Historically, most mathematicians had solid fundamental rote training in schools stricter and less forgiving than any you'll see today, and then they supplemented that education with "extensive self-directed investigation of numbers."
-
-
Mathematics education in the schools is a relatively recent phenomenon. Neither Euler nor Lagrange experienced any of it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MathPrinceps @davidmanheim and
Neither did many of history's greatest mental calculators -- who, not infrequently, were illiterate.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MathPrinceps @davidmanheim and
What produces mastery is not rote repetition or practice, but passionate curiosity. An obsessed student practices extensively, without even noticing that he is doing so. Practice is a by-product of curiosity. The more passionate the curiosity, the more extensive the practice.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'm telling you yet again that it's not always sufficient. You can feel free to tell me I lacked passionate curiosity - but you're wrong, and if you really want to investigate, I'll be happy to put you in touch with my professors, or my high school math teachers.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Nothing, to my knowledge, is always sufficient. I am speaking of what has been typical of great past masters. My purpose is to refute the assertion that rote is always necessary. A single example of mastery attained without school-imposed rote learning suffices for this purpose.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MathPrinceps @davidmanheim and
Illiterate mental calculators like Jacques Inaudi pose serious problems for any theory of arithmetic learning that insists it must be rooted in rote practice imposed by schools.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I don't claim that it's impossible to be a mathematician without rote learning, but I do claim, based on my experience and that of others I know who went to schools that didn't force us to memorize the basics, that many students won't manage to be successful without it.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
One need not be forced to memorize the basics. One can desire to learn them.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
So you agree that actually memorizing these basic facts is necessary - at some point, in some way, whether voluntary or obligatory, and whether done by incorporation in other tasks or repetition alone?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I agree that it typically occurs. But Alexander Grothendieck, surely one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century, reached a pinnacle of achievement few can ever hope to equal while under the impression that 57 is prime.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.