3 ms·

This seems like a distraction from the substance. In my experience studying physics, most of the learning happens by yourself trying to solve problems, putting

This seems like a distraction from the substance. In my experience studying physics, most of the learning happens by yourself trying to solve problems, putting hypothesis to yourself, trying, failing, examining what failed.

juujian 3y ago
Yup, there is definitely a lot of value in going fast and breaking things, and then tracking back to figure stuff out. It's overwhelming, but it gets you to a high level much faster. In fast, a linguist I know told me that it's how they do it with language students. Make them feel like they can only just about keep their head over the water.
nomilk 3y ago
Playing devil's advocate (haven't tried it myself), but couldn't you try to solve the problems in vim/LaTeX (rather than pen/paper)? Presumably when vim/LaTeX are mastered, they're as easy to use (and easier to read back) than pen/paper.
- lkdfjlkdfjlg 3y ago
  Lol you gotta be trolling.
- lanstin 3y ago
  They aren’t because latex has non local syntax rules - figuring out why it is saying missing $ inserted instead of showing you the equation is rather damning to the free flow of thought. And when you are solving a problem, your thoughts are likely to be quite wrong, where you think a thing is an X but it is a finitely blah blah blah X’ which is totally different for the thing you want to calculate/prove. I will often generate ten pages of scribbled on paper to come up with one page of LaTeX homework. And the I joyfully crumple up the ten pages and recycle them.
  - nomilk 3y ago
    Thanks for explaining - makes a lot of sense. If using vim/LaTex takes away even a small % of attention from the actual math problem it becomes a hindrance relative to pen/paper.
  - abdullahkhalids 3y ago
    In both Physics undergrad and grad school, I did a lot of assignments (probably 50-100) all directly in latex. I don't make a lot of mistakes in the math syntax, I can comfortably read the source, and if I do encounter a compiler error I usually know where I made the mistake. I never found it difficult. Later, when I become a prof, I had a few students who were the same. Assignments done directly in latex. So I am by no means unique.
    - lanstin 3y ago
      More proof that physicists are smarter than mathematicians!
- KolenCh 3y ago
  I tried in some other way. I even wrote my own library that functions as a kind of DSL to generate LaTeX. I never have been able to cross the boundary that makes solving math with a keyboard faster than with a pencil. I don't understand why. Programming is supposed to help managing complexity by abstraction and I can't understand why it can't help solving math. My gut feeling is the lack of a good language (that's why I tried to wrote my own library). May be I should try out Typst as mentioned in other comments. Regarding writing in LaTeX, I hate its syntax for the following reasons: - global namespace: how can I make sure there's no collision and have sane naming convention? - lack of flexibility of characters to use: basically just \somethinglikethis rather than easier to read variables like something_like_that - macros are hard to reuse, "functions" are difficult to rewrite: code reuse is difficult. In deriving math (with big expressions), one often copy a lot of things while simplifying a portion of them. How to achieve writing the next line efficiently, when carrying from the previous lines? Defining repetitive terms and reuse in the next line is good, until I then need to further simplify in following lines. - bad default behaviors: \left ( ... \right ) is just so noisy to be read in plain text and undistracted. In order words, LaTeX is good at typesetting, which also makes it hard to type (and read) in plain text. My own library is supposed to solve all these issues. But reusing is still a pain. In plain LaTeX, if you want to reuse an equation you typeset for another documentation, you could just copy and paste. But with a library, then you need to somehow manage the dependencies as well.

juujian 3y ago

Yup, there is definitely a lot of value in going fast and breaking things, and then tracking back to figure stuff out. It's overwhelming, but it gets you to a high level much faster. In fast, a linguist I know told me that it's how they do it with language students. Make them feel like they can only just about keep their head over the water.

nomilk 3y ago

Playing devil's advocate (haven't tried it myself), but couldn't you try to solve the problems in vim/LaTeX (rather than pen/paper)? Presumably when vim/LaTeX are mastered, they're as easy to use (and easier to read back) than pen/paper.

lkdfjlkdfjlg 3y ago
Lol you gotta be trolling.
lanstin 3y ago
They aren’t because latex has non local syntax rules - figuring out why it is saying missing $ inserted instead of showing you the equation is rather damning to the free flow of thought. And when you are solving a problem, your thoughts are likely to be quite wrong, where you think a thing is an X but it is a finitely blah blah blah X’ which is totally different for the thing you want to calculate/prove. I will often generate ten pages of scribbled on paper to come up with one page of LaTeX homework. And the I joyfully crumple up the ten pages and recycle them.
- nomilk 3y ago
  Thanks for explaining - makes a lot of sense. If using vim/LaTex takes away even a small % of attention from the actual math problem it becomes a hindrance relative to pen/paper.
- abdullahkhalids 3y ago
  In both Physics undergrad and grad school, I did a lot of assignments (probably 50-100) all directly in latex. I don't make a lot of mistakes in the math syntax, I can comfortably read the source, and if I do encounter a compiler error I usually know where I made the mistake. I never found it difficult. Later, when I become a prof, I had a few students who were the same. Assignments done directly in latex. So I am by no means unique.
  - lanstin 3y ago
    More proof that physicists are smarter than mathematicians!
KolenCh 3y ago
I tried in some other way. I even wrote my own library that functions as a kind of DSL to generate LaTeX. I never have been able to cross the boundary that makes solving math with a keyboard faster than with a pencil. I don't understand why. Programming is supposed to help managing complexity by abstraction and I can't understand why it can't help solving math. My gut feeling is the lack of a good language (that's why I tried to wrote my own library). May be I should try out Typst as mentioned in other comments. Regarding writing in LaTeX, I hate its syntax for the following reasons: - global namespace: how can I make sure there's no collision and have sane naming convention? - lack of flexibility of characters to use: basically just \somethinglikethis rather than easier to read variables like something_like_that - macros are hard to reuse, "functions" are difficult to rewrite: code reuse is difficult. In deriving math (with big expressions), one often copy a lot of things while simplifying a portion of them. How to achieve writing the next line efficiently, when carrying from the previous lines? Defining repetitive terms and reuse in the next line is good, until I then need to further simplify in following lines. - bad default behaviors: \left ( ... \right ) is just so noisy to be read in plain text and undistracted. In order words, LaTeX is good at typesetting, which also makes it hard to type (and read) in plain text. My own library is supposed to solve all these issues. But reusing is still a pain. In plain LaTeX, if you want to reuse an equation you typeset for another documentation, you could just copy and paste. But with a library, then you need to somehow manage the dependencies as well.