In higher dimensions, are the spheres just a visual metaphor based on the 3-dimensional problem, or are mathematicians really visualising spheres with physical space between them?
Is that even a valid question, or does it just betray my inability to perceive higher dimensions?
This is fascinating and I'm in awe of the people that do this work.
It's not really a metaphor.
An n-sphere is the set of all points that are the same distance away from the same centre, in (n+1)-dimensional space. That generalises perfectly well to any number of dimensions.
In 1 dimension you get 2 points (0-sphere), in 2 dimensions you get a circle (1-sphere), in 3 dimensions you get a sphere (2-sphere), etc.
EDIT: Also, if you slice a plane through a sphere, you get a circle. If you slice a line through a circle, you get 2 points. If you slice a 3d space through a hypersphere in 4d space, do you get a normal sphere? Probably.
That's handwaving the answer just as you were getting to the crux of the matter. "Are mathematicians really visualising spheres with physical space between them" in higher dimensions than 3 (or maybe 4)?
From the experience of some of the bigger minds in mathematics I met during my PhD, they don't actually visualize a practical representation of the sphere in this case since that would be untenable especially in much higher dimensions, like 24 (!). They all "visualized" the equations but in ways that gave them much more insight than you or I might imagine just by looking at the text.
I've come to understand that the key thing that determines success in math is ability to compress concepts.
When young children learn arithmetic, some are able to compress addition such that it takes almost zero effort, and then they can play around with the concept in their minds. For them, taking the next step to multiplication is almost trivial.
When a college math student learns the triangle inequality, >99.99% understand it on a superficial level. But <0.01% compress it and play around with it in their minds, and can subsequently wield it like an elegant tool in surprising contexts. These are the people with "math minds".
I have been posting on hackernews "I have dyscalculia" for years in hopes for a comment like this, basically praying someone like you would reply with the right "thinking framework" for me - THANK YOU! This is the first time I've heard this, thought about this, and I sort of understand what you mean, if you're able to expand on it in any way, that concept, maybe I can think how I do it in other areas I can map it? I also have dyslexia, and have not found a good strategy for phonics yet, and I'm now 40, so I'm not sure I ever will hehe :))
I even struggle with times tables because the lifting is really hard for me for some reason, it always amazes me people can do 8x12 in their heads.
The foundations for these concepts were laid by Piaget and Brissiaud, but most of their work is in french. In English, "Young children reinvent arithmetic" by Kamii is an excellent and practically oriented book based on Piaget's theories, that you may find useful. Although it is 250 pages.
This approach has become mainstream in maths teaching today, but unfortunately often misunderstood by teachers. The point of using different strategies to arrive at the same answer in arithmetics is NOT that children should memorize different strategies, but that they should be given as many tools as possible to increase the chance that they are able to play around with and compress the concept being learned.
The clearest expression of the concept of compression is maybe in this paper, I don't know if it helps or if it's too academic.
Once again I wanted to thank you for slowing down and taking the time to leave this thoughtful comment, if everyone took 5 minutes to try to understand what the other person is saying to see if they can help, the world would be a considerably better place. Thank you.
I'll show it to you, but first: are you able to add 80 + 16 in your head? (There's another trick to learn for that.)
In algebra, you learn that (a - b)(a + b) = a^2 - b^2. It's not too hard to spot this when it's all variables with a little practice but it's easy to overlook that you can apply this to arithmetic too anywhere that you can rewrite a problem as (a-b)(a+b). This happens when the difference between the two numbers you're trying to multiply is even.
For a, take the halfway point between the two numbers, and for b, take half the difference between the numbers. So a = (8 + 12) / 2 = 10. b = (12 - 8) / 2 = 2.
Here, 8 = 10 - 2 and 12 = 10 + 2. So you can do something like (10 - 2)(10 + 2) = 10^2 - 2^2 = 100 - 4 = 96.
It's kind of a tossup if it's more useful on these smaller problems but it can be pretty fun to apply it to something like 17 x 23 which looks daunting on its own but 17 x 23 = (20-3)(20+3) = 20^2 - 3^2 = 400 - 9 = 391
What stuck with me (written from memory, so might differ somewhat from the text):
In the introductory chapter, he describes mathematics as the science of patterns. E.g. number theory deals with patterns of numbers, calculus with patterns of change, statistics with patterns of uncertainty, and geometry with patterns of shapes and spaces..
Mathematical thinking involves abstraction: you identify the salient structures & quantities and describe their relationships, discarding irrelevant details. This is kind of like how, when playing chess, you can play with physical pieces or with a board on a computer screen - the pieces themselves don't matter, it's what each piece represents and the rules of the game that matters.
Now, these relationships and quantities need to be represented somehow: this could be a diagram or formulas using some notation. There are usually different options here. Different notations can highlight or obscure structures and relationships by emphasizing certain properties and de-emphasizing others. With a good notation, certain proofs that would otherwise be cumbersome might be very short. (Note also that notations typically have rules associated with them that govern how expressions can be manipulated - these rules typically correspond in some way to the things being represented and their properties.)
Now, roughly speaking, mathematicians may study various abstract structures and relationships without caring about how these correspond to the real world. They develop frameworks, notations and tools useful in dealing with these kinds of patterns. Physicists care about which patterns describe the world we live in, using the above mathematical tools to express theories that can make predictions that correspond to things we observe in the real world. As an engineer, I take a real-world problem and identify the salient features and physical theories that apply. I then convert the problem into an abstract representation, apply the mathematical tools (informed by the relevant physical theories), and develop a solution. I then translate the mathematical solution back into real-world terms.
One example of the above in action is how Riemann geometry, the geometry of curved surfaces, was created by developing a geometry where parallel lines can cross. Later, this geometry became integral in expressing the ideas of relativity.
This maps back to the idea of "making the invisible visible": Using the language of mathematics we can describe the invisible forces of aerodynamics that cause a 400 ton aircraft suspended in the air. For the latter, we can "run the numbers" on computers to visualize airflow and the subsequent forces acting on the airframe. At various stages of design, the level of abstraction might be very course (napkin calculations, discarding a lot of detail) or very fine (taking into account many different effects).
Lastly, regarding your post of 'When I found out they're not visualizing the stuff but instead "visualized the equations together and imaging them into new ones"':
Sometimes when studying relationships between physical things you notice that there are recurring patterns in the relationships themselves. For example, the same equations crop up in certain mechanical systems than does in certain electrical ones. (In the past there were mechanical computers that have now been replaced with the familiar electronic ones). With these higher order patterns, you don't necessarily care about physical things in the real world anymore. You apply the abstraction recursively: what are the salient parts of the relationships and how do they relate. This is roughly how you can generalize things from 2 dimensions to 3 and eventually n. Like learning a language, you begin to "see" the patterns as you immerse yourself in them.
12 is made up of a 10 and a 2.
What's 8 x 10? 80.
What's 8 x 2? 16.
Add 'em up? 96, baby!
They teach you to do math on paper from right to left (ones column -> tens column, etc), I find chunking works best if you approach from left to right. Like, multiply the hundreds, then the tens (and add the extra digit to the hundreds-total you already derived), then the ones place (ditto).
It's limited by your short-term memory. I can do a single-digit times anything up to maybe five digits. Two-digits by two digits, mostly. Three-digits times three digits I don't have the working memory for.
Thank you kindly for taking the time to teach me this! This thread has been one of the most useful things in a long ass time that's for sure. If I can ever be helpful to you, email is in the bio. :)
Thank you again.
A few years ago I had an in-depth conversation with a (then) sixth-grader of my acquaintance, and came away impressed with the "Common Core" way of teaching maths. His parents were frustrated with it, because it didn't match the paper-based methods of calculation they (and you and I) had been taught, but he'd learned a bunch of these sorts of tricks, and from them had derived a good (probably, if I'm honest, better than mine) intuition for arithmetic relationships.
8 × 12 = 8 × (10 + 2) = 8 × 10 + 8 × 2 = 80 + 16 = 96
8 × 12 = (10 − 2) × 12 = 10 × 12 − 2 × 12 = 120 − 24 = 96
8 × 12 = (10 − 2) × (10 + 2) = 10 × 10 − 2 × 2 = 100 − 4 = 96
8 × 12 = (5 + 3) × 12 = 5 × 12 + 3 × 12 = 60 + 36 = 96
8 × 12 = 4 × 24 = 2 × 48 = 96
8 × 12 = 2³ × (2² × 3) = 2⁵ × 3 = 32 × 3 = 96
etc.