So I believe the logical conclusion is that you need to know as much math as you want to know. One could spend the rest of their life building all the projects that are available on the web. All the thinking is done-- so if you get off on the actual building, soldering, or creating then you probably don't need to know a lick of math.
On the other hand if you love the math you will find yourself doing math. Of course this does not necessarily mean that your projects will be better than whats already available, although the possibilty exists.
Frankly I agree with Till... the Guiness family has serioulsy hampered my ability to even drill a hole, let alone think about math.
Jason
On the other hand if you love the math you will find yourself doing math. Of course this does not necessarily mean that your projects will be better than whats already available, although the possibilty exists.
Frankly I agree with Till... the Guiness family has serioulsy hampered my ability to even drill a hole, let alone think about math.
Jason
It is strange. I love Math, but am reluctant to use even a simple Math calculation in electronics. Even to choose resistor value for paralleling I calculate the value with estimation. I read electronics books just want to know why and how things work, once understood it is then forgotten because I never implement the theory in practice. I just try to derive a “rule of thumb” if possible.
There is always a better and “correct” way to learn anything including electronics. If you want to be proficient in chess game, you must start with learning “end games” (pawn ending, rook ending, and so on). But sometimes people just wisely want to be straight into the fun (and play the blitz!).
In karate (art martial) championship, you don’t have to knock your opponent down to get a waza-ari (a point). If people mis-conceptually learn how to hit with the fastest move (even if such attack will not hurt anyone in a real battle), that is in-arguably fine, as long as becoming a champion is the goal.
There is always a better and “correct” way to learn anything including electronics. If you want to be proficient in chess game, you must start with learning “end games” (pawn ending, rook ending, and so on). But sometimes people just wisely want to be straight into the fun (and play the blitz!).
In karate (art martial) championship, you don’t have to knock your opponent down to get a waza-ari (a point). If people mis-conceptually learn how to hit with the fastest move (even if such attack will not hurt anyone in a real battle), that is in-arguably fine, as long as becoming a champion is the goal.
When i got out of high school, i didn't feel like i was done, so i did a 4 year honours math degree (ended up with a statistaical math degree instead of pure math because i choose the noon course instead of the 8 AM one ). Got out and got into the hifi business (and got half an engineering degree on the side). Never used the math degree so i forgot most of it, but the one thing i did take away from it was a way of thinking that was invaluable. Some basic concepts in audio are awefully hard to Grok without some math background.
(and happened to be taking a course on Fourier theory at the same time Sony published their paper on CDs and at that time KNEW that CD would never be perfect sound forever, that the sample rate had to be at least 4 x higher, now 20 years later...)
In the boxes, just have to tweak the boxes to survive UPS I got the last trafo & the chokes. Thanx.
dave
). Got out and got into the hifi business (and got half an engineering degree on the side). Never used the math degree so i forgot most of it, but the one thing i did take away from it was a way of thinking that was invaluable. Some basic concepts in audio are awefully hard to Grok without some math background.(and happened to be taking a course on Fourier theory at the same time Sony published their paper on CDs and at that time KNEW that CD would never be perfect sound forever, that the sample rate had to be at least 4 x higher, now 20 years later...)
SY said:
In the boxes, just have to tweak the boxes to survive UPS
I got the last trafo & the chokes. Thanx.dave
Re: Useful math for electronics
And Martin, i applaud you (again) for doing all the hard stuff, so that the rest of us can settle in at level 2 and design workable TLs and other quarter-wave designs. You have made speaker building a much richer space
There is thou, a lot more details that attention must be paid to, to make the difference between a good speaker and a great speaker -- and here experience, and the ability to "be a speaker" is a big aid.
I figure when i can imagine an amp circuit from the point of view of the electon, i'll have finally grasped amp design.
dave
mirlo said:
And Martin, i applaud you (again) for doing all the hard stuff, so that the rest of us can settle in at level 2 and design workable TLs and other quarter-wave designs. You have made speaker building a much richer space
There is thou, a lot more details that attention must be paid to, to make the difference between a good speaker and a great speaker -- and here experience, and the ability to "be a speaker" is a big aid.
I figure when i can imagine an amp circuit from the point of view of the electon, i'll have finally grasped amp design.
dave
Thanks Dave. For me doing the math is the fun part, it is very challenging and provides more puzzles then I could ever solve in one lifetime.
There have been several responses above stating that at one time an individual had the math background needed. But due to other interests or career requirements, the math has slipped away and appears to be long gone as a skill. I can tell you from personal experience that it comes back quickly. If you really want to re learn and venture a little deeper into speaker design, or some other audio design projects, it only takes a consistent effort over an extended period of time to pull yourself up, re learn, and extend into other new topics. I have never taken an acoustics course and I took one 10 week AC and DC analog circuit course over 25 years ago. I am completely self taught by reading and working out the math. It can be done if YOU really want it and are willing to work at learning!
This is sometimes very under rated. Common sense and insight are important capabilities, no amount of math can make up for short comings in these areas.
MJK said:
That i too know from personal experience, so it doesn't bother me too much that i only have the germ left. If given a problem to solve i have relearned bis & pieces as needed (and then had them vaporate again). Some of the stuff i did used to know was pretty esoteric, but even that can sometimes prove useful. For instance, when taking a partial differential equations course (and not paying much attention), i was faced with a proof for which i had no idea the "standard" way of solving it. I pulled an obscure theorm out of a totally unrelated topology course i had particularily enjoyed (and therefore remembered) and "proved" the question. The prof said he was quite surprised, but gave me full marks
dave
In my opinion you have to focus on the physics, the physics are described with the language of the engineer "the maths". Maths itself isn't an higher goal. The higher goal is the phenomenan that you are describing with the help of maths.
Yes, you can't do without maths, but the MOST important thing is the "subject" you are decribing with it. e.g. a stress-strain relation in civil engineering.
One question remains: Why are american books always loaded with tons of questions and examples? In the Netherlands where I'm studying civil engineering you've got 1 example 5 questions and lot's of theory and proof of the stated equations.
Yes, you can't do without maths, but the MOST important thing is the "subject" you are decribing with it. e.g. a stress-strain relation in civil engineering.
One question remains: Why are american books always loaded with tons of questions and examples? In the Netherlands where I'm studying civil engineering you've got 1 example 5 questions and lot's of theory and proof of the stated equations.
Is it true that physics are described with the engineer language as “the math”? I have been wondering why no one has said anything about “physics” before! And here I agree with LaMa.
Why American books differ from Dutch books???
Ummmm… I think it mostly applies to engineering books (civil engineering for example). In America engineering is not considered as the top notch (MIT is not as popular as Harvard), and the books are meant for practical knowledge only (for the students to graduate from universities). In Asia engineering is number one. In the Netherlands, I know only Delf University which I guess is specialized in civil engineering especially water structure (dam) engineering. Without proper understanding of theories and equations, the Netherlands would have sunk into the sea.
One question remains: Do the above explain why Math importance seems to be something “big” or “new” to some people in this forum? Look at SY, the one who promoted the urgency of Math in DIY electronics. He is clever, well educated, engineering oriented, but have a limited practical knowledge in computer (that somebody from Japan must explained about the print-screen). Please don’t take offense, SY
Why American books differ from Dutch books???
Ummmm… I think it mostly applies to engineering books (civil engineering for example). In America engineering is not considered as the top notch (MIT is not as popular as Harvard), and the books are meant for practical knowledge only (for the students to graduate from universities). In Asia engineering is number one. In the Netherlands, I know only Delf University which I guess is specialized in civil engineering especially water structure (dam) engineering. Without proper understanding of theories and equations, the Netherlands would have sunk into the sea.
One question remains: Do the above explain why Math importance seems to be something “big” or “new” to some people in this forum? Look at SY, the one who promoted the urgency of Math in DIY electronics. He is clever, well educated, engineering oriented, but have a limited practical knowledge in computer (that somebody from Japan must explained about the print-screen). Please don’t take offense, SY
autocad
No offense at all- I'm well aware of the huge gaps in my knowledge when it comes to ones and zeros. When I learned about computers, GUIs were many years in the future. We programmed in Fortran. So, I never really learned the esoterica of modern OS. My main problem in that instance was familiarity with a particular popular piece of software, one that has its own set of terminology with which I'm not familiar- the first time I wanted to associate a bunch of pieces in my drawing, I naively asked an engineer how to "group" them (leftover jargon from drawing programs on the Mac). He looked blank until I showed him step by step what I wanted to do. Then his eyes lit up and I was treated to a torrent about "bylayers" and "blocks."
But I did manage to struggle through "Feynman on Computation."
No offense at all- I'm well aware of the huge gaps in my knowledge when it comes to ones and zeros. When I learned about computers, GUIs were many years in the future. We programmed in Fortran. So, I never really learned the esoterica of modern OS. My main problem in that instance was familiarity with a particular popular piece of software, one that has its own set of terminology with which I'm not familiar- the first time I wanted to associate a bunch of pieces in my drawing, I naively asked an engineer how to "group" them (leftover jargon from drawing programs on the Mac). He looked blank until I showed him step by step what I wanted to do. Then his eyes lit up and I was treated to a torrent about "bylayers" and "blocks."
But I did manage to struggle through "Feynman on Computation."
Attachments
planet10 said:
Right Dave,
I was just about to give SY a pop quiz. The biggest problem with math especially in the US is that you start learning that too late.
At the age of 20 one other needs much stronger than learning math emerge, like drinking and finding girlfriends, apartments, jobs etc.
When I was a teaching assistant and going through thermodynamics problems with the students it was clear that quite a few never seen a differential equation before in their life.
Once a student asked me for a calculator after awhile, since he couldn't find the sqrt symbol, he asked me how to do that using the y^x key.
I do FFT thousands of times a day, a computer does in for me, I know about the C-T algorithm, simulate all kinds of cool equations about nuclear spins interactions in Hilbert space and blah, blah blah.
I never used any of this stuff in my hobby. Actually even though I have an OK knowledge of math I don't know much about electronics at all. They are two pretty distinct and separate fields. It would be nice to own a pulse generator, fft scope, or one of those 20k audio analyzers and experiment with all kinds of dynamic measurements.
As of right now all I really go by is a scope, a free piece of software that generates the dirtiest sine waves I've ever seen through my laptop soundcard and a waxy pair of ears.
Pulse/MLS analyzers are dead cheap these days; the one I use was $300, and I'm certain that there are shareware and freeware FFT units out there for those using computers and OS a bit newer than mine. And with your knowledge of the theory behind DFTs, you're unlikely to misuse them. I can't help with the wax, but you might consider hydrogen peroxide.
I don't think any of my thermo students had ever seen a simple linear diffy-q before, either. But frankly, I learned more useful math in my physics courses than in my math courses. Fortunately, one only needs a fraction of that stuff to understand things like adiabatic versus isothermal operation of speaker boxes.
Knowing the First and Second Laws is a basic requirement of any thinking human, though. It helps one to sort through the BS that appears on TV news and in popular magazines. And knowing the Third Law lets you safely ignore the below-ground-state Free Energy frauds. Not much use in audio, so far.
Any reasonably intelligent 20 year old can learn calculus and still have time to get laid.
I don't think any of my thermo students had ever seen a simple linear diffy-q before, either. But frankly, I learned more useful math in my physics courses than in my math courses. Fortunately, one only needs a fraction of that stuff to understand things like adiabatic versus isothermal operation of speaker boxes.
Knowing the First and Second Laws is a basic requirement of any thinking human, though. It helps one to sort through the BS that appears on TV news and in popular magazines. And knowing the Third Law lets you safely ignore the below-ground-state Free Energy frauds. Not much use in audio, so far.
Any reasonably intelligent 20 year old can learn calculus and still have time to get laid.
SY said:Pulse/MLS analyzers are dead cheap these days; the one I use was $300, and I'm certain that there are shareware and freeware FFT units out there for those using computers and OS a bit newer than mine. And with your knowledge of the theory behind DFTs, you're unlikely to misuse them. I can't help with the wax, but you might consider hydrogen peroxide.
Hmm, look at this thread for example:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12176
teaching math
The problem in most of the math classes in the US is that it has zero practical application in the kids eyes, therefor they just pass the class if required, or never take it if not. I did that for my calculus class - then later I started an Honors level Economics class that required doing diffs. And more importantly, it made practical sense (as much as economics ever does). So I really learned it then, not in the math class. I suspect if one could create a course structure for children that taught math as one needed it to learn other subjects, many of the math concepts would be retained by the kids.
The problem in most of the math classes in the US is that it has zero practical application in the kids eyes, therefor they just pass the class if required, or never take it if not. I did that for my calculus class - then later I started an Honors level Economics class that required doing diffs. And more importantly, it made practical sense (as much as economics ever does). So I really learned it then, not in the math class. I suspect if one could create a course structure for children that taught math as one needed it to learn other subjects, many of the math concepts would be retained by the kids.
Re: Re: Re: autocad
In this neck of the woods, VectorWorks & ArchiCad (primarily on Macs) dominate the architectural community, so i run into quite a few guys that have had to switch. They are a lot harsher on AutoCad than you PM
It is amazing that being conservative as they are, and as penny pinching, the conservatisim often wins out and they waste money on AutoCad (a copy of AutoCad can buy a copy of VectorWorks AND the Macintosh to run it on). And then that doesn't count the extra cost of support. One of our clients recently got bought out by a large North American firm which mandated a switch to PeeCees and AutoCad -- their support costs skyrocketed. Talking to one of the principals he said, "i don't have to do much grunt work anymore, and i'm keeping my Titanium -- too bad the PC on the desk wastes so much space" (big smile on his face from the LARGE cheque he got for selling the company)
dave
pinkmouse said:
In this neck of the woods, VectorWorks & ArchiCad (primarily on Macs) dominate the architectural community, so i run into quite a few guys that have had to switch. They are a lot harsher on AutoCad than you PM
It is amazing that being conservative as they are, and as penny pinching, the conservatisim often wins out and they waste money on AutoCad (a copy of AutoCad can buy a copy of VectorWorks AND the Macintosh to run it on). And then that doesn't count the extra cost of support. One of our clients recently got bought out by a large North American firm which mandated a switch to PeeCees and AutoCad -- their support costs skyrocketed. Talking to one of the principals he said, "i don't have to do much grunt work anymore, and i'm keeping my Titanium -- too bad the PC on the desk wastes so much space" (big smile on his face from the LARGE cheque he got for selling the company)
dave
Re: teaching math
I used to hear that from my students. The funny thing was that the problems they most hated were word problems, where a situation is given and the student had to reduce it to equations (e.g., "How many pounds of 59 cent a pound candy have to be mixed with how many pounds of 43 cent a pound candy to make 10 pounds of 50 cent a pound candy?"). But that's practice in using math to solve real-life problems!
That was one of the wonderful things about teaching "The Physics of Hi Fi," that kids who hated math suddenly would buckle down so that they could understand the Thiel and Small papers so they could build speakers. That's why I encourage teens like our Israeli DJ friend.
Sawzall said:
I used to hear that from my students. The funny thing was that the problems they most hated were word problems, where a situation is given and the student had to reduce it to equations (e.g., "How many pounds of 59 cent a pound candy have to be mixed with how many pounds of 43 cent a pound candy to make 10 pounds of 50 cent a pound candy?"). But that's practice in using math to solve real-life problems!
That was one of the wonderful things about teaching "The Physics of Hi Fi," that kids who hated math suddenly would buckle down so that they could understand the Thiel and Small papers so they could build speakers. That's why I encourage teens like our Israeli DJ friend.
At the risk of nit-picking in a thread I haven't been followingplanet10 said:
, the "group" command in interactive graphics predates the Mac by a long shot. Foley and van Dam, "Fundamentals of Interactive Computer Graphics" (Addison-Wesley, 1982) describes a group command as existing in many graphics programs. The old Calma graphics systems that the chips that went into the first Mac were likely designed on had a "group" command as well.Why do Mac lovers think the world didn't exist before the first Mac came out?
Or am i just feeling old again 
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.