Is mathematical ability born or nurtured?

Ok so
My parents have degrees in engineering and physics. They're both very good at maths.
I got an A* in Maths GCSE when I was 14 and am predicted A* in Maths & A in FM (although I personally aim for an A*)


BUT MY BROTHER redid his maths GCSE 5 times before he got a C. Having been brought up with parents that helped him with maths a lot and having had private maths tutors practically his whole scolastic life. He really does struggle...

So this would suggest nature, because we've had the same nurturing (in fact I have had no where near as much help as him)....

Wait that could be argument against genetics.

You share very similar genes to your brother. Basically you should have 90% the same genes.

I think most people have it in them to be decent at maths, I think perhaps a lot of kids develop a kind of fear of maths when we are young perhaps due to some kind of social stigma, for example I used to struggle with it, if I saw anything resembling algebra would brain would turn into fudge :P but now I've begun seeing the world though a logical and mathematical perception, and I find it a lot easier to "get" maths if you like, it actually makes sense.

So what do you think, an ability that everyone can develop if they learn how to perceive it or an ability only a part of the population can develop to more than a basic level?

That's stupid as hell.

Mathematics is applying facts. Literally, I can reduce a hard problem of Maths with simple facts.

A good example is proving that if $f:R \rightarrow S$ is an morphism, then $R/kerf \cong imf$.

See this is way beyond most people and it's the type of question that is asked at uni. This is a second year university Maths proof question. Yet, it's easy. Have to prove it's well defined, kerf and imf are ideals and then finally it' gives a homeorphism. Clearly, it's a surjection because R gets map to imf. Really just need to prove injection, which is easy since if af=bf, then a-bf=0 so a-b in Kerf.

The point is the type of question your asked in uni is to prove easier things than this. Certainly, if there was something really hard they would give you the proof most of the time. Maybe, it's different in Cambridge/Oxbridge/Warwick.

Also, on methods. I'm taking a fourth year algebra course. I can probably get 70% just by memorizing the proofs in the notes. Knowing the definitions is probably sufficient to get 50%.

Anyway, STEP has nothing to do with bloody Maths. Glorified calculus test. Jan Sramek to me just seems like some idiot who works for Goldman sachs. You can't say he has Mathematical ability because he passed some joke test, which is what STEP is. Unless he proves something important he is just good at taking tests.

STEP is supposed to be an aptitude test hence designed to test Mathematical ability/thinking/potential. There's a reason why most students get thirds/seconds. Also, you can call it a joke test but I'd like to see your results with minimum revision on it.

So what. It's a joke test. I've got more important things to than do a glorified IQ test designed to test so called skills in A level Maths.

Actually 30% of students get first, 60% get a second.

Also, you really think STEP is relevant to university Mathematics. If so you are deluded as hell.

Seriously, how the hell is STEP relevant to third/fourth year Maths. It's bloody not.

I don't know maybe the kids who got S on STEP are better than fourth year Maths students. Maybe, Cambridge and Warwick are way beyond everywhere else that doesn't ask for STEP.

against genetics as such. But for being born with mathematical ability.

It is odd though, my brother is such a contrast from every member of my family (which would support nature that we all find maths relatively easy).

I didn't say STEP is relevant fourth year Maths. STEP is a test designed to test Mathematical aptitude.

How many sibling have you got?

On genetics. I have learning disability that made me in the bottom of most Maths classes until really last year of GCSEs.

Got a B in Maths since only did intermediate level. Failed A levels first time due to not working hard enough. So went F's to A's due to working really hard(literally got F in AS level Physics, then next year had predicated grade of B in Further Maths ended up getting AAA). Personally I think you probably work harder and smarter than your brother.

Maths is about thinking, he is an idiot from wasting his money on tutors and stuff.

P.S. If you Brother wants to retake GCSEs Maths tell your brother to make an account and PM me. PM don't work so should also post it in profile wall. But, personally I think the Maths tutor failed him and he failed himself.

I think most people have it in them to be decent at maths, I think perhaps a lot of kids develop a kind of fear of maths when we are young perhaps due to some kind of social stigma, for example I used to struggle with it, if I saw anything resembling algebra would brain would turn into fudge :P but now I've begun seeing the world though a logical and mathematical perception, and I find it a lot easier to "get" maths if you like, it actually makes sense.

So what do you think, an ability that everyone can develop if they learn how to perceive it or an ability only a part of the population can develop to more than a basic level?

Definetly nurtured. I know this girl who got a C at GCSE and then ended up getting an A* at A level. When i asked her how she did it she told me it was through hard work.

So what. It's a joke test. I've got more important things to than do a glorified IQ test designed to test so called skills in A level Maths.

Actually 30% of students get first, 60% get a second.

Also, you really think STEP is relevant to university Mathematics. If so you are deluded as hell.

Seriously, how the hell is STEP relevant to third/fourth year Maths. It's bloody not.

I don't know maybe the kids who got S on STEP are better than fourth year Maths students. Maybe, Cambridge and Warwick are way beyond everywhere else that doesn't ask for STEP.