Re: Using unmaintained plugins

[Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support>]

* Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> [2021-04-19 09:52]:
> As a long-time student of mathematics (5 years Masters program, then 4
> years of PhD) I can assure you that understanding does not imply
> memorizing _at all_.  In fact, I'd consider "understanding" and
> "memorizing" two separate and pretty independent goals.

Not that I said it implies. It is one of many methods on how people
will start to think and in both methods or multiple, they may want to
remember it.

I clearly see how you view understanding and memorizing as two
unconscious or conscious methods of remembering.

Where I lay focus is on practicality, so it does not matter how person
call something rather is important if person has practical method to
remember it.

You have seen mentalists who can remember whole deck of cards? There
are tricks to it, and there are mnemotechnic methods to it. I have
been doing the feat many times.

Remembering for example very unrelated objects on its number is
normally perceived as hard, for example this list:

1. Ball
2. TV set
3. Cup
4. Table
5. Bucket
6. Emacs
7. Spoon
8. Earphones
9. Loudspeakers
10. Blocks
...
up to 20 or 50 or 100.

Now imagine you get the list and you should hear it just one time and
rememember and be able at any time to produce it by using your memory:

- to produce the list from 1 to 100

- to produce the list backwards

- to produce the list randomly by any number like 9 and to tell
  "loudspeakers"

Now one could use the spacing method, but that would be awful compared
to this rather simple feat in the field of mentalism where no tricks
are involved. And method is very simple. Each number like 1, 2, 3 and
up to 100 is related to some associations such as number 1 could be
giraffe head, giraffe doing something, with some object, for example
giraffe carrying ice cube on its head. Number 2 is a swan, as it looks
like a swan, swan that is swimming in the lake carrying on the back
its swan chicks. And so on. Once that is remembered once for life,
then it is very easy to remember objects placed on specific number.

Example would be 1. Ball and 2. TV set, in that case one does silly
imagination such as that giraffe carries large ice cube on its head
where inside one can find a ball, and giraffe wants to win the rugby
game with lions. Swan at number 2. instead of swimming has made a hole
in the TV set and uses it as a boat to come over the lake.

All that one does is that kind of imaginative associations. Imagine
once, forget, and recall at any time as by recalling number 2, one
recalls the swan that had to swim over the lake but this time in a
broken TV set floating on water.

> > Those people who would learn let us say some phrases of foreign
> > language by understanding each word and full sentences and by applying
> > words in sentences and in real life, would never forget about it, and
> > also would not need the feeling to memorize it.
> 
> How about learning idioms which _by definition_ cannot be "understood"
> by means of understanding their constituent parts?

They mostly can as all idioms also have its etymology and
associations. Full dictionaries for every language are number of
tomes, if one uses small dictionary, then maybe cannot find all the
related information.

> You can either use a mnemotechnic (a bad idea, since it introduces
> complexity - it requires _thinking_ when one has no time or capacity
> for it (i.e., while speaking in a foreign language and expressing
> one's thoughts on something else),

Which tells me that you should try it out instead. I did and I have
performed those feats of mind and I recommend it to everybody.

> or just "cram" it (using repetition, because how else?).

Because you don't know it. It is very simple, you can make
associations with the meaning by applying it in your own words. Here
is example:

Idiom is:

4. idiom, idiomatic expression, phrasal idiom, set phrase, phrase --
(an expression whose meanings cannot be inferred from the meanings of
the words that make it up)

From: https://www.thoughtco.com/common-english-idioms-3211646

Idiom: Go the extra mile

Instead of remembering or doing whatever, just first understand its
meaning, what it means, and then construct few sentences and tell it
loud to you or to somebody else. That is how children learn too.

You create a sentence with verb and various other related pieces
something like: "I had to go extra mile and to fetch Info page to
explain the Emacs Lisp function to Joe." -- then you create another
sentence and another one, and once you are sure you know how to apply
it practically, at that moment you may forget about it
completely. Time will come, and you will be able to apply it
practically in real world.

> The same (but even moreso) goes for actual words, where (from a
> typical student's point of view at least) there are no "constituent
> parts" at all (most people do not learn etymology while learning a
> foreign language, especially as kids).

Well that is lack of educational methods if you ask me

> I find your opinion not only wrong, but even dangerous.

Yes, maybe somebody will read and die or otherwise get spikes from the
sky. /irony/

> If you emphasize "learning by understanding" and skip the "tedious
> memorizing, maybe even without understanding" part, you run the risk
> of not having enough data readily available in your brain (without
> crutches like "mnemotechnics") to e.g. find analogies.

That is true but only true within boundaries of that specific person,
not within my personal boundaries, but my skills are nothing as
compared to Harry Lorayne. Recommended reading:
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/memory-book-harry-lorayne/1101889940

Everybody can improve memory drastically:
https://www.harrylorayne.com/

And let me say that in school and in education, the mnemotechnics may
be useful only when we have to remember birth dates, some years
related to whatever events, in other words those pieces of information
that have no practical use, and such usage would be minimized. For
anything else there are methods to understand everything and start
applying it in real world so that things get properly realistically
related to each other where person learns at once, can put focus on
many other things, but can recall it any time later.

> An analogy (perhaps not the best one, but insightful, I think).  You can
> only learn about more advanced concepts of calculus once you have
> memorized the basic concepts of (elementary) algebra like simplifying
> expressions, multiplying out brackets or factoring polynomials so well
> as to be able to carry them out without actually _thinking_ or
> _understanding_ them.  If what you need to do is integrating
> a complicated function, you cannot "spend your brain points" on
> performing elementary operations.  IOW, you need to memorize certain
> rules - not necessarily "without" understanding, but - so to speak -
> "beyond" it.

You know it better from experience as mathematician, thanks for
explaining it.

> > IMHO, the whole concept is upside down, I find it as a useless
> > disadvise as it brings people into such a wrong direction of
> > thinking -- which is to memorize things without understanding and
> > without associations.
> 
> Again, false dichotomy.  IMHO, the right way of learning is: understand
> first, then memorize.

What is false is vague. In that comment of yours, if false or not, is
to me not important, but I am not sure what you mean with
"memorize". I was referring to memorize in the context of just
remembering it without understanding or associating it to
anything. That is "learn by heart" or "commit to memory". I think that
is right.

But then you say the right way of learning is to understand first then
memorize, however, I think you were thinking to understand first and
then remember. Which is not same.

As remembering and understanding are akin but not same to memorizing.

Memorizing would be to let us say commit all phone numbers of our
family into our memory. Or to commit a written song in the memory and
to recall it any time later. Because of scarce associations
remembering such things isn't easy.

That is where Harry Lorayne's methods come for remedy. Instead of
memorizing plane numbers, there would be for each number some funny or
imaginary picture as I have previously explained and they would be all
associated into a story for specific number related to specific
person. By recalling the person one would recall the number easily,
and this may remain so forever, for life time.

As side note, we did memorize numbers back in time, as children and
teenagers even without using any mnemotechnics, it was very common to
memorize numbers at the time when we did not have smart phones, we
could recall numbers of our neighbors and friends and family. Every
person knew at least 5-10 numbers by heart.

> > Then associations instead of repetitions are used as a learning
> > method, even then, a person need not have more than just one occurence
> > of proper association, even for most stupidest things, to memorize the
> > whole set even for life if necessary. No repetitions necessary.
> 
> I am strongly convinced this is not true.  Memorizing something for
> a lifetime after one occurrence is only possible under the assumption
> that you don't live long enough to forget it.  (Of course, with
> especially strong experiences, the time-to-forget might as well be on
> the order of millenia, which - given the lifespan of a human being - may
> seem like "forever".)

You may be convinced. It does not matter. There is much knowledge yet
that you may acquire and learn. If you wish contact me privately and I
will send you the PDF books on those methods.

> Memorizing something for a lifetime after one occurrence is only
> possible under the assumption that you don't live long enough to
> forget it.

For my viewpoint, as knowing how some mnemotechnic methods work, that
statement is funny, it is clear that you have not try it out. As I
said, I will send you few books, just contact privately.

> > If person would not know the meaning of "memory" in the above
> > definition, person would not have the association necessary to
> > understand what would mnemonic mean. The association would be missing,
> > and thus full understanding, because there is no association, when
> > there is a real life need to use the word mnemonic, person would not
> > be able to associate the memorized definition.
> 
> I am not sure what you mean by "full" understanding.
> 
> Is it enough for you to "fully understand" the word "mnemonic" if you
> know what "memory" is?  Or do you need to know that it comes from the
> name of Mnemosyne, the Greek goddess of memory, and mother of the nine
> muses?

Yes, that would be full understanding, to know where it comes from
should be included in definitions. 

> Again: many years of studying mathematics taught me not to use the
> phrase "full understanding".

Mathematics comes often as difficult subject to many, because if the
lack of associations but also lack of discussion or interpretation of
symbols. Would schools and universities emphasise its meaning it would
help students so much.

The proof that you have got a full understanding of something is that
you can practically apply it. Not that you can have a feeling that you
understand it. If person cannot then make whatever mathematical
formula and cannot demonstrate it practically, that is the final test.

Practical demonstration is proof that person has got full understanding.

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/
https://rms-support-letter.github.io/