"I'm smart but I am bad at math."

It's extremely true. As processing power gets stronger and stronger and coders get smarter and smarter computers are capable of handling more and more complex problems, usually figuring them out with simple addition and subtraction.

>Other operations, such as symbolic integration, can be even more complex, but the basic concept is usually the same: reduce the complex problem into simpler ones, and compute.

lol there's still tons of integrals that computers have no chance of solving, it still takes geniuses like Cleo

>>Other operations, such as symbolic integration, can be even more complex, but the basic concept is usually the same: reduce the complex problem into simpler ones, and compute.

One day to be a mathematician all you will need to do is compartmentalize a problem so a computer can compute it. That day is rapidly, rapidly approaching.

I'm not smart but I'm not bad at math

>computers will be capable of solving calc problems we have been solving since the 17th century
Wow, math PhDs BTFO.

Also, I read somewhere that computers could only prove tautolgies which are the useless types of mathematical truths.

Computers can't tell which results are useful. You need to give it some direction, and to do you need someone who knows some math.

Sure you can memorize anything you'll be tested on and pass. This is true for anything, just memorize anything anyone could ask you and you're set. But actually working out problems on your own in the basic math like analysis or algebra can be challenging. Proving things can be done without any memorization outside of the definitions and that's what makes math different for testing intelligence.

How can I get good at math? Whenever I try to sit down and work on anything more complicated than basic algebra my mind just goes blank. I had to cheat my way through high school.

Well, math is pretty large and has many methods. What are you good at visualizing in your head?

dumb frogposter

Only fond memories or things I desire. Everything else manifests itself as a dull flickering image in my mind's eye.

People are good at different things user. It's perfectly possible to be a smart accomplished person while not knowing much about fields other than the one you're trained in. One of the worlds best neurosurgeons thinks the pyramids were created to store grain.

Cleo fascinates me. Is it a team? Is it computer aided?

Spooky shit

Try to understand what you are doing instead of just memorizing rules.

I get that in most cases this statement just means they are some snowflake that didn't try in pre-calc, but there are definitely smart people that don't know math. I guess it really depends on what you consider 'smart'

The ability to predict the future given the relevant data.

define smart

What kind of math do you want to become better at?

If you are talking about basic algebra, then yeah - knowledge needed is very low to understand it.
If you tell me you were bad at solving basic problems then I have the right to at least doubt your effectiveness in choosing the most logical course of action.
A lot of more advanced math simply isn't studied in most field, not STEM, of course. You can't expect someone to care about it if they don't specifically go in STEM.

But there again, there could be way too many causes that aren't related to your intellect
>shit teachers
>shit textbooks
>discouraged by initial failures

Can you source that image for me senpai, Google image search I'd showing up nothing.

Second season of KonoSuba.

Not really. At the undergrad level, you can rederive pretty much everything from basic principles and really master everything.
At the graduate level, there is so much material to cover and so many papers coming out all the time that you can't rely on your sole analytical skills. Your memory then becomes a very important tool (of course you need skill to make sense of all that new stuff and keep it in your head without actually working through it).

Don't lie to yourself. No one, including you, is smart.

To you is anyone who isn't a math major bad at maths?

Now now, artists have a certain type of intelligence that isn't quanitifiable from STEM... Yet intelligence does not equate to being smart. I have seen many intelligent people act completely irrational.

>Knowledge = Intelligence
Fuck off, regards Veeky Forums

You're not smart user you have autism, that's the only reason why you're good at remembering numbers. When it comes to every subject that isn't Physics or math you turn SPED instantly

What's the difference between knowledgeable and intelligent?

Smartest person I ever met was shit at maths. Though I think it was due to a lack of interest rather than ability. Still, having a 165 IQ and winning several national history contests is impressive.

An intelligent person is naturally deductive. He knows how to use logical thinking to draw parallels to current situations, think Sherlock Holmes. A knowledgeable person is someone who has through repetition learned something and who can now apply that knowledge. Intelligence is inborn, knowledge isn't. Then again it takes certain people to be really good at math just like it takes certain people to be good at sports, music, language, philosophy or art. To say that all of them except the mathematician lack intelligence or smarts is not only terribly stupid and arrogant but it's also far from really. It would be like me saying that you're a retard for not being able to play all of Bach's Goldberg variations. I know that you all are very autistic so this might come as a shocker, but every individual is different.

Intelligence comes from Intuition+Logic
Those help you gain new knowledge quicker.

Solving cases like the Sherlock Homes ones leans on abductive reasoning(or basically gaining new information based only on "results", or hints&evidence, in this case), that is indeed a better way to show intellect than say, winning a national history contest like said

Forgot to add...
Normies are impressed by someone showing a bit of knowledge about a subject and react with "wow, how intelligent/smart!" but this is wrong as the right definition would be "knowledgeable".
So yeah, if normies call you that - you most likely just know more than them in a certain subject.

Exactly. Being good at history doesn't make you a super genius, it just means you can pay attention when reading.

It's true.

LMFAO no. Some people are good at certain things that other's can't do, and vice versa.

This actually. Every single math teacher I have had up until my junior year in high school was mediocre at best. Luckily enough I got a decent teacher then and now in my senior year I have a pretty good teacher. I'm even starting to find it fun, something I thought wasn't possible in a million years.

Despite many of these other posts talking about not having to know theoretical math as a requirement to be intelligent, you have to remember that people who say this are literally complaining about high school level math, AKA algebra and geometry.

You'd be surprised how little deductive resoning most people have and how incapable of solving simple problems without being outright told what to do by someone else. Most of these people also hate computing simple math problema just because it's taxing.

History doesn't require intuition nor logic, just raw memorization skills.
Yet most historians are thought to be "smart".

More basic math does require some intelligence.
Indeed, I doubt people who claim to be smart and can't even in basic math - not calculus or anything, just fucking being bad at basic math. And I don't mean making calculations in your mind, of course.

My math teachers so far have been all decent except in the last 2 years of high school. She got bored and a bit depressed, expecting us to just memorize everything without explaining concepts or showing us what the fuck a derivate was, for instance.
I got curious after some time because I was teaching math to a friend and pic related blew my mind, I never was able to understand this in high school because of said teacher, despite being able to calculate them

okay, wolframalpha can more or less solve every problem the average student tries solve in their progression of math classes but there is a skill in knowing what to tell it to do

Thanks for the 2 (You)s homie. Yeah basic math does require intelligence, but I doubt all that many people have trouble with basic math. I seem to have an inborn talent for probability though. During my junior year of high school I barely passed most of math, but probability I managed to scrape up a B in. Even the teacher was surprised.

>used to be like that
>go to uni and apply myself
>turns out math is easy as shit and you just have to invest some time and I was bad at it because I didn't pay attention or study
Math is pleb shit, 99% of which can(and is) done by computers, faggot. To my observation, the average mathfags is just a hardworking brainletto that lost his life to memorizing and learning something that can be done by a refined piece of sandwitched rock in a fraction of the time. If you're not in the top 0.0001%, youre basically useless. Having superior pattern recognition is where it's at. (inb4 muh IQ). I'd trade 1000 pleb undergrad mathfags, learning """really hard""" calc III for a single slightly-higher-than-average-IQ popcsci layman that can actually string a coherent sentence.
>mfw a greasy, nolife lolwhatiseployment puremat subhuman exists within a 1000 AU radius of me

>Math is pleb shit, 99% of which can(and is) done by computers
are you implying that numerics isnt a discipline of mathematics?

Because a lot of mathematicians spend there time trying to solve mathematical problems on a computer.
And incidentally that is something computers can not yet do really well.

But OP, there's nothing wrong with that statement

>realize that calculus is piss easy
>conclude that all math is like that

good work on your reasoning, you must be really great at math

>He thinks people think clac 3 is hard
Only normies and retarded udndergrad. Guess what? No self respeccting mathematician thinks that´s hard.

>mfw a computer scientist speaka

>History doesn't require intuition nor logic, just raw memorization skills.
That's what you think.

History need a ton of memory, yes, but also an extremely methodological spirit and lots of rigour.
At least, good history.

Yes and? There are many people in my field (earth science) who are poor at math. There is no need for them to be extremely good at math but saying they're not smart is foolish.

Most mathematicians utterly despise computational tasks and while they would easily do them, they usually understand why peope struggle.

Ask a mathematician if which they think, of Calc 3 or Abstract Algebra, is more tedious. They'll all answer Calc 3.

>tedious doesn't mean hard!!!
It means it's hard to work on it and to be motivated, which explains why people struggle.

Math is basic pattern recognition. If you suck at math you are a failure of a human being.

Get a sub for the great courses plus. Start with algebra 1, then 2, then precalc, then calculus 1, 2, and multivariable.

Get a torrent for the book they are using (not the included workbook) and do ALL the odd problems for each section.

I failed out of community college but now I'm starting grad school for physics thanks to them

>failed out of community college

Elaborate.
All you need to do in history is simply learning and remembering stuff that happened, there is no intuition or logic involved in reading something and saying "Oh, this happened"

**codemonkey

No.
You don't need to just learn that x and y happened, you need to connect the dots and try to draw an explanation, connections, notice differences, similarities, comparisons to past, present, and (possible) future.
You need to learn how to quote efficiently and make good use of source materials. You need to spot apparent contradiction, and find a 3rd party document to either resolve the contradiction or at least explain it.

History is much more than narrating things, it's connecting things together to explain what happened, the hows, the whys.

>pic related blew my mind, I never was able to understand this in high school

Funny, it was the opposite for me. It was so obvious that I doubted myself that that what they were talking about was actually a tangent line to the curve because everyone was making such a big fuss about it so I figured I must have not thought hard enough about it, but nope. I remember then asking them about tangent planes and then tangent cubes and other shapes and the teacher just gave me that look they always gave me like, "Shut the fuck up." That was a common experience for me in school because I always thought about math geometrically and NO ONE ever made the connection between geometry and anything outside of geometry and even the teachers were always amazed.

Really sad because now that I'm an adult I realize that this isn't because I was smart, I'm not I'm really average, it was just because math education is so horrible in modern times and people actually think geometry and algebra and calculus are "different" subjects.

I'll still never get over the look on his face. Good times. That was pretty much every class really. Always asking questions I wasn't supposed to be asking yet.

>History is much more than narrating things, it's connecting things together to explain what happened, the hows, the whys.
And why? You aren't trying to figure out something studying history, that's if they ask your theory about a past event.

You were smart enough to understand that.
I am like you here - always automatically linked math and geometry... I mean, my mind sees is as perfectly logical and easy now to understand why the derivative of x^2 would be 2
The point is that I didn't grasp the geometrical meaning of derivative because my teacher didn't explain it at all, just gave us definitions and functions to derivate.

How much math does one need to know to be considered smart? Do I need to learn Inter-universal Teichmüller theory?

>You aren´t trying to figure something studying history
Why do you say such hard statements of a field you clearly don´t know anything about.

Not how much, how good you are at it, and then how much better you are at applying it than all the other people who are good at it. Don't listen to the grad students circle jerking over their ivory tower mental masturbation. No one cares about categories until you're working with dynamic systems or managing millions of lines of code. No one cares if you can understand IUTT until you can apply it to something very large, very tiny, very far away, very fast, or some combination of them all.

When I was majoring in philosophy the smartest person I knew there was a Math major. Eventually I realized the difference between math and philosophy is that the first mostly deals with clearly defined concepts while the latter deals with ill-defined concepts from natural language ("freedom", "truth", "being", "God"). While you can must use logical reasoning in both, only math has a clear-cut answer to whether your reasoning was correct or not. So, basically, you can easily fool yourself into thinking you're intelligent if no one can decisively tell you're wrong.

this.

math is the only 100% bullshit free subject. unless you were taught math terribly and never tried to correct it (which makes you a brainlet in its own regards), only brainlets are "bad at math".

Some analysis and some algebra. Like the material out of Rudin and Herstein. They're both very important to math as a whole and once you understand them well they aren't hard. Unlike other topics which will stay hard no matter how much you know like algebraic geometry.

It's very hard to judge how "good" anyone is at basic math. You can measure how long it takes them to solve a set of problems, but that isn't really testing their intelligence since they could have seen the problems before and remember how they're done. Even then, basic math is still just basic math. Plenty of people can and have done it before so it can't be very difficult in a broad sense.

Unfortunately high school math teachers don't know any math beyond the basics. They're almost always the worst of people majoring in math since the people who were good at it moved on to academia or actual jobs if they learned how to program.

>It's very hard to judge how "good" anyone is at basic math. You can measure how long it takes them to solve a set of problems, but that isn't really testing their intelligence since they could have seen the problems before and remember how they're done. Even then, basic math is still just basic math. Plenty of people can and have done it before so it can't be very difficult in a broad sense.

Mmmmmm... I think we all know when someone is good at math, even if we don't want to admit it. It is true that someone can know the answer already, but most of the time, especially in math classes which are usually smaller, we already know which type of person is the one who would need to rehearse their answers before the test and which has never read the textbook and is just answering the questions logically. Just because there's someone who rehearsed doesn't make the other guy "not good." We all know who they are and what they are capable of.

>tfw good at math but even better at other subjects/fields

Because of arrogance. Many STEM people believe they know everything and thus anybody who specialized in something not STEM is stupid.

Yes but we can't really know whether they've seen the material before. They could just be saying they haven't looked at the book. That's why it would be a poor test for intelligence. Higher level math has the advantage here in that you can ask very obscure questions which people have definitely never seen before unless it was their field of expertise.

>im really smart, i just don't try

If you have inflexible thought patterns you are pretty much a retard that will achieve nothing.

Getting good at math is a serious time requirement so if you have other interests it becomes practically impossible to acquire any sufficient math knowledge.

Learning some basic math is nothing special either and anyone can do it in a small time frame. But that knowledge is hardly necessary in most cases.

Well, it seems really difficult for Veeky Forums to believe it, but there are people like that. Although people who are good at math tend to be smart, not all smart people are good at math. This is sets 101. You should know this.

The people who say this are referring to highschool level math. Every smart person can do this level of math.

Anime makes you a degenerate.

This

Not really. I know quite a few smart people in humanities that just can't do HS-level math. I pity them when I see their inability, but that changes on other instances when I see that they are truly smart, but are unable to do math because they never bothered to even start to try to understand it.

Just to clarify - it highly depends on the school you choose(you sure don't do analysis in every HS, do you?), but generally it's still basic math.

Personally I did derivatives and integrals in EE, but I don't think it was basic at all.
Also noticed I skipped set theory, but it was incredibly easy to learn it by myself in small time

yes, but that person could be pretty resourceful on other things, like managing a business and make a living out of it. You have people on this board that majored in physics and work office and receptionist jobs.

I don't like to think of myself as intelligent I really don't like to think of myself as above anyone. However people often accuse me of being intelligent. "David" they say accusingly "You're quite intelligent". I enjoy many things others consider to be mentally taxing. I did only get just over 70% in math. Ive never felt the urge to get any better at it even though I'm well aware I'm capable of doing so. It just doesn't interest me. I'm far more interested in history and the less math involved sides of physics and astronomy.

smart
>having or showing a quick-witted intelligence
/thread

"Sub" what?

Define define

What would be smart?

.99~=1 both conceptually and realistically. No bullshit.

>can't understand it
ftfy

Multiple intelligences. I would consider an intelligent person to be athletic, sociable, emotionally stable, good at math, writing, reading, and music. This is immensely rare and as much as this may hurt you, my guess is that you're good at math and that has no practical application outside of your career/education. The odds of you discovering some new mathematical theorem and contributing to the world as we know it is infinitesimal. Math, to me, is the repetition of information that was designed by man in order to explain basic phenomena like what happens if I lose 2 fingers to frostbite? Will I still have 10 fingers? No? Fuck? I'll only have 8? Fuck. Quite honestly the most intelligent people that ever existed were philosophers who set up the basics of logical reasoning for mathematicians to come in and fuck it all up with numbers.

3rd year Math Major here.

>Multiple intelligences

You're a brainlet.

If you believe you'll never do great things then of course you won't

>Multiple intelligences

>Intelligence is inborn, knowledge isn't.
What?

See
and

>math is the only 100% bullshit free subject
Math is terribly formalist, unintuitive, and terribly computational for the most part.

Don't get wrong, I love it, but I understand people not liking it.

I look at some integrals and think there's no way a computer can do that

Math is only unintuitive if you've learned it from shitty professors.
Also, the only kind of math that's largely computational is the kind of math that normies are impressed by like basic calculus, ODEs, linear algebra, etc. "Average Joe" doesn't even know what the hell analysis, topology, abstract algebra ARE.