Volume - a thought experiment

[Hanley]

you need an accurate enough method of measuring fatigue

Not really. Assuming squat: just work up to a single at - say - .3 meters a second and compare the load of that single vs load predicted by your recent gains trend.

ETA: fuck you Namastveer. I can feel you that you want to scream at the monitor "Just use RPE."

[OCG]

That would probably be a better idea @Hanley in the end.

[Murelli]

Hanley is too dumb to learn to use RPE, so he has to overcomplicate things and make up "logical" "first principles" to be right.

Just make sure you don't fail calculus six times, Joan Manley.

[Hanley]

Just make sure you don't fail calculus six times, Joan Manley.

Say you're tutoring some mathtard bitches, how would you instill a deep intuition/appreciation for the idea that differentiation and integration are inverse processes?

[EricK]

Just make sure you don't fail calculus six times, Joan Manley.

Say you're tutoring some mathtard bitches, how would you instill a deep intuition/appreciation for the idea that differentiation and integration are inverse processes?

The derivative of a function is a measure of the differences in that function over some interval, and the integral is the sum total. If the function is growing, the difference (derivative) is positive. If the value of the function is negative for some interval, the sum (the integral) will be, too. And for any interval with variance between those two, it will be the net value.

[Murelli]

Just make sure you don't fail calculus six times, Joan Manley.

Say you're tutoring some mathtard bitches, how would you instill a deep intuition/appreciation for the idea that differentiation and integration are the same process?

FTFY. Also, the best way is to use graphs. Most people are visual learners, and most diff/integ applications in engineering involve graphs of some sort (or things that can be represented graphically, like a flow through a control volume).

[PatrickDB]

Most people are visual learners,

Sorry to psychology shitpost, but individualized "learning styles" don't exist. Rather, visual aids are uniformly helpful for explaining geometric concepts.

Well-designed studies contradict the widespread "meshing hypothesis" that a student will learn best if taught in a method deemed appropriate for the student's learning style.[4]

There are substantial criticisms of learning-styles approaches from scientists who have reviewed extensive bodies of research.[1][4] A 2015 peer reviewed article concluded: "Learning styles theories have not panned out, and it is our responsibility to ensure that students know that."

[Hanley]

Just make sure you don't fail calculus six times, Joan Manley.

Say you're tutoring some mathtard bitches, how would you instill a deep intuition/appreciation for the idea that differentiation and integration are inverse processes?

To answer my own question: I think Strang does the best job

https://ocw.mit.edu/resources/res-18-00 ... rang_5.pdf

[Murelli]

Most people are visual learners,

Sorry to psychology shitpost, but individualized "learning styles" don't exist. Rather, visual aids are uniformly helpful for explaining geometric concepts.

Well-designed studies contradict the widespread "meshing hypothesis" that a student will learn best if taught in a method deemed appropriate for the student's learning style.[4]

There are substantial criticisms of learning-styles approaches from scientists who have reviewed extensive bodies of research.[1][4] A 2015 peer reviewed article concluded: "Learning styles theories have not panned out, and it is our responsibility to ensure that students know that."

#schooled

Just make sure you don't fail calculus six times, Joan Manley.

Say you're tutoring some mathtard bitches, how would you instill a deep intuition/appreciation for the idea that differentiation and integration are inverse processes?

To answer my own question: I think Strang does the best job

https://ocw.mit.edu/resources/res-18-00 ... rang_5.pdf

Good stuff, but shame on you for doing a fake rhetorical question. -5 personality points.

[Hanley]

shame on you for doing a fake rhetorical question.

Genuine, brah. It's one of those trivial math things I find beautiful and awesome, but that's explained really poorly (though, I think Strang did a superb job).

[Murelli]

shame on you for doing a fake rhetorical question.

Genuine, brah. It's one of those trivial math things I find beautiful and awesome, but that's explained really poorly.

Because most of the math teachers are mathematicians, not teachers, not engineers, not physicists.

[perman]

shame on you for doing a fake rhetorical question.

Genuine, brah. It's one of those trivial math things I find beautiful and awesome, but that's explained really poorly.

Because most of the math teachers are mathematicians, not teachers, not engineers, not physicists.

I am reminded of the following quote:

The skilled mathematicians are fine communicating to each other in mathematical language, because it is the most precise way of communicating mathematics anyway. The problem is everyone else who have to understand this shit too.