|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 10, 2023 20:19:06 GMT
The fact that mathematical axioms are 'self' evidential necessitates a self within the formation of mathematics and as such further necessitates a subjectivity. This subjective nature to math paradoxically results in certain axioms not being accepted as the subjective is relative thus necessitating true/false values for everything depending upon the angle of observation. I don't accept the axioms of math and the 'self'-evidential nature of these axioms is further proof I don't have to.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Mar 23, 2023 7:51:48 GMT
xxxxxxxxxJe n'ai jamais dit que tout était une hypothèse. J'ai dit que chaque discussion sur des sujets avancés nécessite un ensemble d'hypothèses pour progresser, sinon le fondement de la discussion s'érode. Aucun progrès si vous continuez à regarder en arrière. Il y a plein de choses sans changement. Plus particulièrement, c'est la vraie connaissance qui est sans changement. Pi est Pi, même dans un univers à sept dimensions spatiales. Le triangle de Pythagore sera toujours exactement cela, peu importe des tentatives infantiles de prétendre le contraire. Cette conversation par ordinateur peut avoir lieu simplement parce que les lois des mathématiques et de la logique sont inchangées. Vous pouvez dire le contraire si vous le souhaitez. Mais vous ne pourrez jamais construire un forum Internet fonctionnel comme celui-là.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 24, 2023 17:48:53 GMT
xxxxxxxxx Je n'ai jamais dit que tout était une hypothèse. J'ai dit que chaque discussion sur des sujets avancés nécessite un ensemble d'hypothèses pour progresser, sinon le fondement de la discussion s'érode. Aucun progrès si vous continuez à regarder en arrière. Il y a plein de choses sans changement. Plus particulièrement, c'est la vraie connaissance qui est sans changement. Pi est Pi, même dans un univers à sept dimensions spatiales. Le triangle de Pythagore sera toujours exactement cela, peu importe des tentatives infantiles de prétendre le contraire. Cette conversation par ordinateur peut avoir lieu simplement parce que les lois des mathématiques et de la logique sont inchangées. Vous pouvez dire le contraire si vous le souhaitez. Mais vous ne pourrez jamais construire un forum Internet fonctionnel comme celui-là. There are no rules for determining which assumptions to accept and which to not. Considering order follows from an assumption there may be an infinite number of orders from an infinite number of assumptions. Because we are finite, because of our existence in time and space, we choose assumptions from an infinite number of possible assumptions and build an ordered set of principles from it. However because there are no rules for choosing assumptions, an if there where this would be an assumption, we cannot say the order through which we progress is the best or worst one.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Mar 24, 2023 18:39:21 GMT
xxxxxxxxx Je n'ai jamais dit que tout était une hypothèse. J'ai dit que chaque discussion sur des sujets avancés nécessite un ensemble d'hypothèses pour progresser, sinon le fondement de la discussion s'érode. Aucun progrès si vous continuez à regarder en arrière. Il y a plein de choses sans changement. Plus particulièrement, c'est la vraie connaissance qui est sans changement. Pi est Pi, même dans un univers à sept dimensions spatiales. Le triangle de Pythagore sera toujours exactement cela, peu importe des tentatives infantiles de prétendre le contraire. Cette conversation par ordinateur peut avoir lieu simplement parce que les lois des mathématiques et de la logique sont inchangées. Vous pouvez dire le contraire si vous le souhaitez. Mais vous ne pourrez jamais construire un forum Internet fonctionnel comme celui-là. There are no rules for determining which assumptions to accept and which to not. Considering order follows from an assumption there may be an infinite number of orders from an infinite number of assumptions. Because we are finite, because of our existence in time and space, we choose assumptions from an infinite number of possible assumptions and build an ordered set of principles from it. However because there are no rules for choosing assumptions, an if there where this would be an assumption, we cannot say the order through which we progress is the best or worst one.
1) Logic. (aka as math in more advanced form)
2) Empirical observation.
You just made a rule, that such rules WOULD BE assumptions.
But there is ambiguity in those two quotes. There are no clear rules for which assumptions to start with. For this we have that wonderfully vague and mystical concept called 'intuition'.
I used french to illustrate the point earlier, because my intuition tells me that it is far more logically structured language than the ad hoc mess which is english. Even though my own French is very weak.
But the French word for assumption is "d'hypothèses".
So my intuition proves good because hypothesis is a better term than assumption in many respects. (Merci).
An hypothesis is something that can be proven or disproven as part of the dialog. (using logic, and observation)
YOUR assumption is that everything is an assumption: that is your hypothesis. Do you comprehend the difference between the word 'assumption' and 'hypothesis'? I too went through a process of 'questioning everything', which is your intuition.
It is very likely that the place where you live is going to experience what its like,
when the bank decides it is no longer going to use objective math and instead opts for subjective assumptions as to the value of your bank account. (See the Weimar republic and Zimbabwe for details of how that works out).
This is happening more and more often as ww3 begins. (Same as ww2, and ww1).
Are you going to assume that the bullet in your gun was made properly when the commies come knocking on your door? Or do you assume that the cops got your back?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 31, 2023 17:18:23 GMT
There are no rules for determining which assumptions to accept and which to not. Considering order follows from an assumption there may be an infinite number of orders from an infinite number of assumptions. Because we are finite, because of our existence in time and space, we choose assumptions from an infinite number of possible assumptions and build an ordered set of principles from it. However because there are no rules for choosing assumptions, an if there where this would be an assumption, we cannot say the order through which we progress is the best or worst one.
1) Logic. (aka as math in more advanced form)
2) Empirical observation.
You just made a rule, that such rules WOULD BE assumptions.
But there is ambiguity in those two quotes. There are no clear rules for which assumptions to start with. For this we have that wonderfully vague and mystical concept called 'intuition'.
I used french to illustrate the point earlier, because my intuition tells me that it is far more logically structured language than the ad hoc mess which is english. Even though my own French is very weak.
But the French word for assumption is "d'hypothèses".
So my intuition proves good because hypothesis is a better term than assumption in many respects. (Merci).
An hypothesis is something that can be proven or disproven as part of the dialog. (using logic, and observation)
YOUR assumption is that everything is an assumption: that is your hypothesis. Do you comprehend the difference between the word 'assumption' and 'hypothesis'? I too went through a process of 'questioning everything', which is your intuition.
It is very likely that the place where you live is going to experience what its like,
when the bank decides it is no longer going to use objective math and instead opts for subjective assumptions as to the value of your bank account. (See the Weimar republic and Zimbabwe for details of how that works out).
This is happening more and more often as ww3 begins. (Same as ww2, and ww1).
Are you going to assume that the bullet in your gun was made properly when the commies come knocking on your door? Or do you assume that the cops got your back?
1. Logic begins with assumptions. For example A=A is assumed then it is justified by further argument. This further argument assumes all possibilities as to why A=A. One assumption is justified by another assumption. The self-evident state of axioms and their justifications is assumed considering what is self-evident to some is not self-evident to others. 2. Empirical observation is faulty. A mirage or a vision/hallucination is an empirical experience to one person but not to another. 3. I am not making a rule but an observation. However let us say I am making a rule: this rule (i.e. "all rules are assumptions is a rule") would be assumed thus no longer a rule, it ends in paradox as the rule both exists and does not exist. This split nature necessitates the existence of the rule would be under certain contexts and not existent under others therefore resulting in the 'rule(s)' as relative truth(s). 4. Intuitions differs as evidenced by the myriad of clashing perspectives that exist. 5. All is an assumption. This prior statement is not an assumption thus not all is an assumption and a contradiction occurs. This prior statement is an assumption as we are assuming what a contradiction is and is not. This prior statement is not an assumption. We are assuming what assumption is....and the paradox continues to go back and forth. In simpler terms everything is both an assumption and not an assumption.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 1, 2023 8:13:23 GMT
1) Logic. (aka as math in more advanced form)
2) Empirical observation.
You just made a rule, that such rules WOULD BE assumptions.
But there is ambiguity in those two quotes. There are no clear rules for which assumptions to start with. For this we have that wonderfully vague and mystical concept called 'intuition'.
I used french to illustrate the point earlier, because my intuition tells me that it is far more logically structured language than the ad hoc mess which is english. Even though my own French is very weak.
But the French word for assumption is "d'hypothèses".
So my intuition proves good because hypothesis is a better term than assumption in many respects. (Merci).
An hypothesis is something that can be proven or disproven as part of the dialog. (using logic, and observation)
YOUR assumption is that everything is an assumption: that is your hypothesis. Do you comprehend the difference between the word 'assumption' and 'hypothesis'? I too went through a process of 'questioning everything', which is your intuition.
It is very likely that the place where you live is going to experience what its like,
when the bank decides it is no longer going to use objective math and instead opts for subjective assumptions as to the value of your bank account. (See the Weimar republic and Zimbabwe for details of how that works out).
This is happening more and more often as ww3 begins. (Same as ww2, and ww1).
Are you going to assume that the bullet in your gun was made properly when the commies come knocking on your door? Or do you assume that the cops got your back?
1. Logic begins with assumptions. For example A=A is assumed then it is justified by further argument. This further argument assumes all possibilities as to why A=A. One assumption is justified by another assumption. The self-evident state of axioms and their justifications is assumed considering what is self-evident to some is not self-evident to others. 2. Empirical observation is faulty. A mirage or a vision/hallucination is an empirical experience to one person but not to another. 3. I am not making a rule but an observation. However let us say I am making a rule: this rule (i.e. "all rules are assumptions is a rule") would be assumed thus no longer a rule, it ends in paradox as the rule both exists and does not exist. This split nature necessitates the existence of the rule would be under certain contexts and not existent under others therefore resulting in the 'rule(s)' as relative truth(s). 4. Intuitions differs as evidenced by the myriad of clashing perspectives that exist. 5. All is an assumption. This prior statement is not an assumption thus not all is an assumption and a contradiction occurs. This prior statement is an assumption as we are assuming what a contradiction is and is not. This prior statement is not an assumption. We are assuming what assumption is....and the paradox continues to go back and forth. In simpler terms everything is both an assumption and not an assumption. The hypothesis, is an 'assumption' that implies that there will be a logical and empirical analysis beyond the initial starting point.
We make assumptions to test their validity in order to identify predictable laws.
That winters and summers are a year apart is the observation of such laws.
So any discussion implies a directive to comprehending logic. Logic is implicit a priori to any assumption.
So when someone says "Lets begin a discussion with an hypothesis, they already began with a known target of identifying the understanding of principles or laws that have universality beyond mere observations.
These laws are simplified to set theory,
which is always geometrical in essence.
But either way, we identify qualitative essences that cannot be deconstructed beyond their immediacy:
Logic, observation, geometry.
But also the shadow essence of flaws in reasoning retain their separate ontology of awareness beyond that.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 7, 2023 17:06:23 GMT
1. Logic begins with assumptions. For example A=A is assumed then it is justified by further argument. This further argument assumes all possibilities as to why A=A. One assumption is justified by another assumption. The self-evident state of axioms and their justifications is assumed considering what is self-evident to some is not self-evident to others. 2. Empirical observation is faulty. A mirage or a vision/hallucination is an empirical experience to one person but not to another. 3. I am not making a rule but an observation. However let us say I am making a rule: this rule (i.e. "all rules are assumptions is a rule") would be assumed thus no longer a rule, it ends in paradox as the rule both exists and does not exist. This split nature necessitates the existence of the rule would be under certain contexts and not existent under others therefore resulting in the 'rule(s)' as relative truth(s). 4. Intuitions differs as evidenced by the myriad of clashing perspectives that exist. 5. All is an assumption. This prior statement is not an assumption thus not all is an assumption and a contradiction occurs. This prior statement is an assumption as we are assuming what a contradiction is and is not. This prior statement is not an assumption. We are assuming what assumption is....and the paradox continues to go back and forth. In simpler terms everything is both an assumption and not an assumption. The hypothesis, is an 'assumption' that implies that there will be a logical and empirical analysis beyond the initial starting point.
We make assumptions to test their validity in order to identify predictable laws.
That winters and summers are a year apart is the observation of such laws.
So any discussion implies a directive to comprehending logic. Logic is implicit a priori to any assumption.
So when someone says "Lets begin a discussion with an hypothesis, they already began with a known target of identifying the understanding of principles or laws that have universality beyond mere observations.
These laws are simplified to set theory,
which is always geometrical in essence.
But either way, we identify qualitative essences that cannot be deconstructed beyond their immediacy:
Logic, observation, geometry.
But also the shadow essence of flaws in reasoning retain their separate ontology of awareness beyond that.
1. The hypothesis necessitates all following justifications to be grounded in an assumption. However the nature of assumption does not end there considering all justifications, i.e. uses of logic/reason, are assumptions as they must be reasoned further. Saying "x causes cancer" requires further reasoning as to how/when/why/where and as such even a logical statement, such as "x causes cancer", is still an assumption. All justifications begin with assumptions; all justifications, as requiring further justifications, are assumptions. 2. Logic is not completely a priori as logic requires variables and these variables only exist if there are empirical means to fill them. Without the senses logic does not exist as these variables are variables because they represent a multitude of sensory phenomena. In these respects a priori and a posteriori phenomenon necessitate each other and are a false dichotomy.
|
|
rexa
Junior Member
Posts: 78
Likes: 16
|
Post by rexa on Apr 9, 2023 22:07:56 GMT
The fact that mathematical axioms are 'self' evidential necessitates a self within the formation of mathematics and as such further necessitates a subjectivity. This subjective nature to math paradoxically results in certain axioms not being accepted as the subjective is relative thus necessitating true/false values for everything depending upon the angle of observation. I don't accept the axioms of math and the 'self'-evidential nature of these axioms is further proof I don't have to. A=B , B=A, C=A A= 4 B= 5 -1 C = 2+2. I don't know what medications are you on before you post in philosophical forum
|
|
lamburk
Full Member
Posts: 227
Likes: 80
|
Post by lamburk on Apr 10, 2023 15:25:31 GMT
The fact that mathematical axioms are 'self' evidential necessitates a self within the formation of mathematics and as such further necessitates a subjectivity. This subjective nature to math paradoxically results in certain axioms not being accepted as the subjective is relative thus necessitating true/false values for everything depending upon the angle of observation. I don't accept the axioms of math and the 'self'-evidential nature of these axioms is further proof I don't have to. Mathematics is a fallacy, and a psuedo science. I remember, teaching about Fibonacci Sequence, and I was surprised, that what exactly did he smoke, because, he has already set the first two numbers as 0 and 1. What's the logic? I know that it is based on counting the population of rabbits, but, how does that translate into numbers? It's this creepy thing, which I hate in maths. On top of that, all the derivations of physics are absurd, especially the newtonian mechanics, which has lot of assumptions, related to limit theory. But, limit theory itself looks like a weird stuff to me. And this is coming from a person, who has scored 9.7 out of 10 in mathematics in high school. So, no one can blame me on this.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 10, 2023 16:30:53 GMT
The fact that mathematical axioms are 'self' evidential necessitates a self within the formation of mathematics and as such further necessitates a subjectivity. This subjective nature to math paradoxically results in certain axioms not being accepted as the subjective is relative thus necessitating true/false values for everything depending upon the angle of observation. I don't accept the axioms of math and the 'self'-evidential nature of these axioms is further proof I don't have to. Mathematics is a fallacy, and a psuedo science. I remember, teaching about Fibonacci Sequence, and I was surprised, that what exactly did he smoke, because, he has already set the first two numbers as 0 and 1. What's the logic? I know that it is based on counting the population of rabbits, but, how does that translate into numbers? It's this creepy thing, which I hate in maths. On top of that, all the derivations of physics are absurd, especially the newtonian mechanics, which has lot of assumptions, related to limit theory. But, limit theory itself looks like a weird stuff to me. And this is coming from a person, who has scored 9.7 out of 10 in mathematics in high school. So, no one can blame me on this. :) I've heard of few talented mathematicians from India (of course, there are plenty of them). They did true success in it. I don't know whether or not it was pseudoscience, but what I know is that to do such things a person should be extremally smart, and think like a creator, like a designer. It's like to build a plane or something. The same is about many philosophers in past of many different regions, who were mathematicians. For example, Thales - was a philosopher, and a mathematician; Pythagoras - the same; Plato - the same; Descartes - the same; Leibniz - the same, and so on. I wish I had at least 7 of 10 in math. Being a kid I had always dreamed to become an electrical engineer. Bad in math made me not pass the standards.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 10, 2023 16:38:23 GMT
The fact that mathematical axioms are 'self' evidential necessitates a self within the formation of mathematics and as such further necessitates a subjectivity. This subjective nature to math paradoxically results in certain axioms not being accepted as the subjective is relative thus necessitating true/false values for everything depending upon the angle of observation. I don't accept the axioms of math and the 'self'-evidential nature of these axioms is further proof I don't have to. A=B , B=A, C=A A= 4 B= 5 -1 C = 2+2. I don't know what medications are you on before you post in philosophical forum You know, lots of things depends on interpretations. Let's assume the written by you in this way: "A" - carnivores "=" - eat "B" - herbivores "C" - grass What's we got then: "carnivore eat herbivores" "herbivores eat grass" "carnivores eat grass" The last is wrong. So, not in any case we've got a pure transitivity. There's another example: P1. Josh is a father of Jim P2. Jack is a father of Josh C. Jack is a father of Jim Again wrong.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 11, 2023 10:43:06 GMT
The fact that mathematical axioms are 'self' evidential necessitates a self within the formation of mathematics and as such further necessitates a subjectivity. This subjective nature to math paradoxically results in certain axioms not being accepted as the subjective is relative thus necessitating true/false values for everything depending upon the angle of observation. I don't accept the axioms of math and the 'self'-evidential nature of these axioms is further proof I don't have to. Mathematics is a fallacy, and a psuedo science. I remember, teaching about Fibonacci Sequence, and I was surprised, that what exactly did he smoke, because, he has already set the first two numbers as 0 and 1. What's the logic? I know that it is based on counting the population of rabbits, but, how does that translate into numbers? It's this creepy thing, which I hate in maths. On top of that, all the derivations of physics are absurd, especially the newtonian mechanics, which has lot of assumptions, related to limit theory. But, limit theory itself looks like a weird stuff to me. And this is coming from a person, who has scored 9.7 out of 10 in mathematics in high school. So, no one can blame me on this.
Limit theory is an attempt to resolve the division by zero paradox. In the original Newtonian calculus he considers time to be infinitely divisible. But we know through Zeno's paradox, infinitely divisible time cannot be true.
How did Newton NOT know about Zeno?
Either way, once we introduce quantum time from Planck, we can resolve for 3D-N-body gravity. Like this:
So while the formulae are Newtonian. The process, evolutionary-Planck.
And all Einstein's quackery vanishes in a puff
of whatever I was smoking.
But the easiest way to comprehend how bad contemporary academia has degenerated from its heights in the 1800's,
is here:
One can also smoke lavender, you know?
|
|
lamburk
Full Member
Posts: 227
Likes: 80
|
Post by lamburk on Apr 11, 2023 15:26:40 GMT
Mathematics is a fallacy, and a psuedo science. I remember, teaching about Fibonacci Sequence, and I was surprised, that what exactly did he smoke, because, he has already set the first two numbers as 0 and 1. What's the logic? I know that it is based on counting the population of rabbits, but, how does that translate into numbers? It's this creepy thing, which I hate in maths. On top of that, all the derivations of physics are absurd, especially the newtonian mechanics, which has lot of assumptions, related to limit theory. But, limit theory itself looks like a weird stuff to me. And this is coming from a person, who has scored 9.7 out of 10 in mathematics in high school. So, no one can blame me on this. I've heard of few talented mathematicians from India (of course, there are plenty of them). They did true success in it. I don't know whether or not it was pseudoscience, but what I know is that to do such things a person should be extremally smart, and think like a creator, like a designer. It's like to build a plane or something. The same is about many philosophers in past of many different regions, who were mathematicians. For example, Thales - was a philosopher, and a mathematician; Pythagoras - the same; Plato - the same; Descartes - the same; Leibniz - the same, and so on. I wish I had at least 7 of 10 in math. Being a kid I had always dreamed to become an electrical engineer. Bad in math made me not pass the standards. Lols. I rather feel sad, that why did I end up being good in maths and physics, especially, electrictiy, calculus, probability. You know what, my dream job was to become a DJ in a pub, and not an Engineer. . Life is indeed funny, though. No, not exactly. In India, every kid is pushed towards mathematics and sciences, as it's the only way to survive. And no, Indians are not good in mathematics, the way russians, and eastern europeans are. Ours is not theoretical or fundamental mathematics, but mostly applied. Even today, in India, those who follow Cambridge education system, still teach the course works of S L Loney, Bernard and Child, the old british model of education.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 11, 2023 17:33:45 GMT
I've heard of few talented mathematicians from India (of course, there are plenty of them). They did true success in it. I don't know whether or not it was pseudoscience, but what I know is that to do such things a person should be extremally smart, and think like a creator, like a designer. It's like to build a plane or something. The same is about many philosophers in past of many different regions, who were mathematicians. For example, Thales - was a philosopher, and a mathematician; Pythagoras - the same; Plato - the same; Descartes - the same; Leibniz - the same, and so on. I wish I had at least 7 of 10 in math. Being a kid I had always dreamed to become an electrical engineer. Bad in math made me not pass the standards. Lols. I rather feel sad, that why did I end up being good in maths and physics, especially, electrictiy, calculus, probability. You know what, my dream job was to become a DJ in a pub, and not an Engineer. :) . Life is indeed funny, though. No, not exactly. In India, every kid is pushed towards mathematics and sciences, as it's the only way to survive. And no, Indians are not good in mathematics, the way russians, and eastern europeans are. Ours is not theoretical or fundamental mathematics, but mostly applied. Even today, in India, those who follow Cambridge education system, still teach the course works of S L Loney, Bernard and Child, the old british model of education. :) I agree that it's really bad to hear that kids or students should do lots of work to get somethig, but honestly speaking this is almost everywhere now, considering that life isn't going better. Anyway, many Engineer I knew were truly good guys. I always envied them to be able to fix or to repair some devices, etc. DJ? =) That's nice. Personally I knew one guy from Donetsk, it was back in 2005 if I correctly remember it. He was a Dj in a club, and he explained me many things about how to use that turntables... or something. Back at time Hip-Hop or kinda things were popular. (I guess as today.) I wanted to know more about scratching the turntables, but the Dj guy told me that his plans were to get as many girls as possible =) You are good in Math, and other fields, because you are smart, and you've got plenty talents. And you know, it is absolutely important. I mean not always we can understand it, but for those, for instance, who worked in Medicine these things are totally urgent and necessary to know. For instance, if a defibrillator was damaged, or some other as rentgen tools were broken, and there are no one to fix it - this is a catastrophe. Many years ago I guess people discussed those things more often, because they spend almost all their time in such areas, and there were no much time to have fun. I know that for us today it is not the same that for the people from the past, however we can say something about it... I guess you are totally luck to be able to study it in Cambridge way. Believe me, now I am in the middle of translating a logical textbook into Ukrainian, and before doing it I read lots of different textbooks from plenty countries. (And it's not about logic only.) Textbooks from USSR or kinda - are so awful. However, when I was in school all I could was to read them. There were not so much alternatives. Those textbooks were better as bricks, not as a science work. It is completely useless to read books just to be able to repeat definitions, not to get the information. If you did such a progress in Math and other fields this means the system of education you had was very good, and the teachers were truly decent people.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Apr 11, 2023 21:03:41 GMT
000000=0=dementia mathematica
|
|
lamburk
Full Member
Posts: 227
Likes: 80
|
Post by lamburk on Apr 12, 2023 9:56:07 GMT
Lols. I rather feel sad, that why did I end up being good in maths and physics, especially, electrictiy, calculus, probability. You know what, my dream job was to become a DJ in a pub, and not an Engineer. . Life is indeed funny, though. No, not exactly. In India, every kid is pushed towards mathematics and sciences, as it's the only way to survive. And no, Indians are not good in mathematics, the way russians, and eastern europeans are. Ours is not theoretical or fundamental mathematics, but mostly applied. Even today, in India, those who follow Cambridge education system, still teach the course works of S L Loney, Bernard and Child, the old british model of education. I agree that it's really bad to hear that kids or students should do lots of work to get somethig, but honestly speaking this is almost everywhere now, considering that life isn't going better. Anyway, many Engineer I knew were truly good guys. I always envied them to be able to fix or to repair some devices, etc. DJ? =) That's nice. Personally I knew one guy from Donetsk, it was back in 2005 if I correctly remember it. He was a Dj in a club, and he explained me many things about how to use that turntables... or something. Back at time Hip-Hop or kinda things were popular. (I guess as today.) I wanted to know more about scratching the turntables, but the Dj guy told me that his plans were to get as many girls as possible =) You are good in Math, and other fields, because you are smart, and you've got plenty talents. And you know, it is absolutely important. I mean not always we can understand it, but for those, for instance, who worked in Medicine these things are totally urgent and necessary to know. For instance, if a defibrillator was damaged, or some other as rentgen tools were broken, and there are no one to fix it - this is a catastrophe. Many years ago I guess people discussed those things more often, because they spend almost all their time in such areas, and there were no much time to have fun. I know that for us today it is not the same that for the people from the past, however we can say something about it... I guess you are totally luck to be able to study it in Cambridge way. Believe me, now I am in the middle of translating a logical textbook into Ukrainian, and before doing it I read lots of different textbooks from plenty countries. (And it's not about logic only.) Textbooks from USSR or kinda - are so awful. However, when I was in school all I could was to read them. There were not so much alternatives. Those textbooks were better as bricks, not as a science work. It is completely useless to read books just to be able to repeat definitions, not to get the information. If you did such a progress in Math and other fields this means the system of education you had was very good, and the teachers were truly decent people. Yes, the course work in India is extremely tough, and our government council of education, NCERT, publishes text books, which has extremely tough questions to solve. Teachers in India are good, because government don't compromise on this aspect. Indian schooling system is extremely tough, and grilling is hard, but that's what takes us to next level. There have been many entrepreneurs from India, who studied from IIT, and have done well. That itself proves that Indian education was good, at one point. In our days, teacher used to be very strict with us, but with corporatization of education, teachers are under tremendous pressure to perform, and kids complaint against them. These are sort of bullies, or losers, who actually don't do anything. Earlier, India followed USSR model of education, which I would was extremely good, and emphasis was on logic, mathematics, hard physics, chemistry. But, even India is following Americanized model of education, so things are changing here too.
|
|