this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2024
775 points (95.7% liked)

Science Memes

10988 readers
2492 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 63 points 8 months ago (4 children)

To learn to count to 10, we first have to understand quaternions.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The fundamentals of math takes like 700 pages before it gets to 1+1=2

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago

Yeah, time to stop coddling those kindergarteners!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Depends into how much detail you go.

My prof. at uni. did a nice summary in two and a half pages.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Building axioms from the ground up, with proofs

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago

You blew right by creating the universe first. Your apple pies probably come out terrible.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

Come on, that's way too complex. But how can one count to 10 if they don't know what base to count to 10 in? We should definitely teach them bases first.

Base 11, base 12, and base 16 are all better number systems to teach first imo. A prime number has some benefits when it comes to fractions, but so does a number like 12 which is divisible by many other numbers. Base 16 is useful as you can easily convert between that and the other bases of powers of 2.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

Can you really talk about 1 or 2 before giving a proper set-theoretic construction of the natural numbers?