31–38 of 38 posts
Technically, napkin is a diminutive of "nape" with the suffix "kin" meaning small[0]. So really the title probably ought to be "An Infinitely Large Nape". Unless the author is going for an oxymoronic use of napkin like "jumbo shrimp". [0] https://www.etymonline.com/word/napkin
This document reminds me of the kinds of things I wrote at a smaller scale when I'd self-teach math. The usual pattern was: Step 1. I don't know how X works. Step 2. I collect several sources about X and try to understand it. Step 3. I put in a lot of effort to understand X by reading all these sources repeatedly. I try to do exercises, do calculations, etc. I'm desperately seeking the moment it "clicks". Step 4. I f…
In theoretical CS, I've seen Steps 4–8 called "the monad tutorial fallacy." https://byorgey.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/abstraction-intuiti...
This document reminds me of the kinds of things I wrote at a smaller scale when I'd self-teach math. The usual pattern was: Step 1. I don't know how X works. Step 2. I collect several sources about X and try to understand it. Step 3. I put in a lot of effort to understand X by reading all these sources repeatedly. I try to do exercises, do calculations, etc. I'm desperately seeking the moment it "clicks". Step 4. I f…
In theoretical CS, I've seen Steps 4–8 called "the monad tutorial fallacy." https://byorgey.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/abstraction-intuiti...
This document reminds me of the kinds of things I wrote at a smaller scale when I'd self-teach math. The usual pattern was: Step 1. I don't know how X works. Step 2. I collect several sources about X and try to understand it. Step 3. I put in a lot of effort to understand X by reading all these sources repeatedly. I try to do exercises, do calculations, etc. I'm desperately seeking the moment it "clicks". Step 4. I f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In theoretical CS, I've seen Steps 4–8 called "the monad tutorial fallacy." https://byorgey.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/abstraction-intuiti...
But what's the difference between an example ("it’s such good pedagogical practice to demonstrate examples of concepts you are trying to teach") and an analogy ("now they have to spend a week thinking that monads are burritos and getting utterly confused, and then a week trying to forget about the burrito analogy"), and why is it completely subjective leaving us with no hope?
I think it's not that there's a difference per se between an example and an analogy, but rather that one has to recognize that even the best-chosen analogy or example won't save other people from having to go through the struggle to come to grips with a difficult concept. That is, from my point of view, the problem with "it's so simple, a monad is a burrito!" isn't especially the "a monad is a burrito" part (although I'd argue that that's an overly fmap-flavored analogy, it's not really the point); it's the "it's so simple" part. From this point of view, which is mine as a teacher, teaching isn't a process of finding the path that lets students avoid every difficulty, but one of helping them to avoid the avoidable ones, manage the unavoidable ones, and build their own mental maps so that they can eventually understand and navigate the terrain themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But what's the difference between an example ("it’s such good pedagogical practice to demonstrate examples of concepts you are trying to teach") and an analogy ("now they have to spend a week thinking that monads are burritos and getting utterly confused, and then a week trying to forget about the burrito analogy"), and why is it completely subjective leaving us with no hope?
> But what's the difference between an example ("it’s such good pedagogical practice to demonstrate examples of concepts you are trying to teach") and an analogy ("now they have to spend a week thinking that monads are burritos and getting utterly confused, and then a week trying to forget about the burrito analogy"), and why is it completely subjective leaving us with no hope? I think it's not that there's a differe…
How many of you upvote this pretenting to find some day the time and spirit to read and learn from it, but perfectly knowing that will never happen. I'm one of them unfortunally, gosh!
I'm too dumb for this, and how popular it is here gives me anxiety
That first equation(statement? not sure what to call it?) in part 6 was enough to close it and say it’s not for me. This is written for a very small group of people to understand and enjoy. So to those who do enjoy it, have fun!