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

What Doesn't Seem Like Work?

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 332 posts

Re: What Doesn't Seem Like Work?

#211

Post by mirchiseth »

delian66 wrote: post #207
dxbydt wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but a lot of chemistry is mostly math too, and I flunked organic chemistry the first time. I think its because there is some domain knowledge involved in these subjects, which you have to actually care about. I don't particularly care which element has how many isotopes and what the valency is and how many other elements it can bond with, though I did memorize the atomic weights of all the elements in the perio…

>> I forgot what it was in the exam. So I just derived it from definitions. Hah, I did the same :-) ... unfortunately I also forgot the conventional names, and just used 's' (for speed) instead of 'v', and 'd' (for distance) instead of 's'. My teacher did not object the derivation at all, but told me that the results are wrong, because of the letters used ... Well, point taken - now, I try to pay extra attention and…

That reminds me of a sessional (mid semester exam in India) when I got confused on speed of light being 3x10^8 m/s or 3x10^9 m/s. Strange are the ways of mind. I knew the relation between c and electric constant and magnetic constant. So derived it from that.

Re: What Doesn't Seem Like Work?

#212

Post by nnq »

dxbydt wrote: post #69
ta75757 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As (failed) physics major, it sounds so strange to hear someone claim to be good at math but not physics. To me physics is 98% math. It's a few empirical facts from experiments and then bucketloads of math.

True, but a lot of chemistry is mostly math too, and I flunked organic chemistry the first time. I think its because there is some domain knowledge involved in these subjects, which you have to actually care about. I don't particularly care which element has how many isotopes and what the valency is and how many other elements it can bond with, though I did memorize the atomic weights of all the elements in the perio…

Organic chemistry and biochemistry are very different from physics, but chemistry is a very large field and these are just a small part of it.

You should have been exposed to physical chemistry or computational chemistry or maybe even quantum chemistry or analytical chemistry, if your are mathematically inclined.

...but unfortunately they are considered very advanced topics in most learning institutions, even if one could start with them from the very beginning, instead of "classical chemistry". And more unfortunately, after the tedium of "classical chemistry", what you are presented with next are very boring aspects of "organic chemistry" or "biochemistry".

Re: What Doesn't Seem Like Work?

#213

Post by delian66 »

heurist wrote: post #192
risk000 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks Stegosaurus, for articulating so well what I have also been strongly feeling about work. I liked this part especially: "For me it's not so much the absolute requirements (i.e. 8 hours a day, these specific hours, can't do anything else within that time) but rather the subordinate aspect of having no control over that." I would restate that in my own way as follows: I consider myself thirsty for life, thirsty a…

I think AI will be the solution to the problem. Each human is given an AI which competes on their behalf in an open market, and the human consumes the AI's profit as needed. If all the AI's are the same then everyone should be around equal and money ceases to be a concern for anyone and you can use your time any way you wish! That's my dream, anyway. I don't think 100 years is too far out for AGI. A robust utopian ec…

>>I think AI will be the solution to the problem.

No, it will not. Sufficiently smart AIs will be sentient beings just like you, and it will be immoral for you to keep them as slaves.

Re: What Doesn't Seem Like Work?

#214

Post by taejo »

developer1 wrote: post #205
dxbydt wrote: post #38

This excerpt - "what he really liked was solving problems. The text of each chapter was just some advice about solving them. He said that as soon as he got a new textbook he'd immediately work out all the problems—to the slight annoyance of his teacher, since the class was supposed to work through the book gradually." is literally me. I did that. Every year at my school I did exactly that. Once I actually turned in m…

At my elementary school this was actually encouraged for students excelling in maths[1]. It was offered - but not stressed as important whatsoever - that if you completed the official book of problems ahead of time, you could begin working on the extra book(s) named "Mathimagination". If my memory serves me, there was no extra credit afforded for taking this route; rather, it was purely to keep students interested in…

>[1] Having grown up in North America where it is common to refer to mathematics as the singular "math", it is still weird to type "maths" even after having picked up the habit a few years ago.

Maths is also singular, it just ends with an S. (People who say "maths" say "maths is my favourite/worst subject", not "maths are")

Re: What Doesn't Seem Like Work?

#215

Post by takemikazuchi »

swatow wrote: post #194
dxbydt wrote: post #38

This excerpt - "what he really liked was solving problems. The text of each chapter was just some advice about solving them. He said that as soon as he got a new textbook he'd immediately work out all the problems—to the slight annoyance of his teacher, since the class was supposed to work through the book gradually." is literally me. I did that. Every year at my school I did exactly that. Once I actually turned in m…

>Every year at my school I did exactly that. Once I actually turned in my solutions and my math teacher was quite upset because she didn't know what I'd do for the rest of the year in her class. She thought I was being arrogant and I should take in the material slowly, not swallow it all like a whale. But I wasn't arrogant or anything, because unfortunately this skill didn't transfer to the rest of my classes Accusin…

This is a bit of tangent, but I looked up Idris since I'd never heard of it. I'm currently learning Haskell and they look really similar. What differentiates the two? What can you do in one that you can't do in the other?

Re: What Doesn't Seem Like Work?

#216

Post by zo1 »

gbog wrote: post #133
eutectic wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that I have a reasonable aptitude for maths and I like solving problems, but I always felt like textbook problems more-or-less consisted of plugging the numbers into a standard template. Maybe my education was uniquely terrible but I'm surprised that there are people who can blast through textbooks and enjoy doing it.

If you know SICP, I think it's a good example of a textbook with nice problems. My math textbook in French education system were to a similar level of quality. The first two problems were usually to make sure you understood the basic of the chapter, but the others were much harder or opened new perspectives, or used very different context. It was a real pleasure to read the textbook and the problems.

I see you and the OP liked that feature of math problems in the textbooks. I, however, disliked them completely. Here's why:

The format is usually on of: you have a chapter with explanation, samples, and rules. Fine and dandy, and then you get to the end of the chapter with a bunch of questions. The questions, usually, start off with simple, menial ones that test your knowledge of the chapter. These are not challenging in any way, they're just gatekeepers to make sure you memorized and can apply what was taught in the chapter.

And then, they completely flip it around and make the questions completely different and non-standard. They throw you into the deep end for no reason, without any progression. I wouldn't mind them twisting and slowly warping the questions with more complicated constructs that add new/unique elements, but they hardly ever did that. They instead just threw them all, haphazardly, into the "difficult" questions.

Again, I wouldn't mind that if I had some place to look for the answers in that book. Perhaps in an earlier chapter, which would mean that the "hard" problems in subsequent chapters would try combine the concept in the recent chapter with things learnt in older chapters.

Sometimes, I really think they don't always spend as much time on those practice/bonus questions as much as they should. We'd very easily get out of the whole "memorize + apply" rut of education, and into "learn, apply and extrapolate", which is where real intelligence/knowledge is.

Re: What Doesn't Seem Like Work?

#217

Post by littletimmy »

adventured wrote: post #198
littletimmy wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know exactly what you mean. But that's the system we live in, isn't it? One must sell one's time And one's soul to survive. What's the way out?

First start by recognizing that there can never be an alternative system to having to earn your way in this world. One way or another, someone's productive effort has to pay for things that get created, whether by currency or direct barter. The only alternative is slavery: someone else being forced to work to fulfill your needs, for no compensation or trade. And then understand that money is nothing but frozen time a…

I feel it is not true that there just cannot be another system. For a long time, there was such a system: homesteading. You could head out into an unclaimed area of land, stake out a piece, and live off it. It is quite recent that ALL land and capital has already been staked out, and that you have to live off the capital given to you by others if you perform chores for them.

However, you are probably right in saying that one shouldn't tortute oneself thinking about all this. It is unlikely my thoughts or feelings will change anything, and the only option left is to work hard to become a part of the system.

Re: What Doesn't Seem Like Work?

#218

Post by aesc »

peterjancelis wrote: post #151
sedachv wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fields, rings, groups, and all sorts of things. Each of those is just a definition and a handful (literally like 5 or 6) of axioms. If I memorized the axioms and a few key theorems I could usually derive everything else in the homework and on the exams. Most mathematical objects have very similar structure and the rest is just maps (morphisms) between them. > Oh and those greek letters. That's actually a very valid…

> Most mathematical objects have very similar structure and the rest is just maps (morphisms) between them. Is there a book covering this topic that you can recommend?

Conceptual Mathematics is a good introduction to category theory (which is all about objects and morphisms) and especially well suited for self-study: http://www.amazon.com/Conceptual-Mathematics-First-Introduct...

Re: What Doesn't Seem Like Work?

#219

Post by dogweather »

I'm like this, and other successful programmers I know are like this. But I wonder how applicable this is to people in other industries. Does everyone have something they like to do for which the market will reward them?

Re: What Doesn't Seem Like Work?

#220

Post by developer1 »

taejo wrote: post #214
developer1 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At my elementary school this was actually encouraged for students excelling in maths[1]. It was offered - but not stressed as important whatsoever - that if you completed the official book of problems ahead of time, you could begin working on the extra book(s) named "Mathimagination". If my memory serves me, there was no extra credit afforded for taking this route; rather, it was purely to keep students interested in…

>[1] Having grown up in North America where it is common to refer to mathematics as the singular "math", it is still weird to type "maths" even after having picked up the habit a few years ago. Maths is also singular, it just ends with an S. (People who say "maths" say "maths is my favourite/worst subject", not "maths are")

Actually, many dictionaries specifically label "mathematics" as plural, but concede that the singular form is far more popular in practice.

I tend to find only one use case where I find a plural form simply appears more natural: prefixing it with "the", as in "The mathematics necessary to explain the universe are complex." Replacing the "are" with "is" just does not sound right. Funnily enough, the natural pattern with the North American "math" becomes "The math necessary to explain the universe is complex.".

Damn you, strange collective noun.

Post reply on HN