I find it interesting that the author states that essentially mathematics is formalized 'pattern matching', yet rails against the insidious imposition of these very patterns in the pedagogy (in the form of rote exercises).
Isn't naive pattern recognition the basis of deeper dimensional understanding (ya know, the 'theory')? Isn't this how intelligence is built?
It seems pretty easy to make rag on the lack of 'true understanding', when you've spent 25+ years recognizing the patterns.
Isn't naive pattern recognition the basis of deeper dimensional understanding (ya know, the 'theory')? Isn't this how intelligence is built?
It seems pretty easy to make rag on the lack of 'true understanding', when you've spent 25+ years recognizing the patterns.