Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday February 05 2018, @02:05PM (2 children)

    by PiMuNu (3823) on Monday February 05 2018, @02:05PM (#633270)

    Understood - original post was referring to elliptic orbits; I think orbit modelling can be described in the general case by Hamiltonians.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 05 2018, @02:21PM (1 child)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 05 2018, @02:21PM (#633276) Journal

    I think orbit modelling can be described in the general case by Hamiltonians.

    I'm not sure about the propulsive stage - the entire energy of the system is conserved, of course, but I doubt the potential chemical energy can be captured in the Hamiltonian. But maybe it can, with an artifice like "the inverse of a dissipative/friction force" (well, long time already since I knew the answer.)

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday February 05 2018, @03:00PM

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Monday February 05 2018, @03:00PM (#633285)

      Good point - you are probably right. Certainly atmospheric effects (e.g. low earth orbit) clearly create a dissipative force.