Many people in engineering believe that to understand something, it is necessary and sufficient to have a low-level mathematical description of that thing. That you need to "know the math behind it". In nearly all cases, it is neither sufficient nor at all necessary - far from it
-
-
I will say a mathematical understanding can be an impediment, one tends to think in terms of the language w/ which we are most familiar, & I believe Einstein started w/ the intuitive, then the mathematics were constructed to support
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Each set of petroleum crude has its own refining requirements. A general purpose refining cannot do justice to each type. Isn't this analogy to your prescription of processing data using formulae in situ, suitable, sir?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Some learn from the part to the whole while others learn better from the whole to the part. Some kids learn to read sight words before they know the names and sounds of the letters.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Totally agree. With understanding we can learn math. So if math was needed to understand then our brain would have had an unsolvable deadlock.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Digging out this thread. It all sort of depends on whether you prefer top-down or bottom-up approach to learning.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.