Message from @Dr.Wol
Discord ID: 505086231324000269
That stuff needs to be started in, like, middle school. At the latest.
^
@LotheronPrime dats a white liberal racis
As much as Europe sucks in other regards, this was pretty integral in the Netherlands.
You are taught mathematical proofs in high school there.
Is dat the redskin jersey also
That is an incredibly important skill to reason and make arguments.
Mathematical and logic proofs are the purest form of reasoning.
True
You can start with simple proofs, like showing that there are infinite prime numbers.
You deal with that kind of thing so often in the world
That's a very good place to start, because there are several proofs and easy enough for high schoolers to understand.
I really started learning logical proofs and flow when I started programming
but before that, I didn't know a whole lot
I got that kind of stuff in school when i was 10
It's also important, because it is a topic to which there are cut and dry answers, and not this wishy washy emotional debating we usually do.
Yep
I had never done any theorem proof in the US>
That was simply not part of High School.
very weird
My school might have been bad, but most of my friends and the people I talk to now had neither.
I've always been homeschooled, so my mom made sure I got a proper education, so I'm lucky that way
u didnt get basic math and logic reasoning? :/
In Europe, but not in the US.
I was several classes ahead in the US
grades
We would do a lot of arithmetic, but no theorem proof.
Transformation of boolean statements, yes, but no method proof.
But method proof is the biggest hole that I see in people's reasoning nowadays.
They can argue specifics, but they seem unable to stay strictly rational when they have to generalize.
tbh i dont think that would help a lot anyway, i think its more a tempramental thing then anything else
Yes, but the market would quickly filter people like that out, if it was meritocratic.
Logic becomes a lot harder when you're dealing with generalizations for sure
It can also be easier at times.
At times
For example, the proof with prime numbers is good, because you have to reason over an abstraction, the set of all prime numbers.
Yeah
I think thats how i approach generalizations in general?
I like this approach to the proof:
idk i never really thought about it