3 ms·

This is not what the author means by "Space out your study sessions". Also, SRS is no panacea, e.g. you can use it to learn a mathematical formula, but not to

by kthxb 5y ago

This is not what the author means by "Space out your study sessions". Also, SRS is no panacea, e.g. you can use it to learn a mathematical formula, but not to learn how to apply it. For this, you need actual practice.

kiba 5y ago
You can absolutely make cards for practicing procedures, or even math proofs. A mathematician used it to learn proofs. He even derived new proofs from his deck of cards, and add them as cards. It takes some imagination and experimentation to figure out how to break down subject matters into something you can study with cards.
- dqv 5y ago
  And I think that imagination is also a part of the studying process! Trying to figure out how to split information-dense cards without losing context is what takes me the longest. But I find that the act of splitting them out helps me remember them better!
- watwut 5y ago
  There is not much utility in memorizing proofs. The primary work should be in trying to understand them. The amount of memorization should be small in math.
  - kiba 5y ago
    That's a misunderstanding. If you don't understand something, then it's much more difficult to remember and recall. That mathematician is hardly doing this by rote.
    - watwut 5y ago
      If you use flashcards for learning, you are doing rote learning by definition. There is nothing more rote then making cards and then memorizing their content. It is also absurd way to learn stuff that has relationships in it.
  - BeetleB 5y ago
    > There is not much utility in memorizing proofs. This was a misconception I, too, had. When I was taking grad analysis, we had to memorize the proofs, as the professor was guaranteed to ask for the proof of one textbook theorem in each exam. I was incensed, but when I memorized the proofs for the final exam, I noticed more "proof patterns" than I had during the whole semester, and got a lot better at the subject. Memorizing without understanding is useless. Memorizing with understanding is much better than merely understanding.
    - watwut 5y ago
      You 100% dont have to memorize proofs for that. If you put in work to understand to proof, then you have to remember maybe one tricky step or something like that to reproduce it. Again, just because the proof is on exam does not imply you have to memorize it. Also, way better way to test is to put similar made up theorem on exam. Which means you cant just reproduce what you memorized without understanding.
      - BeetleB 5y ago
        It's quite clear you didn't understand my comment.

by kthxb 5y ago

kiba 5y ago

You can absolutely make cards for practicing procedures, or even math proofs. A mathematician used it to learn proofs. He even derived new proofs from his deck of cards, and add them as cards. It takes some imagination and experimentation to figure out how to break down subject matters into something you can study with cards.

dqv 5y ago
And I think that imagination is also a part of the studying process! Trying to figure out how to split information-dense cards without losing context is what takes me the longest. But I find that the act of splitting them out helps me remember them better!
watwut 5y ago
There is not much utility in memorizing proofs. The primary work should be in trying to understand them. The amount of memorization should be small in math.
- kiba 5y ago
  That's a misunderstanding. If you don't understand something, then it's much more difficult to remember and recall. That mathematician is hardly doing this by rote.
  - watwut 5y ago
    If you use flashcards for learning, you are doing rote learning by definition. There is nothing more rote then making cards and then memorizing their content. It is also absurd way to learn stuff that has relationships in it.
- BeetleB 5y ago
  > There is not much utility in memorizing proofs. This was a misconception I, too, had. When I was taking grad analysis, we had to memorize the proofs, as the professor was guaranteed to ask for the proof of one textbook theorem in each exam. I was incensed, but when I memorized the proofs for the final exam, I noticed more "proof patterns" than I had during the whole semester, and got a lot better at the subject. Memorizing without understanding is useless. Memorizing with understanding is much better than merely understanding.
  - watwut 5y ago
    You 100% dont have to memorize proofs for that. If you put in work to understand to proof, then you have to remember maybe one tricky step or something like that to reproduce it. Again, just because the proof is on exam does not imply you have to memorize it. Also, way better way to test is to put similar made up theorem on exam. Which means you cant just reproduce what you memorized without understanding.
    - BeetleB 5y ago
      It's quite clear you didn't understand my comment.