Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No bullshit guide to math and physics

minireference.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 160 posts

Re: No bullshit guide to math and physics

#91

Post by mscarborough »

mscarborough wrote: post #49

I appreciate the goal and the bold tone. I volunteer time to tutor middle and high school kids in math. It would be nice to have a fresh approach available, and a hard copy or four would be nice. Would it be possible to create a version without the 'bullshit' language? Outside of the cover there are two 'bullshits' in the first chapter. It doesn't bother me but I don't think the directors of my program or parents wou…

Just to clarify and since the author is being cool and replying to individual comments...

The reason I asked about a 'clean' version is this: we serve kids from relatively low-income households. The goal is to increase high school graduation rates and college attendance. This is a long-term goal that conflicts with short-term needs. Often times it might be better to have a 13-17 year old boy or girl go to work with a family member, instead of spending time being tutored or participating in athletics.

In this situation, I can't send a kid home with this book if they want to check out the new approach. I love profanity and curse more than I should, but there are certain situations and audiences where it's not appropriate. Perhaps much of the audience for this book could use a cleaner approach.

Thanks and good luck!!

Re: No bullshit guide to math and physics

#93

Post by alok-g »

cosmikduster wrote: post #87
madhadron wrote: post #48

I hesitated to post this, since I think clearer, shorter, better written textbooks are an admirable goal, and I keep a (short) list of good text books I have found over the years. But based on the preview on the website, I'm going to keep referring those who ask me to Gelfand's wonderful basic math texts instead (Algebra, Method of Coordinates, Functions and Their Graphs, Trigonometry -- anyone who wants further poin…

> I tend to recommend 1960s editions of Halliday and Resnick (not the recent ones!) I'm curious why. I remember reading the second edition back in 1998. Recently, I got one of the new editions (8th) but the new ones seem too verbose. What went wrong?

My feeling is that they dumbed down the books to appeal to more students.

Re: No bullshit guide to math and physics

#94

Post by v-yadli »

andrewflnr wrote: post #78
v-yadli wrote: post #75

Why this is on Hacker News, while the download rate in his example would follow f(t)=k\cdot t^2? Mine only follows f(t)=C+k\cdot rand(). We need better, deeper, broader understanding of math and physics. This fast food -styled stuff is really not for us. Why? Think you're going into approximated algorithms without knowing the wonderful essentials of constant e? Think you're going into pattern recognition without a th…

A thick textbook only to charge you $150? That sounds like "6-pack abs the quick way" advertisement... XD Have you been to college recently? I'm in college right now, and I absolutely believe it. Maybe it's not quite that simple, but only because the publishers are being slightly more devious. College textbooks are a racket.

I received my undergrad education in China. We've got some really good math textbooks, and they're very cheap. Yes I know textbooks in English are very expensive. But during my PhD education I mainly rely on free resources. (For example, Vazirani has written some very comprehensive materials about math and algorithms, search for it. If I don't remember it wrong, somebody posted his algorithm book a month ago on HN)

On the other hand, for what purpose would you like to choose a book that you call "racket"? If forced by your school, then it's done, no choice. If it's your willpower to learn something, why don't do some mining and research first before diving into a pile of junk? :-)

Re: No bullshit guide to math and physics

#96

Post by ivansavz »

mscarborough wrote: post #91
mscarborough wrote: post #49

I appreciate the goal and the bold tone. I volunteer time to tutor middle and high school kids in math. It would be nice to have a fresh approach available, and a hard copy or four would be nice. Would it be possible to create a version without the 'bullshit' language? Outside of the cover there are two 'bullshits' in the first chapter. It doesn't bother me but I don't think the directors of my program or parents wou…

Just to clarify and since the author is being cool and replying to individual comments... The reason I asked about a 'clean' version is this: we serve kids from relatively low-income households. The goal is to increase high school graduation rates and college attendance. This is a long-term goal that conflicts with short-term needs. Often times it might be better to have a 13-17 year old boy or girl go to work with a…

I totally agree with you.

I am definitely going to do a cleaned up version with less attitude. I will start by cleaning up the examples. The theory sections are mostly OK. Please send me an email so I can keep you updated on that front.

Re: No bullshit guide to math and physics

#97

Post by chatmasta »

pflats wrote: post #39

I read the first 10 pages of the pdf. I'm not sure who you think your target audience is, but this book doesn't seem to serve any of them. You gloss over huge sections of algebra, and in doing so, ignore incredibly common mistakes that students make. Take a look at the top of page 9, 6 \sqrt{x} - 7 = [...]. You solve that out, but give no reason as to why you got rid of the 7 first, the 6 second, and the radical thir…

This comment highlights the benefits of editors in the traditional publishing industry. The publishing process may seem full of painful disincentives, but there are many non-obvious benefits to following its subscribed protocol. One of them is that you do not publish books, especially instructional ones, containing glaring errors.

There was an article on HN recently that mentioned the fact that most of a book's marketing is its reputation. This makes sense because you can't form a full opinion of a book until after you've read it, so buyers of the book are heavily influenced by the opinions of others who have already finished it. Nobody is going to shell out money for a book that they hear contains even a FEW glaring errors.

People hold books to such high standards because once you put your words into print, you cannot change them. There is no real-time editing of books. So people assume you have put the proper amount of preparation, thought, and diligence into your writing and editing. This is very difficult to do by yourself.

That said.... I do want to emphasize that the "traditional publishing industry" generally refers to the producers of hard-copy books. With the industry moving toward a digital future, real-time editing is becoming possible. I think we will see a move toward "crowdsourced" editing of for-profit books, not so much in the way that Wikipedia edits its content but more in the way that video games fix their bugs. We may start to see "beta releases" of digital books for early adopters. At the cost of reading what amounts to a rough draft, you will be able to access the content early, so long as you report any errors you find. I think on the whole this is a very positive change that will increase the world's general knowledge.

So I'm a very big fan of your first attempt at creating this book. I think the errors pflats points out are important to consider, but certainly nothing to discourage you. Don't let this criticism stop you from your pursuit. You are on a very good track.

Re: No bullshit guide to math and physics

#98

Post by shuaib »

ivansavz wrote: post #96
mscarborough wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to clarify and since the author is being cool and replying to individual comments... The reason I asked about a 'clean' version is this: we serve kids from relatively low-income households. The goal is to increase high school graduation rates and college attendance. This is a long-term goal that conflicts with short-term needs. Often times it might be better to have a 13-17 year old boy or girl go to work with a…

I totally agree with you. I am definitely going to do a cleaned up version with less attitude. I will start by cleaning up the examples. The theory sections are mostly OK. Please send me an email so I can keep you updated on that front.

I hope you are going to keep the cleaned up version separate. Some of us (me at least) would like the book in current form. :)

Re: No bullshit guide to math and physics

#99

Post by ivansavz »

javert wrote: post #89
Dn_Ab wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" after thinking very hard the mathematicians were able to classify all the different number like objects into sets " Granted I am only going from the quote but I see nothing in there that indicates he considers them disjoint. Given most people have seen the Euler diagram of numbers since grade school i think the default interpretation would be correct. Could be clarified but not a howler. quaternions, and octionions…

> Given most people have seen the Euler diagram of numbers since grade school i think the default interpretation would be correct. This kind of assumption is one reason so many textbooks suck so much. This assumption is not true for me. I don't know why you'd assume it would be true for "most people."

There should have been a picture there. There will be a lot more pictures soon, i am learning about Tikz. It is like diagram superpowers: http://www.texample.net/tikz/examples/area/mathematics/

Re: No bullshit guide to math and physics

#100

Post by apl »

ivansavz wrote: post #51
madhadron wrote: post #48

I hesitated to post this, since I think clearer, shorter, better written textbooks are an admirable goal, and I keep a (short) list of good text books I have found over the years. But based on the preview on the website, I'm going to keep referring those who ask me to Gelfand's wonderful basic math texts instead (Algebra, Method of Coordinates, Functions and Their Graphs, Trigonometry -- anyone who wants further poin…

> normed division algebras are the reals, > complexes numbers, quaternions, and octionions, Can you see why I would not want to talk about quaternions and octionions in a chapter which is meant to introduce math to people who have math phobia? > these are nested subsets of each other, not disjoint, > This should have been more clear. Will fix.

Everybody can see why you wouldn't want to do that, but there's no point in lying or, if you prefer, selectively informing. Complex numbers and quaternions will be equally mysterious to the true novice; there's nothing intrinsically scary about the words.
Post reply on HN