Big no on the badly hand drawn figures. Those graphics are not hard to make on a computer.
Mathematical Methods for Physics [pdf]
31–40 of 44 posts
Re: Mathematical Methods for Physics [pdf]
#32We're in something of an autodidacticism boom. I have yet to see anyone, in years, actually become proficient at college-level math/physics without formal instruction, just by doing self-study with tutorials like pdfs and videos. There will always be major knowledge gaps or roadblocks/impasses of understanding, like notation or clarification needed. This is not to say it cannot be done but I have to see anyone do it.
The first two years of my degree where I learned most of my university-level math/physics were online-only. There are likely millions of students who learned entirely from videos and PDFs.
Re: Mathematical Methods for Physics [pdf]
#33We're in something of an autodidacticism boom. I have yet to see anyone, in years, actually become proficient at college-level math/physics without formal instruction, just by doing self-study with tutorials like pdfs and videos. There will always be major knowledge gaps or roadblocks/impasses of understanding, like notation or clarification needed. This is not to say it cannot be done but I have to see anyone do it.
Granted, this is anecdotal, but I definitely found that there were some things that I could learn on my own, and others that I needed to learn in a classroom. The latter were in fact math and physics. I was considered to have good aptitude in those areas, yet I still needed that structure for whatever reason.
On the other hand, I easily taught myself programming and electronics, after an "intro" course in both subjects.
One problem is that both classroom and self learning of physics are almost entirely confined to theory, but physics is an experimental discipline. In fact most laypeople are unaware that experimental physicists outnumber theoreticians. In grad school, there was a noticeable distinction, that the students who went into theory were scary smart. With a few exceptions, the experimental students including myself were considered to be the lesser intellects. I barely survived the coursework, and owe my degree to my work in the lab.
In physics, we do have tests. Mother nature provides them.
Re: Mathematical Methods for Physics [pdf]
#34We're in something of an autodidacticism boom. I have yet to see anyone, in years, actually become proficient at college-level math/physics without formal instruction, just by doing self-study with tutorials like pdfs and videos. There will always be major knowledge gaps or roadblocks/impasses of understanding, like notation or clarification needed. This is not to say it cannot be done but I have to see anyone do it.
I am currently coasting through a mathematics undergraduate degree after having taught myself how to do proofs using a proof assistant. The last barrier to autodidacticism in mathematics is overcome with them, because one no longer needs direct contact with the mathematical community via academia to learn the techniques used (at the undergraduate level.)
Re: Mathematical Methods for Physics [pdf]
#35We're in something of an autodidacticism boom. I have yet to see anyone, in years, actually become proficient at college-level math/physics without formal instruction, just by doing self-study with tutorials like pdfs and videos. There will always be major knowledge gaps or roadblocks/impasses of understanding, like notation or clarification needed. This is not to say it cannot be done but I have to see anyone do it.
The key ingredient in a formal course is the formal examination. Be it graded exercises or a written or oral exam. It forces studying at a level where you can reproduce and explain the key concepts and results and apply them to something new. In theory one can do that also with self-study. Most people don't, they just watch some youtube video or read a Wikipedia page, and then they think they have understood somethin…
It's very easy to let your brain fool yourself in understanding maths - after staring at a statement for a while, you start to think you understand it, chances are you don't.
Re: Mathematical Methods for Physics [pdf]
#36Tangential: Has anybody here read Mathematical Methods and Physical Insights: An Integrated Approach by Alec J. Schramm.? Would love to hear your opinion on this.
Re: Mathematical Methods for Physics [pdf]
#37We're in something of an autodidacticism boom. I have yet to see anyone, in years, actually become proficient at college-level math/physics without formal instruction, just by doing self-study with tutorials like pdfs and videos. There will always be major knowledge gaps or roadblocks/impasses of understanding, like notation or clarification needed. This is not to say it cannot be done but I have to see anyone do it.
I am currently coasting through a mathematics undergraduate degree after having taught myself how to do proofs using a proof assistant. The last barrier to autodidacticism in mathematics is overcome with them, because one no longer needs direct contact with the mathematical community via academia to learn the techniques used (at the undergraduate level.)
Which proof assistant did you use?
Re: Mathematical Methods for Physics [pdf]
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
The key ingredient in a formal course is the formal examination. Be it graded exercises or a written or oral exam. It forces studying at a level where you can reproduce and explain the key concepts and results and apply them to something new. In theory one can do that also with self-study. Most people don't, they just watch some youtube video or read a Wikipedia page, and then they think they have understood somethin…
It's very easy to let your brain fool yourself in understanding maths - after staring at a statement for a while, you start to think you understand it, chances are you don't.
it took me 15 minutes once to understand one equation. It was the derivation of the Taylor series for the tangent function. It was a very old textbook for calculus (from the beginning of the 20th century) and it applied techniques which are not teached nowadays, so it is possible to understand mathematical expressions after staring at it ;)
Re: Mathematical Methods for Physics [pdf]
#39Big no on the badly hand drawn figures. Those graphics are not hard to make on a computer.
Most likely these were lecture notes that were transcribed by students. The figures are just pictures of the professor's drawings.
True, they're not hard to make on a computer, but who is spending time to do that? And is the result more clear? More educational? Or simply more beautiful?
Re: Mathematical Methods for Physics [pdf]
#40[deleted]