17 AUG 2016 by ideonexus
Ways of Being "Good at Math"
It’s a common misconception that someone who’s good at math is someone who can compute quickly and accurately. But mathematics is a broad discipline, and there are many ways to be smart in math. Some students are good at seeing relationships among numbers, quantities, or objects. Others may be creative problem solvers, able to come up with nonroutine ways to approach an unfamiliar problem. Still others may be good at visually representing relationships or problems or translating from one ...Folksonomies: education mathematics
Folksonomies: education mathematics
1 
notes
notes31 JAN 2012 by ideonexus
Courses That Appealed to Steven Chu
I approached the bulk of my schoolwork as a chore rather than an intellectual adventure. The tedium was relieved by a few courses that seem to be qualitatively different. Geometry was the first exciting course I remember. Instead of memorizing facts, we were asked to think in clear, logical steps. Beginning from a few intuitive postulates, far reaching consequences could be derived, and I took immediately to the sport of proving theorems.Folksonomies: education
Folksonomies: education
1 notes
notesHe enjoyed Geometry for the process rather than the boring memorization of facts.
01 JAN 2010 by ideonexus
Fundamental Names in Computer Science
Consider some fundamental names: Turing (computation theory and programmable automata), von Neumann (computer architecture), Shannon (information theory), Knuth, Hoare, Dijkstra, and Wirth (programming theory and algorithmics), Feigenbaum and McCarthy (artificial intelligence), Codd (relational model of databases), Chen (entity-relationship model), Lamport (distributed systems), Zadeh (fuzzy logic), Meyer (object-oriented programming), Gamma (design patterns), Cerf (Internet), Berners-Lee (WW...Folksonomies: theoretical vs experimental
Folksonomies: theoretical vs experimental
1 notes
notesThe author uses this list as proof that computer science can be an inductive discipline, but a list of successes is useless for this argument. All of these "fundamental names" are such because their theories were proven in the real world. It's a selective list. We need to see a list of all theorists and then gauge how well induction works versus empiricism.
It does make a good list of big names and their contributions.
