Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 13:40:46 UTC No. 16583617

Reminder that you can learn scientology thorugh flash cards

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 13:46:04 UTC No. 16583626

>>16583602
Instead of yapping please just give me the online resource where you can find such pre-made flashcards.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 16:08:58 UTC No. 16583739

>>16583602
You can't learn the idea, derivation and proof of those formulas through flashcards. Pure memorization of mathematical concepts like a parrot is useless.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 17:05:55 UTC No. 16583794

>>16583739
I know it's hard for a midwit to wrap his head around the idea, but if you are actually smart (130+ IQ) even if you learn by flashcards you are not actually rote memorizing. You instantly, automatically and almost "unintentionally" generalize from that which you memorize. Smart people have a constant "but what does it mean/imply? What is the origin?" routine running in the background, and that automatically crops up when you read the answers to any problem, or are told to memorize these answers.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 19:53:44 UTC No. 16583916

>>16583794
130-140 IQ is the average math student's IQ level and I don't believe an average math student will be able to prove (d) just by reading this flash card, the previous topics' flash card and even the measure theory flash card. The best he could do would be bullshitting using (a) which is not a complete proof. Also not every formula, theorem etc. you see in math undergrad are as intuitive as these, especially for a 130-140 IQ.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 20:05:52 UTC No. 16583928

>>16583916
>130-140 IQ is the average math student's IQ level
That range isn't "the average undergrad math student", dead 129-130 is the average math *graduate*. Do you understand the difference? Besides, do you actually presume anyone who does undergrad math actually does a math degree?
Your riposte also doesn't do actually address my point whether smart people can extract gain from math flashcard learning. There is a multitude of reasons why it isn't currently being done a lot, mostly based on memes and inertia. The meme it could be useful hasn't taken hold yet for example, and there is a counter meme that it's only useful for humanities subjects, chilling the meme.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 20:17:40 UTC No. 16583939

>>16583602
That sounds like the fastest possible way to suck the joy out of the subject

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 20:39:37 UTC No. 16583972

>>16583939
>joy of the subject
A lot of people who have to do all this inane analysis bullshit like in OP's example just want to become computer scientists/IT people, biologists, geologists, whatever.
Also, before you reply with >but you have to know the math there!
let me compose 2 replies to that:
1. yes, you have to be able to do the math. But in the real world this involves neither being able to recall individual definitions from the top of your head, nor needing to be able to perform such calculations (from the top of your head) on the spot. If you know what your R or Python program spits out, you are already good. You don't need to know the conceptual basis.
2. on the flipside, perhaps you ONLY understand the conceptual basis, but you don't really care about the finer implementation details? Like, for example I have right now forgotten where L'Hopital applies. In more cases than just division by zero/infinity? But at least I know this concept exists. I know what the squeeze theorem is about and where it's used, but I can't even begin to define it. And so on.
>that means you don't actually deeply understand it!
Correct. I didn't know "having a conceptual understanding" entails having a deep and complete understanding.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 20:40:41 UTC No. 16583974

>>16583972
>I didn't know
= I didn't mean to imply

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 20:52:28 UTC No. 16583980

>>16583916
Continuous functions on a compact space are uniformly continuous. So divide the space into sufficiently small rectangles and the function varies within each rectangle by less than any given positive epsilon. From some trivial epsilon chasing, it follows that the limits in question all exist and are equal to each other.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 23:34:05 UTC No. 16584110

Maybe you can and maybe you can't. But even if you could, why would you rob yourself of the sweet, buttery ecstasy of learning math on a blackboard with a piece of Hagoromo chalk in your hand?

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 00:48:19 UTC No. 16584165

>>16583602
>he needs to study
>he doesn't find every theorem intuitively obvious

I'm guessing 115-125 IQ?