@RRITESH KAKKAR

If you'll pardon an observation -- you seem to have difficulty adhering to a single subject for any length of time -- you're making progress in mathematics! -- Please 'stay the course'!

 

yes i will do it back.

Stride definition, to walk with long steps, as with vigor, haste, impatience, or arrogance

To 'lose one's stride' is to lose one's advantage via inaction, etc... 'stride' in this sense is roughly analogous to 'momentum'

 

For a more visual description, "hitting one's stride" means finding a rhythm that works well for you. A runner or a horse, for instance, has a certain style of running that is best for them -- i.e., their best stride. To then 'lose one's stride' means to have your rhythm broken so that you can't work at your peak.

 

@RRITESH KAKKAR

If you'll pardon an observation -- you seem to have difficulty adhering to a single subject for any length of time -- you're making progress in mathematics! -- Please 'stay the course'!

And, to preempt your next inevitable question, "stay the course" refers to a sailing ship sticking to the course it has set instead of wandering around trying to find better winds. So the phrase means to stick to a plan and don't abandon it just because it doesn't seem to be working as well as you might like at the moment.

 

But is not taking practice tests and learning how to understand and answer such problems one legitimate way to improve one's aptitude?

I believe aptitude, and its synonym talent, are qualities one is born with. Skill is what practicing produces. Achieving skill in the field where one's aptitude/talent lies comes much more easily and quickly because of that aptitude/talent. But even with aptitude/talent, practice and hard work are necessary to achieve great skill. If Beethoven had been born in an Eskimo village, and had never seen a piano, he would ncver have been a skilled pianist even though his talent was great.

I know a woman who practices the violin incessantly, and it hasn't made her a good violinist. She lacks aptitude/talent. I think its valid to make a distinction between aptitude/talent and skill.

But HP thinks talent is as nothing compared to determination. It's interesting that the questions regarding which RRITESH originally asked for help came from an "aptitude" test. The very existence of the SAT would lead one to think that there must be something to the notion that aptitude is a predictor of academic success. A beginning college student doesn't yet have the skills that they will acquire as a result of that college education, so the SAT is apparently not testing for the presence of not-yet-learned skills. What is it testing for? Something called aptitude, which is different than the skills to be later acquired.

From post #529, RRITESH graduated in 2013 with a BS degree. Surely he must have learned about (and acquired some skill in) Gaussian Elimination in the course of all that education, yet now he can't even solve two linear simultaneous equations without handholding and multiple hints. What happened to that skill? Of course, my assumption that he learned it may not be true, but I would think that anyone with a technical degree would have learned how to solve a couple of simultaneous equations.

 

@RRITESH KAKKAR

My advice is that you study post #1023 to glean the basic principles of simultaneous solution

He could also read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_elimination

Or get a text on the subject, which he probably had once upon a time.

 

He could also read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_elimination

Or get a text on the subject, which he probably had once upon a time.

I have done this in 1st year of degree.
just for passing exam.

 

I believe aptitude, and its synonym talent, are qualities one is born with. Skill is what practicing produces.

It would seem that you are quibbling semantics. You may assert that the word aptitude applies to what someone is born with, but if that's the case then the whole notion of an "aptitude test" is largely nonsensical. What "aptitude test" could have been given to that Eskimo-raised Beethoven that would have indicated an aptitude, sans any developed skills, for music?

By and large, "aptitude tests" measure developed skills, not born-with talent. Measuring "aptitude", as you've defined it, is very difficult to do, particularly much past eight to ten years old because then it becomes almost impossible to distinguish what is due to "aptitude" and what is a reflection of learned "skill". If you want to insist that they should not, therefore, be named "aptitude tests", fine. So let's call them "skills tests" and ignore that the rest of the world calls them "aptitude tests". So RRITESH is taking some practice "skills tests".

But HP thinks talent is as nothing compared to determination. It's interesting that the questions regarding which RRITESH originally asked for help came from an "aptitude" test. The very existence of the SAT would lead one to think that there must be something to the notion that aptitude is a predictor of academic success. A beginning college student doesn't yet have the skills that they will acquire as a result of that college education, so the SAT is apparently not testing for the presence of not-yet-learned skills. What is it testing for? Something called aptitude, which is different than the skills to be later acquired.

So if it is testing for "aptitude", which you say you are born with, and not "skills", then surely someone that is born with a great aptitude for math, but who has never been taught any math at all, should do much better on the math portion of the SAT than someone that was born with only average aptitude but has worked their way diligently through calculus. Yet it's pretty evident that this would NOT be the case, so apparently the SAT is NOT an aptitude test, but rather a skills test. What is it testing for? No, it's not testing for the presence of not-yet-learned skills. It is testing for the presence of the precursor skills deemed necessary to learn those not-yet-learned skills.

From post #529, RRITESH graduated in 2013 with a BS degree. Surely he must have learned about (and acquired some skill in) Gaussian Elimination in the course of all that education, yet now he can't even solve two linear simultaneous equations without handholding and multiple hints. What happened to that skill? Of course, my assumption that he learned it may not be true, but I would think that anyone with a technical degree would have learned how to solve a couple of simultaneous equations.

The question of what he actually learned and has forgotten, versus what he never learned (but should have) is very much an open question. I have known many people, particularly high school students, that graduated without learning much of anything that any high school graduate should have learned. Increasingly, I'm seeing college graduates, even people with advanced college degrees, that don't have math skills that they should have mastered before even entering college. And that's HERE. So I have to at least allow for the possibility that he managed to get a degree without actually learning anything. It's unfortunately entirely possible to do so. It's also generally the case that going back and learning the basics is often much harder because you try to tackle stuff that you've seen but that, in reality, you really aren't prepared to handle. What needs to happen is a systematic journey through all of the lower level skills (yes, skills) to build up the ability to work higher-level problems. But few people can force themselves to take such a disciplined approach and, instead, want to try to fill in gaps piecemeal, which seldom works well.

 

I have done this in 1st year of degree.
just for passing exam.

And that is as I expected. You treated your course work as just something you had to memorize long enough to get past a test. You are FAR from alone in this. But what you need to do now is go back through ALL of that material, this time with the attitude of needing to learn and understand it.

That will NOT be an easy journey -- but it's a necessary one.

 

If you'll pardon an observation -- you seem to have difficulty adhering to a single subject for any length of time -- you're making progress in mathematics! -- Please 'stay the course'!

yes , i am here.
but how to calculate man/ human being doing progress?

 

And that is as I expected. You treated your course work as just something you had to memorize long enough to get past a test. You are FAR from alone in this. But what you need to do now is go back through ALL of that material, this time with the attitude of needing to learn and understand it.

That will NOT be an easy journey -- but it's a necessary one.

I have seen this problem in some people in college also where he explained the process.
and some might get fail and get re exam with more fees.

 

He could also read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_elimination

Or get a text on the subject, which he probably had once upon a time.

Indeed - It is my opinion, however, that, owing to his concentration issues, an interactive approach is significantly more likely to succeed! -- I feel a reference to a resource or an 'unmonitored reading assignment' would soon be forgotten...

As regards 'aptitude' --- If, as you assert, the SAT is not a measure of skill gained at the secondary level - such would seem to suggest that a highly favorable candidate would have been equally successful sans high school?

It is my firm belief that 'aptitude' or 'talent' (i.e. the ability to acquire proficiency) is upshot of nothing more or less than genuine interest (i.e. essential motivation), discipline and a clear mind -- All of which being 'in place', as it were; Proficiency is gained via appropriate study/exercise --- I can, for instance, but guess that your prospective violinist lacks the latter (IOW rigor alone does not guarantee the efficacy of a mode of exercise)

Again, I strongly feel the concept of 'innate talent' - followed to its ultimate conclusion - is, in addition to running contrary to observation, - both dangerous and, I daresay, dehumanizing

With genuine respect
HP

PS --- As a 'microscopic' illustration of my point - please consider the varying degree of difficulty with which telegraphy is acquired! --- If anything regarding education is 'innate', such is to be found in the requirement of tailoring the manner of study to the individual

 

@RRITESH KAKKAR

So... If you wish to study math today please review posts #1023 and #1024 -- Please post any and all questions here!

 

This is something that HP and I are probably going to, at least partly, disagree on.

I believe that someone's ability to do a particular thing is a combination of born-with talent and learned skills. I fully believe that there are a whole host of things that most people, not matter how hard they worked or how hard they tried, would ever become even moderately good at. Then there are other things that most people can gain a high level or proficiency with relatively little effort. What those things happen to be are very different from one person to another.

So, no, I do not believe that anyone that wants to become an engineer has the ability to do so, if they are just willing to try hard enough and long enough. Just as I do not believe that anyone can become a concert pianist if they are just willing to try hard enough and long enough. It may not be politically correct to hold those views, but is this substantly different than believing that not everyone that wants to become a star basketball play can, if they just willing to try hard enough and long enough.

In general, if you were to match up to people that appear equally capable at some particular thing, you will likely find that one of them had to work much harder to achieve that level of proficiency than the other, likely reflecting that one person had a greater innate talent for that particular thing than the other person did. If you then tracked them going forward, you would probably (not guaranteed) find that the person that had the greater innate talent goes on to become more capable than the other person over time.

 

So, no, I do not believe that anyone that wants to become an engineer has the ability to do so

On that point I respectfully disagree -- I believe desire/interest is the principal factor in what is described as 'talent'

In general, if you were to match up to people that appear equally capable at some particular thing, you will likely find that one of them had to work much harder to achieve that level of proficiency than the other, likely reflecting that one person had a greater innate talent for that particular thing than the other person did

And I would argue that such owed entirely to a disparity in the quality of their study regimes' 'match' to their respective 'learning styles'...

IOW -- 'talent', so defined, is seen to increase as one's 'learning style' approaches the 'mean' of their peer group

Very best regards
HP

 

@RRITESH KAKKAR

We don't insist in debating pedagogy -- Let's do some math!!!

 

yes , i am here.
but how to calculate man/ human being doing progress?

If you are referring to the exercise in post #1023 --- Please tell me what you are having problems with...

 

yes , i am here.
but how to calculate man/ human being doing progress?

I am just want to know how to know whether the person is doing progress or not?

 

On that point I respectfully disagree -- I believe desire/interest is the principal factor in what is described as 'talent'

And I would argue that such owed entirely to a disparity in the quality of their study regimes' 'match' to their respective 'learning styles'...

IOW -- 'talent', so defined, is seen to increase as one's 'learning style' approaches the 'mean' of their peer group

Very best regards
HP

Then would you argue that two people, picked at random, have equal ability to become star basketball players provided their training regime is a suitable match for their respective learning styles?

 

I am just want to know how to know whether the person is doing progress or not?

Do you mean as in being able to tell whether YOU are making progress in learning this stuff?