> In Comments
> Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Enjoy your weekend, both of you!
> Like Leslie Lamport says
Pretty clear appeal to authority, IMO.
Btw it's actually Lamport quoting Spivak.
One thing that's wrong with HN is that perceived "negativity" often gets condemned in exactly the way you have done here.
It seems as if a significant number of HN readers have never really participated in a spirited discussion with arguments made from multiple different perspectives. Maybe any kind of apparent conflict scares them, maybe they project their own aggression onto a comment that seems to go against the grain of the discussion. It will never change.
>The only thing "apparent" here is that OP has trouble with empathy.
Again, I can do without the online pretend-therapy. Amazing how perceptive some people are that they deduce the most profound things from a dozen lines of text!
However, it seems several people took the side of the replier.
So I reviewed your original comment, and I think I've found the problem: it exaggerated and labelled, e.g. droning, talk talk talk, talking about nothing, neverending paragraphs.
Many of these aren't literally true ("nothing", "neverending"). Others are emotionally loaded ("drone"). It's probably almost always better to speak directly, without exaggeration or emotion... but this is particularly important when criticizing.
I didn't notice these at first because I tend to filter out decoration, and just hear the content (i.e the literal meaning) - though this is much easier to do when I'm not personally involved!
I think, "to be blunt", to speak plainly, to get to the point, really mean to be factual and accurate - without emotional language, exaggeration or labeling.
Anyway, I notice dang asked to not continue this thread, but I was troubled by it, and reviewing it helped me - maybe it will help you too.
I do justify why simplicity and succinctness are better than meandering. More superfluous information obscures the "nugget" or the essence of we really want to talk about. Strip away the accessory, write the simplest, most lucid explanation that captures the idea, and you will see the concepts and connections in their elegance, more clearly than when that is obscured in the middle of pages and pages of talk. In summary: "idea" is more understandable than "idea+cruft".
What do you mean no reason why? Are you expecting a scientific trial? I'm sorry to disappoint you: these are but my opinions.
I believe you must have mistaken me for someone else. My name is andrepd. Is this "hn" a friend of yours?
>you should learn to keep your feelings to yourself when the only function they serve is to denigrate others and derive cruel satisfaction for yourself.
It never ceases to amaze me how some people are so perceptive that they can confidently deduce the intentions and personality of a person half a world away by reading a short text online. Are you available for therapy sessions? I could use your valuable insights.
Also, I was under the impression that I was making constructive criticism. I made concrete points and showed examples of books that in my opinion did those things right (see my other comment). I regret the "very very poor" phrase at the start though. I've changed it to just "poor".
>everyone claims to appreciate formal purity /after/ they've learned something but when you're /learning/ none of that matters because you're just trying to develop intuition
Oh, I see you know more about how I felt learning stuff than I do myself! Lovely.
I can tell you that I found it was almost always reading the most succinct treatments that I truly understood the greatest insights. Although from your tone I suspect that none of this will make a difference about how you feel. I won't repeat myself. You can (re)read my other comments if you're interested (and if you find I didn't explain myself well I'd be happy to discuss it more), and also check the examples I've mentioned.
>shame on you and i hope you're never in a position where someone depends on you to teach them absolutely anything
>an author whom i might add has done infinitely more for the math community than you have with your pedantry and vitriol
>jeremy was originally a math ed phd student so i trust his opinion of the right way to teach math infinitely more than i do yours mr random internet physics guy.
I am doing a maths PhD and (woe is you) I teach undergraduate classes AND I've been tutoring students of physics, maths and computer science for over 4 years now, online and in person. I can say with no false modesty that I've been repeatedly complimented by students on my ability to teach and explain concepts.
What Nobel prizes have you got, since that seems to be so important to you?
"next time think twice before posting this kind of lowbrow mean shit".
It was meant to attack and irritate and I fell for it.
I am again very sorry to disappoint I've not read TAOCP or Landau or even Peskin from cover to cover. I'm however curious if you can let me know where you got that idea from, cause I scoured my comments and can't for the life of me find anywhere I indicated so.
Seriously though, I have no idea what your point is supposed to be. I shouldn't give my opinion because... it might not be relevant to someone else, is that it? Someone might not agree? If it interests you I've met many people in the past few years who share my view (and also many personalities, again, Lamport, Dijkstra, Knuth, in the field of computer science). I've also met many who don't agree! And that's fine, what works for some might not work for others. Clearly this concept does not sit well with you.
This is being an uninteresting conversation which is only serving to irritate me (and you, it seems). I will stop replying now.
>[sorry if I am being blunt, but it's how I feel]
you should learn to keep your feelings to yourself when the only function they serve is to denigrate others and derive cruel satisfaction for yourself.
>Here is a rule of thumb that in my experience applies well to almost everything in mathematics
this is aspirational pretension - everyone claims to appreciate formal purity /after/ they've learned something but when you're /learning/ none of that matters because you're just trying to develop intuition. to be one of those people that understands after their own stumblings/ruminations and then begrudge the next person the same is despicable. shame on you and i hope you're never in a position where someone depends on you to teach them absolutely anything.
>Imprecise definitions. This defeats the purpose of learning mathematics. Like Leslie Lamport says, rigour in mathematics is not a hurdle or a chore one must endure,
but that's just like your opinion man (or leslie lamport's). there are shelves and shelves of books for people like you - go read bourbaki or rudin or mochizuki or whomever you'd like. this book is not for /you/ - it's stated purpose is to excite and entice people that don't have formal mathematical training to learn mathematics and those sorts of people decidedly don't enjoy austere definitions and succinct theorems and terse proofs.
hence the only purpose your comment serves is to hurt the author's feelings, an author whom i might add has done infinitely more for the math community than you have with your pedantry and vitriol by maintaining a blog https://jeremykun.com/ with literally reams of interesting mathematical content that is simultaneously exciting /and/ rigorous. and furthermore iirc jeremy was originally a math ed phd student so i trust his opinion of the right way to teach math infinitely more than i do yours mr random internet physics guy.
next time think twice before posting this kind of lowbrow mean shit.