Were you a high GPA student?

[TheRealJoeFish]

Like for example consider this equation: -b +(or -) root of b^2 - 4 ac / 2a
Why -b? why not +b? why 4 ac? why not 3 or 2 or perhaps 5 ac? and why 2a? why not 150a?

---

Obviously someone really smart formed this equation but if i'm not given information as to how someone formed
this equation(so that i can understand why this equation is the way this equation is)it is simply memorizing equations -
which is quite dumb in my opinion.
A similar situation in programming would be - Consider an algorithm that can give you a particular output.We know that
the algorithm works but we don't know what the algorithm is or how it actually works.We are given some unrelated
clues as to what the algorithm is and we are supposed to memorize these clues.But we don't really know what the
algorithm is,we just memorize these clues and we think that we know the algorithm but we really don't.


When i learn a subject i don't like memorizing anything but only like understanding the logic of how stuff works.
In mathematics,i'd memorize numbers and that's as far as i'd go in the memorizing sector,maybe some basic operations too,
but i like figuring out those things all by myself.
If i know all the numbers and all the basic operations then i should be able to do better and more awesome things,i could
do that in programming - i should be able to do it with mathematics too,but i can't and that's why maths sucks.


Furthermore,in mathematics i've encountered more than often situations where the "answer" was right in front of my eyes
but i somehow miss it.Someone will point out that the answer was always right in front of me and it was quite amazing
in the beginning but i grew frustrated quite fast,like that game of shuffled letters and you're
supposed to figure out the word.This experience made me relate mathematics with jigsaw puzzle.I will
have all the pieces to solve the puzzle but i have to figure out where to place the pieces.Whereas i equated
programming with playing chess,where i have to look through all the possible scenarios and what effect a single action
will have on the whole of the system.

---

I remember deriving the quadratic formula in 10th grade. It's really a pretty straightforward algebra II exercise:

---

Once a student understands how to complete the square, they can then derive the quadratic formula.[1][2] For that reason, the derivation is sometimes left as an exercise for the student, who can thereby experience rediscovery of this important formula.[3][4] The explicit derivation is as follows.

Divide the quadratic equation by a, which is allowed because a is non-zero:

x^2 + \frac{b}{a} x + \frac{c}{a}=0.

Subtract c/a from both sides of the equation, yielding:

x^2 + \frac{b}{a} x= -\frac{c}{a}.

The quadratic equation is now in a form to which the method of completing the square can be applied. Thus, add a constant to both sides of the equation such that the left hand side becomes a complete square:

x^2+\frac{b}{a}x+\left( \frac{b}{2a} \right)^2 =-\frac{c}{a}+\left( \frac{b}{2a} \right)^2,

which produces:

\left(x+\frac{b}{2a}\right)^2=-\frac{c}{a}+\frac{b^2}{4a^2}.

Accordingly, after rearranging the terms on the right hand side to have a common denominator, we obtain this:

\left(x+\frac{b}{2a}\right)^2=\frac{b^2-4ac}{4a^2}.

The square has thus been completed. Taking the square root of both sides yields the following equation:

x+\frac{b}{2a}=\pm\frac{\sqrt{b^2-4ac\ }}{2a}.

Isolating x gives the quadratic formula:

x=\frac{-b\pm\sqrt{b^2-4ac\ }}{2a}.

The plus-minus symbol "±" indicates that both

x=\frac{-b + \sqrt {b^2-4ac}}{2a}\quad\text{and}\quad x=\frac{-b - \sqrt {b^2-4ac}}{2a}

are solutions of the quadratic equation.[5] There are many alternatives of this derivation with minor differences, mostly concerning the manipulation of a.

Some sources, particularly older ones, use alternative parameterizations of the quadratic equation such as ax2 - 2bx + c = 0[6] or ax2 + 2bx + c = 0,[7] where b has a magnitude one half of the more common one. These result in slightly different forms for the solution, but are otherwise equivalent.

---

I feel like math is based on luck whereas programming is based on a perfectly laid out plan.

This seems like a restatement of Clarke's Third Law ("Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic"). What exactly do you mean that math is based on luck? Like, I don't even know how to respond to that. Also, don't programmers constantly tell everyone how their work is one big long series of trial and error?