= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Open Thread, October 1-15, 2012 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (477)
"Pure" one word you could use for that teaching strategy. Just what it is a 'pure' representation of is up for debate. "Pure backwards self-congratulatory tripe" would be the cynical description.
You're being awfully cynical lately, and I don't like it.
Would you like an internet hug?
I have never respected cheap 'purity' signalling at the expense of practical considerations. Not when I was learning at university, not now. I will always consider the obligation to use paper rather than modern technology to be a bad thing, not an indicator of elite quality.
No, you are making me uncomfortable. Please don't ask again.
I think they're trying to train a Scott Aaronson, not a John Carmack. A Scott Aaronson really does work by not actually using a computer much for anything other than typesetting LaTeX.
And that sounds like a brilliant idea. Most of the problems I have with having being forced to write algorithms on paper at times disappear right there. It's even worse than forcing people to write sentences on paper, given the need for correctness in the details.
Oh, they don't have to write on paper. I just don't know any maths students who do. Handwriting maths is easier than typesetting it.
(At least it is for people who are bad at typesetting.)
Wolfram-style automatic formatting buttons ftw.
Maybe try with a bit less sarcasm? I'm having genuine trouble parsing what you are objecting to, exactly.
There isn't any sarcasm in the grandparent.
It's not the teaching strategy, it's the subject matter. See for instance pure maths.