Remix.run Logo
▲ 1-more a day ago

> We'll be fine, your children aren't you, they'll find their own passions.

There's an Unschooling group on Facebook I watch. If you search "calculus" you get threads where a parent asks how their kid is going to learn calculus and the answers are mostly "when did you need calculus after high school." Aside from needing it for college, my answer would be "why am I raising my kid to be a 1:1 clone of me and not someone with a lot of different options." So I dig this as an answer. The world has ended a billion times already. People who work hard pursuing a skilled passion have never been obsolete.

▲Animats a day ago | parent | next [-]

Calculus is entry level math for all the hard sciences, engineering, and finance. It's how to think about how things change over time. Understanding what integrals and derivatives look like, especially as graphs, is very practical knowledge. Being able to think about compound interest and acceleration under gravity as driven by the same rules gives an understanding of what's happening underneath.

Whether the infinite-series summation limits are worth knowing is questionable, though. That's more of historical interest.

(But then, I once did a game physics engine and have a patent in that area. I spent a lot of time in the hell which is integration of stiff systems of nonlinear differential equations. Turned out that was the wrong way to approach the problem. Works, but there are better approaches.)

▲necovek a day ago | parent | next [-]

> Whether the infinite-series summation limits are worth knowing is questionable, though. That's more of historical interest.

A very common example is compound, continual interest accumulation. As a mathematician, I had trouble understanding how banks calculate it (as they would obviously not point me at the derivation of the formula), but it's actually a limit sum over infinitely small interest terms.

Similarly, these techniques work to explain and derive numerical methods for calculating many natural constants like e, pi etc.

▲1-more a day ago | parent | next [-]

The only intuitive definition of e I can remember is "how much $1 becomes after a year in a savings account with 100% interest compounded infinitely" funny enough.

▲cheesecakegood 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I just call it “pi but for curves”

▲ViscountPenguin a day ago | parent | prev [-]

That definition also gives a nice introduction to e's taylor series!

▲GeoAtreides 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> As a mathematician, I had trouble understanding how banks calculate it (as they would obviously not point me at the derivation of the formula)

This is not true? The formula is well known:

A = P*e^(rt)

where"

A = Final amount

P = Principal (initial investment/loan)

r = Annual interest rate (as a decimal)

t = Time in years

e = Euler's number

▲fingerlocks 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

A loan is subdivided and sold in different allotments each year at a different interests rate, principal, and terms. You want to sell the entire debt at some point in the future. How do you calculate the price such that you don’t sell at a loss?

▲necovek 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why does that formula work? ;)

I did not say "derivation of the formula" by accident: this is about why would this produce something that makes sense as "interest-as-percentage"?

▲fooker 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That is the integral

▲ErroneousBosh 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You're assuming banks use that formula and not just YOLO it, "haha fuck you pay me more".

▲fwip 14 hours ago | parent [-]

If you learnt calculus, you could check their work and see that it's accurate. And it only takes algebra and a few minutes of work to see that your bank statements match the formula that's been given.

▲ErroneousBosh 13 hours ago | parent [-]

I know calculus, and I also know that mortgage payments don't follow that formula - or, maybe they do but they're so buried in noise and extra charges and costs you'd never know it.

▲Animats 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Bookkeeping normally computes interest based on some accounting period - days, weeks, months, or quarters. It's a sum of discrete charges, not an integral. It was usually monthly in the paper and pencil era; today it is usually daily. Look up "double declining balance" and "Rule of 73".

Financial calculators do integrate, though. "Present value" is computed by integration.

▲parkcedar a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Where I live, the banks say that they compound interest daily, but pay interest monthly. So, I think the small interest term is just limited to a day where the error is small enough for the average person to not care.

▲wombatpm a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My grad program had an advanced math sequence that was traditionally numerical methods for solving PDE’s and boundary value problems. Except my year, a visiting professor made it infinite series solutions using laplace transforms. Because why would you want an inexact numerical solution when you could have an exact solution to whatever degree of accuracy you need. Line integrals have their own special place in hell.

▲1-more a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Right? Just because my professional career never took me in those directions doesn't mean I want to foreclose them for my kid! I did do electrical engineering classes in college wherein I needed calculus, I just never took a derivative/integral after graduation because I ended up on the coding side of a Computer Engineering degree.

▲Der_Einzige 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Intentionally not learning Calculus will make your kid into a better AI researcher, as they will naturally study gradient free optimization that makes few assumptions about a problem space. Global Optimization as a concept is not dead guys!

▲fhe 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

i hope i don't get downvoted for this, but billions of people function just fine without the most rudimentary understanding of calculus. while i love maths, i am sympathetic to the view that it's not an essential life skill, and might even be less so in the future.

▲mr_mitm 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

School shouldn't be teaching essential life skills. It should inspire and enable young people to go on to achieve great things -- at least some of them. How will we ever get another Newton, Einstein, von Neumann, Noether, etc. if we don't teach all young kids what is possible with math? Calculus arguably transformed our society and is a great showcase of the power of math. It can shape the way we think about things, because this level of precision is rarely needed when thinking about other disciplines.

▲necovek 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As pointed out, the fact that it is so does not mean we should not put the foundations in.

The school system needs to provide not just the essentials — though most of that comes from the family and environment — but a window into opportunities.

By however much we invested into mathematics, it put a number of people on this AI track, and through their contributions, here we are — for better or for worse.

Maths, while it is only to be practised by few, has such broad applicability to our entire world — I honestly believe we step straight into Idiocracy in a couple generations if we stop teaching fundamental sciences, among which mathematics is the first of.

▲dTal 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They function just fine as either 1) subsistence farmers, or 2) beneficiaries of an enormous machine designed largely by people who knew calculus. You used to be able to function fine as 3) subsistence hunter, but then members of group 1 destroyed most of the wild ecosystems, while group 2 paved what was left and turned it into luxury apartments.

For better or for worse, humanity has chosen the path of gods. We'd all better start thinking like gods.

▲ 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
▲xattt a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The one-dimensional mentality of anti-intellectualism is absurd. I have heard parents outside of our school but in my community talk down French Immersion programs (versus English schooling) saying that people put their children in for the wrong reasons. I don’t know what the explicit reasons were in this case, but I am assuming that the other parent means academic overachievement.

Learning calculus or French can be beneficial, especially when the glass ceiling in certain workplaces is whether or not you’re bilingual. However, the point that’s getting missed is the metaexperience that consciously or subconsciously shapes the way the child interacts with the world later on.

▲1-more 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In middle school my foreign language choices were Spanish, French, or Latin. I picked Latin because it was cool. When it came time to talk about subordinate clauses and noun cases in English, Spanish, and French, what I'd learned in Latin was invaluable. It's like learning a purely functional style programming language versus an imperative one: they'll both inform how you think about solving problems in the other. Getting really good at another language is good because it makes you better at thinking about grammar.

▲giardini 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I question the "like learning a purely functional style programming language" part of this but Latin did have its advantages. Many English words are derived from Latin roots (but I didn't study Greek and that is the second great source!8-(()

I likely would have been better off taking Spanish but I avoided that b/c half my class were fluent in Spanish already and I had to maintain a decent grade.

▲red-iron-pine 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

counterpoint: I did 3 years of Latin and it only helped me with SATs and/or sounding legit while playing Crusader Kings II

shoulda done French or Spanish. yeah there is some shared Latin roots there but that doesn't magically make it simple to pick up the languages. Hell, Italian might have been a better choice.

▲kkwteh 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In high school, I thought my French classes were mostly pointless, but then 14 years later, I moved to Paris where I have been living ever since, which is something I never could have imagined as a teenager. It's hard to predict what knowledge will end up being useful. To be fair, I had to mostly reteach myself French when I moved here, so I guess the real lesson is that it's useful to be a strong autodidact.

▲mangodrunk 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't think it's anti-inellectual. You're not considering that students can be taught something else. I would promote that most students should be taught probability and statistics instead of calculus.

▲NetMageSCW a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Somehow I feel like the workplaces with a glass ceiling over bilingual is so small as to be immaterial.

▲paulhebert a day ago | parent | next [-]

Where I live (Oregon, USA) there are very few jobs that require it but a lot of jobs where speaking a second language might get you hired over someone else.

Most jobs that are focused on interacting with people benefit from speaking a second language if it’s a common language in your community: nursing, teaching, customer service, social work, etc.

I’ve seen job listings mention it as a nice-to-have and know bilingual friends who have gotten those jobs.

I only speak one language well but I wish I spoke more. I hope my son (and future other kids) learn multiple languages. But not for job/economic reasons: it just seems good for your brain and interesting for how you think about the world.

▲lotsofpulp 14 hours ago | parent [-]

>it just seems good for your brain and interesting for how you think about the world.

I am fluent in 3 languages, and while it is convenient, I assume claims about it being "good for your brain" are just as pseudoscience-y as all the other claims about what is good for the brain.

One of the languages I know doesn't even use a Latin alphabet, and I spent many hours learning it when I was little. And it's basically useless (obviously just my experience) except for communicating with older family members. Once they pass away in ~3 decades, I doubt I use it again.

Actually, the biggest incentive for me to teach my kids that language is so that we have a secret way of communicating in public (in the US). But I have failed so far, because it's just a lot of work to teach kids another language when you and your spouse prefer to speak in another, and so the kids are not completely immersed in it.

▲paulhebert 13 hours ago | parent [-]

I’m not sure why you assume studies on what is good for your brain are pseudo science.

A quick google search finds several studies about the benefits of multilingualism on the brain.

Here’s a recent one: https://www.fens.org/news-activities/news/speaking-another-l...

▲socalgal2 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I wonder. In my world, almost everyone I know is bilingual and I would not have met them and worked with them otherwise. So many of my coworkers are from countries where English is not required but they were fortunate to pick it up as a 2nd language for one reason or another and now work in a high paying company that requires English.

Still, I get, over all, the number is small. They could have all had a different career in their native language.

▲melvinroest 20 hours ago | parent [-]

Knowing English as a second language and Dutch as a first language is different than knowing, for example, Dutch as a second language and English as a first.

I know people in both camps. I have more respect for English speakers learning Dutch than for Dutch speakers learning English. Even though I respect both. But the simple truth is: there's a lot of incentive to learn English. There is not a lot of incentive to learn Dutch.

▲ido 19 hours ago | parent [-]

Also, as an aside: Dutch is probably the closest language to English (aside from very minor or no longer spoken languages).

▲zofer12 18 hours ago | parent [-]

no, not really, dutch are close to german. Spanish is closer to english, than dutch.

▲xattt 15 hours ago | parent [-]

The Foreign Service Institute has a language difficulty rating, based on the first language of a speaker, to estimate the number of class hours needed to achieve fluency in English.

Learning English from Dutch is 24-30 weeks whereas from German is 36 weeks. I am assuming some degree of reciprocity but maybe not.

(1) https://dlsdc.com/blog/fsi-language-difficulty/

▲tezzer a day ago | parent | prev [-]

One example: I worked for an Alphabet company with some very, very accomplished people. When the drawdown on the project came, the people who were bi- or multi-lingual all kept their jobs. They were more useful in more situations for a multinational project. The 36 people let go probably wish they'd spent a little more time studying Japanese, Spanish or Norwegian.

▲melvinroest 20 hours ago | parent [-]

Why Norwegian? Why not Luxembourgish then?

▲tezzer 11 hours ago | parent [-]

It was very relevant to the industry we were targeting

▲analog31 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's interesting to see different perspectives on this.

For me, calculus was the first math I learned, where symbols represented something other than pure numbers or tangible points on a plane, and we proved things about higher level abstractions. Of course many of the topics had tangible applications, but it was a launching point towards further abstraction in the higher level math courses.

A friend of mine in grad school was a student in medieval church history, but was assigned to teach a freshman course in modern history. For one class session, he asked a math teacher to give a guest lecture on calculus. Then he lectured on its impact on society.

It's true that most people, including managers and engineers, forget their school math not long after school. Their software tools, such as Excel and CAD, can do the math that they need. One can hope without proof that a little bit of mathematical thinking rubbed off on them.

▲ a day ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
▲725686 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You never know if learning calculus will make you discover new things that you might like to pursue. Also, you never know if you will need it or not apriori. By that logic, you shouldn't learn anything until you need it, wich I think would be a disaster.

▲win311fwg a day ago | parent [-]

> You never know if learning calculus will make you discover new things that you might like to pursue.

Just as you will never know what you might have discovered if you used the time you spent learning calculus learning something else instead, of course. There is no magic formula to life.

> you shouldn't learn anything until you need it

Impossible. Simply existing as a functioning human means you are going to be constantly learning something. Not everything you learn will be useful, but that's also true of calculus. Not everyone finds it useful in the end either. You never know what will end up being useful, but you also can't learn everything.

The great thing about the curious mind is that you tend to be naturally drawn towards the things that are most useful for you. Those born most likely to do something with calculus already voluntarily choose to learn about it. You don't have to make them. The stereotypical druggy who has no interest in anything but getting high, who suddenly has his life turned around because you force him to learn calculus, is little more than Hollywood fantasy.

▲socalgal2 a day ago | parent [-]

This framing doesn't fit my experience. Most kids, left to their own devices, would not learn arithmetic.

I know few adults that were forced to learn something as kids that regret learning it. Conversely I know tons of adults that, as a kid talked their parents out of being forced to learn something and as an adult seriously regret it.

▲Gravityloss 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think it's hard to have the kind of meta-skills as a child, it's kind of hit and miss. (Ie discovery, learn what to learn, how to learn, make learning pleasant). As an example, music is one thing that works best if parents, siblings and friends are into it and you can do it together or if it's somehow ambiently present most of the time. But if it's something that you only go to lessons for, decided by someone else, that you don't enjoy etc - then it's often like pouring water into a dry well. Yet those mechanical even if less enthusiastic skills can then be useful later, if the inspiration comes, with a new social circle etc. Or similar with sports. In some families, it's more "present" in an ambient way. When waiting for something outside, the kids have some hockey sticks and a tennis ball lying around and just start playing, maybe with adults who also find it fun. Or talking with the family about the news in an analytical way: that person leads that party and they have these values, while that other person drives these other things. If you have these available then different kids are exposed to things and can pick up things they are more inclined to. I've read lots of mathematician and scientists' stories how Martin Gardner's problem books drew them in to the field. So parents exposed them but didn't force. And their exceptional inclination did a lot of work.

▲win311fwg a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> Most kids, left to their own devices, would not learn arithmetic.

Unlikely. Too many things in life depend on arithmetic. Most people will learn things when they must.

What is more likely is that kids won't learn arithmetic before they need it and therefore may theoretically miss out on the aforementioned discoveries that are overlooked when one doesn't already have a foundation in arithmetic. However, most people never have such discoveries anyway. Those who do tend to be the type that would learn something like arithmetic just for fun.

> I know few adults that were forced to learn something as kids that regret learning it.

As a once child, if I didn't want to learn something, I didn't. Forcing someone to sit in a classroom where a subject is being taught, for example, is not the same as actually learning the material. So this is an obvious truism. Those who didn't want to learn something never did.

▲preg_match a day ago | parent [-]

> Unlikely. Too many things in life depend on arithmetic. Most people will learn things when they must.

Yes but arithmetic is actually not intuitive at all, and you can certainly grow up to not know it. There's a lot of people who once grew up not knowing how to read, because they didn't go to school.

Children are still children, they very famously make poor decisions. Yes, not all children, but most. We have to mold and steer them, because for humans we come into this world as basically blank slates. We're not like other animals, ready to roll. We require decades of careful curation.

▲braj0 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"for humans we come into this world as basically blank slates."

Can you source this? I thought we were pretty much expressions of our particular genetics and the biological human substrate we all inhabit. This is very much not a 'blank slate'. Every time I've tried to look into or steelman the blank-slate I can never come across hard science that backs up the assertion that we are all 'blank slates'.

Blank-slate seems to be more of a liberal idea then a scientific one.

▲preg_match 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Blank-slate as compared to most other mammals, who are often born with knowledge of how to walk, feed, or even hunt. These skills usually come pretty quickly, most mammals have their young on their own within a year. Humans can’t even walk for a year. Many other mammals walk on their first day.

We also have case studies that if humans are not taught language then they won’t, and can’t, speak. Genie comes to mind.

▲win311fwg 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Genie could't speak because she was deprived of exposure to normal human interaction, not because of lack of being taught. It is apparent you've never been around a child because otherwise you'd have quickly recnoized that most of them do speak before anyone tries to teach them how.

▲preg_match 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I’ve obviously been around children, and I do qualify speaking to children as “teaching them how to speak”.

If you speak math problems to your child you are… wait for it… teaching them arithmetic. That’s what teaching is.

Arithmetic is not something that just naturally exists in the world, it’s a purely human construct. It does have to be taught in one way or another, otherwise people won’t know it. And, unlike language, I seriously doubt parents are just speaking arithmetic randomly in conversation that often. Your kid most definitely will not just “pick up” arithmetic.

In fact, I doubt a kid would even pick up language if you never spoke to them directly, and instead they just heard bits in passing between adults.

▲win311fwg 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> If you speak math problems to your child you are… wait for it… teaching them arithmetic. That’s what teaching is.

Exposure to something and being taught something are usually recognized as being quite different, but it is clear now that you just want to play a game of semantics, so we can put and end to that.

> I doubt a kid would even pick up language if you never spoke to them directly, and instead they just heard bits in passing between adults.

Kids not being able pick up on language by listening to a recording of adults speaking about some random thing is supported by the research so there is likely some validity to the latter half of your claim, with some assumptions about what you mean about "heard in passing", but the research also strongly suggests that kids can pick up on language if those adults are surrounded by additional context. For example, if adults in the same room were talking about a visible object in front of them then the research suggests that the child would be able to pick up the language even when not directly spoken to.

Why do you doubt the research?

▲win311fwg a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> Yes but arithmetic is actually not intuitive at all, and you can certainly grow up to not know it.

If you are in a situation where you don't need it, sure, but if you don't need it then who cares? I get the nebulous "but what about the discoveries you are missing out on", but the type of people who wouldn't learn something like arithmetic for fun also never find discoveries anyway, and never would even if you could force feed them all the knowledge of the world. That argument really doesn't apply to most people.

> Children are still children, they very famously make poor decisions.

Not quite. What children are most famous for is that they won't learn until they want to. Poor decisions, implying that they could have made good decisions if only they would have listened, are the outcome of them not learning even when you tried.

> We have to mold and steer them

There are deadbeats in the world, sure, but for the most part that just naturally happens at least up until they hit the rebellious teen years. Kids want to be by your side, watching, learning. We wouldn't have made it as a species if this didn't occur automatically. Like I said before, you cannot exist without learning things constantly.

▲mangodrunk 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't think your reasoning is well thought out. You shifted the question from why should someone learn calculus in high school to why someone should learn it in college. I do think that it would be better if most high school students were taught probability and statistics than calculus.

I very much agree with your last sentence.

▲1-more 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"I needed it in college" is the answer to "when have you needed calculus after high school." In fact I was wrong though: I had forgotten that calculus was a prerequisite for AP Physics in high school. We also did plenty of probability in high school. I will say that Bayes and information theory in college were really cool and would have been a cool hook for teaching something in high school though, but there's only so much time. Had I taken AP Statistics they may have come up..

▲1-more 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"I needed it in college" is the answer to "when have you needed calculus after high school." In fact I was wrong though: I had forgotten that calculus was a prerequisite for AP Physics in high school. We also did plenty of probability in high school. I will say that Bayes and information theory in college were really cool and would have been a cool hook for teaching something in high school though, but there's only so much time. Had I taken AP Statistics they may have come up.

▲mangodrunk 11 hours ago | parent [-]

That is a fair point that it's a prerequisite for many STEM courses, but that's still circular and I would argue that it would be far better to learn any calculus needed for a specific subject at the time it's needed. This is still not a good reason for non-STEM students, and many within certain STEM subjects as well.

▲khafra a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The classic SMBC: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/why-i-couldn39t-be-a-math-...

▲hardbass 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Mathematics is fundamental as it shows you there in fact exists a way to spot bullshit with no concern for however much rhetoric is used. Many people would be really and truly shocked to know we can definitively prove things given certain axioms, and not just have "wishy washy" verbal arguments or slogans. Without exposure to mathematical training, nonsense like belief in gods or supernatural thinking tends to increase.

▲AnonymousPlanet 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is the wrong way to think about school education. It's not just to prepare you to use it yourself. For most people it's there to prevent them from being lied to. If you did something as a kid, even if you wouldn't be able to do so now, you know it can't be that hard. So if anyone tries to sell you something saying "oh, don't even look at this part it's just complicated math stuff" you now at least have a chance to spot the BS.

It's the same for pretty much all school education. It gives you a chance to spot the grifters, show-offs, and sleazy salespeople.

I wouldn't be surprised if the unschooling movement was supported by said show-offs, grifters and salespeople. Uneducate the masses and you won't have to come up with clever lies anymore. The simple ones are enough.

▲exoverito 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Ironic, since public education is also obviously about indoctrination to accept the status quo as dictated by the state.

▲braj0 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah, I don't know what the other guy is talking about, but when you look at the birth of Truancy laws, it becomes obvious that state schooling was instituted so that you would believe the lies and indoctrination of the state over the wisdom and care of your family and community.

If schooling was about making it so people aren't tricked, why do they have you say an national anthem (that used to be called a prayer) pledging allegiance to the flag of the empire?

Its a very sick view of the world to think that the government is who has your back and cares about you and is the person you can trust, rather then your own flesh and blood family and community.

▲4d4m a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Thanks for highlighting that your children aren't you! Easy to forget.

▲te_chris 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As the parent of a 4 year old, we're allowed to raise them to be mini us until the tell us otherwise, then we can respectfully disengage. Sharing things we're good at and enthusiastic about only helps kindle their enthusiasm for things in general, in my experience.

▲waynesonfire 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

oookayy, suurre thing boss. Just make sure calculus is one of those "a lot of different options"

▲ a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
▲kunai 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Learning what infinitesimals were and how useful they were for understanding the rates of change was an actual eureka moment for me, and many people in my classes felt similarly. It fundamentally changes the way you view things as simple as a car accelerating or the way heat spreads through a system, the way fruits spoil faster in the winter if you have heat, why metals creak when they're cold and why they groan when they're heated.

The thing that really begets me in all of this is that what you describe, working hard pursuing a skilled passion, requires a foundation of knowledge that up until a year ago was considered a foregone conclusion for becoming someone of note. It doesn't matter whether someone learned it autodidactically or through structured schooling, the point is that the knowledge itself is fundamentally important. We never stopped teaching children basic arithmetic or mental math when slide rules, adding machines, and calculators became widespread. The reason why is pretty obvious.

And yet, the technofeudalists want us to stop teaching our children critical thinking, science, arts, technology, and everything else that encompasses the indomitable human spirit, and why? Because a machine can do those things too? Machines have been capable of or better at a great many things that humans are also capable of for the past hundred years or so and yet we have never stopped teaching humans those very things exactly because we used to recognize that those things had enormous utility in general in a sphere far beyond whatever is necessary for your calling or profession. It is absolute lunacy to me that someone could see LLMs and agentic flows do brute-force proofs and then somehow suggest that the entire field of mathematics is obsolete.

I urge you to read the piece "Complex Systems Won't Survive the Competency Crisis." If we lose all of our institutional knowledge of how the puzzle pieces all fit together there will be no one to save us when (when, not if) the systems we're creating now suffer a catastrophic failure. And they will. Model collapse has not happened yet because of luck. Synthetic data can only get you so far. And whenever we enter our Idiocracy/WALL-E stage of total compliance and deference to machines themselves, one day there will come a time when something breaks and no one knows how to fix it because they no longer understand the underlying principles.

You might say in an optimistic scenario you can just ask the LLM for the tools and resources and prior knowledge needed to fix it. Alas in many cases, this is barely enough, and most on this forum are technically knowledgeable enough to actually make use of that advice. It's hard to see a compliant, totally intellectually decrepit population doing the same. I'd also advise you that although unschooling has its benefits, it's a movement that is filled by those who are often cultists and other fringe hacks who have grievances with the school system for reasons unbeknownst to me and many others. I would not use them as any sort of advice forum or channel for meaning, and the fact that you seem to be taking them as gospel is extremely questionable and makes me uneasy about the future of this forum in general.

▲SamPatt 14 hours ago | parent [-]

>Model collapse has not happened yet because of luck.

Oh dear.

How many years will you say this before conceding it's no longer luck?

▲tarpitt a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

i mean even basic differentiation is useful for optimization problems.

▲datsci_est_2015 a day ago | parent | next [-]

Not to mention physics, which is useful for understanding why things are the way they are. Which, is an important skill lest you fall into anti intellectual traps like flat earthism.

Calculus is a shared language in the grand universal ocean of intellectual cultural. Rejecting calculus is rejecting part of that culture…

▲1-more a day ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah, for me the real click was in AP Physics where we derived an equation for some motion property rather than just being handed the formula as I had been in, say, 8th grade science. The meta lesson is that you can use math to get more information out of a model than you think you have, which, yeah, keeps you from becoming a 5G get the facts style individual.

▲wombatpm a day ago | parent [-]

I loved learning about jerk, snap, crackle, and pop as higher-order derivatives of position wrt time in physics.

▲NetMageSCW a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I’m not sure there’s enough overlap between physics and calculus to justify calculus. That might mean you can’t derive physical equations yourself, but no one needs that who isn’t becoming a physicist.

▲ndriscoll a day ago | parent | next [-]

F=ma is slightly important for physics, no? And deriving the equations is kind of the point; it's the understanding of "why" something is true.

e.g. I can tell you things act like a spring near (stable) equilibrium, and you can believe me, but why on Earth would that be true? Well, Taylor expand the potential at equilibrium. Define V(0)=0, and equilibrium means V'(0)=0, so V(x) ~ V''(0)/2 x^2, so F = -dV/dx = -V''(0)x, which is a spring with spring constant k=V''(0).

That's all a very conceptual explanation; the point is near an equilibrium, zoom in and you have a parabolic potential! What is the potential for a spring? A parabola! This is basic Calc BC stuff, but it also justifies why we might care about about simple harmonic motion. Calculus is the whole business of "zooming in."

▲Animats a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I’m not sure there’s enough overlap between physics and calculus to justify calculus.

You need calculus to design a windmill or an auto engine or an electric motor beyond the "just sort of works" level. Most of analog electrical engineering is defined by calculus. Althogh, yes, you can get LTSPICE to do most of that for you.

▲InitialLastName 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You can get LTSPICE to do the simulation for you, but it will be much harder to understand why an interesting circuit works (such that you can adjust it or implement it with real components) without understanding some of the calculus behind the simulation.

▲Novosell 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Windmills are older than calculus, so that's just not true.

▲Animats 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Inefficient windmills are older than calculus. Efficient windmills need aerodynamic theory to calculate a good blade design. It's quite difficult to do that. It took several decades to scale up windmills.

(A small wind turbine is like a propeller in reverse. A large wind turbine is not, because wind speed varies across the blade circle enough that those stresses dominate the design. It took decades to debug this, and make large wind turbines stable under high winds.)

▲tarpitt a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean one example is like a dampened spring system or RLC circuits or something. You can simplify a lot of systems down to those types of simple physics systems you learn about in class.

A lot of it I think is just training people to adopt a "physics-like" or "math-like" way of thinking and giving them a general overview of how things work.

▲1-more a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I think their answer would be "why would I care how long it takes this ladder to slide down the wall?" Which STINKS don't get me wrong. This is not a group I take seriously.

▲tarpitt a day ago | parent [-]

Here is an example of a practical optimization problem:

A factory needs to produce 12,000 components per year. Each production run costs $300 to set up, and storing one component costs $4 per year. What production quantity Q minimizes the annual setup and storage costs?

▲BoxwoodSeed 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Just like all school problems of this nature I have ever seen, the question lacks precision.

How long does a production run take and how many units can you do in a single sun? Since this isn't mentioned, the answer is to produce everything at the last second of the year. But we are also missing information on why the factory needs to produce 12,000 components in a year and for whom and about the logistics involved in getting those components to the buyer.

I always hated these type of questions for their lack of precision. You haven't even mentioned how many units in a single production run will be faulty and need to be scrapped instead of delivered, how am I supposed to optimize anything?!

▲normie3000 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Can you do a single run on the last day of the year?

▲gshubert17 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure, but to be able to fulfill all the year's orders (expected to total 12,000) a single run would have to be on the first day of the year. Setup cost = 300. Now we have 12,000 components to store. If the orders come in steadily, the last component will be sold on the last day of the year. Average quantity stored over the whole year will be 6,000 components. So storage will cost 24,000. Total cost 24,300.

Doing one run each month (quantity = 1,000 a month) would entail setup costs of 3,600. And storage costs of 4 * average storage of 500 components = 2,000. For a total cost of 5,600.

All according to the given model, of course, but I think this is the general idea.

▲dorkwood 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

▲interludead 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]