What are the disadvantages of mathematics in economics?
What is the mathematical formula for someone's emotions, hopes, aspirations, mood, desire, psychoses, fears, tastes, kinks? I'm not saying we can't attempt to model these things, but it would be a big task. We can't even give an accurate weather forecast beyond a few days, so can we honestly expect to model human hebaviour with any confidence? A model is only useful if it resembles reality. It could tell us what will happen next, with a certain level of confidence. I suspect that we often rely on them and believe more of them than we should. They will always need updating to include new information. If so, please show your woking for when the next war will start. Please show me what time Tesco will sell out of bread rolls tomorrow. Please tell me which shares will go up by 100% next week. (PLEASE!) If I flip a coin now, which side will be up? I need to know if it will be heads or tails. Saying it could be either is not good enough.
Try to interrelate pictures and diagrams with numbers and expressions; turn the blackboard into a twin adventure featuring number construction married to illustration. Attempt a continuing philosophy of building pictures in the mind, so that numbers, their constructions and expressions are not empty graphics.It is a wonderful classroom where the Teacher is an avid fan of math, filling a large sector of life, and that, hopefully, this enthusiasm finds a spread to students as a direct result of the Teacher’s love of subject.If time allows, approach a math proposal from different angles.Encourage students to tell you what they fail to grasp. There are no limits to the number of explanations required to finally achieve understanding by one of your Learners.Never forget the founding database. The multiplication tables 2–12 present such a base. Once learned, they stand to provide instant answer to simple calculation; these tables become a seat in the subconscience, like the tyres of a car.
POLL: Who's ideals are better for the economy: Democrats or Republicans?
LOL, the only problem with your theory is it only applies to Mathematics...not the economy. 1 year of Obama has proven that. The democrats in Congress didn't want Bush getting any good credit so they blocked alot of his initiatives and touted to the world his failings. The compliant and willing media have always bashed the right and given the left an easier time, demonstrated as they tried to talk the economy down during Bush's last year as president. The democrat Congress controlled spending and were in control that whole last year before Obama took over and still...after all the democrat parties little fingers in everyone's pie, dipping into the till of wall street and the mortgage brokers....causing the mess they made with the mortgage melt down, forcing banks to take bail outs ...for which the banks paid back with interest..just to be slapped with another fee....tax....whatever the democrats are conveniently calling it. Obama had the majority in house and senate and accomplished nothing good for America....he didnt need a single republican vote. Not to mention the storm of racism and sexism during the Democrat primaries, proving they are the party of haters, the party of racism, prejudice, dirty little tricks and tactics all the while demonizing the right for simply telling the truth in ads of thier opponents past accomplishments...or lack there of. If what you've seen for 2 years haven't proven to you that the Democrat party has not only lost thier way, but are derranged, selfish, greedy, money grubbing little bastards....then your too deluded to vote really. If you weighed the democrats on the same scale you weighed the republicans, you wouldn't be so quick to condemn them. The democrat party offers you a nice idea, but never executes it, at least the conservatives are consistant with a plan that has always worked for America.....Now if you can just kick the elitist blue bloods out of the Republican party we will be fine as a nation.
I'm a physicist - so I'm approaching this from more of the view of "why do we use complex maths to prove something that is obvious". Sorry that my examples aren't more based in economics - but the general principles should apply!There are 2 reasons - one of which very much depends on the context.1) The "trivial" case is a special case of a more general example.For example - if you want to find out the area under a curve, f(t) - the general case is an integral:[math]A = \int_{t=a}^{t=b}f(t)dt[/math]However - if the specific case they then use as an example is just a straight line [math]y=4t [/math]and you want the area between 0 and 1 - it is trivial to see that you just use a triangle formula - but they will often still use the integral to get the answer, because it is the general solution.2) Trivial is a slippery slopeSometimes in the middle of a proof, my maths lecturers say "so it is trivial to see that blah" - and skip to the end of the proof - only for some timid person to meekly ask - "how is it trivial?"The lecturer then almost always looks back at the proof, and then back to the student several times - before admitting that actually it's not trivial, and then spending 5 minutes trying to prove this "trivial" thing.Some things which seem logically trivial, are not always so. If you get into the habit of saying "well this is trivial" and skipping to the answer you think it is, it's a dangerous habit - and could lead you to getting things wrong! It also means that people who are trying to follow your logic, to whom it's not trivial, will get completely lost.So so there are several reasons why "triviality" doesn't mean you should get lax!I hope this seems at least vaguely relevant
This is a great question as asked. Let me preface this by saying I've been doing software arch/eng/programming for 27 years and I'm a member of a local school board. I was an 'A' math student in HS through trig and stat. Those were the last 'math' classes I took. As a social science major in college, I took stat and research methods and design, but they were taught by the psych department. Since then, I've written engineering analysis software and several heavy statistical analysis programs.So, you're probably thinking here comes the answer from the mathy computer geek. How much of the ADVANCED math do I use today? Very little! How did I do a complex structural analysis software? Easy, I wasn't the structural engineer so I translated their work into computerese. I do use a lot of basic math and a smattering of statistics but in truth I need more financial math (not usually taught in HS) than anything else. That being said, if you want a career in a STEM field, you definitely need the math to be successful and colleges are entitled to students with a solid math background for those fields. Yes, you'll need it for other fields but that tends to be more specifically focused.But I believe the theory that math is the best way to teach logical reasoning is a fallacy. It certainly is true for many people but others would learn more logical reasoning through teaching law, programming, or philosophy; to name a few. I'd bet if you walked into a courthouse and gave algebra tests to the attorneys there that a majority of them would not do well on it. So, after you grade their test, would you really look at them and say "wow, you really lack logical reasoning"? LOL, I wouldn't be able to do that with a straight face!
Am I really incapable of learning math?
Hang on I am going to go get the link to two of my questions I've just recently asked. You aren't the only one. Go look at these links, meanwhile I am going to give you an official answer. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;... http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;... add: I don't understand math that much either. Basic math I feel is relevant to life, but otherwise it isn't. I could care less what x equals in 8x+4855=8485 is, I could care less what the quadratic formula is, I don't give a sh*t of what the slope is of the hill outside my house. We aren't unintelligent by any means, it is just that we are more left-brained and mathematical skills aren't for us. We don't think in numbers, we are more into learning in other forms rather than learning by step processes. We just view the world differently and no you aren't incapabale of learning it, it is just that it is going to take people like us a little longer.