3 ms·

The original inventor is often not the best person for explaining their invention. Calculus is a good example. To learn Calculus from Newton or Leibniz would be

The original inventor is often not the best person for explaining their invention. Calculus is a good example. To learn Calculus from Newton or Leibniz would be an exercise in frustration and confusion. Hamming codes are another example. Although Richard Hamming was one of the first people to apply the mathematics of finite fields to the problem of data corruption the development of the theory after him has been simplified enough that it can now be taught to college undergraduates. I wouldn't want to learn about error correcting codes from Hamming directly because its likely that his original formulation would not have been as clear as what is currently taught in undergraduates courses. This is the case for most mathematical fields. The original inventors often miss out on useful abstractions that make the original idea much easier to learn and understand.

rramadass 5y ago
Not Quite. Your are confusing the current status-quo which is a cumulative development and a standardization for ease of teaching, with the Original Discoverer's process of arriving at his results. They are very different. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Math https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Math : In his book, Why Johnny Can't Add: The Failure of the New Math, Morris Kline says that certain advocates of the new topics "ignored completely the fact that mathematics is a cumulative development and that it is practically impossible to learn the newer creations, if one does not know the older ones." Furthermore, noting the trend to abstraction in New Math, Kline says "abstraction is not the first stage, but the last stage, in a mathematical development." What is being taught today is merely a statement of results and algorithms to mindlessly apply them. Hence the failure of "Mathematical Education" (eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Mathematician%27s_Lament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Mathematician%27s_Lament). By following the Original Discoverer's writings, even if it is outdated (in the light of later discoveries) you understand the What and the Why being explained Organically and Coherently by a single Mind towards one particular set of "Results". This is the crux of "Understanding". Once this is grasped, it becomes easier to follow later developments on the evolution of the same set of "Results" to current-day standards.

rramadass 5y ago

Not Quite. Your are confusing the current status-quo which is a cumulative development and a standardization for ease of teaching, with the Original Discoverer's process of arriving at his results. They are very different. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Math https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Math : In his book, Why Johnny Can't Add: The Failure of the New Math, Morris Kline says that certain advocates of the new topics "ignored completely the fact that mathematics is a cumulative development and that it is practically impossible to learn the newer creations, if one does not know the older ones." Furthermore, noting the trend to abstraction in New Math, Kline says "abstraction is not the first stage, but the last stage, in a mathematical development." What is being taught today is merely a statement of results and algorithms to mindlessly apply them. Hence the failure of "Mathematical Education" (eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Mathematician%27s_Lament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Mathematician%27s_Lament). By following the Original Discoverer's writings, even if it is outdated (in the light of later discoveries) you understand the What and the Why being explained Organically and Coherently by a single Mind towards one particular set of "Results". This is the crux of "Understanding". Once this is grasped, it becomes easier to follow later developments on the evolution of the same set of "Results" to current-day standards.