I own this book and I'll tell you it's not easy learning math from this book. Most of it is just very light overview. There are much better rigorous textbooks that are simpler and more complete.
There are some great textbooks translated from Russian. Analysis by Kolmogorov, (rigorous) Linear Algebra by Shilov, Complex Analysis by Markushevich to name a few.
The book covers too much to be thorough. Each chapter gives good introduction to the subject matter and ends with list of suggested reading.
I always read the relevant parts from this book before going deeper. Not everyone is going to dwell into non-euclidean geometry, functional analysis and topology.
Furthermore, I don't think typical self studying engineer in Hacker News wants to learn math using rigorous introduction to analysis. You can get good working knowledge and intuition without knowing what delta epsilon is.
I agree with you, that book is great for giving an overview of the general areas of mathematics and for providing context before going deeper into an area. I've used it to get some background in the courses I'm taking classes on before the semester starts and have found that really helpful.
1) No such thing as universal mathematician in this day and age.
2) Engineer's PDEs(algorithms) are not the same as mathematician's PDEs(theory). Same as comparing a student in China who learned English to communicate with English speakers to English majors from English speaking countries.
It's repulsive how people think "no pain no gain". I think that might be some of the resistance against sucralose. It's a free ride. Same for the attitude about addiction. It's viewed as intrinsically bad, instead of just evaluating it in context of benefits.
It's a very Catholic mentality, the notion that sin is atoned for with suffering. It would seem entirely foreign to a Buddhist, for example, who would see fortune as a result of accrued karma.
Over 12 years of Catholic education I was taught that the whole concept of purgatory had been repudiated. But looking it up now, it seems to have been resuscitated, albeit as a sort of "waiting period" for souls that hadn't fully reconciled with God.
In any case, at least in the modern Church, the concept of purgatory isn't an endorsement of the benefits of suffering.
Have you ever considered the possibility that for over 12 years of Catholic education, you were being lied to, and that many of the things you devoutly believe without question are simply not true?
Case in point: your false beliefs that fly in the face of all the evidence (much of it from their own doctrine, statements and actions) that the Catholic Church believes and preaches that sin is atoned for with suffering. Haven't you ever heard of that guy named "Jesus"? Isn't there a commandment that says you're not supposed to lie?
She was sometimes accused by Hindus in her adopted country of trying to convert the poor to Catholicism by "stealth".[6] Christopher Hitchens described Mother Teresa's organization as a cult which promoted suffering and did not help those in need. He said that Mother Teresa's own words on poverty proved that her intention was not to help people, quoting her words at a 1981 press conference in which she was asked: "Do you teach the poor to endure their lot?" She replied: "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."[2]:11[7]
Yes, many people raised in Buddhist households would say that, but it's not an accurate representation of what the Buddha taught, based on the Pali texts which are the earliest written record. You can decide whether that means it's "Buddhism" or not.
Are you able to give a more accurate representation, or point me to a source that would do so? I am genuinely curious, this is the first I've heard someone say differently (I know several Buddhists/Hindus although none could be considered devout).
So Western karma and Buddhist karma can be a bit different, as the West has adopted the term it's become the Western version of the idea. And Buddhist karma is a bit different from Hindu karma. I haven't found a fully consistent use of the word across Buddhism even. But one common theme is that you shouldn't be ascribing the suffering of others to their karma.
Soto Zen view:
" We say, result is—will result immediately, not later punishment. To do something is already punishment. That you do something is already punishment. Not later." (edit: I may be taking this out of context....)http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/october-1968-9th-ta...
Take a look ,or listen, into Ken McLeod's Pragmatic Buddism.
His podcast The Unfettered Mind is quite a resource.
He describes a culture that began with a base of perception and the experience of the now and due to the foolhardy nature of humans always trying to describe what is a unique and individual experience, if even describable at all, led to a disconnect and subsequent acadamization and institutionlization that seems to me to be what all religions suffer from.
The "Story of Tea" is a tale told in some of his sessions that is quite relevant.
The phenomenon seems also to be related to what legislative bodies suffer from as well though not entirely so.
Karma is also not the same as "fate" or "destiny". Karmic results are not a "judgement" imposed by a God or other all-powerful being, but rather the results of a natural process. Certain experiences in life are the results of previous actions, but our responses to those experiences are not predetermined, although they bear their own fruit in the future. Unjust behaviour may lead to unfavorable circumstances which make it easier to commit more unjust behavior, but nevertheless the freedom not to commit unjust behavior remains.
Within the Pali suttas: In the Anguttara Nikaya, it is stated that karmic results are experienced either in this life (P. diṭṭadhammika) or in a future lives (P. samparāyika). The former may involve a readily observable connection between action and karmic consequence, such as when a thief is captured and tortured by the authorities...
I'm not seeing anything to convince me I was wrong in thinking of karma as an impartial system of justice, both good and bad.
It's hard for me to tell if you're actually "in the wrong" here. Innocent people are also captured and tortured by authorities, but it's a huge stretch to blame that on karma.
If you say people experience karmic responses for all of their actions that's roughly true within Buddhist doctrine depending on how you define these things. Many believe it's a purely internal process so there's no guarantee something bad will happen to you in the sense of losing your job or stubbing your toe.
If you say that when a bad thing happens to a person it's because they did something bad to deserve it then that's not what the Buddha taught. The world's a big place and your past morality isn't the only thing that determines your present situation. http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/tp/The-F...
Following your link and comparing the Hindu and Buddhist explanations of Karma, that makes more sense to me. It seems I've been co-opting the strictly Hindu interpretation while Buddhism is a bit different. Anyway, thank you.
I read that quote as his wife saying that she didn't want him to give up and die. She wanted him to fight the cancer rather than obtain a "profound acceptance" of it.
I think that's a false dilemma. In my mind, part of "fighting" cancer is trying to mitigate its impact on your everyday life, and acceptance probably plays a key role in that process. It's not like being angry and afraid makes you any better at fighting a disease. If anything "fighting" and "accepting" could be said to go hand-in-hand, especially with respect to illness.
Colleges are great in that they offer nice infrastructure that's hard to find elsewhere: amazing libraries, laboratories, possibly, access to people doing research in the area you are interested in...Ultimately, though, everyone has to teach their own selves.
mmm, not necessarily. If you were interested in a specific field you could visit the class a few times and sit in, observe, ask questions of the professor or aids on office time. If you want to do a lot of things at a university, you can likely make it happen.
In theory yes, it practice, it was hard. I mean, I got into a lab, but it was a hard struggle to do so, with univ. system working against me (most of the time) rather than in favour.
IMHO its mainly the difference between top-down organization (where student is expected to perform assigned task, here: attend classes) rather than bottom-up (where the environment offers opportunities, which can be used).
If you had a very different experience, just curious - which country/univ.?
The first four years of college is what you make of them. You ultimately get out what you put in.
And ignoring that, you also cannot make blanket statements like this... there's an incredible amount of variability in four year programs. I can tell you my BSc CS degree was well earned...
In any setting like a college any student who needs a daycare isn't employable anyway so maybe that environment is still best for them (hopefully done on the cheap). But if you're serious about a subject, you enjoy it or strive to make money from it and contribute to society you put in the work, go to the library, participate in discussions, own that subject during your time there. You are giving it more thought than most people.
Why is this so hard to understand? I think it's great for people to rebel against the system that is expensive and seemingly drawn out for you so as to control your destiny. Doesn't mean the existing infrastructure isn't for anyone at all. There's a lot of effort of the past put into educating people. Dig in and fix it, don't give people head trash to denigrate what is a reasonably effective way to learn, grow and get work in the world.
I expect part of the problem is that people who are attracted by clear writing and thinking are turned off by the academic fields that suffer most from overly academic writing.
In math formal language is easier to read than the informal one. Mathematicians write proofs in informal, paragraph style while newcomers are taught to read/write proofs in the most formal way because the latter is much more structured and clear.
Could it be because academic writing is simpler than the literary one? For example, in math, 'for all yada, there exists bla' is different from 'there exists bla for all yada'. So, you literally memorize these two cliches because they greatly simplify math. There are many other such very precise cliches in math you keep reusing over and over. Even though, it makes your life simpler, to an outsider you come off as an academic bore. That's my theory anyway.
Human biology is an extreme hurdle on our way to achieve the unachievable: having to sleep, eat, excrete etc. Are there any tech and drugs being developed to deal with these things? For now I'd be contempt to at least control my sexuality :D
Going a few days w/o much food is quite easy for some of us, -I would skip meals after 1800 in the evening and then skip breakfast and then I could go a few days w/o more than a couple of glasses of orange juice a day. I only did this for less than a week. My uncle said most of the good effects started kicking in after a 3-5 days.
As usual, be careful, I'd say have sugar around.
As for the last point you mentioned there are drugs for this, I just have a feeling you'd rather try without but I'm no expert.
