what I'd consider the bare minimum for everyone. Otherwise they won't have the critical thinking skills to recognize when someone is lying to them through numbers. When the TV says three out of four doctors recommend Colgate, we need more people privately wondering which four doctors they asked.

A bit of Bayes would do the public good as well. The numbers and formula themselves are inconsequential, it's the ability to handle uncertainty the public could stand to get more of.

This is where I am at with this also, being able to tell when someone is feeding you a line of bull is crucial to success.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Jorghnassen

That's assuming all cardinals are equally likely to become Pope, which is not the case.

That's true of course. I did try to rank them but they all came out as boy buggers so were all on the bottom of the barrel. Thus, equally likely!

[IllegalArgument]

I think we should swap out Calculus for Statistics as the top high school math. Statistics being much more relevant to most people than Calculus.

[I Ratant]

Yes. Logical thinking is part of statistics.
Calculus is just rote response.

[Daald]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Although no interactive read/eval/print loop can implement strictly compliant R6RS Scheme, I used one anyway:

> (rationalize (exact 0.46327) 1/100000)
82/177

> (inexact 82/177)
0.4632768361581921

> (rationalize (exact 0.46327) 1/200000)
227/490

> (inexact 227/490)
0.463265306122449

At that point, I was pretty sure quarky had just made up his 0.46327, so I didn't post at that time.

Moral of the story: Knowledge of higher-level math programming languages makes it easier to tell when someone's just pulling numbers out of the air.

BTW, most implementations of Scheme use Alan Bawden's implementation of the rationalize procedure, which uses continued fractions.

I simply went to Wolfram Alpha and tried to find the GCD of 46327 and 10000. It turns out 46327 is a prime number

[quarky]

Yup, and you don't just pull primes out of the air.