i can't understand math.

**Leo Gura** · September 11

@1337 This looks like a good course for you:

https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/mathematics-describing-the-real-world-precalculus-and-trigonometry

You can stream this course for $20/mo.

Jodistrict · September 11

One of the problems with learning math is that there aren't many teachers who know how to teach it in a way that students actually understand what they are doing rather than learning rules to shuffle symbols. So finding lessons on the Internet that uses interactive tools and is taught to induce undestanding would be the way to go.

Reciprocality · September 12

On 09/09/2024 at 10:35 PM, Leo Gura said:

@1337 Im sorry that I did not write the following any better, this is simply how I think about it and I cant change it.

Certain things are either is 0 dimensional or dimensional.

A variable is insufficiently particular dimensional unit, only 0 dimensional points are invariant or unitarily particular irrespective of further context.

All things with dimension instantiate the concept of a variable if the thing gets projected into a coordinate, a triangle is a composite of 1 dimensional lines therefore a triangle is a variable relative to a metric.

Imagine that you walk at the same speed on a path from a to b and there are several cameras that focus on you while you walk that path, can you visualise why each camera must by necessity change the rate at which it rotates if it successfully has you in focus? Of course.

Do you see how the square in the illustration above slows down the closer it gets to the surface of the circle? It is for the inverse reason that the cameras in the example above did (the relation of the constant and the variable is reversed, in the illustration above it is the rotation that is constant), this inversion is a feature not a problem because it means that when it comes to expressing it in terms of symbols you can simply change x/y to y/x.

How could the movement of that square be anything but half of what it would have been if instead of being governed by a shape that extends equally horizontally and vertically it were governed by a shape that extended infinitely less vertically thus half in total?

The most general principle of geometry, trigenometry, algebra and all of math is often not distinctly recognised, it is that everything is relative to everything else, that it is this relativity we are expressing by means of ratios (percentages/division/multiplication) and that this simply follows from how all inputs in a syntactical system whether it is a coordinate or algebraic rules followed from left to right is a totality and that for change in one element of the input to not accompany an equal change in the others one must always input something more than the totality.

Edited September 12 by Reciprocality

Reciprocality · September 12

@1337 Also, you are not supposed to understand math, you are supposed to distinctly identify that mathematical operations in fact work just like you are able to identify all sorts of things merely via their mutual presence in the same space and time.

If you are able to understand maths before you are able to ascertain that it works you literally cant be taught the rules that others rely on reach correct conclusions, it would be like excepting a monk to be taught heuristics for cognitive empathy. The mind simply can not fool itself into experiencing novelty where there is none, our whole organism is just an input/output system of the foolproof tendency to intensely fixate on and remember only things it does not already know thus inducing a clearer concept of "the world".

If you comprehend the general while everyone else memorises the particular but are forced to do as the others you will experience the same stimuli in your mind as you would if you were asked to repeatedly call an object by its name.

All this is an incomplete picture until you introduce the tendency for self-identity, as only in the enjoyment of self-love do people actually get stimulated merely by what they already know, though only under the conditions that others are present since here the knowledge becomes a implication of who one is as opposed to just being what it is.

Edited September 12 by Reciprocality

**Carl-Richard** · September 17

@Reciprocality

While on the topic of understanding and learning new things:

Quote

1. Reverse-engineer what you read. If it feels like good writing, what makes it good? If it’s awful, why?

2. Prose is a window onto the world. Let your readers see what you are seeing by using visual, concrete language.

3. Don’t go meta. Minimize concepts about concepts, like “approach, assumption, concept, condition, context, framework, issue, level, model, perspective, process, range, role, strategy, tendency,” and “variable.”

4. Let verbs be verbs. “Appear,” not “make an appearance.”

5. Beware of the Curse of Knowledge: when you know something, it’s hard to imagine what it’s like not to know it. Minimize acronyms & technical terms. Use “for example” liberally. Show a draft around, & prepare to learn that what’s obvious to you may not be obvious to anyone else

6. Omit needless words.

7. Avoid clichés like the plague.

8. Old information at the beginning of the sentence, new information at the end.

9. Save the heaviest for last: a complex phrase should go at the end of the sentence.

10. Prose must cohere: readers must know how each sentence is related to the preceding one. If it’s not obvious, use “that is, for example, in general, on the other hand, nevertheless, as a result, because, nonetheless,” or “despite.”

11. Revise several times with the single goal of improving the prose.

12. Read it aloud.

13. Find the best word, which is not always the fanciest word. Consult a dictionary with usage notes, and a thesaurus.

https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/1084490338629242880

Letho · September 17

@Reciprocality Personally I like the way you express yourself. For me, while writing the measurement is on (1) fluidity (2) differentiation (3) solidarity (4) freedom (5) connection (6) integration of feedback on everything in relation to the Self.

So with respect to @Carl-Richard's share of the list there, I'd be at least 25% of the way there as there are solid pointers there. All of the pointers in that list serve number (5), however in as much as it compromises my personal freedom, I would rather trade the connection with a demographic that’s suited for my developmental context, aka going to higher levels of creativity and meta-understanding.

Personal intentionality and self-awareness (i.e. around those principles I mentioned) are much more important to think about for me while writing than concrete guidelines that may obscure one's true voice. Moreover, context is doubly important. Who am I writing to? Creative intellectuals? Societal muppets? Societal muppets in creative intellectual clothing? There’s a lot of the latter like Sam Harris pushing there’s no free will for example, and too Robert Sapolsky even though we clearly do its just purely proportional to awareness and there’s zero rational, informed, logical and or intelligent argument that can be made against that. I used to love Sapolsky, however his intelligence has obviously become so institutionally corrupted by his environmental contrast bias, making comparisons between people and free will in the context of where there's clear examples of their lack of free will through the lens of their lack of awareness while making very little effort to do so through the microscope of differentiating free will under increasingly higher levels of awareness. In our situation here for example, on the simple analysis of adapting socially or not relative to a change in writing style inclusive of at least three persons here simultaneously aware of the object of said possible change, the unique conditions of freedom and will here as it concerns leveraging this moment towards our self-actualisation are entirely dependent on our level of awareness and the conditions that are supportive of therein.

For me, I would never read Steven Pinker's work outside of going another extra meta level that he avoided as he didn't want to 'isolate' his reader. As he knows after-all, the more isolated a reader feels the less profit there is and the more their ego is activated and therefore the less they'll likely share their ideas with others. In short, he bores the hell outta me. Most writers do. Simply stated, they're shite and they'll never get true respect unless you take conformity as the kind of respect that should be sought after as I briefly talk about here what some of the dangers are there:

Now returning to free will, does someone like me truly have no objective free will on whether I can control that tendency? Really? I have no awareness to mediate my reactions, really? That's truly what's being said here? It reflects so much ignorance in our scientists these days in the field, too much ignorance to not question them on a potential ulterior motive that may be present, and that's out of respect for their intelligence more than anything else. No more respect than what makes me also simultaneously impartial to caring about the reasons so much anymore.

Returning to adapting our writing to a certain said of stringent standards then in the context of free will, we all have the maturity of our awareness to empathise with the reader/s and the social environment to understand the balance between contextual connection and moving closer to our demographic. Creating writing standards as Carl has suggested is a really great idea all in all regardless Reciprocality, something that serves the best of both worlds so I'm going to go ahead and do it, for if a part of our developmental goals is reaching the heights of our consciousness then we need standards that both serve our truest expression and truest connecting point with our selective social environment.

And key word there is 'selective', if I learn that I deterred others that are not going to understand me because I didn't conform to the mediocre thinking standards of the general populace hence why we're failing across our many intellectual communities like universities, that makes me happy.

I know what its like to waste a lot of time conforming to the mind of another out of empathy where they were not nearly capable of expressing the same empathy, and in a lot of ways that's what it would feel like for me if I were to do that as a part of a professional writing or speaking career, because even as a general statement Sapolsky and Harris are right that most people technically don't really have free will, they're employed as scientists and so they need to be scrutinised not as social engineers that they have no right to really try and be but based on their claims as scientists where they learn to take in all the evidence. Doing this usually requires tedious differentiation and sometimes the spark of divergent generality to bridge interconnective insight to that most people can't deal with in the same way they avoided eating certain vegetables as kids.

That's not handling reality though. That's looking after toddlers. And that right there is the crux for me concerning adaptation, again, who are we writing for? Toddlers or people that are looking towards higher consciousness, maturity, growth, etc, etc all that good vegetable stuff?

The shortest version: Knowing how to write for your true soul connection in life is just as important as knowing how to deter your fake soul connection in life that'll be there for as long as you're conforming to a set of acceptable memes that don't startle their ego too much.

@1337 Now, let's get right to solving your issue with a simple solution that barely any know about. Ask any questions but my comment is already long enough right now, its better for me to under-elaborate so I can get what you don't understand and gauge your interest more easily.

Solution: Get better at the 'meta-mechanics' of mathematical thought. Stage (1) Train on the right material. Stage (2) repeat stage 1 and advance it.

The following is my own idea, an elaboration on the original template shared below.

DO NOT TAKE THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION LIGHTLY.

JUST DON'T COMPLAIN AND IMPLEMENT IT.

IT'S MY CREATIVE SOLUTION WHICH MEANS ITS A BULLET-PROOF SOLUTION.

IF IT DOESN'T WORK, CALL ME OUT ON IT.

BUT I STAKE MY LIFE ON IT.

Now off you go, you should be excited to become one of the best in your class.
Get on it, at least two months 1 hour a day to achieve said!

Step 1: Open Meta-AI in Messenger on Facebook

Step 2: Put the following into Meta-AI while asking the engine to replicate these kinds of questions as creatively as possible at increasingly greater levels of difficulty.

What is the ABSTRACT POSITION?

RAZOR will be North of TOWN
PLATES will be South of RAZOR
TOY will be South of PLATES
CARDIGAN will be Below and North of TOY
VEGETABLE was Above and South-West of CARDIGAN