-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Ben wrote: > This might work, but would it be the most efficient way of going about this? > I have two thoughts: > > 1. I mentioned this because of the "context" problem that querido brought > up. For instance, the strategy that you mention would allow you to retain > the ability (call it ability A) to arbitrarily evaluate some Scheme code in a > few seconds, regardless of the context. This is nice, but what if that's > more than what you wanted? Suppose instead you didn't want to know any > Scheme at all offhand, but you wanted the ability (call this ability B) to be > able to review SICP for 30 minutes and then be able to evaluate some Scheme > code. Ability A implies ability B perhaps, but suppose all you really want > is ability B. Doesn't it stand to reason that, over the years, ability A > will take longer to maintain than ability B?
I hadn't though of that, as I want A & B, so A implying B didn't bother me. There's surely a minimal subset of Scheme one needs to understand random SICP sections, though. I'm having a hard time seeing what example might have A -> B, but not have B a subset of A, though. The only thing I can think of are fields that overlap, but then why is one targeting/studying A in the first place? As for the time investment: I currently have 390 cards; assume I increase to 1000 by the time I finish - which should be in the right ballpark, Scheme is known as a minimalistic language - and further assume that the SuperMemo people are right that the lifetime effort devoted to studying each card is ~5 minutes. That means ~5000 minutes, or ~80 hours over my life; if we assume the minimal subset is half that and I don't actually want to know Scheme-in-general just Scheme-for-SICP, then the time I'm wasting over my life is 40 hours. Which doesn't seem too bad - I could recoup those 40 hours just by laying off Reddit a bit. Incidentally, Peter, if you're reading this thread: *are* the SuperMemo folks right about each card taking 5 minutes? I've added a number of cards based on that belief, and maybe the preliminary statistics have something to say about that rule of thumb. > 2. Not all mental skills can be called memory. Suppose you wanted to retain > the ability to multiply two arbitrary 3 digit numbers in your head in 30 > seconds. It wouldn't make sense to make a bunch of cards depicting various > specific numbers to multiply. To me, remembering how to program or how to do > linear algebra falls in the grey area between remembering the definition of a > word and "remembering" how to ride a bicycle. Well, hold on. Why wouldn't it make sense? We're technically inclined folks, it wouldn't be hard for us to write a quick script or macro to generate, say, 500 random cards which ask us to multiply abc by xyz, and import them at grade 4 or 5. Which is your mind going to do - get good at multiplying 2 3 digit numbers (generate on-demand), or memorize 500 different multiplication problems (memoize)? True, Mnemosyne won't enforce the 30-second stricture, but review has always required honesty of the user. (From my experience with multiple subtle variants on a card, the mind gives up after just a few and falls back on a problem-solving approach - - which is exactly what one wants to exercise, in this case.) - -- gwern -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEAREKAAYFAkpruJsACgkQvpDo5Pfl1oLWhwCfbFiv4xH7VPMXf4C5rv/o0nS9 8yUAn31GIDfwBAENM9ZkIU2rWelxGNQ3 =qGID -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mnemosyne-proj-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mnemosyne-proj-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
