5 ms·
Also my first thought. I assume he's writing this to other people who know what transfinite ordinals are (I don't understand the explanation) and would frame it
by version_five 3y ago
Also my first thought. I assume he's writing this to other people who know what transfinite ordinals are (I don't understand the explanation) and would frame it differently with an actual kid. Even in context it's a hilarious quote though, I think it's possible this was on purpose
- mlyle 3y agoI think the big assumption that kids can't get "complicated" ideas is faulty. Sure, they lack rigor, and often will just get the sketch of the idea. And it's a lot more work to think about how to put things in the terms that a kid will understand given their knowledge so far. But this idea? "Infinity plus one?!@" --- this is a conversation elementary school kids have on their own. Pulling it a little closer to a sane footing in ordinal analysis is not hard. Half of six year olds can handle it. On the other hand, there's not a lot of obvious utility to teaching a six year old this particular concept early. On the gripping hand, there is a cost to keeping kids in a bubble where you don't talk about any big ideas (of whatever sort-- mathematical, philosophical, historical, linguistic) at all, or excessively dilute them to the point where they're meaningless.
- hinkley 3y agoRichard Feynman would be making disapproving noises. Explain everything like you're talking to a fifth grader. If you can't, you don't understand your problem fully. He spend much of his professorship agonizing about how to fit all of physics into a freshman lecture. When he couldn't, he knew we needed to think more about that area.