Re: Book or Manual for 6?
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg78352] Re: Book or Manual for 6?
- From: David Bailey <dave at Remove_Thisdbailey.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:39:00 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <email@example.com> <200706270932.FAA01420@smc.vnet.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Murray Eisenberg wrote:
> Although I agree fundamentally with everything that David says about how
> to learn Mathematica (and other things as well), there are still three
> issues, the third of which some other poster mentioned:
> (1) Still, there are occasions when I want no electronic impediment
> whatsoever and just want to look at a book. Clearly some thing are best
> learned with the live system, but there are others for which a clear
> exposition, with good examples and in a coherent underlying conceptual
> structure, suffices.
> (2) As a university teacher for over 40 years, the longer I teach the
> more I realize how very different learning styles can be. So a
> multiplicity of learning modes and materials is warranted.
> (2) Perhaps it's not so much a printed book per se that I, and some
> others, miss, but rather the quasi-linear (and spirally structured) path
> through Mathematica provided by "The Mathematica Book".
> Just because the system itself may be a web does not preclude an author
> from creating a more-or-less linear path through (part of) it.
> David Park wrote:
>> As to the lack of a hard copy book: I don't think that a static book is the
>> way to learn Mathematica. ... Hard copy books are truly inadequate for learning the
>> new Mathematica. That is probably why there was little effort to produce
>> such a book....
I agree - there is something attractive about reading a book that is
difficult to reproduce electronically. When you read a book, you get the
information in a sensible order.
I knew someone who didn't know how to combine code from several
notebooks - i.e. he didn't realise that every time you execute a
definition - regardless of which notebook (this was 5.2, so we are not
talking notebook contexts) it ended up in the kernel. Unfortunately,
this guy discovered the notebook functions such as SelectionMove/
SelectionEvaluate, and thought this was the way to combine code from
I don't know for sure, but my guess is that he learned Mathematica from
the help files. I reckon this kind of mistake is much easier to make if
you don't read a book, because you hit upon functions with much less
context. Reading a book (or attending a course) you would not encounter
such functions until much later in the learning process.
Prev by Date:
a definite integral and a workaround
Next by Date:
Re: [Mathematica 6] Integrate strange result
Previous by thread:
Re: Re: Book or Manual for 6?
Next by thread:
Re: Book or Manual for 6?