2 ms·
You're right, I shouldn't have said the correct abstraction, but you should at least provide a complete one. You don't have to build from the most fundamental p
by ouid 9y ago
You're right, I shouldn't have said the correct abstraction, but you should at least provide a complete one. You don't have to build from the most fundamental possible assumptions to build from a set of tools that is provably complete for some domain of problems.
Doing otherwise is like giving someone a screwdriver that only turns clockwise.
Also, I challenge the notion that "no one can retain material that way". Have you ever met anyone who has retained the material any other way who didn't do it despite the system?
- CrystalLangUser 9y agoEssentially, this is impossible for anything that’s not easily explainable all at once- so it’s useless for any advanced domain. You can’t just give people a firehose of information. When you learn acoustic engineering, you have to first learn the prerequisite math needed to understand later concepts such as room architecture. It simply does not make sense to jam pack it all in at once, because 1) it won’t make sense and 2) nobody has that kind of memory. Next, if you want to cover all possible use cases, that could take forever in certain domains. Last, some of this stuff is objective as to what’s necessary, or what cases need to be covered. No, what’s better is to give general knowledge as needed, and the student can seek out knowledge for various corner cases. It would be ridiculous otherwise.