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

Richard Feynman's blackboard at the time of his death (1988)

digital.archives.caltech.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 284 posts

Re: Richard Feynman's blackboard at the time of his death (1988)

#271

Post by mlyle »

necovek wrote: post #267
mlyle wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US especially, too many programs have an insistence that doing things with symbols and doing things with shapes and solids are completely different things and don't relate the two.

Primary school programs? Secondary school programs? I could understand that in high school and uni when you need to move past "intuitive" maths into abstractions, but I'd be perplexed if this is really the "program", and not just an individual teacher (and surely, a big chunk of them too)!

We've started to swing back towards visual and geometrical models with common core/new math.

But I have a big collection of math textbooks from all over the world, and math 6, pre-algebra and algebra texts in the US have far less geometrical content and pictures than the non-US equivalents that I have. I also think that the increased emphasis on getting students through standardized tests ended up dedicating a lot of class time towards rote with short term benefits.

Re: Richard Feynman's blackboard at the time of his death (1988)

#272

Post by yencabulator »

toomanyrichies wrote: post #44
endoblast wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where it gets complicated is that one can know how to do something without being able to explain it to oneself let alone teach it to others.

I'm a native English speaker who, a lifetime ago, moved to Shanghai to teach English to adults. One of my biggest struggles when I first started was explaining to students not just what the correct English should be in a given situation, but why that was the correct English. This had a profound effect on my view of expertise and experts in general.

As an ESL speaker living among native speakers, my take: No human language has "the correct [expression]". What is best suited is the thing that's often used, or an interesting but understandable twist on it that will be familiar to the audience, and grammar should be viewed as descriptive not prescriptive. Grammar is just some OCD person's attempt to write down a simplification of reality, nothing more.

The best way to learn written English is by reading English books[1]; the best way to learn spoken English is to interact with native speakers, a lot. Build familiarity without ever trying to justify "why that was the correct [expression]". It'll just feel right when it's right, because it fits the statistical pattern your brain has picked up.

Grammar is to language like ballistics is to throwing & catching a ball.

[1]: For someone with a basic grasp of the language but not enough exposure yet, Young Adult content is often easiest to read. I read most of the Sherlock Holmes stories, some James Bond novels, and a lot of Heinlein growing up.

Re: Richard Feynman's blackboard at the time of his death (1988)

#273

Post by yencabulator »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #110
cyberax wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One my personal trick: imagine that you are magically transported into the 19-th century (or earlier). Can you teach the subject to a well-known scientist of that era? E.g. if you want to explain radioactivity to somebody from 1860-s, how would you do that? Or for math, how would you explain calculus to Archimedes?

Those both seem much easier to me than what I usually struggle with: Transported back to a pre-industrial time, is any of my technological knowledge or understanding even remotely useful? Like, sure, germ theory is great I guess, but I have no idea how I'd begin to explain the internal combustion engine (which I'm fairly sure requires pretty advanced metallurgy) let alone something as esoteric as solar panels. Hell,…

Germ theory is great, for sure. For the rest, aim a bit lower to reach things you can figure out how to manufacture in your lifetime: working with steel was just starting to be properly understood in 1850s, and pre-industrial seems to be defined as 1750-1850, so depending on exact timing you could perhaps become the greatest blacksmith in existence, or a rich industrialist/inventor. As a modern person, the simplest lessons you can take back on that topic are probably "add more oxygen to the fire", and that some combinations of metals burn in very specific ways (think fireworks, burning magnesium, etc).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_furnace

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessemer_process

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-hearth_furnace

Re: Richard Feynman's blackboard at the time of his death (1988)

#274

Post by yencabulator »

somat wrote: post #109
ChuckMcM wrote: post #14

His motto "What I cannot create, I do not understand" has been one of the driving forces in my own quest to understand more about the world around me. A good friend had picked up a corollary which was "What I cannot teach, I do not understand" which I think was quite similar. Definitely one of my heroes.

A similar thing I heard about the amish, is that it is not that they are anti technology, it is that they Don't want technology they can't control, basically if unable to make from raw materials they don't want it. Now I don't think this is entirely the way things are, I suspect there is a core of truth with a lot of religion and tradition surrounding it. But I have a lot of sympathy for wanting to have the freedom t…

> it is that they Don't want technology they can't control, basically if unable to make from raw materials they don't want it.

Lots of Amish farmers use a computer. They just keep it separate, and don't let it invade their home and decide their life.

Think landline phone on a farm, but also the phone is in an outdoor phone booth and used only for unavoidable things like ordering seeds, not socially.

Re: Richard Feynman's blackboard at the time of his death (1988)

#275

Post by Shorel »

MisterSandman wrote: post #167
Shorel wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't, and they can't. They don't even know that they can't. The mathematics mindset and the programming mindset could not be more different. Writing a mathematical proof is similar to writing everything from scratch each time. However, and this is a serious affirmation: learning to write mathematical proofs will make anyone a much better developer, because of the changes in the mental processes involved in the…

What? Every mathematical proof is built on top of other proofs, especially when you look at research that is happening today. Mathematics and Computer Science mindsets are closer than most other pairs of academic streams. There’s a reason why so many universities have their CS departments under their Math Departments.

In mathematical training you learn how to prove the other proofs yourself.

It's not an #include kind of thing, someone else wrote the proof already and you should believe the proof is right. No, you need to understand the other proofs and be able to write them yourself.

I agree with you the mindsets should be closer, and in an ideal sense, CS is a part of Mathematics.

I mention this strong contrast, because I studied pure mathematics and I studied software engineering, and the mindsets are very different. Engineering is about results with a focus on not reinventing the wheel.

Re: Richard Feynman's blackboard at the time of his death (1988)

#276

Post by frugalmail »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #254
frugalmail wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"What I cannot teach, I do not understand" This is really more in line to some of the things Feynman communicated in many of his interviews. I feel like it more accurately reflects the way Feynman approached things. He was such a loss. RIP

Have you ever asked yourself why this version (with 'create' in it) was on his black board?

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.

Re: Richard Feynman's blackboard at the time of his death (1988)

#277

Post by NotAnOtter »

y1n0 wrote: post #130
NotAnOtter wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was a top-tier scientists but kinda disgraceful in every other aspect of his life. Womanizer is a polite way of saying it, I would choose harsher words. He was also just generally a jerk to the people around him. Think Edison, more than Tesla.

Knew him well, did you?

Funnily enough you can learn lots of things when you read books.

Re: Richard Feynman's blackboard at the time of his death (1988)

#278

Post by pkoird »

Xelynega wrote: post #172
pkoird wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without having watched the videos, to say that people made content using his name and made money off of it without Feynman knowing is disingenuous. Ralph Leighton recorded the conversations as Feynman was struggling with cancer. There are even portions of those recordings out in the web [1]. Feynman was fully aware of the books because there was apparently a scandal where Murray Gell-mann threatened to sue Feynamn an…

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. "Surely you're joking Mr Feynman" was not written my Feynman and contained obviously fabricated stories. The fact that he was aware of this is more a point against his character than for it, no?(And says nothing of his scientific prowess)

It was dictated by Feynman. Parts of his original interview are still available as stated in my comment above. And as far as embllishment goes, I'm pretty sure all autobiographies suffer this fate.

Re: Richard Feynman's blackboard at the time of his death (1988)

#279

Post by AndrewOMartin »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #210
jmcgough wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recently started to read his book, and was shocked at how much my interpretation of Feynman seems to differ from the frequent praises. Smart and a gifted science communicator, but even these embellished stories told in the most flattering light, he comes across as an egotistical jerk and misogynist. How many female physics majors changed studies after enduring his extremely creepy behavior? I hope that people who rea…

Most of these complaints about Feynman come down to one story he told. People who come away thinking Feynman is a misogynist generally miss the point of the story. Feynman talks about how when he was young, an older friend told him he could pick up women by being a jerk. He tried it, and it worked, but he felt bad about himself afterwards and decided not to do it any more. Some people look at that story and say, "Loo…

There's also the fact that he did "life drawing" of a number of his students, which is completely unacceptable today, and wasn't exactly approved of at the time.

I've certainly felt like I've taken a bit more of an effort to clarify that I'm impressed with Feynman's clarity of teaching, rather than any of his other hijinx, which are often amusing, but not outstanding like his academic work.

Re: Richard Feynman's blackboard at the time of his death (1988)

#280

Post by mandmandam »

turnsout wrote: post #50
readthenotes1 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By who standard? It seems like an unsolvable problem to know every problem that is actually been solved correctly...

I read it with a different (epistemic) emphasis… I don't need to know the solution if I know how to solve it. I've never produced a chip before, but I know how the problem has been solved by others. And therefore if I break it down, I could solve it myself. It's also possible that he meant every problem in your domain. That would be slightly more reasonable, and something I could agree with.

> I don't need to know the solution if I know how to solve it.

That's how a modern school system ought to be designed, imo. There's so much wasted time, and so much unused potential.

And if that involves rote-learning at times, fine, but can we at least make that smarter too?

Post reply on HN