= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
KPier comments on Counting upvotes/downvotes - 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 (18)
Controversy scores would indeed be useful things - e.g., are the scores on the QM sequence so low because the posts are controversial, or because few people read them?
I'm simply not smart enough to understand the math. It feels dishonest to vote up something I didn't fully understand, but it also feels unfair to downvote something that would probably be right if I could understand it. I bet a lot of people didn't vote at all on the QM sequence, not because they didn't read them but because they didn't feel informed enough to make a judgement.
You don't have enough mathematical maturity to understand the math. You are smart enough to learn to understand it, quickly.
If I may ask, at what point during your attempted reading of the sequence did you arrive at the conclusion that you couldn't understand the math?
The first few posts, with configuration spaces and complex numbers, didn't make sense to me even after reading them a couple times and trying to draw them out myself. After a while I decided to just sign up for physics in school, since I learn better that way.
I didn't have any trouble with the posts on Many-Worlds and simplicity, or with the philosophy/QM stuff.
http://betterexplained.com/articles/a-visual-intuitive-guide-to-imaginary-numbers/
I thought the math was utterly absurd until I read this and went "Oh, THAT'S what a complex number is? Gee, no wonder they're used in this!"
I got it off the comment threads on one of the QM sequences, and apparently it helped a lot of people there. You seem to have already found your own solution, but I figure it doesn't hurt to at least mention something that worked for a lot of others :)
Woah.
Don't let the curriculum hold you back. Get a book, read it yourself.
Downvoted for unsolicited other-optimizing, especially given that it's reasonable to guess from the context that KPier learns better from traditional classes than from books, if e learns better from traditional classes than from blog posts.
For a smart student, standard curriculum is usually too slow (and too limited) for any subject they actually care to learn. Status quo can hold them back, since everyone else is just following the curriculum.
That learning from books is less optimal is irrelevant to the extent there is no other choice (but there are probably video courses to be found on many subjects).
In most areas of study, I learn well on my own/from books. For math, I don't. I thought this meant I was stupid until I read "Beware of Other-Optimizing" - now I just think it's something about the way my brain processes math.
Standard curriculum at my school, even in the honors classes, is fairly slow; that's why I'm taking three science classes plus math next year, which (from past experience) should be enough to keep me from getting bored.
That said, I have also bought some physics books to read on my own once I finish Godel, Escher, Bach, which is taking me a while. Do you have any specific suggestions?
Try Lawvere's "Conceptual mathematics" (it's written for advanced high school level). It'll demonstrate some ways in which a lot of math is very unlike high school math. (But do look for other suggestions.)