Chapter 2 Abstraction

Hollandaise Sauce is made by dripping olive oil into egg yolk.

Mayonnaise is made by dripping butter into egg yolk.

The points seems to be that these recipes are "the same" at a higher level of
abstraction, if we ignore what exactly was dripped into egg yolk.
at higher level "something is slowly dripped into continuously whisked eggyolk"

(link above to math ==) Mathematics goes looking for situations where things (_
processes/techniques) are the same except for one small detail.
This - finding things that look the same (KEY) if you ignore some small details (__
this is the conventional use of 'abstraction' call it 'abstraction-0' and the idea
of finding new mathematical objects to which old techniques can be applied
'abstraction_1') is a way of saving effort, in that you can understand how to do
*both things* at once.

(HTBP)

At some level, hollondaise and mayonnaise are the same. (KEY) they use the same
method, with a difference in what is dripped.
rest as above.

Abstraction As Blueprint (CCCT)

Cottage pie, shepherds' pie, fisherman's pie - all have a mashed potato topping,
but differ in the filling below that topping.
more examples of the basic idea: that recipes for different dishes often follow an
abstract 'template' - this is a 'higher level recipe' - 'recipe as blueprint' that
ignores some details.

This is a key idea in math - when you ignore some details, situations become easier
to understand, and you can 'mix in' the varying details later if required. This is
the process of abstraction (_0). Once we have the 'abstract recipe' we often find
that it can't be applied to *everything*.

Consider an equilateral triangle. Number its vertices.

so 2

1 3

Now if we rotate the angle clockwise 120 degrees we get

3 2

If we reflect the triangle around a vertical line (passing through each vertex,
bisecting) the numbers move around.
also when we rotate the triange 120 or 240 degrees.

So each 'configuration' of generating a 'symmetric' triangle, either rotating

(including the 0 degree 'trivial' rotation) or reflecting it about a line passing
through a vertex, corresponds to a permutation of the numbers 1,2,3. i.e (KEY) the
symmetry of an equilateral triangle is *abstractly the same as* the permutation of
three numbers.

at this point we can mentally 'throw away' the triangle, and focus directly on the
permutation. This is an example of abstraction(_0).

Pie - Abstraction As Blueprints (HTBP)

Cottage pie, shepherd's pie, fisherman's pie are all more or less the same, the
difference being the filling sitting under the (common) mashed potato topping.
Similarly fruit crisps. you don't need a separate recipe for each type of fruit
crisp. you just need to know how to make the topping. then you put the fruit of
your choice in a dish, add the topping, and bake it.

more cooking examples here.

The basic point here is that a 'recipe' is not a full recipe, but rather a
blueprint for a full recipe, which you 'instantiate' by 'filling in details' into
the abstract recipe.

(KEY) This is how math works - The idea is to look for similarities between things
so that you need only one (abstract) "recipe" for many different situations. The
KEY is that when you ignore some details, the situations become easier to
understand. you can later 'instantiate' by 'filling in the variables'. (KEY) This
is the process of abstraction.

As with the recipe for watermelon crisp, you may find that once you have an
"abstract recipe" you may find that you cannot apply this recipe to *everything*,
but the effort to create such abstract recipes is *still* worth it, because (a) you
can *try* to apply it to everything (b) sometimes you discover surprising things.

triangle example as above.

the final sentence is (once we realize that) the symmetry of an equilateral

triangles is *abstractly* the same as the permutations of the numbers 1,2,3 (KEY)
the two situations can be studied at the same time.

Kitchen Abstraction (CCCT)

If you decide to make something, and clear the kitchen (_ banish to a pocket
dimension) all ingredients and equipment that you *don't* need to make *that*
recipe, this would be cooking equivalent of mathematical abstraction. In the
kitchen, this minimises space clutter.

In mathematics, abstraction minimizes *brain clutter*, by (KEY) putting away ideas

you don't need for the chosen mathematical task.

(this) abstraction is a first step to doing mathematics, (but it might make you
uneasy).
Example: Word problem (as given to children learning math)
I buy 2 stamps for 36 p each. How much do I spend?

(KEY) We throw away 'stamp', 'pence' and 'spend' and 'buy' to get

2 * 36 = ??

This is abstraction.

This need not always be trivially easy, as in the example above.

e.g : "I have a recipe for making a 6 inch cake with icing. How much (extra) icing
do I need for an 8 inch cake baked with the same recipe.?"

(KEY) Sweets and cookies - things that are too real don't obey the rules of
mathematics

Question: Grandpa gives you 4 sweets and grandma gives you 5. How many sweets do
you have?

Child: none because I'll eat them all.

Problem: 'sweets given to child' do not follow the 'laws of mathematics'.

To solve: add rules like 'you are not allowed to eat the sweets', 'you can't give
them to the dog' etc etc

at this point, why 'sweets'. Use 'things' instead. (KEY) to reason with numbers,
'things' without properties are best, so the reasoning doesn't change with the
properties possessed by the 'thing' in question.

(HTBPi version) == (when we move from cookies to 'things') we lose some connection
to reality, but we gain scope, and with it, efficiency. The point of (computing
with) numbers (instead of specific things like cookies) is that we can reason about
'things' without changing the reasoning depending on what specific 'thing' is
involved. Once we understand 2 + 2 = 4, we know that adding 2 things to two more
things give four things whethere those are watermelons, camels or cookies. (HTBPi)

4 things + 5 things = 9 things, whether the things we count are monkeys or

watermelons or spacecraft. so we *abstract* going from all these things to numbers
and then operate on that level. Children struggle with such questions because they
are not used to abstraction. Adults are so used to this particular abstraction that
they don't notice themselves doing it.

(HTBP) we are so used to abstracting from specific things to numbers for counting
etc that we are often not aware we are doing it. Small children are not used to
this, so they struggle with it.

(HTBP - Eeeny Meeny Miney Mo) Numbers as Abstraction

when a child learns to 'count to 10' they are essentially memorizing a poem, just
as they memorize "jack and jill". It is just that the poem goes "one, two,
three .... ".

In the next step, they start pointing at things while the recite the poem.
Next they learn they are supposed to point at one distinct item for each word in
the poem. But they have trouble making sure they have pointed at each thing exactly
once, and so you get haphazard answers to questions like 'how many ducks are in the
picture?'.

finally they 'get' the idea that they are supposed to precisely match items (once
per item) with words in the picture. This is when they *really* know how to count.

(_ as a further step, they learn how to extend the 'poem' to any number you need,
and any 'counting situation' you may encounter)

Imagine trading (say) one sack of grain per sheep when someone shows up with a herd
of sheep to barter, without the concept of number.

Alternative 1: line up sheep with sacks of grain.

Alternative 2: you recite a poem with rhythm, pointing at one sheep and one sack
per unit of rhythm. the poem could be anything.
then you make up a poem for all situations where you have to count things and you
have 'numbers'.

The Baby and The Bathwater. (HTBPi - Be careful not to

throw away too much)

When abstracting, i.e when we go around simplifying/idealising, we must be careful

not to *over*simplify, i.e we must not remove *all* properties from objects, and we
must retain *relevant* properties.

If we are thinking of counting lego bricks in a collection, their color and size
are irrelevant.
If we are thinking of stacking lego bricks, their color is still irrelevant, but
size is relevant.

so (KEY) choosing what properties of an object to ignore depends *heavily* on

context. CT brings context to the forefront (??). (HTBPi - this is an important
theme which will come to the forefront)

another example:
suppose you are organizing an outing for 100 people and each van can contain 15
people.
100/15 = 6.7
In *this* context you have to round up to 7 and hire 7 vans, not 6.

Now suppose you have to send chocolates to a friend in a post, and you have a stamp
valid for 100 g.
Each chocolate weighs 15 g . how many do you send?

In this context you have to round 6.7 *down* to 6.

Heartbreak as abstraction:
Heartbreak == (emotional response when) "you lose something you loved".
this 'abstract definition' reflects the 'essence' of the phenomenon, getting to the
heart of the matter, even when it *seems* like it is taking you further from
reality. Extraneous details (surrounding a specific person's specific heartbreak in
a specific situation) obscures the essence.

(HTBPi) Abstractions seems to take you further and further away from reality, but
it actually takes you closer and closer to the essence or heart of the matter. To
get to the heart, you have to strip away clothes and skin and flesh and bone.

Road Signs

are a sign of abstraction. all children crossing a road and/or specific bumps on
the road, don't look exactly like what is on the board, but nonentheless, the road
signs capture the essence, and it is way easier to notice/take in a symbol than
read some words (for illiterates, or foreigners who don't speak the local
language).

The disadvantage is that you have to learn these symbols when learning driving.

(HTBPi) : Contrast a 'deer crossing' sign with a 'no entry sign' (a red circle with
white horizontal stripe)
The No Entry sign is more abstract. It does not look like the thing it represents,
as compared to the 'deer crossing' sign, which has a representation of the deer on
it (how does 'no entry' look like anyway?). Also the more abstract sign, is, in
this case, more significant/important. You'll probably encounter more No Entry
signs in your life than deer crossing signs.

Similarly, when learning mathematics, you have to learn a variety of 'funny

symbols'. Once you know what they mean, you can reserve your mathematical brain
power for the more complicated parts of mathematics. (it is surprisingly easy to
read a mathematical text in a language you don't know).

+, -, gradient, integral signs, are all such mathematical signs, of greater or

lesser familiarity. It makes math a bit incomprehensible at first, but it makes it
much easier in the long run.

Google Maps: The difficulty of relating the map to

the reality.

What is difficult about reading a map?

A map depicts *some* aspects of concrete reality that is *supposed to* help you
find your way around (than navigating purely in the real world) but this is not
very easy.

(taking the map by itself) reading the (contents of) the map is not hard, but the
difficulty is in (KEY) translating between the abstraction (the map) and the
reality(the territory). (_ i.e the 'crossing' between abstraction and the reality
it 'represents' is the difficult step)

The difficulty about using a map is with

(a) deciding where you are in the first place (in concrete reality and then
'crossing' to the corresponding point in the map)
(b) which way you are facing (in reality, then 'crossing' to an orientation on
the map)

With GPS, (a) is solved (wrt placing oneself on the map) (EDIT: Look for 'movement
between abstraction layers introducting difficulties' as a pattern for problems to
solve).
Google Maps solves orientation with StreetView which gives a more realistic
representation of reality, by providing an actual picture.
Maths has to go through these same steps.

_ Step 0: you are in some 'reality'. (_ could be a level of abstraction)

Then
Step 1: you turn reality into an abstraction. (_ you 'go from' reality to an
abstraction)
Step 2: then you do logical reasoning (in the abstract world)
Step 3: then you translate the result of the abstract work back into concrete
world terms.

different people are good at different parts of this process (?? concretely what
does this mean wrt mathematics practice??)
but the KEY is - the ability to move back and forth between 'the two worlds' -
concrete and abstract.

"Still someone had to draw the map" (_ seems to mean that there are already
abstract worlds premade for many concrete world situations?)

Example:
Suppose you have a recipe for an eight inch square cake, but you want a round
cake instead. (For some mysterious reason related to cooking, essentially we want
the same area on the top of the round cake as with the square cake)

So we want a circle that has the same area as the 8 inch square cake (_ this seems
to be the 'upward crossing' - concrete to abstract).

so we need
area of circle = area of square
==
pi * (diam/2)^2 = 8 * 8
==
diam/2 = sqrt (64/pi)
==
diam = 2 * sqrt (64/pi)
==
+/- 9.027

(this is the 'logical reasoning in the abstract world' bit. EC says this is the bit
that is actually math)

Now we take the result of the abstract reasoning and convert it into concrete world
bits (the third step) (HTBPi - we take the end result of the calculation , *take
the context into account* and turn it back into a concrete world answer by)

we adapt the abstract world answer to the concrete world by

1. not using the negative answer. We want to choose cake tins, and so we need
only the positive answer.
2. we don't need the decimal place value. in the real world cake tins come in
'inch sizes' so we choose a 9 inch tin. (rounding down, which is another 'crossing
choice' imposed by the concrete/real world context in which we are doing the math)

(__ see the Gries description of the same process in the first part of ALADM. also
the travel to MIT problem in strang calculus, the calculus part is easy. The hard
part is the crossing back and forth)

The key in maths is to find the most appropriate level of abstraction for the given
problem. (IMPORTANT)

The same is true for maps: (when moving on a street from the real world)
- does the map require pictures/sketches of buildings on the street?
- do we need to know where there is grass and where there isn't?

so, depending on the exact *need*, we need different maps. (e.g: if we are using
the maps to drive, the map needs to show which streets are one way.This is not
relevant if we are on foot)

Likewise there are different abstractions for different needs (for the same
'concrete entity')

Example: What is the number 1?

Answer 1: 1 is the basic block of counting
Answer 2: 1 is the only number with the property that multiplying by it doesn't
change the number multiplied.

(_ so we have different abstractions/ways of viewing, for the same *mathematical*

object.)

(HTBPi Each answer is useful *in different contexts*)

In the context of adding up numbers, the first definition is useful. In

mathematics, this (view of 1) characterises numbers as part of a 'group' - aworld
in which we can do addition.

The second view of the number 1 is useful in the context of multiplying numbers.
This (view of 1) characterises numbers as part of a 'ring' - a world where we can
do addition *and* multiplication with the entities in that world.

(_connecting to the concrete world) . The study of groups relates to the symmetry
of shapes. The study of rings is related to other aspects (?) of the geometry of
shapes.

(KEY) If you use an inappropriate(ly abstract level) maps you will be frustrated.
This is true of real world maps, *and in mathematics*. Using complicated
mathematics for a situation that doesn't call for it , makes you think the math is
pointless. Analogy: using the dewey decimal system to classify your book
collection, when you have only twenty books. (_ the point being, the DDS *is*
useful, but not in your situation/context)

High Jump: Leaps of Abstraction

(the previous section made the point that there are different levels of
abstraction or 'maps' for the same concrete reality this section seemso say that
people might find crossing to and from *some* abstractions easier, and others more
difficult)

High Jump Analogy

(KEY) a specific person has a 'maximum height' he/she can jump over. 'Thinking
about abstractions' has similar 'heights' and therefore different 'height limits'
for different mathematicians.

(KEY) People who jump over 'really high' bars, seem 'magical' to people who
can't jump that high.

Most people can make the abstraction 'jump' from objects to numbers (and
addition etc on those numbers in the abstract level) without even noticing. at the
'level' where numbers turn to variables x,y etc, some people think 'too high' and
'drop out'. This is either because they 'cant do it' or 'don't see the point of
doing it' . (why should I jump over high bars?)

Another 'limit level' is that of 'rigorous calculus'.

(what I understood) solving 'area under curve of y = x^2' from x_1 to x_2.
The 'process' of solving this involves 1/3 x_2 ^3 - 1/3 x_1 ^3 but in 'rigorous
calculus' you have to *prove* that this process is valid. In pre rigorus calculus,
this is *somewhat* justified by 'assuming graph papers with decreasing square size,
and counting up the squares' etc. This is an 'experimental proof' (thought
experiment prood?) . Rigorous calculus makes this argument logically watertight.

(HTBPi) many people reach their abstraction limit at Rigorous Calculus. It is

calculus which involves new and strange, and frankly, sneaky, ways of manipulating
and reasoning with 'infinitesimally small' things. People can hit this limit half
way through their undergraduate degree or in the middle of their PhD, because RC
does not fit in with people's notions of what mathematics is - pinning things down
and getting answers with great certainty.

Another limit for (advanced mathematicians) is Category Theory. But even

advanced mathematicians often react like teenagers encountering algebra. "what is
the point?"

(KEY) this 'personal limit' can be raised through adopting proper tools/techniques.
Cheng's example: Her personal high jump height limit - even the lowest setting of
the bar was too hard for her - can be 'raised' by instruction in proper technique,
here proper high jump technique.

INSIGHT: this is what people do by adopting proper high jump technique.

Subpoint: For a working mathematician, as for an improving athlete, at any point in

time, there is an 'abstraction limit' which (KEY) gets higher with time and
effort.

(HTBPi) Thinking about more and more abstract concepts is like performing high
jumps over higher and higher bars. If nobody explains how to do it, you will keep
knocking the bar over and want to give up. different people reach different heights
at different times, and with the high jump, peole drop out at ecah round.

EC's personal limits:

- numbers to pictures - how process of squaring numbers becomes a picture
(HTBPi - she was puzzled by how the *process* of squaring numbers becomes a
*picture* of a curve and sat and thought till she thought her brain would explode -
which is the same feeling you get whenever you encounter a difficult concepts in
mathematics)
- (formulas involving some) numbers to (formulas involving only) letters
- 'numbers to relationships'
- the idea that a one object category is a monoid.
- an explanation: Category Theory studies the relationships between
objects.
a category is a (mathematical object that
represents a) context for studying relationships between objects.
a monoid is a category (and so a context) for
studying things that can be multiplied. (e.g numbers)
' a one object category is a monoid' == 'viewing
numbers as relationships between themselves and the world - a strange pov but very
powerful'

(HTBPi) Another limit for mathematicians is Category Theory, and they react as
teenages would when encountering x and y instead of numbers. - "What is the point?"
Joan Baez said "if you don't like abstraction, why are you in mathematics? You
should be in finance, where every number has a dollar sign attached"

The Goose That Lays The Golden Eggs - Making Machines For
Solving Problems

One form of abstraction: (KEY) To create a machine that does X vs doing X directly,
you have to understand X on a deep level.
(KEY) Similarly when telling someone how to do something
vs doing something by yourself. You might be able to do X very very well, but you
may not know how to explain to someone how to, or create a machine how to.

A mathematical equation is 2x + 7 = 3

A 'machine' to solve all such equations would be able to solve ax + b = c, a,b and
c can be any numbers at all.

Then we build a 'machine' to solve a.x^2 + b.x + c = 0. This leads us to the

quadratic equation. -b +- sqrt .... etc. (not quite sure what the abstraction type
is , here)

A machine to build machines == the fundamental theorem of algebra that states every
polynomial equation has at least one solution, if we allow complex numbers.

Cake Cutting: An Example Of Abstraction

Problem: Given a fixed number of cuts, how many pieces of cake can we get? (HTBPi -
first mathematical investigation, of EC, in high school)
Point 1: Going from solving a concrete problem, to solving a more general problem (
whose instantiation includes the specific concrete problem we start with)

We want to create a formula that given the number of cuts, returns the number of
pieces, this is a 'machine for calculating the number of pieces', but a 'machine'
can be opaque and still work, but the formula reveals the 'working of the machine'
in addition to working.

(HTBPi)

Your first reaction might be that this is a stupid question. Who would want to cut
a cake to maximize the number of resulting pieces (of different sizes and shapes)?

The point of the the investigation is to make the participants work out the
results for small n s. n = 1, n = 2, n = 3 ... etc and then *find* af a formula
that consumes n, the number of cuts, and returns the number of pieces.

i.e (KEY) the aim is not only to solve the problem at hand - max number of pieces
for three cuts, but to create a "machine" (_ here the formula is the
'machine'. ) . a formula is better than a black box machine because it tells us
*how* the answer is derived (vs a black box spitting out the answer)

This is a form of abstraction (abstraction_2, _0 == converting non mathematical

objects - like knots - into mathematical objects, _1 == 'conventional' abstraction
- ignoring 'irrelevant' details _2 == solving the problem of solving the problem) -
you are solving hypothetical problems - solving the problem of solving the problem
- or solving a 'higher level abstraction' of the problem- n cuts instead of 3 cuts)

(re explanation)
you could make a table of number of cuts and number of pieces. But the table has
infinite rows and you can represent only a limited number of those. The formula can
handle all cases.

(re framing)
you are not doing a mathematical exploration to find a formula. Instead, you are
helping children doing the investigation and you are helping them.
you are not solving the problem, you are teaching people how to solve the problem.
This is another level of abstroction (_3). if you are teaching teachers how to
teach people to solve the problem, that is yet another level of abstraction.

All these types of abstractions (and other types) take us away from reality, and
towards the essence of the problem. But we shouldn't get too abstract, at which the
point 'the light becomes too dim'.

Abstract Mathematics

Abstraction is the key to understand what mathematics is.

Abstraction is the reason why mathematics seems far from real life, and seems
irrelevant to real life.

(HTBPi) Every level of abstraction takes mathematics another step away from 'real
world' concerns, and harder to explain what the relevance *is*, because this
relevance usually manifests via a domino effect (HTBPi)

The relevance to real life of abstract mathematics often comes via a domino effect
- e.g CT -> Topology -> Physics -> Chemistry -> Medicine.

Abstraction is also key to understand the difference between mathematics and

science

Science starts with a hypothesis - a guess that something is true.

Then experiments (with sufficient sample size, controls, lack of bias etc etc) are
performed to verify or disprove the hypothesis.
In the end you end up with a *statistical* truth, with a degree of uncertainty.

Math also starts with something you guess to be true.

But instead of rigorous experimentation, you use rigorous *logic*. (HTBPi) The
meaning of 'rigor' is different in mathematics - we don't use samples, only thought
processes. There is no bias, since we use logic.

Logic has some advantages over experimentation

Experiments maybe illogical
to find out how many bricks a house needs, you can't experiment by building a
few houses and counting
Experiments maybe dangerous
experiment == build a few bridges and drive varying volumes of traffic across
them to see when they fall down.
Experiments maybe undesirable/illegal
to measure spread of infectious disease, spread a few viruses and measure
infection rate

Experiments can be impossible - if you are trying to figure out why the sun rises
everyday, you can't change the coundtions of outer space, over the behavior of
planets.

Experiments can be immoral - Let hypothesis == culling badger popluations will

reduce instances of tuberculosis in cows. How to test this? can we kill a whole lot
of badgers to see if tuberculosis reduces in the cow population?

In all these cases, it is better to work theoretically rather than experimentally,

with logic and not experimenst.. With logic the conclusions are (logically!)
irrefutable.

How does logic work

- a series of statement 'following logically' from their predecessors, using
only logic. ok, but where does one start?
- start with clearly stated assumptions ('givens'), often involving (the step
of) 'crossing' from the realworld to abstraction level.
e.g: my cake is perfectly circular.
e.g: an infectious disease has a 50% chance of passing from one person to
another when they meet.
Making these assumptions is part of the process of abstraction. They usually
involve converting non mathematical objects into mathematical objects, so we can
process with logic. The downside is that your theoretcal formulation won't strictly
match your real/concrete situation.
- then you 'process' with logic to get a conclusion,
- the inaccuracy of which is determined only by what information you threw away
in the concrete->abstract 'crossing' (and reverse direction?)),wwhich is very
different from a statistical results, where the error comes from a small
possibility that your hypothesis is incorrect despite the evidence.

The 'mathematical method' (as distinct from the scientific method) consists of
being very clear what your assumptions are (_ and then laying out your logical
steps), which makes it impossible for people to disagree with your conclusion.

E.g: IF a chicken can feed ten people, then we need 10 chickens to feed 100 people.

you can dispute the hypothesis (a chicken can't feed 10 people!) but *given* the
assumption, the conclusion is valid.

you can also dispute any *unposited* assumptions: "you are assuming all chickens
are the same size, all people eat the same amount etc". Whether these are 'valid'
assumptions depends on the context (if you are planing a party for 100 people and
you have a lot of experience, you can have an 'average size' each person would
consume)
Is this a realistic assumption? (_ That depends on the context so) if you are
ordering roast chicken for a party of forty people, then you can proceed with this.
With an experimental approach, you rely on the customer experience of the caterer.

Abstraction can be difficult because it takes you out of the realm of concrete
objects and 'into our heads', where 'ideas' are what we manipulate.

e.g "numbers" don't exist in the real world. They are ideas that we manipulate in
our heads. The numbers 1,2,3,4 are ideas in our heads and *so* we can manipulate
them using logic.

(KEY) *when* you are used to abstractions, they *feel* like a 'concrete reality'
instead of an idea in our heads.

E.g: most people are comfortable with (the abstraction that is) the number 2. you
might be less comfortable with -1 or the square root of 1 or the square root of -1.

Similarly people are comfortable with lines and squares as abstractions, though no
perfect lines or squares exist in the real world (_ cue: each person has an
'abstraction ceiling' at any given point of time)

What about the square root of 2? the square root of -1? this is hard to think
about because nothing like it exists in real life.

Part of the process of abstraction is using oun imagination. Mathematical

abstraction (KEY) takes us into a world of the imagination where anything is
possible *as long as it is not contradictory* (_ to assumptions + logical inference
chains)

Can you imagine transparent lego bricks?

What about squishy lego bricks?
Four Dimensional lego bricks?
Invisible lego bricks?

Obviously in the real world, just imagining something doesn't make it real. But
(KEY) in the world of math, when you imagine something it exists. The more vivid
your imagination, the more math you have access to .

Abstraction At Work

Consider the word problem

My father is now 3 times as old as I am. In ten years time, he will be twice as old
as me. How old am I?

We use x for my age, y for my fathers age, to get

y = 3x
y + 10 = 2(x + 10)

solving through a series of algebraic manipulations, we get x = 10.

Note that we went through a series of steps

1. we started with a real life situation expressed in words.
 2. we performed a 'crossing into abstraction' by throwing away irrelevant
details (parent child relations, age, etc) to come up with an equivalest *abstract*
problem.
3. Then we used logic to solve this abstract problem, to get an abstract
(number, not age etc) solution.
4. Then we undid the abstraction to bring it into the concrete problem by
concluding that the present age of the child is so many years.

We can do another step of abstraction here.

if we can solve two equations

y = a1 x + b1
y = a2 x2 + b2

then

y = (b2 - b1) / (a2 - a1)

then we have 'made a machine' that solves all concrete problems that, when
abstracted, have this form.