Not proving solutions to textbooks seems to be a common theme in mathematics and theoretical computer science. It makes it difficult for those outside of the traditional classroom to learn the material. Instead textbook writers seem to have this adversarial approach against readers, thinking they’ll “cheat themselves” if they look up solutions or attempt to verify their work. Experts make mistakes, beginners would pr…
Algorithms by Jeff Erickson
51–60 of 162 posts
Re: Algorithms by Jeff Erickson
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Poor logic. I don't have add tests to my code, after all they're free not to merge, but I should. Exercises with no solutions are very hard for people learning away from traditional academia - I haven't read this book so I don't know what they're like, but in a physics books it's often common to add questions that take fairly deep conceptual understanding which if you don't click with the book means you're totally ou…
Again, you don't have to use this book. There are hundreds of books on algorithms, many of which have solutions for people who need them. Getting all pissy with the author because he doesn't provide them is sad and not neccessary.
Re: Algorithms by Jeff Erickson
#53Not proving solutions to textbooks seems to be a common theme in mathematics and theoretical computer science. It makes it difficult for those outside of the traditional classroom to learn the material. Instead textbook writers seem to have this adversarial approach against readers, thinking they’ll “cheat themselves” if they look up solutions or attempt to verify their work. Experts make mistakes, beginners would pr…
The book contents are FREE! Look away if you're offended.
Re: Algorithms by Jeff Erickson
#54From https://jeffe.cs.illinois.edu/teaching/algorithms/hwex.html#... > Please do not ask me for solutions. With very rare exceptions, I will say no, even if you are an instructor. I recognize that my stance limits the utility of these materials, especially for self-learners, but I'm trying to optimize the learning experience of my own students at Illinois. The point of homework is not to solve that particular homewor…
> I was asked multiple times for solutions to my self-pub ebooks that I relented. You could always publish the solutions in a separate paid ebook. If people want to be able to check their own answers, or they want to use the exercises to set homework and make it easier to grade, they might be willing to pay you for them.
Yeah that's an option too, especially with gumroad/leanpub providing version/packages for such cases.
In my case, I provide my ebook for free online (inspired by FOSS and authors such as Al Sweigart and Allen Downey) and charge for pdf/epub formats. Good enough to pay my living costs (and a bit more in recent months). So, I don't mind providing solutions as well.
Re: Algorithms by Jeff Erickson
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
The book contents are FREE! Look away if you're offended.
They weren’t attacking the author. It’s a valid argument regardless of the cost of the book. Free doesn’t mean you can’t criticize anything.
asicsp’s comment[1] was much more useful and neutral.
Re: Algorithms by Jeff Erickson
#56From https://jeffe.cs.illinois.edu/teaching/algorithms/hwex.html#... > Please do not ask me for solutions. With very rare exceptions, I will say no, even if you are an instructor. I recognize that my stance limits the utility of these materials, especially for self-learners, but I'm trying to optimize the learning experience of my own students at Illinois. The point of homework is not to solve that particular homewor…
While I get this stance (the books are often written with students in mind), it's sometimes a bit hard when reading this kind of material while not enrolled. I don't have any TAs, professors, peers etc to ask or grade my stuff when working my way through a text book in my spare time. How can I be sure I understood stuff correctly? For me it's ok, I guess. I have graduated years ago and it's strictly for fun. But I wo…
Re: Algorithms by Jeff Erickson
#57Not proving solutions to textbooks seems to be a common theme in mathematics and theoretical computer science. It makes it difficult for those outside of the traditional classroom to learn the material. Instead textbook writers seem to have this adversarial approach against readers, thinking they’ll “cheat themselves” if they look up solutions or attempt to verify their work. Experts make mistakes, beginners would pr…
[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/algorithm-design-with-h...
[2] https://faculty.math.illinois.edu/~west/
[3] https://store.doverpublications.com/0486653552.html
Re: Algorithms by Jeff Erickson
#58Not proving solutions to textbooks seems to be a common theme in mathematics and theoretical computer science. It makes it difficult for those outside of the traditional classroom to learn the material. Instead textbook writers seem to have this adversarial approach against readers, thinking they’ll “cheat themselves” if they look up solutions or attempt to verify their work. Experts make mistakes, beginners would pr…
I agree that worked problems make a text much more valuable and useful; even students in a class may spend a lot of time doing self-study. And for self-study, without worked problems the book is only useful as a reference while working problems from elsewhere. The author essentially agrees with this.
However, it's not "thinking" students will cheat themselves, it's knowing for a fact that many will. If you give homework that takes multiple hours each week, then for students who have gotten behind or don't know the background they should, it will take multiples of that time. Many, if not most, simply won't do it if there's a shortcut handy. Challenging people to do more than they would on their own is necessarily adversarial.
Re: Algorithms by Jeff Erickson
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
They weren’t attacking the author. It’s a valid argument regardless of the cost of the book. Free doesn’t mean you can’t criticize anything.
There was an accusatory, hostile tone that I personally found off-putting and not worthy of an HN discussion. asicsp’s comment[1] was much more useful and neutral. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26074429