21–30 of 99 posts
The crucial question is, is the text any good? My bias tells me it's next to impossible (but not actually impossible) for a text from 1987 to be 2021-beginner friendly, especially in a field like mathematics.
The text covers a lot of ground very quickly omitting a lot of "pure math" details.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because while the field of mathematics has probably not changed, the field of didactics has changed drastically, and the student expectations in 1980s and 2021 will be also drastically different.
Has it actually improved though? Every study I've seen says students are worse at maths today than 30 years ago, so to me it doesn't look like all that pedagogy research improved things. If things actually got better we should have strong evidence supporting that. Images are prettier, sure, but do students who study using modern books actually understand the material better after the course is done?
The crucial question is, is the text any good? My bias tells me it's next to impossible (but not actually impossible) for a text from 1987 to be 2021-beginner friendly, especially in a field like mathematics.
I wonder if such an effort could be financed from some kind of microgrants. Take old Soviet maths and physics books - they were very good! - translate them into English, possibly with small alterations (e.g. a QR code link to an animation), type them in LaTeX or AMSTeX and release them under a friendly license.
The crucial question is, is the text any good? My bias tells me it's next to impossible (but not actually impossible) for a text from 1987 to be 2021-beginner friendly, especially in a field like mathematics.
As a German living in the Western part, my math teacher would always rant how much better the East German math books were. Math and science education in the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc was and still is vastly superior to anything we had or have in the West.
See also this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26849866#26850468
Are pages 358, 373, 379, 396, 530 misprinted or scanned sloppily?
The book in the updated link [1] does not have the problem that the old link had I think, if you were talking about how for example on page 358 the page had become split so that the rightmost part of the page had been cut off and placed on the left side of the page. I didn’t check the other pages because I’m on mobile, but since page 358 looks good in the new link the others might too. [1]: https://archive.org/detail…
This is a good book. It would be even better if it were typeset in LaTeX. I wonder if such an effort could be financed from some kind of microgrants. Take old Soviet maths and physics books - they were very good! - translate them into English, possibly with small alterations (e.g. a QR code link to an animation), type them in LaTeX or AMSTeX and release them under a friendly license.
This is a good book. It would be even better if it were typeset in LaTeX. I wonder if such an effort could be financed from some kind of microgrants. Take old Soviet maths and physics books - they were very good! - translate them into English, possibly with small alterations (e.g. a QR code link to an animation), type them in LaTeX or AMSTeX and release them under a friendly license.
This is a good book. It would be even better if it were typeset in LaTeX. I wonder if such an effort could be financed from some kind of microgrants. Take old Soviet maths and physics books - they were very good! - translate them into English, possibly with small alterations (e.g. a QR code link to an animation), type them in LaTeX or AMSTeX and release them under a friendly license.
Wouldn't there be right-holders still around ?
The USSR was not a signatory to the Berne convention, so the original rights may be lapsed. Russia joined the Berne convention in the 1990s, but there were some reservations agreed upon that limited the retroactivity.
I think only Russian IP lawyers can answer that question with any precision.