| ▲ | Animats a day ago |
| 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. | | | |
| ▲ | GeoAtreides 19 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 18 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 12 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 17 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 9 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. | |
| ▲ | 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|