This article kicks tremendous ass; here's another awesome man to the list. Articles like these are actually useful to most people, compared to, say, the tales of Feynman, which, while also amazing and kickass, read more like fantasy than inspiration.
Yes, that was a great article. I would like to know what changed in the author's mind. Did he just get good at particular math problems through repeatedly doing them, or did he gain a general math aptitude? Given his performance later in life it seems like he gained the latter.
I became interested in math in a similar manner, and I think learning it this way gave me an edge over those who were just force fed it in school. There is nothing like understanding the practical significance of a subject to make it stick in my mind and give me intuitive links. This aspect of learning seems to be really lacking in public school, at least the ones I've attended.
I'm referring to the flight school aptitude test, his success in engineering school, and achieving a BA in physics. That's quite a jump for a guy who couldn't do high school algebra.
Inspirational article, and it hits home on many levels. I remember loving math at 12, kicking major ass in geometry. But as I grew older, I didn't seem to pick it up. I wasted time in high school, and failed Pre-Calculus at Uni, but I now realize 2 things:
1 - Math is rarely taught well. The "ax2+bx+c=0" approach to teaching quadratic equations is rubbish. I never understood what it was they were trying to solve until a few months ago I was at the library and read a book on the history of mathematics. It became crystal clear. IIRC, the Indians used quadratics to make sure that they could increase the size of their altars without losing the proportions.
2 - Many people who get good grades in Math don't get it at a fundamental level. Sure, they can regurgitate the rules of logarithms, and solve worksheet questions that follow a specific pattern, but outside of that, they're sitting ducks. I've asked several people why ax2+bx+c=0. Why doesn't it equal 37? Or 3.456? None of them have a clue. I realize that this logic can be applied to me if someone asked me about branch prediction or out-of-order execution, but I think the logic holds.
I've also realized that I use ratio to solve many problems. I remember in my year at Uni, we were given a problem to solve in electronics class. I realized the answer immediately, knowing that 1 amp is = to 1 volt applied across a resistance of one ohm by definition. The 'math genius' in the class struggled.
I've always believed that those who have a natural talent for programming also have a natural talent for math. It's just not taught well. Me, I've convinced myself that I have the latent ability, it'll just require me to learn it on my own terms, instead of a formula-based approach. In the same history of math book, they showed the history of place value, and it made so much sense. The same approach we take to crafting algorithms can be used to find the solution to math problems. Again, great article. Gotta love YC.
PS. I just noticed that when you enclose text in *s, it gets displayed in italics. Nice one, PG
PPS. Actually, I can speculate about branch prediction and OOE. But that's for another time.
reply