top | item 36381285

(no title)

gareve | 2 years ago

if you would have to do it again, would you change something on your methodology? I assume there were some unnecessary time sinks here & there

discuss

order

yt-sdb|2 years ago

I don't think so. My problem was that I had a weak grasp of many basics concepts, and more critically I did not know in which areas I was weak. So while it's easy ex post to say "I could skip such and such section", it would have been impossible to make this judgment ex ante.

And in fact, I think a failure mode many people make is trying to predict which things they already know and then skipping those. This allows for blind spots to persist.

I suppose the one way to skip things correctly would be to have a coach. But that comes at a new cost ($), but maybe that works for some people.

hawk_|2 years ago

I have been seeing more and more usage of 'ex post' and 'ex ante' lately. What do they convey that isn't conveyed by 'after' and 'before'?

gpt5|2 years ago

If you, or someone else is seriously considering learning math from the basic at a high level, I’d recommend picking up “art of problem solving, pre-algebra” book, and walking up from there.

These sets of books are universally considered to be among the best math education resources by mathematicians and others, and they start from the very basic (such as the number line and basic operations), but without the need of practicing elementary school material like counting.

jacksnipe|2 years ago

I think the TAOPS curriculum would be incredibly challenging for somebody who has actively incorrect intuitions about math.