| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ALADDIN_1978
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: Dec 29, 2007
Posts: 48
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 10:58 am Post subject: statistics is more important than calculus |
 |
|
| I agree that in postgraduate education and the workplace statistics is more important than calculus but up to the first 2 years of undergraduate study Calculus is important. Calculus is necessary for Stats. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Hector
Frankie Teardrop
Joined: Mar 11, 2008
Age: 23
Posts: 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wedge wrote: | | I guess this means that statistics uses maths (limits) when studying convergence of ramdom variables but not the other way around. |
This was always my impression. Statistics is applied mathematics, not the other way around, though mathematics may be informed/motivated by statistical pursuits just like with physics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Janissy
Phoenix
Joined: May 06, 2009
Age: 43
Posts: 1104
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
I completely agree with this guy. He isn't talking about math needed at the college level. He's talking about the math that EVERYBODY needs- and needs to learn before they graduate highschool.
Few people will use calculus either at work or in their everyday lives.
EVERYBODY will use statistics throughout their lives but the vast majority will use statistics incorrectly. He isn't talking about statistics at the graduate level. He's talking about statistics at the very simple level that so many people use wrongly when they buy lottery tickets or misinterpret data in magazine articles or fall for the article writer's deliberate misinterpretation of data. People get duped, swindeled and just plain misled at the store, the bank, the doctor's office, the ballot box because few people have even a basic understanding of statistics.
That's what he's trying to fix. And I think he's right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
DavidK
Snowy Owl
Joined: Jun 07, 2009
Age: 24
Posts: 149
Location: Kent, UK
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In school and uni I got on better with statistics than calculus.
_________________
When faced with my demons, I clothe them and feed them
And I smile, yes I smile as they're taking me over
(Catatonia- Strange Glue) |
|
| Back to top |
|
roche12
Blue Jay
Joined: Jun 10, 2008
Age: 26
Posts: 78
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you want to be a good lawyer or politician(or any other profession that can find success through lies) statistics is much more important. 
I honestly wish basic statistics was required by all American high schools. I am so tired of people that think correlation means causation it makes my head hurt.
... anyways I don't put one type of math over another. It is all important. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Oggleleus
Deinonychus
Joined: Jun 03, 2008
Posts: 388
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I had an introduction course in probability and statistics in HS for one semester years ago.
Sure sounds good. Most problems people have with understanding statistics is that their math basis is so bad that it really doesn't matter. If the basics are not somewhat solid then it does not help to teach someone statistics when they don't know 10% and 0.1 are the same. The guy has a good idea at the HS level (that's how my HS taught - prob/stat before calc I) but he is going to need 110% effort to pull it off. 
Nearly everyone uses Calculus at some point. They just don't know it. Find the area of .... a square. Or calculating how many more hours until we get to grandma's house.
Sounds like the best solution is to offer both. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Aoi
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 17, 2009
Posts: 606
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
At some point (depending on your textbook or prof) in applied maths, you can't do prob/stats without calculus. As to the fundamental theorem in calculus, remember that it took Reimann and analysis to finally prove it.
In the real world (which I have little exposure to), stats are probably much more important. But in my little version of reality, Runge Kutta solvers and ODEs show up as often as the central limit theorem. My focus is on applied maths, however, so I see a wide variety of methods from the world of probability and statistics, as well as graph theory, plus Fourier analysis (calc required, of course), finite element analysis, PSO, etc.
I'm still waiting for neurosciecne to pin down how the human brain performs the ODEs involved in throwing or catching a ball. I doubt there's any ODEs involved; instead, the brain just uses some heuristic that evolved to be good enough in the real world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 73
Posts: 4794
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aoi wrote: | x
I'm still waiting for neurosciecne to pin down how the human brain performs the ODEs involved in throwing or catching a ball. I doubt there's any ODEs involved; instead, the brain just uses some heuristic that evolved to be good enough in the real world. |
Kids with zero mathematical knowledge or talent can shag fly balls. It is a heuristic at work. We evolved enough talent to throw stuff accurately (enough). Natural selection did the rest.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
