Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
It's easy to be poor at logic and be an excellent mathematician but this is a whole other issue (the logic part comes in only when trying to present a body of results in an organised, coherent, and succinct fashion). I do know excellent coders who either don't know math or have no aptitude for it and conversely, I know excellent mathematicians who are either no-good coders or have no interest in it. Hence my question. It reminds me of how, in the popular mind, aptitude for chess and aptitude for math are equated, with the connecting thread supposedly being "logical thinking." But in chess what's occurring is pattern recognition with a chessplayer subconsciously going through thousands of patterns (tactical, strategic, pawn structure, endgame, opening trap, etc.) and in math there's something else happening as well -- pattern recognition at some deep level, with the mathematician stumbling over and then recognising a new pattern. But they are very different sets of patterns. "Logical thinking" is either meaningless, used to express superficial tautologies, or used merely to tidy up an ill-organised body of results. It's not the animating force, not the creative elan vital.
It's easy to be poor at logic and be an excellent mathematician but this is a whole other issue (the logic part comes in only when trying to present a body of results in an organised, coherent, and succinct fashion). I do know excellent coders who either don't know math or have no aptitude for it and conversely, I know excellent mathematicians who are either no-good coders or have no interest in it. Hence my question.
It reminds me of how, in the popular mind, aptitude for chess and aptitude for math are equated, with the connecting thread supposedly being "logical thinking." But in chess what's occurring is pattern recognition with a chessplayer subconsciously going through thousands of patterns (tactical, strategic, pawn structure, endgame, opening trap, etc.) and in math there's something else happening as well -- pattern recognition at some deep level, with the mathematician stumbling over and then recognising a new pattern. But they are very different sets of patterns. "Logical thinking" is either meaningless, used to express superficial tautologies, or used merely to tidy up an ill-organised body of results. It's not the animating force, not the creative elan vital.
