←back to thread

673 points domenicd | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.376s | source
Show context
SirHumphrey ◴[] No.44021091[source]
I find with spaced repetition that it works really well for some well-known things like vocabulary (EDIT: well-known meant as "spaced repetition is well-known to work for this use-case, not well-known as "the subject is well understood"), medical etc. but for everything else it becomes a struggle for a long time.

I have been trying for years to fined a way to use it for mathematics and physics - with the former being more of a focus and didn't really get anywhere. For definitions it works, but it's quite hard to write proofs in a way where there is a short obvious memorization based answer. Either you spend far too much time on a card or the card gives you too much information so you don't really test the knowledge.

I also tried it for computer shortcuts - it seems to me that they are really useful only when part of the muscle memory - so practicing them works better then memorization.

replies(5): >>44021110 #>>44021251 #>>44021291 #>>44021372 #>>44022818 #
InkCanon ◴[] No.44021372[source]
It's someone I wondered, what is the point of memorizing a proof if it only ever proves something you already know. The answer is you hope it generalises. There is a possible way you can do it in SRS, being inspired by RL training. Instead of cards you'd show options within a game or simulation. But this would need a lot of expert knowledge for a single concept.
replies(1): >>44022279 #
1. bawolff ◴[] No.44022279[source]
Sure, but if you are memorizing the proof instead of understanding it, you aren't going to be able to generalize it.

In general, math is not a subject where memorization is going to get you ahead. The "why" matters much more than the "what".