5 ms·
I actually have the same feeling as the previous poster. I'd buy/kickstart his stats book in a heartbeat. I don't think Lisp users would be "better" at teaching
by calibraxis 14y ago
I actually have the same feeling as the previous poster. I'd buy/kickstart his stats book in a heartbeat. I don't think Lisp users would be "better" at teaching stats in some objective sense, but many of them (not all) have a certain turn of mind which looks like "clarity" through my subjective lens.
It is probably like Michael Spivak writing _Physics for Mathematicians_, because he didn't understand physics books written by physics people. PDF where he explains his troubles with elementary physics: (http://www.math.uga.edu/~shifrin/Spivak_physics.pdf http://www.math.uga.edu/~shifrin/Spivak_physics.pdf)
- mjw 14y agoCombining the above with the original comment, check out Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics: http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicm/ http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicm/ Physics explained by lispers! using consistent notation!
- apgwoz 14y agoWoah! Does this exist in PDF form somewhere? In fact it does: http://www.fisica.net/mecanicaclassica/struture_and_interpretation_of_classical_mechanics_by_gerald_jay_sussman.pdf http://www.fisica.net/mecanicaclassica/struture_and_interpre...
- mahmud 14y agoI also loved the Berkeley book, Structure and Interpretation of Signals and Systems. Went down well with a 5 week daily diet of "Thinking in Systems: A Primer".