= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Christian_Szegedy comments on Open Thread: January 2010 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (725)
I don't vote for blind memorization either. However, I think that if one can not reconstruct a proof than it is not understood either. Trying to reconstruct thought processes by heart will highlight the parts with incomplete understanding.
Of course in order to fully understand things one should look at additional consequences, solve problems, look at analogues, understand motivation etc. Still, the reconstruction of proofs is a very good starting point, IMO.
Sure. I'm pointing to the difference between making sure that you can do proofs (not necessarily reconstruct the particular ones from the textbook) and exercises, and actually reconstructing the proofs and doing the exercises. Getting to the point of correctly ruling the former can easily take 10 times less time than the latter. You won't be as fast at performing the proofs in the coming weeks if need be, but a couple of years pass and you'd be as bad both ways (but you'd still have the concepts!).