4 ms·
Yes. I always found it odd, especially in mathematical textbooks, but to some degree also other areas, when a field is explained top down from a theory that is
by elcapitan 5y ago
Yes. I always found it odd, especially in mathematical textbooks, but to some degree also other areas, when a field is explained top down from a theory that is the end result of hundreds of years of discovery, fiddling and trial and error. As if that whole theory was god given and just happened without motivation or process. Besides making it harder to understand by going abstract idea first, it also makes it harder to develop an understanding for how people come up with and improve ideas over time.
- Gibbon1 5y agoAbout 20 years ago I read a book on spread spectrum radio. Unlike all the others each chapter was in three parts. The first part explained the problem. The things people tried to solve it. Problems with those solutions. And then second part explained the canonical solution, how it solved issues. The third was a formal description and analysis That book was totally great. Even if you got lost in the math reading the last formal part you understood what was going on.
- aesch 5y agoDo you remember the name of the book and the author?
- thfuran 5y agoIt makes complete sense for mathematics. Few of the mathematicians I know have any interest in applying math to much of anything besides math research. The whole business is entirely abstract.