Most successful OSS products are a result of dogfooding. I am having difficulty figuring out how a person who still needs to learn the relevant math would be able to create anything like what you are suggesting.
Are there enough (a) mathematically literate LWers with (b) tons of free time who (c) think computer-based math education is a good idea and (d) are willing to work for free?
...Seriously? Why don’t you estimate the odds of a AND b AND c AND d, as your first math exercise.
In order of frequency, we include 366 computer scientists (32.6%), 174 people in the hard sciences (16%) 80 people in finance (7.3%), 63 people in the social sciences (5.8%), 43 people involved in AI (3.9%), 39 philosophers (3.6%), 15 mathematicians (1.5%), 14 statisticians (1.3%), 15 people involved in law (1.5%) and 5 people in medicine (.5%).
b: One dozen to several hundred
Of those people willing to admit the time they spent on Less Wrong… the mean was 21 minutes and the median was 15 minutes. There were at least a dozen people in the two to three hour range, and the winner (well, except the 40579 guy) was someone who says he spends five hours a day.
c: Probably 10%-90% (rough guess)
d: Probably 1-20% (again, a rough guess)
Lower bound:
10 with free time*60% mathematically adept*10% think it’s a good idea*1% willing to work for free = .006 LWers
Upper bound:
300 with free time*60% mathematically adept*90% think it’s a good idea*20% willing to work for free = 32 LWers
Anyone want to do a more detailed analysis, this didn’t yield a definite result.
Time available to spend on LW is not the same as time available to commit to a project. People can’t be productive 100% of the time, and unless you’re one of a handful of people, LW time is your time off from being productive.
Most successful OSS products are a result of dogfooding. I am having difficulty figuring out how a person who still needs to learn the relevant math would be able to create anything like what you are suggesting.
Perhaps someone who wants something to teach their kids with? (At least for the lower-level stuff).
Well, I guess the idea with this is that the feedback would be even more direct and specific. Khan Academy is trying to go that way with their exercises but I don’t know if they’re there yet.
Hmm? If I squint, I can maybe sorta see what this has to do with what I was talking about, but it seems likelier to be a misunderstanding.
Did you click through to Wolfram’s rant/read the part where I said “stop teaching kids how to take derivatives; that’s what MathematicaTM is for. Just teach them what a derivative is, so we can move on to more interesting problems.”?
This is definitely not about “use computers to teach maths as it’s usually taught!” (what Khan Academy does quite well.) This is about “let the computers do the calculating while we do the math! … I mean, the drudgery-free parts of math.”
...Seriously? Why don’t you estimate the odds of a AND b AND c AND d, as your first math exercise.
Why would I want to estimate it if I can just ask? If it turns out there aren’t any, I start getting creative. If it turns out there are… well, so far so good, and thank sanity I didn’t jump to the harder solutions even though a simpler one was available.
I am having difficulty figuring out how a person who still needs to learn the relevant math would be able to create anything like what you are suggesting.
By “open-source”, I meant “using pre-existing open-source software”, not “building our own open-source software”. I thought the post made that clear. The aim of the possible project is to write textbooks (or maybe wiki articles?), not software.
ETA: Took “open-source” off the TL;DR and replaced “implementation” with “curriculum” and similar terms. People were beginning to think I was talking about software, which I wasn’t.
You probably meant to link to computerbasedmath.org.
Most successful OSS products are a result of dogfooding. I am having difficulty figuring out how a person who still needs to learn the relevant math would be able to create anything like what you are suggesting.
...Seriously? Why don’t you estimate the odds of a AND b AND c AND d, as your first math exercise.
a: around 650 of 1050, or about 60%
b: One dozen to several hundred
c: Probably 10%-90% (rough guess)
d: Probably 1-20% (again, a rough guess)
Lower bound:
10 with free time*60% mathematically adept*10% think it’s a good idea*1% willing to work for free = .006 LWers
Upper bound:
300 with free time*60% mathematically adept*90% think it’s a good idea*20% willing to work for free = 32 LWers
Anyone want to do a more detailed analysis, this didn’t yield a definite result.
Time available to spend on LW is not the same as time available to commit to a project. People can’t be productive 100% of the time, and unless you’re one of a handful of people, LW time is your time off from being productive.
Are your “” being turned into italics? (I think putting a backslash before each will stop this.)
That worked, thanks.
Perhaps someone who wants something to teach their kids with? (At least for the lower-level stuff).
Isn’t that what Khan Academy is for?
Well, I guess the idea with this is that the feedback would be even more direct and specific. Khan Academy is trying to go that way with their exercises but I don’t know if they’re there yet.
Hmm? If I squint, I can maybe sorta see what this has to do with what I was talking about, but it seems likelier to be a misunderstanding.
Did you click through to Wolfram’s rant/read the part where I said “stop teaching kids how to take derivatives; that’s what MathematicaTM is for. Just teach them what a derivative is, so we can move on to more interesting problems.”?
This is definitely not about “use computers to teach maths as it’s usually taught!” (what Khan Academy does quite well.) This is about “let the computers do the calculating while we do the math! … I mean, the drudgery-free parts of math.”
… I guess I need to emphasize that more.
Fixed, thanks.
Why would I want to estimate it if I can just ask? If it turns out there aren’t any, I start getting creative. If it turns out there are… well, so far so good, and thank sanity I didn’t jump to the harder solutions even though a simpler one was available.
By “open-source”, I meant “using pre-existing open-source software”, not “building our own open-source software”. I thought the post made that clear. The aim of the possible project is to write textbooks (or maybe wiki articles?), not software.
ETA: Took “open-source” off the TL;DR and replaced “implementation” with “curriculum” and similar terms. People were beginning to think I was talking about software, which I wasn’t.