[QUOTE=just-a-boy;36101478]And this is why you never postulate impossibility. There's a solution for everything out there. Except for stupidity, that is.[/QUOTE]
There's a solution for stupidity, actually:
take everyone who's stupid
and enhance / replace their brains with computers.
Hey, I never said it was a [I]good[/I] solution.
[QUOTE=ShazzyFreak0;36101508]calculus isn't really a required life skill, now is it?[/QUOTE]
It is.
For catching frisbees.
There was some story of a dog that "knew" calculus: as in, when it and its owner were at the beach, and its owner threw a frisbee/ball/whatever out into the water, it figured out the fastest way (or a fast[I]er[/I] way, at least) to get to it. Since swimming is slower than running, it would run along the beach for a while before swimming. But running all the way until the point where it would have to swim directly away from the beach wouldn't be the fastest. So it ran some of the way, and then at a good point, it started swimming.
What I'm saying is that you technically already know calculus, intuitively, such as when predicting where some object is going to land when thrown, or when finding a fast way to get to something. You don't know the actual math, but you use it.
Or some pretentious bullshit like that. Really I just felt like typing.
[QUOTE=TheTailor25;36101736]Now if he could solve how women think....[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=283701&dateline=1305226482[/IMG]
[QUOTE=newbs;36101079]Who here has taken DiffyQ? *Raises hand*
Why does everyone on facepunch suck at math? You should stop wasting all your time on an internet forum if you can't at least do simple calculus. According to Mordin Solus of Mass Effect 2 "Never experiment on species with members capable of calculus; Simple rule, never broke it."[/QUOTE]
I have. It, and Calc 2, sucked ass. Then again, it was the same teacher for both, and she was pretty tough. She was also pretty awesome, too, though. For instance, on one of the first days in Calc 2, she said that she didn't really care about us using specific paper for homework (blank, college ruled, graph, etc), so we could use any paper we wanted.
One guy took this as an opportunity to do the next homework assignment on [I]a roll of toilet paper[/I]. He got full credit.
Understandably, though, she said that that [I]wasn't[/I] what she meant, and wouldn't accept other things like that in the future, but still. The guy did his homework on a roll of toilet paper and she accepted it.
Pretty random tangent, right? Sorry about that.
But that tangent still has more to do with the topic than whatever shit you just wrote about how we should all focus on learning calculus because if we don't aliens will abduct us and experiment on us.
Seriously, that was pretty fucking dumb.
[QUOTE=newbs;36101079]Who here has taken DiffyQ? *Raises hand*
Why does everyone on facepunch suck at math? You should stop wasting all your time on an internet forum if you can't at least do simple calculus. According to Mordin Solus of Mass Effect 2 "Never experiment on species with members capable of calculus; Simple rule, never broke it."[/QUOTE]
I have dyscalculia and can't even use a calculator, whaddaya gonna do 'bout it? Hate it when people think maths is the key to solving literally everything and modestly rub it in peoples faces. So what if you think you can find x better than every other person in the playground?
Ability to do maths doesn't equal intelligence or logical thinking
-Snip- Double post due to lag.
[QUOTE=Last or First;36102046]
It is.
For catching frisbees.
There was some story of a dog that "knew" calculus: as in, when it and its owner were at the beach, and its owner threw a frisbee/ball/whatever out into the water, it figured out the fastest way (or a fast[I]er[/I] way, at least) to get to it. Since swimming is slower than running, it would run along the beach for a while before swimming. But running all the way until the point where it would have to swim directly away from the beach wouldn't be the fastest. So it ran some of the way, and then at a good point, it started swimming.
What I'm saying is that you technically already know calculus, intuitively, such as when predicting where some object is going to land when thrown, or when finding a fast way to get to something. You don't know the actual math, but you use it.
Or some pretentious bullshit like that. Really I just felt like typing.
[/QUOTE]
With stuff like that I always think its more guesswork and trial and error than doing tons of equations in your head subconsciously.
Over here, we were in grade 2 when we were six, and we were still learning to read/write.
Most people don't need to know calculus, which is why it isn't normally taught until high school (By then you have a good grounding in math)
[QUOTE=newbs;36101141]It's really easy compared to the Calculus sequence (my Calculus was three semesters).[/QUOTE]
I only needed two and I skipped one, and I heard it is in fact harder.
[editline]27th May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bentham;36101808]Maybe not everyone wants to take the time to study it, if it has no impact on their field of interest. I could be an arrogant twat and ask why you all haven't taken an income tax accounting course. But I don't, because nobody is impressed and nobody cares. Although the irony of you criticizing people on an internet forum by posting on an internet forum is pretty entertaining.[/QUOTE]Not that this has to do with anything but everyone should probably take an income tax accounting course.
[QUOTE=Hiccuper;36102281]With stuff like that I always think its more guesswork and trial and error than doing tons of equations in your head subconsciously.[/QUOTE]
I personally like to think that our brains have learned those 'tons of equations' by trial and error. That's why you can't just instantly learn to ride a bike, you have to try and fail to learn. But I believe that all these equations exist in some form in our brain.
This kid has potential for a good future.
Because 7 8 9!
i always wonder if these child geniuses would be better off having a normal life like the rest of us instead of being shoehorned into math by their parents from a young age
Still, with his smarts he can probably come up with something clever that would make other peoples lives better.
[QUOTE=newbs;36101079]Who here has taken DiffyQ? *Raises hand*
Why does everyone on facepunch suck at math? You should stop wasting all your time on an internet forum if you can't at least do simple calculus. According to Mordin Solus of Mass Effect 2 "Never experiment on species with members capable of calculus; Simple rule, never broke it."[/QUOTE]
Yeah because everybody is good at math and can understand it easily.
I am really slow at math
The equation was derived in 1977 as seen in this paper university paper:
[URL]http://www.df.uba.ar/users/sgil/physics_paper_doc/papers_phys/mechan/air0.pdf[/URL]
Still, very impressive. Always cool to see intelligent children doing things like this. Much better than those ocational "my child got 200 IQ" articles that media spew out from time to time.
[QUOTE]Here's a forward solution (found by reverse-engineering the answer):
Consider a projectile moving in gravity with quadratic air resistance. The governing equations are
u' = -a * u * sqrt( u2 + v2 )
v' = -a * v * sqrt( u2 + v2 ) - g
where a is the coefficient of air resistance defined by |F| = ma|v|2 .
Cross-multiply and rearrange to find
a * sqrt( u2 + v2 ) * (uv'-vu') = gu'
Substitute v = su and separate variables:
a * sqrt( 1 + s2 ) * s' = g*u'/u3
Integrate both sides to get the answer:
g/u2 + a(v * sqrt( u2 + v2 )/u2 + arcsinh|v/u|) = const[/QUOTE]
Quite straight explanation of the result.
And people say someone with a score of 80% is good at math.
[QUOTE=Charybdis;36102213]
Ability to do maths doesn't equal intelligence or logical thinking[/QUOTE]
That's quite a bold statement, at least for the logical part. 'True math' (i.e. not high school maths but uni maths) really requires logical thinking.
But it's sort of true, I know people who are great at maths but socially/linguistically they're fucktards (make dumb jokes, can't spell, seldom understand/appreciate art, in general act dumb but)
[QUOTE=ShazzyFreak0;36101508]calculus isn't really a required life skill, now is it?[/QUOTE]
Yeah and I'm sure you're an expert on all other "required life skills" right?
India: Providing the majority of the world's math wizards. Seriously, they fucking invented the numerical system we use today.
new issac newton
he will invent space travel through the warp and create a legion of super soldiers and live forever
i for one welcome our new immortal emperor
I just see a second order diferrential here:
(x''(t)2 + (y''(t)+g)2 )1/2 = c*(x'(t)2 + y'(t)2 )
Which should be easily solvable.
They probably left something out in the article because analytically calculating the drag on an object getting decelarated by said drag isnt new.
[QUOTE=taipan;36103844]I just see a second order diferrential here:
(x''(t)2 + (y''(t)+g)2 )1/2 = c*(x'(t)2 + y'(t)2 )
Which should be easily solvable.
They probably left something out in the article because analytically calculating the drag on an object getting decelarated by said drag isnt new.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, check my post. Still very impressive for a 16 year old to solve it.
[QUOTE=Bread_Baron;36101490]It seems like it's always kids that solve this sort of thing and never an established scientist.[/QUOTE]
Not always. Andrew Wiles started on the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem when he was 33, and finished when he was 41.
Yeah like others I was really sceptical when I saw this, it doesn't seem like it's anything new at all. In fact, it's nothing new. We've understood this sort of motion for ages.
I wouldn't be surprised if it just hasn't been solved by hand by anyone before because there's absolutely no point in solving stuff like this by hand when these sorts of calculations can just be done by computers easily.
Wouldn't have made the news if it wasn't a kid who did it. Congrats to him for working this out by hand, but it's nothing new in maths.
Huge fucking lol at one of the news articles describing it, which says this:
[quote]His solutions mean that scientists can now calculate the flight path of a thrown ball and then predict how it will hit and bounce off a wall.[/quote]
Ahahahaha.
[QUOTE=OnDemand;36101222]Well don't be, I'm sure that kid wouldn't be as good as he is if this had not happened:[/QUOTE]
Pictured: A father about to instill a "hunger for mathematics".
[img]http://www.khukuriblades.com/images/images_contents/gurkha.jpg[/img]
[editline]28th May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=ShaunOfTheLive;36103956]Not always. Andrew Wiles started on the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem when he was 33, and finished when he was 41.[/QUOTE]
Ah, the second type.
There are child prodigies and the crazed recluses.
E.g. [img]http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/files/2010/07/perelman.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=newbs;36101079]Who here has taken DiffyQ? *Raises hand*
Why does everyone on facepunch suck at math? You should stop wasting all your time on an internet forum if you can't at least do simple calculus. According to Mordin Solus of Mass Effect 2 "Never experiment on species with members capable of calculus; Simple rule, never broke it."[/QUOTE]
check out this massive nerdlord
[QUOTE=taipan;36103844]I just see a second order diferrential here:
(x''(t)2 + (y''(t)+g)2 )1/2 = c*(x'(t)2 + y'(t)2 )
Which should be easily solvable.
They probably left something out in the article because analytically calculating the drag on an object getting decelarated by said drag isnt new.[/QUOTE]
It is not just a second order DQ, but a nonlinear too. Squares and sqareroots.
[QUOTE=supersoldier58;36101392]Seriously, why wasn't I taught calculus when I was six? Schools vastly hold back people trying to compensate for less intelliegent people while also involving themselves too much with less necssisary subjects. This would have been solved ages ago if the curriculum wasn't designed for people who can't comprehend things like this as much. This is only my opinion, though.[/QUOTE]
I agree fully.I don't see why the education system wants to have more dumb people.My father learned the stuff that I'm learning now at the age of 9 when I started around 13.(I'm 15)
ITT: everyone wants their own personalized learning program
It's called home-schooling and your parents didn't do it because they wanted you to have a normal social life.
[QUOTE=Number-41;36107510]ITT: everyone wants their own personalized learning program
It's called home-schooling and your parents didn't do it because they wanted you to have a normal social life.[/QUOTE]
That's not really home-schooling, the dude's dad just taught him how to do calculus when he was a little kiddo, just like my parents taught me how to read Cyrillic, and I can do it just fine, even though I never attended any Russian classes or had any Russian speaking relatives, and it hasn't impacted my social life at all. Yes, calculus is fucktons more complex than Cyrillic and teaching it takes a lot more time, but I was taught to read Cyrillic in a couple of lazy evenings, and if you set your mind to it and teach everything carefully, there's nothing too impossible or negatively socially impacting. It's kind of like teaching a dog a new trick, except it's a six year old kid and the trick is calculus. It doesn't take away the dude's life completely, it's something you can do on your spare time.
Allow me to explain to people who don't understand what this jazz is all about. What this kid solved is called a conjecture, aka, something that is theorized yet not proven, it was formulated by Newton, and this guy pretty much provided the counter-proof using differential equations (which Newton pretty much invented). That's what is remarkable, not the discovery per se (Trust me you can simulate ballistics much more accurately through computers), but that his mathematical prowess allowed him to disprove that conjecture. He's not going to find revolutionary new ways to fire shit up or space travel, the solution itself has little practical value, it's more symbolic than anything.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.