Hacker News Reader

Comment by svat | Hacker News Reader

Related tweet from Russ Cox: https://twitter.com/_rsc/status/1483899960684863493

> Knuth is making backwards incompatible changes to fix bugs in something he wrote 54 years ago (TAOCP volume 1, 1968)!

And mine:

Apart from the care Knuth takes, what's remarkable is that he has basically put out a permanent invitation to a DDoS on his time and attention—everyone in the world is invited to contact him about every word he has ever written—and somehow still continues to produce new material.

From Wilf's toast/roast of Knuth (https://www2.math.upenn.edu/~wilf/website/dek.pdf): “[…]your letter will be placed on a stack that already has 5,379 letters that reached him before yours did,[…] while he completes his latest additions to 47 new manuscripts and 311 revisions of already existing books.”

View on HN

I think the secret is he uses letters.

Try that invitation to a DDoS on his life with Twitter or email.

If you’re willing to post a physical letter, chances of the content being worth reading are a lot higher.

It's hashcash! But the hash is literal cash of about 50 cents

Moreso the effort. But yeah.

idk, there are APIs for this now. https://www.postgrid.com/pricing-print-mail/#perunit

Is it handwritten though?

With a further optimisation in the batch handling of snail mail:

"I have a wonderful secretary who looks at the incoming postal mail and separates out anything that she knows I've been looking forward to seeing urgently. Everything else goes into a buffer storage area, which I empty periodically."

from: https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/email.html

Just to clarify, you can email him to report errors in any of his books (and I have done so, several times). It's only for other general communication that he insists you use physical email.

That is a fantastic and highly amusing speech, thank you for linking it.

You may also like this other speech by the same author (Herb Wilf) that I love too (on an unrelated topic):

• Epsilon Sandwiches https://www2.math.upenn.edu/~wilf/website/MAASpeech

In fact everything by Wilf that I've read is lovely: the paper "Recounting the rationals" (https://www2.math.upenn.edu/~wilf/website/recounting.pdf with Neil Calkin), and the book generatingfunctionology https://www2.math.upenn.edu/~wilf/DownldGF.html

Epsilon sandwiches is a great speech, with advice that I wish I could follow—but it pre-supposes students for whom the referenced very easy proofs are indeed very easy conceptually, and the struggle is only to put those concepts into words. I can believe that this is true of students in a UPenn first analysis course, but it is not true at the less prestigious university where I teach students who are encountering proofs for the first time (well before analysis)—and I have long struggled with how to break down this two-step complication into separate manageable steps with students for whom, say, it is still a real challenge to understand (in the context of proving facts about sums and products of even numbers) why 2(x + y) = 2x + 2y is true, but 2(xy) = (2x)(2y) is not. If anyone knows how to adapt Wilf's advice to such students, then I—and they, in my fall class!—will be grateful to hear it!

I case it helps, this is how it was taught to me when introducing proofs.

For your example case, it's simply the matter of seeing multiplication as repeated addition. So, 2x is x+x, and from this follows:

2(x+y) = (x+y)+(x+y) = x+y+x+y = x+x+y+y = 2x+2y

However, for the other case, when we convert the multiplication by 2 to an addition and back:

2(xy) = (xy)+(xy) = xy+xy = 2xy

Now we can show that this works for n instead of two:

n(x+y) = (x+y)+..[n times]..+(x+y) = x+..[n times]..+x + y+..[n times]..+y = nx+ny

And for multiplication:

n(xy) = xy+..[n times]..+xy = nxy

Thanks for the suggestion, which I think is exactly the right way to address this particular issue.

Indeed, now that I've learned from a few times teaching the course that it always comes up, I will address it. But, if I spend my time building up basic-algebra proficiency at this level, then I'm never going to get into the meat of proving things. Perhaps the answer is to view the very act of writing your argument as a proof—and I like that perspective (because it genuinely is!); but, if I were to break that down to its full details, then I would have to write 2(x + y) = (x + y) + (x + y) = x + (y + (x + y)) = x + (y + (y + x)) = x + ((y + y) + x) = x + (x + (y + y)) = (x + x) + (y + y) = 2x + 2y, and writing down proofs of that sort risks alienating students who are eager for a conceptual picture, and guarantees giving the wrong idea of what sort of activity proving is. (And it also risks confusing why later I will say that, for a silly example, π(x + y) = πx + πy "by the distributive law"—I can't think of multiplication by pi as repeated addition, so I must cite the distributive law; and then why didn't I just do that before?)

This has confused me a bit about the US education system. Shouldn't this be taught in highschool? Where I live if someone wants to study maths in university, and they haven't done the B2 math track, the university would simply not accept them into enroll into that major. The student would have to get a highschool degree that includes the maths B2 track, if they're under 18 they could simply return to highschool, or if they're older then there's adult (night) schools.

> This has confused me a bit about the US education system. Shouldn't this be taught in highschool? Where I live if someone wants to study maths in university, and they haven't done the B2 math track, the university would simply not accept them into enroll into that major. The student would have to get a highschool degree that includes the maths B2 track, if they're under 18 they could simply return to highschool, or if they're older then there's adult (night) schools.

It's not that they haven't been taught this; it's that they haven't conceptualised it, so that 2(x + y) = 2x + 2y to them is just a meaningless rule, and there's no particular reason why it should be true but not 2(xy) = (2x)(2y), or 2^(x + y) = 2^x + 2^y, or whatever. Of course ideally one would only have students in the course who have conceptualised this, but that's not how it happens, and it's not fair for me to teach the course to the students I wish I had.

You can find proofs by making analogies in almost any direction, but it helps to know which direction leads towards solid intuition the student already has and can build on, rather than just leading to more abstract nonsense that's equally unfamiliar.

In the case of having no intuition about algebraic manipulation, you can suggest a geometric interpretation to connect to intuition that's more likely to be there. For 2xy != 2x2y, draw two xy rectangles and one 2x by 2y rectangle.

Now the students all see the problem. Now they just have to connect the geometric intuition back to the algebra. This helps motivate the algebraic rules and shows why they must be what they are. Just the idea that geometric intuition exists -- that you can solve problems by putting pictures together in your head -- this isn't something every incoming freshman already consciously knows they have as a technique always available to them.

(This is just a wordy re-telling of Polya's "Draw a figure", from How to Solve It; if you haven't read, drop everything and get a copy.)

> Apart from the care Knuth takes, what's remarkable is that he has basically put out a permanent invitation to a DDoS on his time and attention—everyone in the world is invited to contact him about every word he has ever written—and somehow still continues to produce new material.

I mean, this is just a best practice among academics -- every paper has at least one corresponding author to whom you should write for all inquiries about it. Of course, Knuth's immense popularity and the chance you may get a reward [0] contribute to the intensity of the DDoS.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth_reward_check (of course, the "reward" is not really the money, but rather getting recognition from Don Knuth himself)

> everyone in the world is invited to contact him about every word he has ever written

But not by email.

Well, as others have pointed out, at his scale this is likely a necessary rate-limiting countermeasure.

Even relatively obscure academics easily end raking up hundreds of emails in their inboxes once they are senior enough. With someone as popular as Knuth, it would be madness.

Yes by email (search the posted page for "@" or look under "Rewards" at https://cs.stanford.edu/~knuth/taocp.html#:~:text=Rewards )

And when I said "invited" I meant "strongly incentivized": by offering cash rewards (initially) and those highly prized "Knuth checks", he surely gets orders of magnitude more scrutiny and error reports than a typical academic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com