This is part of what you don’t seem to be getting. Repeatedly doing the exact same piece of extremely simple arithmetic doesn’t require being good at math unless your definition of being “good at math” is at best highly non-standard. The ability to repeatedly count the exact same thing doesn’t make one good at math and isn’t even seriously indicative of it. That’s aside from the fact that even if one did buy into this, this still doesn’t address the fact that empirically there are people who by any sane notion of “good at math” are are terrible at music and people who have the reverse. This is one of many objections to your position that you seem intent on avoiding answering.
I said music is math. To perform it, you are consistently engaged in simple math problems. In music there are “figures” both for what is happening at any moment, and for what is happening over time. Instruments have discrete states that involve mathematical translations of such figures.
I never said you have to be “good” at math, especially if that means knowing more than arthimetic, or being as smart as you.
I said music is math. To perform it, you are consistently engaged in simple math problems.
Again (and for what will likely be the final time unless you make a really striking novel statement in your reply to this to actually make me think this conversation is worth continuing), by this argument the person catching a ball is constantly and consistently engaging in math, and much more math than music.
I never said you have to be “good” at math, especially if that means knowing more than arthimetic, or being as smart as you.
True. You said
“It’s pretty much all math” and “Nobody can count to 12 a thousand times a minute and be terrible at math.” And you put this in a thread asking for activities similar to programming.
Now, it is possible that I’m misinterpreting what you mean by the second statement, and that you mean that they have to be able to be at least mediocre at math. But that’s not true either unless one’s idea of mediocrity is being able to do math a 5th grader is expected of. Empirically there are skilled musicians who are by most notions “terrible” at math. And if the sole ability you are focusing on is the ability to count, then saying that means one isn’t terrible at math seems off. My 4 year old nephew can count very high (for some reason he occasionally skips numbers ending in 7, especially 37,47 and 67) but any adult or even any 12 year old at that level would be “terrible” at math by any notion of terrible that captures most people’s intuitions. If you want, maybe taboo the word terrible and state what you mean more explicitly.
And being able to do something quickly and regularly isn’t a big deal either: If you sped up a dog’s brain a hundred times, you’d get a dog that took 100th the time to figure out it wanted to hump the sofa, and maybe it would get bored slightly faster and then go and decide 100 times as fast that it wanted to pee in the living room. Sheer increase in speed, without ability for sophisticated long-term storage doesn’t matter. To extend the analogy a slightly different way: The complexity class of computations bounded in log space and exponential time is the same as the set of computations bounded by just log space.
Edit to respond to last line since I think this may be worth noting:
Sorry for upsetting you.
You haven’t upset me. If I have to make a guess, you are again projecting on to other people your own attitudes. My only other explanation is that you are attempting to use the rhetorical trick where you ask someone to calm down or apologize for upsetting them intending to use that to get them to be upset or to make them appear upset to bystanders. Sometimes people seem to do that almost unconsciously, but if that’s what you are trying you are going to need to find a much more subtle way of doing it here.
This is part of what you don’t seem to be getting. Repeatedly doing the exact same piece of extremely simple arithmetic doesn’t require being good at math unless your definition of being “good at math” is at best highly non-standard. The ability to repeatedly count the exact same thing doesn’t make one good at math and isn’t even seriously indicative of it. That’s aside from the fact that even if one did buy into this, this still doesn’t address the fact that empirically there are people who by any sane notion of “good at math” are are terrible at music and people who have the reverse. This is one of many objections to your position that you seem intent on avoiding answering.
I said music is math. To perform it, you are consistently engaged in simple math problems. In music there are “figures” both for what is happening at any moment, and for what is happening over time. Instruments have discrete states that involve mathematical translations of such figures.
I never said you have to be “good” at math, especially if that means knowing more than arthimetic, or being as smart as you.
Sorry for upsetting you.
Again (and for what will likely be the final time unless you make a really striking novel statement in your reply to this to actually make me think this conversation is worth continuing), by this argument the person catching a ball is constantly and consistently engaging in math, and much more math than music.
True. You said
“It’s pretty much all math” and “Nobody can count to 12 a thousand times a minute and be terrible at math.” And you put this in a thread asking for activities similar to programming.
Now, it is possible that I’m misinterpreting what you mean by the second statement, and that you mean that they have to be able to be at least mediocre at math. But that’s not true either unless one’s idea of mediocrity is being able to do math a 5th grader is expected of. Empirically there are skilled musicians who are by most notions “terrible” at math. And if the sole ability you are focusing on is the ability to count, then saying that means one isn’t terrible at math seems off. My 4 year old nephew can count very high (for some reason he occasionally skips numbers ending in 7, especially 37,47 and 67) but any adult or even any 12 year old at that level would be “terrible” at math by any notion of terrible that captures most people’s intuitions. If you want, maybe taboo the word terrible and state what you mean more explicitly.
And being able to do something quickly and regularly isn’t a big deal either: If you sped up a dog’s brain a hundred times, you’d get a dog that took 100th the time to figure out it wanted to hump the sofa, and maybe it would get bored slightly faster and then go and decide 100 times as fast that it wanted to pee in the living room. Sheer increase in speed, without ability for sophisticated long-term storage doesn’t matter. To extend the analogy a slightly different way: The complexity class of computations bounded in log space and exponential time is the same as the set of computations bounded by just log space.
Edit to respond to last line since I think this may be worth noting:
You haven’t upset me. If I have to make a guess, you are again projecting on to other people your own attitudes. My only other explanation is that you are attempting to use the rhetorical trick where you ask someone to calm down or apologize for upsetting them intending to use that to get them to be upset or to make them appear upset to bystanders. Sometimes people seem to do that almost unconsciously, but if that’s what you are trying you are going to need to find a much more subtle way of doing it here.