I was recently re-reading the original blogs (e-reader form and all that), and noticed a comment by Eliezer something to the effect of “Someone should really write ‘The simple mathematics of everything’ ”.
I would like to write that thing.
I’m currently starting my PhD in mathematics, with several relevant side interests (physics, computing, evolutionary biology, story telling), and the intention of teaching/lecturering one day.
Now… If someone’s already got this project sorted out (it has been a few years), great… however I notice that the wiki originally started for it is looking a little sad, (diffusion of responsibility perhaps).
So… if the project HAS NOT been sorted out yet, then I’d be interested in taking a crack at it: It’ll be good writing/teaching practice for me, and give me an excuse to read up on the subjects I HAVEN’T got yet, and it’ll hopefully end up being a useful resource for other people by the time I’m finished (and hopefully even when I’m under way)
I was hoping I could get a few questions answered while I’m here:
1) Has “the simple mathematics of everything” already been taken care of? If so, where?
2) Does anyone know what wiki/blog formats might be useful (and free maybe?) and ABLE TO SUPPORT EQUATION.
3) Any other comments/advice/whatever?
I think I have noticed a frequent failure pattern when people try writing about complicated stuff. It goes like this:
Article #1: in which I describe the wide range of stuff I plan to handle in this series of articles
Article #2: introduction
Article #3: even more introduction, since the introduction from the previous article didn’t seem enough
Article #4: reaction to some comments in the previous articles
Article #5: explaining some misunderstandings in comments in the previous articles
Article #6 …I am already burned out, so this never gets written
Instead, this is what seems like a successful pattern:
Article #1: if this is the only article I will write, what part of the stuff could I explain
Article #2: if this is the only article I will write for the audience of article #1, what else could I explain
Article #3: if this is the only article I will write for the audience of articles #1+2, what else could I explain...
Seems to me that Eliezer followed the latter pattern when writing Sequences. There is no part saying “this will make sense to you only after you read the following chapters I haven’t written yet”. But there are parts heavily linking the previous articles, when they advance the concepts already explained. The outline can be posted after the articles were written, like this.
I understand the temptation of posting the outline first, but that’s a huge promise you shouldn’t make unless you are really confident you can fulfill it. Before answering this, read about the planning fallacy, etc. On the other hand, with incremental writing you have complete freedom, and you can also stop at any moment without regrets. Even if you know you are going to write about A, B, C, and you feel pretty certain you can do it, I would still recommend starting with A1 instead of introduction.
Seems to me that Eliezer followed the latter pattern when writing Sequences.
I’m not sure that Eliezer outlined the posts in order- he did mention at some point wanting to explain X, but realizing that in order to explain X he needed to explain W, and in order to explain W...
I understand the temptation of posting the outline first, but that’s a huge promise you shouldn’t make unless you are really confident you can fulfill it.
Agreed. One of the ways I’ve worked around this is to not post the start of a sequence until it’s mostly done (I have the second post to this sequence fully finished, and the third post ~2/3rds finished). I’m not sure I’d recommend it- if you find the shame of leaving something unfinished motivating, it’s probably better to post the early stuff early. (I let that particular sequence sit for months without editing it.)
Since you asked, my advice is to not work on ill-posed problems. More concretely, ask your advisor for advice on developing a good nose for problems to work on. Where are you starting?
I started writing one of those back in 2005 when my MMath finished. After writing over 1000 pages of loosely-packed LaTeX I discovered ProofWiki which had only just started up. Been writing for it ever since. But I still have that original LaTeX and can at a pinch generate the PDF again (although it’s seriously iffy in places).
In the meantime if you want to join ProofWiki (google it) then if you can handle the iron-rigid rules for contribution, you’d be more than welcome.
When you say “Started writing one of those” Do you mean a blog in general, or a “simple mathematics of everything” in particular?
1000 pages is a pretty decent contribution. What happened to all those pages?
I’ve encountered proof wiki before- its certainly a useful resource, but perhaps not precisely what I am working towards.
Hey...
I’m new here. Hi.
I was recently re-reading the original blogs (e-reader form and all that), and noticed a comment by Eliezer something to the effect of “Someone should really write ‘The simple mathematics of everything’ ”.
I would like to write that thing.
I’m currently starting my PhD in mathematics, with several relevant side interests (physics, computing, evolutionary biology, story telling), and the intention of teaching/lecturering one day.
Now… If someone’s already got this project sorted out (it has been a few years), great… however I notice that the wiki originally started for it is looking a little sad, (diffusion of responsibility perhaps).
So… if the project HAS NOT been sorted out yet, then I’d be interested in taking a crack at it: It’ll be good writing/teaching practice for me, and give me an excuse to read up on the subjects I HAVEN’T got yet, and it’ll hopefully end up being a useful resource for other people by the time I’m finished (and hopefully even when I’m under way)
I was hoping I could get a few questions answered while I’m here: 1) Has “the simple mathematics of everything” already been taken care of? If so, where? 2) Does anyone know what wiki/blog formats might be useful (and free maybe?) and ABLE TO SUPPORT EQUATION. 3) Any other comments/advice/whatever?
Cheers, Babblefish.
I think I have noticed a frequent failure pattern when people try writing about complicated stuff. It goes like this:
Article #1: in which I describe the wide range of stuff I plan to handle in this series of articles
Article #2: introduction
Article #3: even more introduction, since the introduction from the previous article didn’t seem enough
Article #4: reaction to some comments in the previous articles
Article #5: explaining some misunderstandings in comments in the previous articles
Article #6 …I am already burned out, so this never gets written
Instead, this is what seems like a successful pattern:
Article #1: if this is the only article I will write, what part of the stuff could I explain
Article #2: if this is the only article I will write for the audience of article #1, what else could I explain
Article #3: if this is the only article I will write for the audience of articles #1+2, what else could I explain...
Seems to me that Eliezer followed the latter pattern when writing Sequences. There is no part saying “this will make sense to you only after you read the following chapters I haven’t written yet”. But there are parts heavily linking the previous articles, when they advance the concepts already explained. The outline can be posted after the articles were written, like this.
I understand the temptation of posting the outline first, but that’s a huge promise you shouldn’t make unless you are really confident you can fulfill it. Before answering this, read about the planning fallacy, etc. On the other hand, with incremental writing you have complete freedom, and you can also stop at any moment without regrets. Even if you know you are going to write about A, B, C, and you feel pretty certain you can do it, I would still recommend starting with A1 instead of introduction.
I’m not sure that Eliezer outlined the posts in order- he did mention at some point wanting to explain X, but realizing that in order to explain X he needed to explain W, and in order to explain W...
Agreed. One of the ways I’ve worked around this is to not post the start of a sequence until it’s mostly done (I have the second post to this sequence fully finished, and the third post ~2/3rds finished). I’m not sure I’d recommend it- if you find the shame of leaving something unfinished motivating, it’s probably better to post the early stuff early. (I let that particular sequence sit for months without editing it.)
Good luck. ‘The simple mathematics of everything’ is not an easy task. Maybe not even doable. But it’s a noble goal.
Since you asked, my advice is to not work on ill-posed problems. More concretely, ask your advisor for advice on developing a good nose for problems to work on. Where are you starting?
I started writing one of those back in 2005 when my MMath finished. After writing over 1000 pages of loosely-packed LaTeX I discovered ProofWiki which had only just started up. Been writing for it ever since. But I still have that original LaTeX and can at a pinch generate the PDF again (although it’s seriously iffy in places).
In the meantime if you want to join ProofWiki (google it) then if you can handle the iron-rigid rules for contribution, you’d be more than welcome.
When you say “Started writing one of those” Do you mean a blog in general, or a “simple mathematics of everything” in particular? 1000 pages is a pretty decent contribution. What happened to all those pages?
I’ve encountered proof wiki before- its certainly a useful resource, but perhaps not precisely what I am working towards.
Welcome to this website! It’s common for new users to introduce themselves on the Welcome thread.
Unfortunately, while there’s already a wiki, it only has 3 pages.
Welcome Thread- thanks, will go visit.
And yes, I did find that wiki, noticed it was sad and decided… that while the wiki format is nice, I’m not sure if its precisely what is needed here.