7 ms·

Sorry, but after reading the following (elsewhere on that blog), I'm hard-pressed not to dismiss this as an elaborate troll. "I read a book on Number Theory in

by geoka9 14y ago

Sorry, but after reading the following (elsewhere on that blog), I'm hard-pressed not to dismiss this as an elaborate troll. "I read a book on Number Theory in one sitting, a Differential Geometry book in a weekend, filling up a notebook in the process."

vinceguidry 14y ago
How is that implausible? He's an engineer by trade, mathematics is close enough to computer science that most half-way decent programmers should be able to read that level math casually given a good 'brain day'. I spent most of my twenties neglecting math, decided one day to learn calculus, found it pretty easy.
- ktt3ja 14y ago
  If by calculus you meant Calculus 1, 2, or 3 as taught in the first year or two of college, they are a far cry from subjects like number theory and differential geometry. If you meant something like real analysis, then I seriously doubt that you had an easy time. Anyway, I just read the paragraph with the sentence quoted by geoka9 (it's in the "How I Stopped Eating Food" post), and I call BS on it, too.
- geoka9 14y ago
  Firstly, you don't read a textbook (especially a math textbook) in one sitting. If nothing else, books like that have problems that the authors expect you to go through. They are also often based on lectures for courses that take at least a semester to absorb. Secondly, number theory is not calculus; it requires you to be familiar with college-level math courses (e.g. abstract algebra) before you can even start making sense of it. It's certainly plausible that an engineer might pursue it as a hobby, but it's rather unusual, and certainly not for the faint of hear (it requires major commitment in terms of patience and time). The same goes true for diff. geometry, although it may be more approachable (e.g. many undegraduate math syllabi have it, while number theory is usually a postgraduate course).
  - jaggederest 14y ago
    Well, clearly nobody could ever do it then. Wait, no, people study those things all the time. They're difficult, but maybe he has unknown prior background in math, or is gifted in that regard. It's not as though he achieved something that no human ever has before. It's a reasonably routine though difficult task - akin to perhaps completing a marathon.
    - geoka9 14y ago
      Wait, no, people study those things all the time. They're difficult, but maybe he has unknown prior background in math, or is gifted in that regard. Sorry, but reading a textbook like a novel is not studying. I've met a fair number of mathematicians but I have yet to see one that can tackle a postgraduate textbook in one sitting (unless they are already intimately familiar with the subject).
    - electronvolt 14y ago
      Using your marathon analogy: A marathon is usually run in about four and a half hours. The best marathon runners in the world (i.e. current record holders) ran one in about 2 hours. The university that I'm at has about 45-48 hours of classroom instruction per semester; you're expected to spend between two and three times that preparing; that's an assumption of between 135 and 192 hours of work per semester. I find that for my upper level mathematics courses (first year graduate), I spend about 2-3 hours outside of class working on problem sets and reading the material. This is also, as far as I can tell, about how much the other students in my courses are working. My understanding is that this is the expectation across most high tier universities and math programs. If we assume that the average marathon runner is roughly equivalent to a normal mathematics student in terms of experience, saying that you learned (and completely understood the implications of) an entire semester of mathematics in a day (16-20 hours) is equivalent to claiming you are able to run a marathon in 40 minutes. For the record, that's a rate of about 1 mile every minute and a half. This is an imperfect metaphor, since math has the same benefits that CS has of being able to absorb material faster the more you already know. On the other hand, my experience (and what most professors I have asked also say) is that most hard math requires a sort of 'processing' time to really start to get it, so the actual case might be worse: I don't think you'd actually learn much math if you just spent 135 consecutive hours (with sleep as required) working on learning math. Suffice to say: I don't think what he claimed to do is within the realm of reason. Personal bio, as to why I'm a semi-reputable source: I'm currently both finishing an undergraduate degree in mathematics and a masters in math at highly ranked public university (in general and in math). Most of my time is currently spent learning math, either in class or self taught (for a seminar). The professors I interact with regularly are about as mathematically talented as it is possible to get. ---- The above being said: I would, however, say that someone with a good handle on multivariable calculus and differential equations, along with a really good background in math, could learn a decent amount of applied differential geometry in a weekend. Similarly, you could learn/memorize a lot of the results of number theory in a weekend. Both of the above could give you the illusion of having learned all of a subject without building a deep understanding of it. Both are also in line with the 'hacker tendency' to be able to stuff a lot of information in your head in a short amount of time. The computer science equivalent would be learning that there exists an algorithm called quicksort that runs in O(nlog(n)) that doesn't work well on sorted data without modification, but without learning how to implement it. The take away is that it's very easy to fool yourself into thinking you've learned a lot from a math book when you're reading it like a novel. In practice, though, if you aren't doing the exercises (or if they don't exist, working through your own), then you probably aren't actually engaging with the material in any deep and significant way. I actually think this is in line with many of his other claims: he seems to be a person who seems to believe he has learned everything important about a field in a relatively short amount of research time, without having a deep background in it already, either through reading a single textbook or by spending a few hours/days/weeks researching and reading. I think most of his claims should probably be considered in that light.
- juiceandjuice 14y ago
  Comparing basic calculus to number theory is like comparing long division to calculus. Saying "oh I know how to take the derivative" is a bit different than knowing how to take the derivative of a complex expression by applying a taylor expansion to estimate the rate of change within .01%. For number theory, there's a few things you could pick up fairly easily, like understanding what 1 and 3 mod 4 primes are, but there's no way you could do the homework in 1 weekend unless you've aced real analysis, and then maybe you could finish 10-20% of the homework (proofs) in a book in a weekend or so. Many engineers I've met can't even handle using proof by induction to solve a proof.
  - vinceguidry 14y ago
    If you read his words carefully, he said he "read a book on number theory." He didn't claim mastery. Ditto for differential geometry. He simply absorbed source material and took notes. Quite feasible.
  - Glyptodon 14y ago
    It's not the proof by induction is a hard concept, though. Rather, writing out any formal proof is monotonous, tedious, lengthy, and prone to minor screw-ups, and to someone with an engineering mindset, not useful in any practical sense.
  - reycharles 14y ago
    How does »acing real analysis« help understanding number theory? As far as I'm aware they're not really related at all.
  - eru 14y ago
    I agree. One thing: How does acing real analysis help with number theory?
- rplacd 14y ago
  Textbook authors assume mathematical maturity after a point - rather abruptly, actually, since there's a marked difference in pedagogical style you can't leaven in.
nathan_f77 14y ago
I have the feeling that he was already an exceptionally gifted individual.
mamoswined 14y ago
The whole thing is hilarious. Sorry, but nutrition is not like math or C++, where you can teach it to yourself by googling things and reading textbooks. Has he even read the massive body of research on food replacement in the form of parenteral and enteral nutrition? For those people it's a matter of life or death, since many patients are incapable of eating. They have to do a lot better than he does.
- crusso 14y ago
  He's not stitching the molecules for Soylent together atom by atom - he's mixing up various nutrients based upon his ongoing research. Given the complete crap that many people eat and manage to live on, his attempt to educate himself and take control of his nutrition this way is worthy of respect and emulation - not derision.
  - mamoswined 14y ago
    That's a strawman. There are plenty of people in the food world to respect and emulate. It's not a matter of just this guy vs. junk food eaters.
- rthomas6 14y ago
  >Sorry, but nutrition is not like math or C++, where you can teach it to yourself by googling things and reading textbooks. That's probably true, but hopefully one day nutrition science will be on that level. Perhaps then a much smaller amount of people will have things like obesity and type II diabetes.
  - illuminate 14y ago
    "hopefully one day nutrition science will be on that level" No other field of hard science is, anyone who offers an alternative is probably selling you snake oil.
    - rthomas6 14y ago
      I'm not sure I agree. For instance, I think I could get a pretty good understanding of chemistry, physics, or astronomy by doing nothing but studying textbooks.
benaiah 14y ago
Did he actually say he read textbooks? I was under the impression that he was referring to something that would be more suited to the average or even just uninitiated reader. I know a bit about the concepts of quantum mechanics, just from reading various books of varying difficulties on the subject, but I wouldn't claim that it was equivalent to actually taking a course on them or going through a textbook, even when I did take notes. I realize it's right next to when he says "[I] can read my textbooks twice as long without mental fatigue", but that seems coincidental juxtaposition, rather than him referring to the same books. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't really seem that implausible, if that's the case.

by geoka9 14y ago

vinceguidry 14y ago

How is that implausible? He's an engineer by trade, mathematics is close enough to computer science that most half-way decent programmers should be able to read that level math casually given a good 'brain day'. I spent most of my twenties neglecting math, decided one day to learn calculus, found it pretty easy.

ktt3ja 14y ago
If by calculus you meant Calculus 1, 2, or 3 as taught in the first year or two of college, they are a far cry from subjects like number theory and differential geometry. If you meant something like real analysis, then I seriously doubt that you had an easy time. Anyway, I just read the paragraph with the sentence quoted by geoka9 (it's in the "How I Stopped Eating Food" post), and I call BS on it, too.
geoka9 14y ago
Firstly, you don't read a textbook (especially a math textbook) in one sitting. If nothing else, books like that have problems that the authors expect you to go through. They are also often based on lectures for courses that take at least a semester to absorb. Secondly, number theory is not calculus; it requires you to be familiar with college-level math courses (e.g. abstract algebra) before you can even start making sense of it. It's certainly plausible that an engineer might pursue it as a hobby, but it's rather unusual, and certainly not for the faint of hear (it requires major commitment in terms of patience and time). The same goes true for diff. geometry, although it may be more approachable (e.g. many undegraduate math syllabi have it, while number theory is usually a postgraduate course).
- jaggederest 14y ago
  Well, clearly nobody could ever do it then. Wait, no, people study those things all the time. They're difficult, but maybe he has unknown prior background in math, or is gifted in that regard. It's not as though he achieved something that no human ever has before. It's a reasonably routine though difficult task - akin to perhaps completing a marathon.
  - geoka9 14y ago
    Wait, no, people study those things all the time. They're difficult, but maybe he has unknown prior background in math, or is gifted in that regard. Sorry, but reading a textbook like a novel is not studying. I've met a fair number of mathematicians but I have yet to see one that can tackle a postgraduate textbook in one sitting (unless they are already intimately familiar with the subject).
  - electronvolt 14y ago
    Using your marathon analogy: A marathon is usually run in about four and a half hours. The best marathon runners in the world (i.e. current record holders) ran one in about 2 hours. The university that I'm at has about 45-48 hours of classroom instruction per semester; you're expected to spend between two and three times that preparing; that's an assumption of between 135 and 192 hours of work per semester. I find that for my upper level mathematics courses (first year graduate), I spend about 2-3 hours outside of class working on problem sets and reading the material. This is also, as far as I can tell, about how much the other students in my courses are working. My understanding is that this is the expectation across most high tier universities and math programs. If we assume that the average marathon runner is roughly equivalent to a normal mathematics student in terms of experience, saying that you learned (and completely understood the implications of) an entire semester of mathematics in a day (16-20 hours) is equivalent to claiming you are able to run a marathon in 40 minutes. For the record, that's a rate of about 1 mile every minute and a half. This is an imperfect metaphor, since math has the same benefits that CS has of being able to absorb material faster the more you already know. On the other hand, my experience (and what most professors I have asked also say) is that most hard math requires a sort of 'processing' time to really start to get it, so the actual case might be worse: I don't think you'd actually learn much math if you just spent 135 consecutive hours (with sleep as required) working on learning math. Suffice to say: I don't think what he claimed to do is within the realm of reason. Personal bio, as to why I'm a semi-reputable source: I'm currently both finishing an undergraduate degree in mathematics and a masters in math at highly ranked public university (in general and in math). Most of my time is currently spent learning math, either in class or self taught (for a seminar). The professors I interact with regularly are about as mathematically talented as it is possible to get. ---- The above being said: I would, however, say that someone with a good handle on multivariable calculus and differential equations, along with a really good background in math, could learn a decent amount of applied differential geometry in a weekend. Similarly, you could learn/memorize a lot of the results of number theory in a weekend. Both of the above could give you the illusion of having learned all of a subject without building a deep understanding of it. Both are also in line with the 'hacker tendency' to be able to stuff a lot of information in your head in a short amount of time. The computer science equivalent would be learning that there exists an algorithm called quicksort that runs in O(nlog(n)) that doesn't work well on sorted data without modification, but without learning how to implement it. The take away is that it's very easy to fool yourself into thinking you've learned a lot from a math book when you're reading it like a novel. In practice, though, if you aren't doing the exercises (or if they don't exist, working through your own), then you probably aren't actually engaging with the material in any deep and significant way. I actually think this is in line with many of his other claims: he seems to be a person who seems to believe he has learned everything important about a field in a relatively short amount of research time, without having a deep background in it already, either through reading a single textbook or by spending a few hours/days/weeks researching and reading. I think most of his claims should probably be considered in that light.
juiceandjuice 14y ago
Comparing basic calculus to number theory is like comparing long division to calculus. Saying "oh I know how to take the derivative" is a bit different than knowing how to take the derivative of a complex expression by applying a taylor expansion to estimate the rate of change within .01%. For number theory, there's a few things you could pick up fairly easily, like understanding what 1 and 3 mod 4 primes are, but there's no way you could do the homework in 1 weekend unless you've aced real analysis, and then maybe you could finish 10-20% of the homework (proofs) in a book in a weekend or so. Many engineers I've met can't even handle using proof by induction to solve a proof.
- vinceguidry 14y ago
  If you read his words carefully, he said he "read a book on number theory." He didn't claim mastery. Ditto for differential geometry. He simply absorbed source material and took notes. Quite feasible.
- Glyptodon 14y ago
  It's not the proof by induction is a hard concept, though. Rather, writing out any formal proof is monotonous, tedious, lengthy, and prone to minor screw-ups, and to someone with an engineering mindset, not useful in any practical sense.
- reycharles 14y ago
  How does »acing real analysis« help understanding number theory? As far as I'm aware they're not really related at all.
- eru 14y ago
  I agree. One thing: How does acing real analysis help with number theory?
rplacd 14y ago
Textbook authors assume mathematical maturity after a point - rather abruptly, actually, since there's a marked difference in pedagogical style you can't leaven in.

nathan_f77 14y ago

I have the feeling that he was already an exceptionally gifted individual.

mamoswined 14y ago

The whole thing is hilarious. Sorry, but nutrition is not like math or C++, where you can teach it to yourself by googling things and reading textbooks. Has he even read the massive body of research on food replacement in the form of parenteral and enteral nutrition? For those people it's a matter of life or death, since many patients are incapable of eating. They have to do a lot better than he does.

crusso 14y ago
He's not stitching the molecules for Soylent together atom by atom - he's mixing up various nutrients based upon his ongoing research. Given the complete crap that many people eat and manage to live on, his attempt to educate himself and take control of his nutrition this way is worthy of respect and emulation - not derision.
- mamoswined 14y ago
  That's a strawman. There are plenty of people in the food world to respect and emulate. It's not a matter of just this guy vs. junk food eaters.
rthomas6 14y ago
>Sorry, but nutrition is not like math or C++, where you can teach it to yourself by googling things and reading textbooks. That's probably true, but hopefully one day nutrition science will be on that level. Perhaps then a much smaller amount of people will have things like obesity and type II diabetes.
- illuminate 14y ago
  "hopefully one day nutrition science will be on that level" No other field of hard science is, anyone who offers an alternative is probably selling you snake oil.
  - rthomas6 14y ago
    I'm not sure I agree. For instance, I think I could get a pretty good understanding of chemistry, physics, or astronomy by doing nothing but studying textbooks.

benaiah 14y ago

Did he actually say he read textbooks? I was under the impression that he was referring to something that would be more suited to the average or even just uninitiated reader. I know a bit about the concepts of quantum mechanics, just from reading various books of varying difficulties on the subject, but I wouldn't claim that it was equivalent to actually taking a course on them or going through a textbook, even when I did take notes. I realize it's right next to when he says "[I] can read my textbooks twice as long without mental fatigue", but that seems coincidental juxtaposition, rather than him referring to the same books. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't really seem that implausible, if that's the case.