Hacker News Reader

Comment by smspillaz | Hacker News Reader

Thanks for the feedback! I was a little worried that the explanations would fall back too much on formal properties, so I guess I've got a bit more work to do on the visualization side of things.

View on HN

I think you are doing a great job here. I looked through your sections on determinants and inverses, and it is so much better than the way I was taught: "this is the formula for inverting a 2x2 matrix. This bit is called the determinant." For me, learning always works best when I know what we are working towards and seeing how it works, and putting the formal definition first is rarely effective in that. Start with a specific example, concrete where possible, and generalize from that.

Indeed. I think one of the thing I wanted to focus on as well in this series was explaining exactly where a lot of the formulas came from. It was a great learning experience, since a lot of what I was taught was basically as you said "here is the formula for the determinant and oh look, NxN determinants can be worked out in such and such a way if you just apply this algorithm". It was super useful to decompose why that algorithm works from a visual perspective. Same thing with surface integrals.

There's no perfect order for everyone. The trick is to spiral around revisiting levels and styles (and don't worry if you don't grok a part yet) until they all start to gel and your brain forms aweb of connections.

So many people think the second book they read on a topic is soooo much clearer than the first. But it doesn't much matter which book they dead first vs second :-)

The 'second book effect' is an interesting point, but that phenomenon, by itself, would suggest that there are improvements to be made in how we teach things from the beginning.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com