> This is obviously different from "typing things out on a computer". People tend to get wrapped up in the idea that writing stuff down is better than typing s

> This is obviously different from "typing things out on a computer". People tend to get wrapped up in the idea that writing stuff down is better than typing stuff out in terms of memory retention. But this is not the full story. The reason that studies repeatedly conclude that writing notes is more effective than typing notes is that writing is a conscious effort. You are usually falling behind when writing compared to what is being spoken and therefore as a subconscious product, your mind is actually summarizing and filtering information from the speaker as they speak. You can't write every word they say, so you have to actually listen to the speaker and determine what is worth writing. Then as you write, it takes a conscious stream of effort to write out the words and it is a slower process, which allows your brain to focus on and digest the information another handful of seconds before moving on. The feedback loop that writing naturally requires is what makes it more applicable to memory retention, not the physical act of writing itself. By comparison, most people can type around the speed of a speaker talking at a moderate cadence. This allows you to often type exactly what a speaker is saying, essentially as a stream of words coming in the ears and transferring directly into your motor control that allows for typing. This skips a processing stage (or introduces a very vague one) and so typed notes often become just streams of data collection as opposed to writing which tends to require elaborate data processing. It is the data processing that makes memory retention effective, not the writing of letters itself. What OP is doing is creating the same feedback loop, potentially to an even stronger degree than writing allows for, because you have to consume the information, figure out how to translate that to LaTeX and determine a method for displaying that information. LaTeX often requires an understanding of the full function when creating it. This requires more processing, and then a secondary process of consideration in developing a written or image function into a LaTeX format. Therefore, you get the same effect that writing provides, which is the data processing and translation components. This is what makes writing effective, not the movement of pen on paper. I would argue that what OP does is at least as effective as writing (maybe more, but that is conjecture).