Understanding Mathematics

If I had a time machine, I would go back and ask the ancient mathematicians “What is it all for?”

   I have always had difficulty with mathematics, formulas in particular. I pondered my weakness for a long time, and then one day in my high school algebra class it dawned on me. In a particularly frustrating lesson in which our teacher was explaining how to solve a certain formula, he asked if we had any questions. For ages, I had struggled silently to wrap my head around the use of these seemingly nonsensical collections of symbols and letters, and that day, I‘d had enough of it. Completely out of character for me, I raised my hand.

“What is it used for?”
“What?”
“The formula.”
“It can be used to solve many problems. You might need it one day in a job, too.”
“I don’t understand. What makes it work? Why is it solved that way?”

   This, I admit, received an incredulous stare, and rightfully so. Anyone would assume at this point that I was trying to be a typical hair-brained teenager, taunting my teacher for mere sport. However, that was not at all the case. I discovered then that the way I learned things is not by learning what something does, but instead why it does what it does. The lesson learned? One should never ask “why” in a math class. The response I got was quite simply “It just is.”

   Some formulas make sense to me once I think them over, such as Einstein’s famous formula of relativity. It has a practical use, and it is truly beneficial to our knowledge of the universe. Moreover, I understand why it works. Pythagoras however, has been done no justice in my life, the poor fellow. I cannot imagine what he was getting at, what his formula was designed for; and perhaps I never will. I assume, or at least I hope, it isn't merely a factor of him drawing a triangle and saying “let’s see what I can do with this thing.”

In case you’re wondering, I never thought he was a bad teacher. He tried to help me understand the only way he knew how, and I respect him for that. And he's right; math is basically part of the foundation laws of nature and therefore is concrete. As he said then, "it just is."

Just completed (finally): The Sign of the Four by A. C. Doyle.
Now reading: The Hound of the Baskervilles by A. C. Doyle.

   The Sign of the Four was not quite as captivating as A Study in Scarlet. Nevertheless, it is still one of those books that make you late going back to work from your lunch break. This may or may not have happened to me a few times. I anticipate the current book to cause this even more, considering its lofty reputation.

  I took a lengthy break in the middle of this one so that I could finish the summary of the book in my previous post, and I foresee this occurring again and again.

How to Analyze People on Sight: A Book Summary

   For the past few weeks, I have been working on typing up a summary of the latest book I've been reading: How to Analyze People on Sight: The Five Human Types by Elsie Lincoln Benedict. It was originally copyrighted in 1921, and is outdated in many ways. That being said, however, don't assume it's lacking in good, useful information for those who are curious on the topic.

   These days, there are many books on human analysis, and it has been broadened upon vastly. It's interesting to start at the root and see how a theory has progressed over time. I intend to read and compare more recent books on human analysis in the months to come.

I've seen no broken-down summaries of the five types of people on the internet as of yet (though I haven't searched extensively), so if you'd like to see the PDF of the book summary I typed, just click here.