I didn't realize I liked math until I worked with computers and programming. That's when I suddenly began to understand the concepts of math and its beauty. The language of computers expresses mathematical ideas much better than traditional mathematical symbols, for my particular brain.

Whenever I see a difficult math equation or proof, I look for its expression in a computer language. Maybe this is poor form (I should be trying to understand the language of math) but I save myself a lot of frustration.

A lot of mathematicians (Paul Halmos is one example) say that one way to make sure you understand your math is to see if you can re-express it in a different notation. So any time you try to rewrite a math problem to fit the notation you know best, you are aiding your understanding.

That's one thing that I love about working through project euler - formal/classic math meets code. I've probably bought 6 or 7 books on particular aspects of math just so that I could properly understand/solve some of the problems too.

So basically because you don't understand it.

I think his point is more subtle than that. Informal paper math doesn't always neatly line up with formal, computer-processed math---such as numerical processing or theorem proving. This disconnect can be extremely frustrating: I want to believe paper proofs, but simply writing down the theorem statement in a rigorous way can require significant changes. It's the frustration of understanding something on the surface but then realizing that in fact it makes no sense.