Re: Quote by Knuth

[Emanuel Berg]

Marcin Borkowski wrote:

> I haven't read this thread, just skimmed through a few
> messages here, but as a mathematician and a (co)author of
> two math textbooks I'd like to add something.
>
> 1. I think it's best (in math) to use prose first to explain
>    ideas and then follow with symbolic notation.

Maybe if the ideas are new or if there is some particular
property that is of interest here and there to that document,
so people will get a head start understanding the "symbolic
notation".

For example,

  Researcher at LCU (Limbo City University) have concluded
  that statistically, the third element is where the
  interesting stuff starts:

    a[2]

If the ideas aren't new, one can instead write a paragraph who
came up with it, when, how, and why, and then a second
paragraph how it has been applied (used) in industry and
technology ever since.

But without the symbolic notation it isn't really math, is it,
because the natural language, no matter how careful one is,
can still be misinterpreted, interpreted in several ways, it
can be translated, made fun of ...

> If you remove the scaffolding you make learning way more
> difficult. Even in research articles I'd leave traces of it
> (assuming I'd write any research articles - not very
> probable).

Yeah, textbook and research, more "scaffolding" in
the textbooks, for sure...

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal