Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also the jargon. I remember years ago telling a coworker that I was an ACM member and subscribed to the SIGPLAN proceedings. He looked at me and with all sincerity asked, "You can understand those things??" To which I responded, "About half," but I totally sympathized with his question. Both Math and CS need the reincarnation of Richard Feynman to come and shake things up a bit. There's too much of the 'dazzle t…
> "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." is my new favorite Albert Einstein quote. It’s also one of his more moronic quotes. Certainly on a very abstract, dumbed-down level everything can be explained simply; sure, if you cannot give your parents a rough idea what you’re doing, you might want to look into more examples. But there are plenty of things which require a very extensive basi…
I no longer understand my PhD dissertation
251–260 of 281 posts
Re: I no longer understand my PhD dissertation
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be really nice if all it took to understand difficult mathematics were some easy programming tricks. The problem with looking at old code is you forget what is going on or what the purpose of different components are. The problem with looking at old mathematics is that it is genuinely very difficult to understand. You work very hard to be an expert in a field and get to a level where you can read a cutting-e…
It's also the jargon. I remember years ago telling a coworker that I was an ACM member and subscribed to the SIGPLAN proceedings. He looked at me and with all sincerity asked, "You can understand those things??" To which I responded, "About half," but I totally sympathized with his question. Both Math and CS need the reincarnation of Richard Feynman to come and shake things up a bit. There's too much of the 'dazzle t…
Re: I no longer understand my PhD dissertation
#253TLDR: The author independently re-discovered what you may know as Old Code Syndrome. I think that's because mathematical papers place too much value on terseness and abstraction over exposition and intuition. This guy's basically in the position of a fairly new developer who's just been asked to do non-trivial update of his own code for the first time. All those clever one-liners he put into his code made him feel sm…
fairly new has nothing to do with it. I'm struggling to read my own code since 1998 and constantly in battle with myself to strategically place comments at the right places. I doubt that I'll ever correctly estimate my own ability to comprehend my sh1t no matter how many years of experience I have. In fact it seems to have gotten worse with experience. The more I know the less I can trust myself. Not sure if I'm alone with that.
Re: I no longer understand my PhD dissertation
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am curious, how would you assess the readability of my code: http://github.com/EGreg/Platform I kind of developed that style organically as I went along, in both PHP and JS. I tried to make the output readable as well. I've seen many frameworks output a bunch of gibberish, but with today's bandwidth it's not such a big deal to add a little bit of whitespace and make everything readable. Here's a fairly complex appl…
I can give you some feedback since I tend to write a lot of PHP. Mostly, code style is about consistency. You can have infinite arguments about whether opening braces should go on the same line as the operator/function, but at the end of the day as long as you stay consistent it doesn't really matter. Here are some consistency issues I found. Your function declarations put the opening brace on the following line, but…
I guess I wanted to know more feedback about the design and architecture of the system, the names for things etc.
Re: I no longer understand my PhD dissertation
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
But isn't that an attempt at a "descriptive" name? The intuition for the person who discovered this lemma, clearly envisioned the underlying process as a device pumping out new strings belonging to the language.
I took a brick and mortar automata class a long time ago and a classmate who clearly wasn't reading the text before lecture, insisted the prof called it the "plumping lemma" because it was about growing wider strings. That might have been the only funny thing that ever happened in automata class, unfortunately. Education by satire / humor is a sadly under-explored field. "A satirical approach to linear algebra"... no…
"Misspell Chomsky's name as Chompsky, and I'll give you a pass; Misspell Turing as Turning or something? I'll flunk you"
Re: I no longer understand my PhD dissertation
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a very illuminating analogy. Users of high-level languages, typically do not think about what the compiler is doing, and if in fact they do not know the compiler action--often the only way to find out is by reading the compilers source code. This is akin to looking a math paper seeing "it trivially follows..." and your only recourse to find out why it so trivially follows is to get a mathematics degree.
There is still a key difference. With programming the information is always there. If you don't understand a higher level language but do understand the language in which the compiler is implemented, you can always read the compiler. The "it trivially follows", the information is simply missing. Gaining a mathematics degree will often give you the intellectual power of finding the missing pieces yourself, but the onl…
Getting a math degree just to be able to fill in the gaps created where 'it trivially follows' is equivalent to being required to memorize the API for a framework because clearly defined documentation is hidden behind a paywall.
so called 'intellectual power' has little to do with it. What you're describing is familiarity with navigating a minefield of poorly structured information and tapping a academia (ie at a very high cost of entry) for 'special access' to resources that bridge the gaps.
Of software development suffered from the same informational constraints and lack of innovation, we'd still be playing pong.
Re: I no longer understand my PhD dissertation
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not in the American school system, at least. AFAICT grade school "math education" is mostly about lodging a particular calculation algorithm implementation into students' heads and making them repeatedly run it, on a variety of test inputs. A large majority of Americans will never do a single bit of mathematics in their lives, cradle to grave. To be fair, there are lots of efforts to change it. But (being pretty hars…
When you apply that to proofs its awful. To use a gaming analogy the real world is a sandbox game where you can build it any way you want as long as you follow the rules, but in K-12 school, proofs are either for exact memorization, or crazy contrived things on rails that you're only supposed to solve the one correct way. Sort of a perl "there is more than one way to do it" vs a python "there should only be one way t…
Re: I no longer understand my PhD dissertation
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also the jargon. I remember years ago telling a coworker that I was an ACM member and subscribed to the SIGPLAN proceedings. He looked at me and with all sincerity asked, "You can understand those things??" To which I responded, "About half," but I totally sympathized with his question. Both Math and CS need the reincarnation of Richard Feynman to come and shake things up a bit. There's too much of the 'dazzle t…
> "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." is my new favorite Albert Einstein quote. It’s also one of his more moronic quotes. Certainly on a very abstract, dumbed-down level everything can be explained simply; sure, if you cannot give your parents a rough idea what you’re doing, you might want to look into more examples. But there are plenty of things which require a very extensive basi…
Then why is paper still the overwhelmingly preferred medium?
Using hypertext it would be trivial to link to an external source describing the specific concept used from linear algebra.
Not providing supporting links is only good for an audience that holds the entirety of mathematical knowledge in their heads (ie mathematicians in academia).
The rest of the world, incl those who have since moved on like the author, don't fit into that category.
Therefore, the work can only be accurately read and understood by the tiny minority of specialists capable of decoding the intent of the work.
Limited reach = limited value to society.
Is the intent of a PHD really to advance the field of mathematics? Or is it just another 'measuring stick' for individuals to prove to others how 'smart' they are?
Re: I no longer understand my PhD dissertation
#259TLDR: The author independently re-discovered what you may know as Old Code Syndrome. I think that's because mathematical papers place too much value on terseness and abstraction over exposition and intuition. This guy's basically in the position of a fairly new developer who's just been asked to do non-trivial update of his own code for the first time. All those clever one-liners he put into his code made him feel sm…
Just to briefly establish that I have some qualifications here, while I do not have a PhD and am not nor have I ever been a professional mathematician, I did have a lot of success in mathematics as an undergraduate, publishing research in the intersection of algebraic topology, differential geometry, and analysis with a professor at an Ivy League university.
I was myself a practitioner of the school of It Is Clear That..., until I realized that my mentor for the above research, a famed professor and former Putnam Fellow who even has inequalities named after himself, didn't follow some of the stuff I'd written in some notes I showed him. And if he didn't follow it, then I knew that meant I probably didn't understand it as well as I thought I did. It wasn't a big surprise to me then that, after a few weeks of effort, I was completely unable to take my approach further. His approach, of course, worked.
He represents one of few mathematicians I've personally known who emphasized clarity just as much as correctness and technical depth, and he had no desire to appear smart. But at this point in time he already had his career mostly behind him. There was nobody left for him to impress.
Part of the problem, ultimately, is that phrases like "it is trivial that..." do serve a purpose when used appropriately. As a result, it's hard to argue that they should categorically be excluded from mathematical writing. But that then opens them up to abuse, and in a culture so obsessed with appearing smart, that abuse can be quite extreme sometimes. Because instances of abuse are often motivated out of appearing smart rather than legitimate economical concerns of space, bringing up the issue with the author amounts to a moral accusation against them, which makes their defense of the phrases even more impassioned. They're not going to admit that they're just trying to puff up their ego.
The worst part is that, in some circles, if you criticize this sort of writing you'll just be greeted by a bunch of people who are proud to exclaim that, of course, they are smart enough to fill in the blanks, and if only you were too then you surely couldn't possibly still have any objections to it.
For me, transitioning from mathematics to software development was a huge breath of fresh air, as the culture is (generally) the exact opposite. Nearly every good programmer I've met has valued clarity and maintainability equally alongside correctness.
Re: I no longer understand my PhD dissertation
#260TLDR: The author independently re-discovered what you may know as Old Code Syndrome. I think that's because mathematical papers place too much value on terseness and abstraction over exposition and intuition. This guy's basically in the position of a fairly new developer who's just been asked to do non-trivial update of his own code for the first time. All those clever one-liners he put into his code made him feel sm…
>> of a fairly new developer who's just been asked to do non-trivial update of his own code for the first time fairly new has nothing to do with it. I'm struggling to read my own code since 1998 and constantly in battle with myself to strategically place comments at the right places. I doubt that I'll ever correctly estimate my own ability to comprehend my sh1t no matter how many years of experience I have. In fact i…