<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Math Proofs vs. Explanations (aka Nutrition vs. Taste)	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://betterexplained.com/articles/proofs-vs-explanations/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://betterexplained.com/articles/proofs-vs-explanations/</link>
	<description>Math lessons that click</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2016 03:22:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Shirley		</title>
		<link>https://betterexplained.com/articles/proofs-vs-explanations/#comment-333931</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Shirley]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2016 03:22:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://betterexplained.com/?p=6517#comment-333931</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;Hey Kalid, your points inspired me thinking about how i want to learn, how we should learn, and why i was struggling before. What i found most difficult is the inability to phrase a proper questions that can help myself. Your great article get me into thinking where things go wrong.&lt;br /&gt;As i have been reading more and more science textbooks, suddenly i realized that most authors tend to present math formulas rather than talking about ideas. The issue is, quite often those math formulas are just correlations rather than causality. I was troubled before with lots of topics such as physics, and now i see why: i got confused by math correlations and causality. Why mathematical correlations give us the ability to predict one thing based on others, they offer no intuition as to why. And without understanding the causality, i constantly found myself unable to connect things, explain things. Unfortunately nowadays people confuse the two as well.&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Kalid, your points inspired me thinking about how i want to learn, how we should learn, and why i was struggling before. What i found most difficult is the inability to phrase a proper questions that can help myself. Your great article get me into thinking where things go wrong.<br />
As i have been reading more and more science textbooks, suddenly i realized that most authors tend to present math formulas rather than talking about ideas. The issue is, quite often those math formulas are just correlations rather than causality. I was troubled before with lots of topics such as physics, and now i see why: i got confused by math correlations and causality. Why mathematical correlations give us the ability to predict one thing based on others, they offer no intuition as to why. And without understanding the causality, i constantly found myself unable to connect things, explain things. Unfortunately nowadays people confuse the two as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: v s s sastry		</title>
		<link>https://betterexplained.com/articles/proofs-vs-explanations/#comment-333928</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[v s s sastry]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Nov 2016 08:53:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://betterexplained.com/?p=6517#comment-333928</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;beautifully explained       very soothing to read&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>beautifully explained       very soothing to read</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Hitoshi		</title>
		<link>https://betterexplained.com/articles/proofs-vs-explanations/#comment-333912</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hitoshi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2016 12:53:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://betterexplained.com/?p=6517#comment-333912</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;Nice article. I also agree about  4-color map theorem. I hope someday I can see the &quot;understandable&quot; proof of it.&lt;br /&gt;- Hitoshi&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice article. I also agree about  4-color map theorem. I hope someday I can see the "understandable" proof of it.<br />
- Hitoshi</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: kalid		</title>
		<link>https://betterexplained.com/articles/proofs-vs-explanations/#comment-333909</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[kalid]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2016 01:14:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://betterexplained.com/?p=6517#comment-333909</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://betterexplained.com/articles/proofs-vs-explanations/#comment-333898&quot;&gt;Amit Patel&lt;/a&gt;.

&lt;p&gt;Great question. The missing step (I should have mentioned it explicitly, it&#039;s in the article https://betterexplained.com/articles/surprising-uses-of-the-pythagorean-theorem/) is that Area is proportional to (any line segment)^2.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In a square, we usually write Area = side^2. But we could also say because perimeter=4s, then&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Area = 1/16 p^2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Or, we could measure the diagonal (s * sqrt(2)) and get&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Area = 1/2 diagonal^2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The constant factor F (1, 1/16, 1/2, etc.) just depends on the shape and the line segment we pick. That gives us:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Area(big) = Area(part1) + Area(part2)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fc^2 = Fa^2 + Fb^2    [assume c, a and b are the same line segment in each shape]&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;c^2 = a^2 + b^2    [divide out scaling factor: the line segments in each shape are related using this formula]&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Yep, in the circle diagram, I could have picked circles with circumference 3, 4, 5 instead of radius 3, 4, 5.&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://betterexplained.com/articles/proofs-vs-explanations/#comment-333898">Amit Patel</a>.</p>
<p>Great question. The missing step (I should have mentioned it explicitly, it's in the article https://betterexplained.com/articles/surprising-uses-of-the-pythagorean-theorem/) is that Area is proportional to (any line segment)^2.</p>
<p>In a square, we usually write Area = side^2. But we could also say because perimeter=4s, then</p>
<p>Area = 1/16 p^2</p>
<p>Or, we could measure the diagonal (s * sqrt(2)) and get</p>
<p>Area = 1/2 diagonal^2</p>
<p>The constant factor F (1, 1/16, 1/2, etc.) just depends on the shape and the line segment we pick. That gives us:</p>
<p>Area(big) = Area(part1) + Area(part2)</p>
<p>Fc^2 = Fa^2 + Fb^2    [assume c, a and b are the same line segment in each shape]</p>
<p>c^2 = a^2 + b^2    [divide out scaling factor: the line segments in each shape are related using this formula]</p>
<p>Yep, in the circle diagram, I could have picked circles with circumference 3, 4, 5 instead of radius 3, 4, 5.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
