tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5554620.post900106247917206131..comments2023-10-18T03:56:28.984-04:00Comments on Howard Lovy's NanoBot: Don't end up like me; take online nanotech coursesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5554620.post-74948627042854940922008-12-20T21:08:00.000-05:002008-12-20T21:08:00.000-05:00Thanks so much for this link. I'm a huge fan of th...Thanks so much for this link. I'm a huge fan of this sort of thing. I have picked up quite a bit from iTunes University classes on rheology and Java programming that come from MIT and Harvard and Michigan Tech.<BR/><BR/>I'm 44, so I can feel your pain. It is increasingly obvious that I am not as mentally spry as I was 20 years ago. However, it really is like muscle training. And selective unwillingness to bother with details.<BR/><BR/>I'm a materials chemist, PhD, and post doc in SS physics. My schedule did not leave much room for pure math or deep physics that underpins a lot of what I do. I am not equipped at this stage to do homework like I did as an undergrad and graduate student.<BR/><BR/>So I cheat. It is far more important that I know what the math means than that I can do it by hand. There is a lot of open source stuff (Octave, SciLab, Sage) that will do the heavy lifting for me. So I use it. Can I invert a matrix? With a gun to my head, maybe. But I know several software packages that will do it for me.<BR/><BR/>To some extent, we are at a crossroads in scientific education. There was a day when a watchmaker had to file out ever gear by hand. Later, machines could do it for him. Later still, there were no gears. I would want people familiar with the <I>meaning</I> of math, and to shed a tiny bit of blood to get how it is done. But to be a useful tool no longer requires the somewhat weird tendency to like doing it.Robin St. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18079748114787155061noreply@blogger.com