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

Algorithms by Jeff Erickson

jeffe.cs.illinois.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 162 posts

Re: Algorithms by Jeff Erickson

#81

Post by mindcrime »

bloodorange wrote: post #73
tdudzik wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kind of insulting to assume that students are unable to decide what's good for them. If someone wants to cheat, he/she will do it anyway. Not providing solutions harms people that really want to learn the material.

The author of this particular book made his choice based on his experience teaching the course. While, of course no one can stop you from criticising his choice, on any day, I'd respect his opinion more than that of an angry internet commenter as he (the author of the book) has more invested in it _and_ has given free resource to the community after putting a lot of work into it.

I mostly agree with your sentiment. But I don't necessarily see it as a question of respecting one opinion more than the other. The author of the book didn't make a statement like "books without solutions are universally" better or anything.

But he did make it clear that he optimized for one particular audience (his students at Illinois) over another possible audience (self-learners). And on that, he totally has the right to make that choice. It's unfortunate that some commentators ignored that point, or choose to be critical anyway.

OTOH, just because something is free doesn't mean that people can't criticize, IMO. The question just kinda becomes "what's the point of the criticism?" If one doesn't find this book useful, they're under no obligation to use it. And the author isn't likely to change his position based on a few grouchy Internet commentators.

Personally I appreciate what the author has done and am glad his book is out there. Do I prefer books with solutions in general? Yes. Does that matter in this particular context? No.

Re: Algorithms by Jeff Erickson

#82

Post by yifanl »

dkfjs wrote: post #49

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…

In a previous post, the author responded to this concern: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18808010

It seems like he will include a subset of solutions in a later edition, whenever he has time to publish it.

Re: Algorithms by Jeff Erickson

#83

Post by alanfranz »

dkfjs wrote: post #49

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…

I think the ideal would be something like an autograder, rather than a solution. There used to be a Coursera class from Princeton that relied on Sedgewick and Wayne algorithms book, and the class was very, very good.

Then we must hope people don't publish solutions on github!

Re: Algorithms by Jeff Erickson

#84

Post by at_a_remove »

reasonabl_human wrote: post #67
jtokoph wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the X73 classes were defining for me. Probably my favorite classes and ones that changed the way my brain works.

For someone out of the UIUC construct, does X73 mean various levels of algorithms courses? Could you elaborate on their titles or content? I am looking to self-study for core CS content that I missed out on in school after being largely self-taught, and courses that change the way one’s brain works sound like the right ones to take.

That is a very familiar pain to me. I started programming when I was ten and kept up with it since, but my education was not in programming (although I would take courses as it suited me), so I never had any formal training in data structures or algorithms. I have occasionally found that I had re-invented some known algorithm and wondered just how much difficult I would have been spared if I had known about it in the first place.

Re: Algorithms by Jeff Erickson

#85

Post by whimsicalism »

peterwoerner wrote: post #75
unishark wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. 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 proble…

Is it really cheating. If the goal is to learn the material using someone else's solution is incredibly helpful and can expedite the learning process. If there is a process to master a skill in 20 hours and another way to master it in 5, only the fool would chose the 20 hour process. When I took electrodynamics the first semester I worked through all the problems myself. I started on Sunday would ask questions Monday…

> I started on Sunday would ask questions Monday and Tuesday where I was stuck and the process took me 20ish hours each week. When I took the second semester, a couple of the other students had the solution manual. I would attempt the problem, then when I got stuck, I would consult the solutions manual, understand what the solution manual was doing, then go back to my work and understand the problem.

At the university I attended, this would be an honor code violation. But I agree with the value of worked problems.

Re: Algorithms by Jeff Erickson

#86

Post by dls2016 »

alanfranz wrote: post #83
dkfjs wrote: post #49

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…

I think the ideal would be something like an autograder, rather than a solution. There used to be a Coursera class from Princeton that relied on Sedgewick and Wayne algorithms book, and the class was very, very good. Then we must hope people don't publish solutions on github!

or chegg barf

Re: Algorithms by Jeff Erickson

#87

Post by squeaky-clean »

comeonseriously wrote: post #44
TheTrotters wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate this attitude. It punishes students (and self-learners) who want to be as good as possible and who’d use solutions to get fast feedback. The right thing to do is to publish detailed solutions to textbook problems and create new problems for HWs.

"The right thing to do..." No. He's the author, this is his choice. People who don't take his course don't have to use the book.

Unless this is a book the author wrote solely to enjoy themselves, let's not pretend that feedback from potential buyers is something that shouldn't be allowed.

Re: Algorithms by Jeff Erickson

#88

Post by thayne »

unishark wrote: post #58
dkfjs wrote: post #49

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…

> 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. 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 proble…

So provide worked answers for half of the problems, making sure that the problems with available solutions give the experience necessary to solve the ones that don't. Then ideally assign homework that includes both problems, with the expectation that students will look up the solutions if they get stuck.

I've had several classes that worked like that, and it worked great.

Re: Algorithms by Jeff Erickson

#89

Post by jmkr »

peterwoerner wrote: post #75
unishark wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. 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 proble…

Is it really cheating. If the goal is to learn the material using someone else's solution is incredibly helpful and can expedite the learning process. If there is a process to master a skill in 20 hours and another way to master it in 5, only the fool would chose the 20 hour process. When I took electrodynamics the first semester I worked through all the problems myself. I started on Sunday would ask questions Monday…

> Learning from solutions is one of the best ways to learn.

Sometimes I feel like that's the only way to learn. There's no worse feeling than staring at a problem and having no idea where to start with no one to guide you.

The corollary is that I feel sometimes it becomes _memorizing_ instead of _problem solving_.

In a certain aspect, problem solving is recalling previous solutions you've done and applying various parts of them. But in another sense, just memorizing solutions doesn't necessarily help you apply them.

Re: Algorithms by Jeff Erickson

#90

Post by [deleted] »

jmkr wrote: post #89
peterwoerner wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really cheating. If the goal is to learn the material using someone else's solution is incredibly helpful and can expedite the learning process. If there is a process to master a skill in 20 hours and another way to master it in 5, only the fool would chose the 20 hour process. When I took electrodynamics the first semester I worked through all the problems myself. I started on Sunday would ask questions Monday…

> Learning from solutions is one of the best ways to learn. Sometimes I feel like that's the only way to learn. There's no worse feeling than staring at a problem and having no idea where to start with no one to guide you. The corollary is that I feel sometimes it becomes _memorizing_ instead of _problem solving_. In a certain aspect, problem solving is recalling previous solutions you've done and applying various pa…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN