Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday February 05 2018, @05:36AM   Printer-friendly
from the common-sense dept.

Mathematician Keith Devlin writes about how the capabilities to work with maths have changed since the late 1960s. He summarizes what he considers to be the essential skills and knowledge that people can focus on as more and more is turned over to software.

The shift began with the introduction of the digital arithmetic calculator in the 1960s, which rendered obsolete the need for humans to master the ancient art of mental arithmetical calculation. Over the succeeding decades, the scope of algorithms developed to perform mathematical procedures steadily expanded, culminating in the creation of desktop and cloud-based mathematical computation systems that can execute pretty well any mathematical procedure, solving—accurately and in a fraction of a second—any mathematical problem formulated with sufficient precision (a bar that allows in all the exam questions I and any other math student faced throughout our entire school and university careers).

So what, then, remains in mathematics that people need to master? The answer is, the set of skills required to make effective use of those powerful new (procedural) mathematical tools we can access from our smartphone. Whereas it used to be the case that humans had to master the computational skills required to carry out various mathematical procedures (adding and multiplying numbers, inverting matrices, solving polynomial equations, differentiating analytic functions, solving differential equations, etc.), what is required today is a sufficiently deep understanding of all those procedures, and the underlying concepts they are built on, in order to know when, and how, to use those digitally-implemented tools effectively, productively, and safely.

Source : What Scientific Term or Concept Ought to be More Widely Known?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Monday February 05 2018, @06:25AM (1 child)

    by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Monday February 05 2018, @06:25AM (#633159) Homepage
    I'd be happy just with the understanding of conditional probability and Bayes' law. One you're got that, stats is closer to being within your grasp. Plenty of statistical paradoxes are actually just consequences of Bayes' law.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2, Touché) by Prune on Monday February 05 2018, @08:55PM

    by Prune (4334) on Monday February 05 2018, @08:55PM (#633423)

    But some of us are frequentists, not Bayesians, you insensitive clod!