How can one start to THINK IN NUMBERS?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cdux
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Numbers
cdux
Messages
187
Reaction score
0
I keep hearing even by very brilliant Engineering co-students that they require a lot of text-based theory before going into numbers. However, there is also a good deal of good Mathematicians that state they can think in numbers, requiring theory, but not strictly in a text form, or at least an extensive one.

So, how can one go about in order to start thinking in numbers, having as a base the minimal required studying of theory?

Is it only a matter of just paying more attention to it at the initial steps and not rely solely on later friction with practice, or is it a generally different state of mind?

I wait for your opinions. Even if they are not targeted and go beyond the field slightly, they're welcome.

edit: 'Numbers' is loosely used to mean also Mathematics.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I suspect your different sources are being glib - they are actually talking about the same things but not being precise in their language - possible for effect.

What's important in the math is not the numerals or values themselves but the relationships between them.

What the sources are talking about si the way that the math becomes a language that you use to describe the phenomena under investigation. You gain this awareness/facility the same way you become fluent in any language - you have to immerse yourself in it and use it all the time.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
10K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
3K
Back
Top