> then you're doing the opposite of what the author proposes
No, it’s exactly what the author is writing about. Just check his example, it’s pretty clear what he means by “thinking in math”
> Scientific conensus in math is Occam's Razor, or the principle of parsimony. In algebra, topology, logic and many other domains, this means that rather than having many computational steps (or a "simple mental model") to arrive to an answer, you introduce a concept that captures a class of problems and use that.
No, it’s exactly what the author is writing about. Just check his example, it’s pretty clear what he means by “thinking in math”
> Scientific conensus in math is Occam's Razor, or the principle of parsimony. In algebra, topology, logic and many other domains, this means that rather than having many computational steps (or a "simple mental model") to arrive to an answer, you introduce a concept that captures a class of problems and use that.
I don’t even know what you mean by this.