Pattern Analysis

Example

MATH aka SHITTTTTTTY FUCK
10 + 5 = 15

PATTERNS

If A, write B after it.
If B, write A after it.

ABABABABABABABABABABABABABA to infinity.

Is there anyone on Earth who can look at the two above things and think Math is better in any fucking way?

what the fuck

My point is obvious. Math is like a certain pattern being taught.

5 + 5 = 10
5+ 5 = 10

5 + 5 != 11

Memorize this pattern

Good, that's "Math".

It's fucking moronic. Math is for literal shitbrains

Actually if you knew a bit about math you would know that numbers rigorously defined with set theory follow a very clear patter kind of like your ababab. The fact that you intuitively realize that makes me think that you're not as retarded as you think, but my advise to you is that you finish a math major before pursuing your dreams of pattern theory.

It doesn't surprise me that very far into Math you begin to see some things resembling non-fucked up thought.

The general point is. Math is literally just telling people to memorize some patterns. Learn to map numbers to something geometric in your head, and estimate results.

It's like saying Calculus is something. It's literally nothing but memorizing a few patterns and then estimating geometry in your head. That's literally all it is. It's fucking beyond stupid.

Why in the world would you memorize patterns instead of learn from a foundation of understanding patterns? Like a very simple program can do all of math up to advanced math.

Might as well just have people look at lengths of things and memorize how they fit together. It's as useful as math.

You could teach the equivalent of math just giving kids geometric shapes to fuck around with for a few months instead of even bothering with numbers.

>math is rote memorization
>set theory is very far into math
I think is right and maybe you're just underage instead of severely retarded

you have never taken a math class in your life

Math is code word for shitbrain.

numbers, sets, blah blah, it's just worthless.

A simple pattern existent because it's a pattern is more basic and better than all of math BS.

You literally are bragging about understanding simple fucking patterns and memorizing them. Why would you want to be such low abstraction. Even if math slowly climbs out of the garbage bin eventually it's only because it uses patterns to begin with.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 to left of 2, 2 to right of 1, etc

higher decimal place follows same pattern with highest priority blah b lah

It's fucking stupid to even think about such a thing as "math" existing, or "numbers".

you keep bashing what you think is math, but all examples you can give are from preschool
the most sophisticated "math" you can even talk about is calculus, which is literally "let's make engineers memorize some shit so they think they know math lmao"

it's really fucking retarded of you to talk so loud about something you know nothing about

I think you're not wrong, just misguided. The problem is that you've been only introduced to rote math and that's probably where your hatred of it comes from, you're not to blame for that but your teachers who force you to memorize things. Abstract formal math is nothing like that, i think you will like it if you try it. And if you don't, at least you'll have a solid enough foundation to formalize your theories.

The problem with your theory of it is that you assume I would be dumb enough to get fooled by math.

I got a bit offtopic. The topic is that FOUNDATIONAL stuff should be based on learning about patterns. Math is obviously useful for it's little niches since people have shoved useful patterns into it.

People have been doing math since thousands of years ago, you're not going to convince anyone to stop taking it seriously unless you can come up with some foundations for your system. Formalize your thoughts and publish them, and only then will you have at least some grounds to criticize math.
Personally I do think that pattern recognition can be improved upon but you're just whining about math, you're not doing any kind of positive work.

foundations of what you colossal fucking retard? math IS the foundation

you have absolutely zero idea of what you mean by patterns, and you're too dense to understand that it's what math does

I imagine OP is underage and just trying to express his frustration with the quality of math education at that level. Yes, math education sucks OP. We know. All you can really do is get yourself a private tutor for now, and maybe think about going into education after you get your bachelor.

Yea I think so too, he doesn't seem stupid he's just too dense to understand that he's not studying proper math.

This is a /pol/ thread isn't it?
>look at this "pattern"of black people being criminals

yes
i'm basing this on the pattern of threads that are made
just noticing patterns here, hehe

not to mention airheaded OP always uses the same korean singers as pictures

Wait, why didn't you use math?

I think I recognise this poster. he often makes kind of shcizophrenic threads like this that don't communicate anything precisely or soundly

Might as well post this here. See if you can work this shit out. I've been trying for a good 30minutes now.

wow that's a great quote. I'm going to use that. It perfectly summarizes everything taught in all schools as well.

>yet most subjects obfuscate it
You mean eclipse, overshadow, etc. not obfuscate

What do you do exactly? Sit there swapping the shapes for numbers or imagining them flipped and rotated in different ways and looking at them in different orders until you find something random?

>kpop idol
>philosophical stance on mathematics
>algorithms mentioned

I like you. Just post less-nugu kpops next time and you're gold.

Well supposedly there's a pattern between them. Whether it's flipping (it's not) or moving numbers in lines. I obviously don't know the answer. It's confusing as fuck.

OP is right in that the choice of pattern used to express a particular concept is largely irrelevant, and that there's little (if any) knowledge to be found in looking at patterns in isolation.

The structure shows up in the logic used to transform one given pattern into another, and the mathematival insights appear when we can characterize these transformations.
This is essentially the motivation behind category-theoretic foundations, as exposited by Mazur in his discussion of 'when one thing is equal to another thing':

pdfs.semanticscholar.org/806a/92153c4b8d344edec45eece4ba105afd3dda.pdf

I'm saying in terms of foundations of how humans are taught and the languages we use. It's all fucking wrong and shitty.

Let's take the example pattern ABABABABABABABABABABAB

If people started with patterns instead of bad language/subject.

You could even express ABABABABAB as symmetric copying.

() for copied portion
AB copied = AB(AB) copied = ABAB(ABAB) etc

You notice the symmetry about the fold point/copy point? The old symmetric point shifts as well and is no longer symmetric but instead 1/4th from the origin to symmetry point

Now take sums of numbers

2,4,12

0,2
0,2,(4,6)
0,2,4,6,(12,14,16,18)

See the exact same thing? If you drew this out, the symmetric point is very clear.

I just feel like the basic way things are understood is wrong and it leads to people being dumb with easy problems becoming hard.

Not sure what's going on in this thread but there is something I've been interested in learning about in the topic of "Pattern Analysis" and that is learning how to find patterns in financial market time series. What do I need to learn to into this? I guess I'll need Calc, Statistics, Linear Algebra. If I work through these textbooks would I be there and know what I need to know, or would I still be missing something? And is there more stuff that the textbooks don't teach?

> "Pattern Analysis" and that is learning how to find patterns in financial market time series
You need knowledge of the financial market you're trying to predict, and finance in general.
>I guess I'll need Calc, Statistics, Linear Algebra.
That's literally the wrong way to go about doing it.
Think about it: you're essentially learning how to do a computer's job. You're trying to compete with your computer. Do you honestly think you can do calculations, discover patterns, better than a computer can?

This is not to say that learning math is useless, far from it. However, you need to be clear in how you're putting the stuff you've learnt to good use (look at any Veeky Forums thread discussing employment and you'll find people talking about how they never use any of the math they've learnt in their jobs).
If you want to do financial modelling then yes, you'll want to learn analysis, algebra and all that. But -- and this is the most crucial of all -- you'll need to know finance as well (and I'd throw in business and economics for good measure). That's why AI researchers, who know tons of advanced math and CS but not necessarily finance, aren't dominating the financial market.
Sure, they may prototype a model that the investment bankers and fund managers eventually use to make money. But if your end goal is to follow in their footsteps and make money, you'll essentially need to be an investment banker and/or fund manager, meaning that you can't run away from domain knowledge.

It's not that I expect to complete with the computer but that all the literature, books, papers, etc on this assumes this knowledge as a prerequisite. Not that I'm trying to compete by hand but trying to understand and this seems to be a prerequisite.
>That's why AI researchers, who know tons of advanced math and CS but not necessarily finance, aren't dominating the financial market.
I've been thinking something similar about how it seems there are many cases of papers by academics which completely disregard market micro structure, order flow, liquidity, and the metagame.

still here?

your language is extremely cumbersome, and the symmetries you're dealing with are tremendously simple.

the language of math is literally as simple and to the point as can be. there's no other way to make it work.

any answer is correct. there is no canonical way to extrapolate a finite sequence

lol, the language is just an example

an example of what? can you even explain what you mean?

it's painfully obvious you never studied any math, and you have no idea what you want. it seems to me that got it right. if you really care, go learn.

Oh shit does that person have bulge?

Also gonna generate a scathing argument about why you're full of shit later, but I'm just feel like it.

Not everything is about symmetry.

The entire idea is just the question

"Did we randomly pick the best foundation or is there something better"

Sort of like math before "zero" was invented.

the foundation is anything but random
the revolutions in the 19th century that lead to rigorous set theory as a foundation were part of a huge effort to overhaul all math and ground it in a solid, coherent framework. there's more to it now like model theory and classes but that's not the point
there's also a framework of category theory that pops up a lot in algebra for example, which generalizes the idea of objects and morphisms, which is the basic structure of the things you want to study. it wasn't picked at random either, it appeared naturally in the study of algebraic topology

btw I didn't solve this all the way.

top left to top middle
: rotate top row left
: rotate left column down

Top middle to top right
:middle column rotate down
:right column rotate up
:top row rotate left

Top left to Left middle
:Rotate bottom row left
:Rotate middle column up
:rotate bottom row right
:rotate left column up

Left Middle to Lower Left
:rotate right column down
:Rotate top row right
:rotate bottom row right

Bottom left corner to middle lower
:Rotate bottom row left
:Rotate left column down
:rotate bottom row left
:rotate middle column up

Couldn't find the overall pattern though, but looking through how center and center right are constructed might reveal it if there is one. too bored of it to continue tho

Do yourself a favor OP, read the book Groups by Camilla Jordan. It's on libgen, and you will realize how wrong you are about math.

but my point is entirely on foundational level things. Groups aren't taught to 10 year olds and doesn't solve the fact of why you all think like retards.

The book is introductory, i chose it because it doesn't need any pre requisites other than not being a brainlet. Yes, you are right about school math, it's bad, horrible even. But your beef should be with school teachers, not with math. Read that book and see what the basics of modern algebra are like.

Nobody here thinks about math in the way math is taught in school. That's what you are too dense to realize. School math is not math.

anyone who sees you using foundations would assume you mean foundations of mathematics aka set theory, logic and such.

I just realize you literally mean "elementary school math is not right" which is something everyone agrees with but it's super hard to get it right. that has nothing to do with math though, but with education

Well the point was that perhaps something more fundamental like "patterns" as a subject could be a better basis for everything. Meaning that something as a foundation for everything else to be learned off. I'd imagine it would be something similar to pseudocode comp sci. The thing is, it would be something you could grow math/science/writing/etc out of to some degree.

that's what common core wants to do. take that as you will.

School sucks academically, get over it and start learning something actually useful in college or by your own means. Also that kind of pattern recognition is highly associated with IQ and would mean that most likely a big number of students wouldn't get it. School is so heavy on rote memorization because any retard can drill it into their heads and the goal of school is that everyone graduates.

symmetry, duality, and orthogonality are a better basis for things than addition, multiplication, and variables.

there is no way you'll ever get to understand any of those if you don't understand operations in Z[x] first

Those concepts are geometric though. Completely intuitive.

and how do you define orthogonality if not in an inner product space?

pattern recognition

Do you do the dot product on every vector you see? Do you see a 90 degree angle on a surface and think "better do the inner product to see if they are orthogonal"

OP, how are you supposed to design anything without using a formalised, abstract language, that has been finetuned for at least 1000 years by millions of people?

Pattern recognition is something we humans do by default, that's why we see bulls and archers in star formations, and are able to distinguish between biologically identical twins.

In a way, a pattern is an entirely intuitive human concept, whereas a differential equation is not.

yes because you'll be so much better at solving problems with something not intuitive.

Like think for a second. Is it exclusionary?

Think about the practical usage of "math" in society. It's all from people capable of ignoring how unintuitive it is and able to build up their own pattern recognition on how to make it useful.

Basically the opposite of whatever you are thinking makes it useful, while something like "pattern matching" and focusing more on intuition makes it more useful and also ties it with everything else in a better way.

IHBT

With out writing anything down, one of the patterns I see is that the end of a row is the same pattern as the first pattern on the next row, only that it is turned clockwise

Yeah, I only looked at top left to top middle at first and saw the easiest transform to get it was a rotate top row left, rotate left column down. From there it was just seeing if there was a pattern to which to rotate. Doesn't mean that's the right way but it's why. I honestly hate the problem though

>ignoring how unintuitive it is
you keep claiming mathematicians are somehow masochists who use a shitty language on purpose
you're very wrong. math is about the language reflecting intuition first and foremost

>any answer is correct. there is no canonical way to extrapolate a finite sequence

There's more than one of those frequenting this site user.

>math dude trying to protect math
>christian dude trying to protect christinaity
>crazy crystral lady defends using crystals

I see a pattern. Welp, in my book of pattern finding it says "math is trash". Guess you're wrong.