On accident
I kind of can’t take people seriously when they say On accident, I don’t know or care if its more or less grammatical, it sounds like a child sputtering in my mind. It should be By accident or accidentally
Tummy
Any adult has zero business saying this lol
Excusing folks with dyscalculia, those of you who speak proudly and openly about how bad you are at math can die in a fire.
Functioning adults are expected to read. You should also be able to calculate reasonable numbers and percentages without needing the calculator on your phone to know what 20% is; Or what one half of 3/8 is.
If someone is speaking proudly of how bad they are at math they most likely didn’t have dyscalculia. Most of us that do have it speak angrily or resignedly about how bad we are at math. What really gets me is when people proudly blame their “dyslexia” for why they are bad at math.
Perhaps I was in school before the idea of different learning styles was a thing. I always asked why, or how, things works. I need to understand the why to understand the how…or the how for the why… if that makes sense.
No, the work sheet doesn’t help, nor the make up work sheet. “That’s just how it is” does not explain anything. I’m bad at math because, beyond basic arithmetic, it’s all gobbledygook to me. Now I get self conscious, freeze up and can’t add simple numbers if put on the spot. So I make self deprecating comments about myself because I have no self esteem. Not that I’m proud of my failure.
So, the way you have phrased this is blatantly ableist. It’s like you’re saying you hate people who are blind because they refuse to learn to read. You’re annoyed with people who CHOOSE not to learn, and attacking other people who have a disability. Don’t use the technical terms for actual disabilities when that’s not what you are talking about. Your friend isn’t “OCD” because they like when things match.
… 1.5/8
“” #nailedit""
I say openly that I’m bad at math because I cannot, even with intense effort, intuit concepts that are laid out as pure mathematical expressions. Why do graphs have eigenvectors? What does that even look like?!
Graphs don’t have vectors, spaces do. A space is just an n-dimensional “graph”. Vectors written in columns next to each other are matrices. Matrices can describe transformation of space, and if the transformation is linear (straight lines stay straight) there will be some vectors that stay the same (unaffected by the transformation). These are called eigenvectors.
Thanks for the response! Honestly wasn’t expecting any. I understand what you’re saying as a pure student would, but could you explain what you mean by “a space is a just an n-dimensional graph”?
Would the vertices map to some coordinate in space? Or am I completely misunderstanding.
I misunderstood a little, I assumed a function graph, which could be R^n space. But for the graph-theory-graphs (sets of vertices and edges) it’s similar, you can model the graph using adjacency matrix (NxN matrix for a graph of N vertices, where the vertices ‘mapped’ to a row and column by index. Usually consisting of real numbers representing distance between the “row” and “column” node) and look at it from the linear algebra point of view. That allows to model some characteristics of the graph. But honestly I haven’t mixed these two fields of maths much, so I hope what I wrote is somewhat understandable.