Hacker News Reader

>But as a concrete example, to understand the Fourier transform it probably took me a couple of weeks of reading different textbooks in my spare time to really grok how the math works here.. it took some effort and I'm not some autistic savant that sees things in equations - so it has nothing to do with learning styles.

So you're still claiming your experience covers all.

When did I say anything about not understanding the math of the FT? I took a whole semester of classes in signals, control theory, comms, etc. Derived FT, FFT, and friends, from scratch. I understand the math. But I have limited intuition about what I can do with the math. I can look it up in a book, or plug and chug, but it's not very fluid. The amount of times I've needed to manipulate equations since that class is zero.

Yikes.

>Looking at some diagrams and videos for certain topics is a lazy and harmful approach to learning

god my eyes can't roll farther back in my head. your point would be less absurd if it weren't for the fact that algebraic geometry is an enormously powerful and productive area of math whose whole ass founding principle is that geometric interpretations of algebraic objects are extremely useful.

AND

spectral theory (what fourier analysis is called today) is an extremely geometric area owing to the dependence of convergence on the metric.

>In the grand scheme of things, having a half-assed popsci understanding is generally worse than not know anything

yes because this is a resource for rocket scientists and not interested people (probably high school and college students)?

>If you really work with signal processing and don't understand the mathematics of the fourier transform then that's frankly a little scary.

bro this isn't oppenheim. it's just a nice intro for people that might be curious or are learning for the first time.