irutirw222

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by irutirw222 5y ago

   Standards of rigor evolve with time and the level of rigor in the Elements is abysmal compared to today.
2. 2.▲
   by irutirw222 5y ago

   If you want to read it more as a historical piece of art I wouldn't object; if you want to actually get some mathematical insight out of it on the other hand, this would be a good starting point: https://math.stackexchange.c
3. 3.▲
   by irutirw222 5y ago

   I agree that for anyone wanting to improve "logical thinking" these books are a good start. In particular the last one is recommended, if you want to start having doubts about logic itself and the limits of logical reasoning ;)
4. 4.▲
   by irutirw222 5y ago

   Then you, as Moicanu below, didn't understood my point: You learn less from the Elements than from later, curated sources. Analogously, no one would advocate reading Newton's Principia to "understand where we came from".
5. 5.▲
   by irutirw222 5y ago

   I'm somewhat late to the game, but first of all, congrats not just for being bild and trying to shake up the state of fin-ed apps, but also for the excellent job of communicating that you are doing here. I have lightly researched David
6. 6.▲
   by irutirw222 5y ago

   I can't comment on the compsci books (they do seem interesting), but I can comment on the mathematical ones where I have expertise: - Using Euclid is manifestly a really bad idea, since his way of formalizing geometry is not the sharpe
7. 7.▲
   by irutirw222 5y ago

   This is a good point. Probably most people are not aware of the country of origin of most of the tech products (resp forna given product, how many important, modular subparts come from Chinese companies). It would be highly interesting if t
8. 8.▲
   by irutirw222 5y ago

   Only partially: Rejecting the request won't get you killed. You also have the option to close your company to avoid jail, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit as a good case study. Thus, I would prefer the
9. 9.▲
   by irutirw222 5y ago

   The problem I have with this post, is that it's assuming erroneously the "eternal development" mindset. Once a software has reached maturity, beaides (very rare) security fixes there is not much that needs to be done to it. I