"Collapse of the wavefunction" is what happens to the probability when the indeterminate future suddenly becomes determined by a measurement in the present.
Are most math textbooks written by brainlets?
Caleb Howard
Mason Martin
If intuition was included in math textbooks, retards would think intuition was a valid method to prove things. And intuition will mislead you very often (think of the 20 shitposting threads this board gets every day, monty hall, zeno's paradoxes, etc.)
Jonathan Jones
t. Engineer
Cooper Carter
Unfortunately, a lot of intuition is hard to explain because it's based on a lot of previous knowledge you have, which you don't necessarily have to be aware of at the moment it 'clicks'.
Robert Wright
Whoa, thanks for the advice, although it's too late now. But sure, I'll take a look.
Aaron Gutierrez
>asked about a way to provide a base for intuitive understanding
you never did this you imbecile baboon
all you did was
>BAWWWWWWWWWWW I DONT KNOW MATH AND DONT UNDERSTAND IT BAWWWWWWWWWW
enroll in a class or open a fucking book, colossal fucking retard
Gavin Barnes
Personally, I think your point is well made but I disagree with it.
Sometimes even relatively simple concepts, like the Direct Fourier Transform need rather complicated notation to get across the complete nuance of the concept. What I am saying is that even easier topics in Mathematics are subject to nuance, making it difficult to communicate in a simple way.
Daniel Edwards
That's absolutely fair, and you have a good point. Most math beyond the really basic stuff does require some understanding of certain concepts before more complex concepts are introduced. My point was that that the fundamental aspects of some complex math can likely be communicated to someone with a lower level of understanding, even if learning the details of said complex math will require more education before it can be fully communicated. For example, since you mentioned the Discrete Fourier Transform, check out the Wikipedia article, and then check out a couple videos Khan Academy did on the subject. Khan gives a basic yet fairly intuitive (and visual) explanation while Wikipedia makes it looks like rocket surgery to someone who's never been introduced to it. Obviously those are two extreme examples, but in my experience most people would not be afraid to approach a subject, would learn faster, and would develop a deeper understanding of the subject with a "friendlier" introduction in most cases. Thanks for responding normally and not sperging out like this guy
Carson Morgan
Levi Wright
Depends on the field imo. Most of the asymptotic analysis texts I've read have been intuition-oriented, even the ones that aren't written for engineers.