

The Simple Math of Everything - asciilifeform
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/11/the-simple-math.html

======
yan
I'd argue it's good to know not just the simple _math_ of everything, but the
_basics_ of everything. Reasons why some designs are the way they are, what
constraints technologies were designed under and how ideas evolved into what
they are today. I can't say how annoyed I get at hearing people grumble about
falsely intuitive topics and how much better they can do it given the shot
with absolutely zero education in it (traffic light timings, road
construction, software and the such come to mind.)

Sure there are clear benefits to the added creativity in your own field, but
why not learn, well, just because? You'll have richer conversations
guaranteed!

~~~
davi
Along these lines: I found _Infrastructure_ by Brian Hayes to be a great book
& recommend it to anyone on HN who agrees w/ above comment (or really, just
about anyone on HN).

[http://www.amazon.com/Infrastructure-Field-Guide-
Industrial-...](http://www.amazon.com/Infrastructure-Field-Guide-Industrial-
Landscape/dp/0393059979)

~~~
twopoint718
The book (and TV series) "Connections" by James Burke is a very interesting
peek into just how interconnected technology is.

The one that amazed me was how the technology of the auto loom lead to the
computer (via punch cards). Again, this won't give you insight into the _math_
of things, but it will show you how one innovation lead to another.

<http://www.amazon.com/Connections-James-Burke/dp/0316116726>

------
larryfreeman
Nice article discussing the importance of general knowledge (as opposed to
detailed, technical knowledge).

Implicit in the article is the idea that there is an evergrowing gap between
smart people and the professional, technical crowd.

While universities and research institutions are rapidly advancing knowledge,
there does not seem to the author to be a reliable source for understanding
the classic insights from the past or taking a high level view on the latest
technical advances.

Interestingly, he doesn't mention wikipedia, talk about social networks, or
consider the many online content such as blogging, hubpages, or knol.

~~~
Retric
Almost, I suspect the idea is you can understand a lot about say engines by
understanding say maximum thermal effecency = 1 - (cold / hot) in Kelvin
(which is around 300 on the cold side.) There is also a lot of high end math,
but a lot of the useful parts of the field can be understood based on that and
say the temperature limits of steel.

Add in Stefan–Boltzmann law; which states that amount of thermal radiations
emitted per second per unit area of the surface of a black body is directly
proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature (Kelven), and
kelvin = Celsius - 273. Which let's you consider the limits of say a large
solar thermal collector.

PS: It's often not about precision as much as a sanity check.

~~~
pieceofpeace
> and kelvin = Celsius - 273

kelvin = Celsius + ~273.15

~~~
Retric
lol, ops.

I was thinking [kelvin = Celsius] - 273 as in they are on the same scale once
you subtract 273 from kelvin, but that's not what I wrote.

------
nazgulnarsil
the web now has all the material to take someone from a grade school level of
understanding through an intermediate college level. what doesn't exist is all
this material aggregated and organized into a curriculum. With college degrees
becoming increasingly specialized at the expense of general domain knowledge I
feel that something of the sort organized along the lines of wikipedia would
be a boon for millions of people.

~~~
tokenadult
_what doesn't exist is all this material aggregated and organized into a
curriculum._

A physicist has gone a long way in that direction.

<http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html>

And see a FAQ that starts nearer to the beginning

[http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=660...](http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=6606#33140)

and a Wiki based on the same site.

<http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Wiki/index.php/Main_Page>

------
telegraph
As a student of applied mathematics I pretty much agree with the gist of this
post, although I'm not entirely sure what it means to "understand the math" of
a field if you don't understand the concepts (or, to be unaware of the math if
you do understand the concepts).

I think the real key, rather than seeing equations and having them explained
to you, is to learn how to read an equation so it teaches or illuminates a
concept instead of mystifies. There are lots of simple tricks to this that can
be immensely helpful, and most of us already know them: recognizing that a
formula is monotonic on its domain, for example, tells you about the
relationship of the variables involved, and therefore the mechanics of
whatever real world quantities are being described.

