I say Geometry.
Geometry
Algebra
Geometry or Algebra?
I say Geometry.
This should probably be a poll, and you should describe what you mean by geometry... because both algebra and geometry can be based on rules, which is a Te thing. or can be done in your mind.
-Slava
What a great replacement for a nany
Considering that I'm still in high-school, I'd say that I'm referring to the High-school level of both classes.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Algebra: It becomes almost automatic once the rules are in place in my mind, so I can think of other things while I'm doing it.
TiNe, LII, INTj, etc.
"I feel like I should be making a sarcastic comment right now, but you're just so cute!" - Shego, Kim Possible
I like both. How can I choose?! I guess I'll go with Algebra... the problem I always had with both subjects is that you're down-graded for not showing your work.
I say Geometry. Of course, the subjects overlap, but I have an easier time when there are visuals involved.
Uhm, neither?
ENFP - Ethical Subtype.
In touch with semireality.
Geometry.
Although I prefer three-hour lectures on the evolution of moss over either.
Beware! Nerd genes on the prowl.
INFj - The Holy CPU Saint
Dishonorary INFp
Baah
(Very good place for emoticons. Right-click on the one you want and select "properties" for direct link)
Definitely neither. (Is that an ENFP thing? Like, "why should I learn about Algebra - I've no intention of going there"?)
Maybe. I vote neither also.Originally Posted by schrödinger's cat
INFp
<--- Me pouring out all my love on you!
Some days its just not worth chewing through the restraints.
Calculus. Definitely calculus.
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
Socionics for sure
That's exactly it for me. I liked statistics, but that was it.
It depends on the level that your are talking about... at high school geometry and algebra I would say algebra. That said, once you start getting into college level mathematics I would say they are then equal in my mind. I have always hated doing geometric proofs.
I put my vote into "liberal arts math" w00t! The only math that can get you in and out of college without really knowing math!
I'm taking algebra right now. It drives me nuts remembering and these different formula. Like using 3 of them for solving one problem.
ISFP, SEI
It is not a question of how difficult it is really, since I consider all mathematics to be easy. So are in the 8th or 9nth grade Taz? I have found the fundamentals of math to be much more difficult then say calculus, zum Beispiel to prove 1+1=2 you must memorize a couple thousand theorems and axioms.
Sorry I was thinking according to the math level I'm taking now in High school as in 12th grade nowalso taking Advance Algebra now . Just expressing my thought before I read what I was suppose to answer
ISFP, SEI
"I have found the fundamentals of math to be much more difficult then say calculus, zum Beispiel to prove 1+1=2 you must memorize a couple thousand theorems and axioms."
That's proveable?
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
I say both, because you can prove that a regular 17-gon is constructible with a compass and straightedge, or that you can't square a circle, or that you can't double a cube, etc...
INTj Mathematician -- "What, me worry?"
"As intelligence increases, happiness goes down. See, I made a graph. I make a lot of graphs." -- Lisa Simpson
Geometry! It has so much practical application. Plus I was better at it.
Entp
ILE
Mytic, you have one apple, and I give you another one, how many apples do you have?
Really, why would you need to take all that time to "prove" it? Have you ever seen 1+1 =/= 2? Ever? EVER!?!?!??
S people.Mytic, you have one apple, and I give you another one, how many apples do you have?
Really, why would you need to take all that time to "prove" it? Have you ever seen 1+1 =/= 2? Ever? EVER!?!?!??
TiNe, LII, INTj, etc.
"I feel like I should be making a sarcastic comment right now, but you're just so cute!" - Shego, Kim Possible
S people.Mytic, you have one apple, and I give you another one, how many apples do you have?
Really, why would you need to take all that time to "prove" it? Have you ever seen 1+1 =/= 2? Ever? EVER!?!?!??
I'm just trying to save you a little time here. Why would anyone want to memorize thousands of formulas to prove something that has to work in it's simplest form? There is nothing complex about taking one thing, and putting it together with another thing to have two things. 1+1=2 is sort of the definition that everything else is based off of, no? DOn't you have to accept it to do anything else in math? It is like not accepting the word "is" in English. Can you try and prove to me that "to be" actually exsistes?
I'm just saying, I thought it was merely a concept that is simply ASSUMED to be true, not that something that could be proven.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Proving that 1+1=2 is like building the 100th story of an edifice with an infinite number of stories - and this building does not contain everything (due to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem). Look on page 362 of the Principia Mathematica if you want are curious about it. Inside the Principia Mathematica it takes about 30 pages just to define the syntax of arithmatic and about 100 pages to define the syntax of only the foundations needed to define what 1 is. It requres predicate calculus to prove suchMytic, you have one apple, and I give you another one, how many apples do you have? Razz
Really, why would you need to take all that time to "prove" it? Have you ever seen 1+1 =/= 2? Ever? EVER!?!?!??Your attitude shall change once you learn more.There is nothing complex about taking one thing, and putting it together with another thing to have two things. 1+1=2 is sort of the definition that everything else is based off of, no? DOn't you have to accept it to do anything else in math? It is like not accepting the word "is" in English.Your argument sounds logical, but the operations MUST BE PROVEN in order for arithmetic to arise.It is like not accepting the word "is" in English. Can you try and prove to me that "to be" actually exsistes?
Edited for gayness.
SOMEBODY KILL ME. YUCK.Inside the Principia Mathematica it takes about 30 pages just to define the syntax of arithmatic and about 100 pages to define the syntax of only the foundations needed to define what 1 is. It requres predicate calculus to prove such
In that case, "2" would be undefinable because of the infinite number of mathematical expressions that could define it.I am under the impression that "2" is defined as whatever "1+1" is...
And yes, what is that in your avatar, Theodosis? Looks like an ape bowing some kind of primitive violin.
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
It is a compressed picture of Nicolo Paganini, a faked picture though. The full size version of it can be found here. http://www.gegoux.com/fake.htm
SOMEBODY KILL ME. YUCK.
I assumed that you were either in the 8th or 9nth grade because I thought you were taking algebra 1, which is usually taken while in those grades. Algebra is much more natural (intuitive) then geometry for me.Sorry I was thinking according to the math level I'm taking now in High school as in 12th grade now Embarassed also taking Advance Algebra now . Just expressing my thought before I read what I was suppose to answer Embarassed . I say as I'm most familiar with is Algebra.
i think im better at spatial logic. I love math but i think i did slightly better in geometry. Both were fun and effortless though.
would visualizing spatial relationships be Ne?
rotating a single object in your mind, still Ne or Ni (perceiving the object over time)?
"I assumed that you were either in the 8th or 9nth grade because I thought you were taking algebra 1, which is usually taken while in those grades. Algebra is much more natural (intuitive) then geometry for me."
Which is the core issue I'm trying to get at: what causes the preference in such a situation? Geometry is far more easier for me, seeing as _everything_ in it comes almost instantly to me, whereas in Algebra I have to work the logic out in my head first; this is most probably due to my more sophisticated visuo-spatial capacity in relation to my computational abilities. Contrary to what one may think, I _don't_ think in pictures, but rather an odd synthesis of both pictures and reflective commentary.
Generally, I like working logic out _without_ the math involved.
Which is why I never use a formula when I work on my physics assignments. I see the cause-and-effect relationship and can intuitively derive the formula and work it out from there.
I wonder if this issue, the issue implied by my original question, is as simple as a left/right brain-split as pop-neurobiologists would want you to think?
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
I think about algebra visually, my computational skills are much higher then my spatial skills. I think visually, I see the numbers in my head and then I am able to easily multiply up to 4-digit numbers(in my head), accurately(I am less accurate when doing larger then 4-digit numbers). But when it comes to geometry my mind does not associate anything to a particular shape. With numbers I see shapes, and images for each number (Synesthesia).I generally think opposite of that. I like to work out the logic with the math involved. I usually visualize the formula when working on physics.Which is why I never use a formula when I work on my physics assignments. I see the cause-and-effect relationship and can intuitively derive the formula and work it out from there.I am not certain whether it is just a left/right brain thing. I would not want to say so now, I think it has to do with how one thinks( visual cortex et cetera rather then limiting it to right and left relationship).I wonder if this issue, the issue implied by my original question, is as simple as a left/right brain-split as pop-neurobiologists would want you to think?
I would say that one will probably like the one that they are better at, and the one that is the most "natural" to them( they just "get it" easier). It also could be that we teach much more algebra then geometry in high school?
"With numbers I see shapes, and images for each number (Synesthesia)."
I remember there was this Brit who claimed he could do math without actually "thinking", and instead have the numbers "appear" before him via the exact condition within the parantheses.
He could calculate enormously large numbers, such as 432^75, or something to that extent, in a few seconds.
Though I realize there are methods of achieving such calculatory profiency, such as the ancient school of the abacus in Japan, thus I would remain a bit skeptical to his claims of being able to do "math without thinking."
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
I do not do it like the person you are referring to. I am thinking about it when I am doing it.I can not do it that far, maybe something like 55^10 but not something to the power of 70. And no I am not able to do it in only seconds, usually for a number like 55^5 it would take me a minute or so.432^75
algebra, geometry, calculus, physics, socionics...
To me it all kind of blends into the same primordial soup. I enjoy the hands on construction part of geometry (swinging arcs with a compass, etc). It's relaxing...
Algebra though has a certain beauty to it also. Number theory was an obsession of mine for quite awhile (especially Cantor's work with the transfinite continuum).
Whatever, as far as aptitude, they're both (algebra and geometry) equally easy for me. I was always in accelerated math classes in school and bored silly 99.99% (~100%) of the time. Actually I really didn't get serriously obssessed with it all until after I'd quit school (3.5 GPA dropout in my senior year... lol)
Once I didn't have to do all those meaningless problems and junk it all became extreamly interresting to me.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote