Really? I graduated from UCLA with a degree in Math/Applied Science and wouldn't consider myself anywhere near that level of "math genetics".
You REALLY have a bad habit of underestimating yourself, pellius. I don't know if it's just that with life experience comes humility, as we accept our flaws to go along with our strengths, thus causing us to downplay our strengths...
...or if you're just delusional.
I suppose you're not in the top 1%, if not the top 0.1% of fitness and conditioning for men over 60 too?
Go ahead, pellius - say that you're not. It's not my credibility on the line.
But on a serious note - forgive me for not qualifying my statement:
we need to distinguish applied [computational] math versus pure mathematics.I am AWFUL at pure mathematics. Hard to say if I'm worse than the average person...as I did complete Mathematical Analysis with a 66% final mark [using the Walter Rudin textbook below]. But in a class of nine students, I was in the bottom three. Out of all the Ph.D holders in either mathematics or engineering, Analysis is the course that consistently comes up as being the most difficult for any of them.
In fact, IMO, it is likely the hardest compulsory mathematics course required, in the pursuit of a Ph.D. Sadly, it is the course that I struggled with the most, and it was literally the bottleneck that prevented me from pursuing mathematics beyond my 4-year BA degree in math. I did not pursue my Master's...not simply because of the difficulty I had with Analysis, but I had lost interest in higher education in math at that point, anyway.
That being said, I also HATED Abstract Algebra [Ring Theory & Group Theory], and only narrowly scraped by in both cases. In fact, had the professor not let us redo all assignments and hand them in, I don't think I would have passed. He didn't give out a solution grid, so it did require actually doing the work...and I think his rational was that he figured it would help us study for the exam, while getting much needed assignment grades, so that we all passed. FYI, the entire class did so poorly in Ring Theory [Abstract Algebra I], that the grades had to be bell-curved for everyone to pass. In fact, I think he took the worst student in the course, and gave him a 50, then scored us all in relation to his 50. I was flabbergasted when I went online and found out that I got 55.
And so was everyone else.
So to be completely clear on this:
I SUCK at pure mathematics. I am AWFUL at mathematical analysis and abstract algebra, and had I pursued math to the graduate level, I'm confident I would have found that I'm awful at any mathematics that involve proofs. And, truth be told, mathematical proofs ARE what mathematicians do. Mathematicians don't sit around differentiating exponential functions all day to find successive derivatives, or solving basic differential equations with integration.
In fact, what I learned in second year in my Differential Equations course ["Calculus III", and the prerequisite for Calculus IV; Vector Calculus] was that Ontario high schools [and presumably, all North American high schools] don't actually teach math to students to train to become mathematicians - i.e., mathematical proofs are a very small part of the picture in high school. In a way it makes sense - why teach something that will only be used by <1% of students who will ultimately pursue university mathematics?
But it really left me in a bad spot...but honestly, it was my GENETICS that left me in a bad spot. In second year, I found out, sadly, that I am simply not cut out for abstract mathematics.
Why then, do I say that my genetic math gift is 1 in 10,000? Well - how many people do you know who can finish full exams, all the way up to Vector Calculus in 15 minutes...finishing them so fast that my HAND could literally not keep up with my BRAIN.
I am 100% confident that I could take a first year calculus exam with EVERY university mathematics professor in North America, and I would get 100% on the exam, AND I would be one of the fastest to complete the exam.
Why?
Well...have you noticed how long my posts are? That's because I type at 120 wpm. My hands move so fast - I write, type [and talk] so fast that it needs to be SEEN TO BE BELIEVED. Trust me - it would blow your mind.
And I strongly believe that in ANY computational math course, that not only could I get 100%, but that I could complete the exam first in a group of 10,000 people.
That's what I mean when I say I'm 1 in 10,000 for math - for BASIC math.
The earliest recognition of my ability in mathematics was stated by my 1st grade teacher.
By age nine, I would complete "Mad Minutes" consistently in 26 seconds, always scoring 100%.
By the time we got to long division, I would typically finish them, but score between 26 and 29.
How many full grown adults could complete 30 multiplication tables in 60 seconds, with a score of 100%? And consider that I would complete them in 30 seconds, and spend the next 30 seconds checking over my work.
I am curious about that...I would bet any money that the 9-year-old version of myself is faster at basic multiplication than 99% of adults.
So when I say I am 1 in 10,000 in math skill -
I mean in terms of basic skill/computing. It may not seem like much, but I don't know of any other person who can perform basic calculations and interpret results of day-to-day things involving math faster than I can.
For a bit more on that - if you asked me to tell you what 34 over 7 is to 10 decimal places, I could calculate that in all of...oh...about four seconds.
Ditto for 97/9, 63/4 [easy, lol], 32/11 [easy, lol], 46/22 [easy, lol], 89/38, 98/15, 56/27....etc, etc.
I can recite pi to 1,000 places which, as far as I know, ranks me #160 worldwide.
I WILL upload that on video, stating pi to 1,000 places while wearing a blindfold and writing it on a chalkboard...BUT:
How much would you will be willing to bet?
And would you be willing to send the money to Ron, in escrow, if I do the same?
Now...before I finish answering your other questions, you think that despite having a degree in math/applied science from UCLA that you are not 1 in 10,000 among math genetics?
Haha, why?
In fact, I think it may speak to your being good at math - but not quite as good as me
- by not realizing that simply by HAVING A MATH DEGREE, you would be in the top 1% of the world in terms of mathematical knowledge - if not ability.
From there, for me it's simply a matter of asking myself "Am I in the top 1% of basic mathematical computing/calculating out of all students taking university math?"
And, after speaking to university math students and engineers, etc, for years, my answer is a resounding YES.
I'll leave you with one final example:
In Grade 12A math [what they call "AP" math, in the USA, I believe], we received a quiz back the day after doing it.
My friend got 11.5 out of 13 on his quiz. I asked him "What's that? 88.46%?"
He calculated it, saw that I got it right, and said "You're a freak, Canning."
I was like...what's so freaky about that?
And I'll give you my "secret"...it's REALLY not that difficult.
I'm autistic. I notice patterns. And I navigate my life, noticing this patterns [if you think the "woke" world of social justice is insane, imagine being autistic and having to put up with this sh*t].
So here's what I do - and this is why this is such a joke to me, yet in grade nine, a friend of mine called me "Rain Man", years before I watched the movie, simply because I had memorized the schedules of all of my fellow 300+ grade nine students...pfft...like that was even hard - I notice that any time you divide a number by 13, you get one of two patterns. Either:
[1] 769230...and it repeats: 769230 769230 769230 769230...ad infinitum. Or,
[2] 846153...and it repeats: 846153 846153 846153 846153...ad infinitum.
Now, in light of this STAGGERING SIX FIGURE JOKE OF A MEMORY EXERCISE, is it REALLY so hard for normies to figure out what 11.5 out of 13 is, to two decimal places, within four seconds?
But...I now realize it is. Most people can't even figure out what percentage 17 out of 20 is. Because multiplying 17 by 5 is hard for them...and figuring out WHY the factor is 5 is even harder. So alas...I'm a realist when it comes to these matters.
So now I look at 11.5 out of 13. I can tell that 11.7 out of 13 is 90%, since 10% of 13 is 1.3, and 13 minus 1.3 equals 11.7.
So...I'm looking for a number/mark slightly less than 90%.
It's also a bit easy for me to figure out that the percentage will be 88 point something because if 90% of 13 is 11.7, then 89% of 13 is 11.7 minus 0.13 [using the same simple calculation from two paragraphs up].
So 89% would be 11.57%. And 88% would be another 0.13 lower, i.e., 88% = 11.44 out of 13.
Now that we calculated 88% and 89% with relative ease [I mean...really...how hard is taking 13 and dividing it by 10, then subtracting that difference from 13...then dividing 13 by 100, and subtracting THAT difference from the previously calculating difference?], it's just a matter of seeing if the original quiz score of 11.5 is closer to 88% or 89%.
Well...
11.44 < 11.50 < 11.57%
I added the second decimal place to 11.5 to make it easier to visualize.
What do you notice? 11.50 is closer to 11.44 than to 11.57. Meaning that my friend's score would be closer to 88 than 89.
So now what?
Well...as I said, ANY number divided by 13 will take one of the two infinitely repeating digit sequences I outlined above. And this is, I suppose you could say, the hard part [IMO]. That is, the genetic part. All of the above, I could train someone to do, providing their memory was good enough. Although I'm not naive - I acknowledge how painfully bad most people are at math that I find painfully EASY...but whatever.
Keeping in mind that I already have the infinite decimal sequences memorized. I didn't TRY to memorize them...I simply noticed the patterns from doing math over the years. Then I look at the second sequence and think to myself: "A-HA! 11.5 out of 13 is 88.46%!"
And when that happened, I asked my friend if his score was 88.46%, at which point he calculated it on his calculator and said "You're a freak, Canning."
tl;dr:
11.5 out of 13 is easy for me to answer within 3-5 seconds without a calculator because:
[1] 11.7 out of 13 is 90%, and...how is that not obvious to most people?
[2] From there, we just subtract 0.13 from 11.7 until we get to 11.5, or two numbers existing between 11.5.
[3] From there, as long as you've remembered both of the repetends [repeating decimal sequences] involving division by 13, it's really not hard to figure out what 11.5 divided by 13 is.
Some of you may come back and say:
"Lolz, Matt - you silly twat. I just use a calculator. Why don't you?"
To which, I would respond: because that would take too long.
Bottom line: I have NEVER seen a human being's internal computer operate as quickly as mine when it comes to basic mathematical calculations, the ability to recognize patterns, to memorize sequences, and to do any sort of differential mathematical processing up to around the ordinary partial differential equations level.
No one. Not one normal person. Not one math student. Not one math professor. And I'd bet any money that in terms of basic mathematical computing, I've beat 9 out of 10 Fields Medal winners.
Oh...I'm quite serious.
If you want to bet some money that I can recount pi to 1,000 places, let me know.
I'm growing annoyed with the Democrat Getbiggers bashing me, and I just want to give them raw, visceral video proof that I'm much, much smarter than they are.
You just voted for a 78-year-old man who most likely has the early signs of dementia, and you're making fun of me for being a fan of Trump? Seriously? That's rich.
