hazelm Posted March 2, 2019 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2019 My turn? You said: Hazel, one point I have been trying to make, in a roundabout way, is that understanding the concepts is sufficient. And there is my answer to my OP. F=ma proves my point. I could not read the equation because I did not know what 'a' stood for. If F=ma were written in words, I would immediately understand the concept because I do know the meaning of 'acceleration'. A OK? As an addendum - I promise not to stay too long - there is a problem with how equations are solved. I still believe either I and my friend are remembering wrong or the fellow who figured and explained his solution to a certain puzzle is wrong. But I can't prove it. The story: On another forum, someone solved a riddle. He got a far different answer than I did. I just figured I had forgotten how to solve long, involved equations and let it go. But, apparently, someone else was also having a problem with the solution. He asked the gentleman to explain how he got his answer, The man did that step by step - what he added first or multiplied first to the end. It was a far different way than how I learned (or thought I'd learned) about equations. With that I wrote to a friend who had her education about the same time I did but in a different school district in a different state. I asked her to take a look at the thread. She came back to say that isn't how she learned to solve equations. Then she solved it the same way I had done. Now, either someone was wrong or advanced scientific math is far different from high school math. I am not going to try to judge which. As for philosophy being math - if you say so. I object. Philosophy is logic. Math is logic. That does not make philosophy math. I'm gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.