> If you're writing proofs, why not do it formally?
Because that requires learning a formal proof-verification language. I'm certainly interested in that, but it is a distraction from learning undergraduate mathematics.
> If you're working with graphical concepts, why not code them up, or use a drawing program (or hey, a graphing calculator) rather than pulling out a ruler and such (and maybe learning to draw at all if you don't know how)?
> If you have sloppy handwriting (as I'm sure many of us here do), why not type in something you'll always be able to read later? (Along with whomever you show it to -- I did a lot of college homework using LaTeX. With macros I could do things way more efficiently, with comments I could go back and see what I was thinking at a misstep (if I wrote anything).)
I'm confused; my post was advocating using software, so I'm unclear why you're suggesting I use software.
> A lot of the old methods of learning actually work and so the advice is sound to strictly adhere to them when you're having struggles.
What is that, a flat contradiction of my post?
Very strange, maybe you meant to reply to a different post?
My post was mainly adding agreement to yours with more specifics, "you" used is the "generic you".
> it is a distraction from learning undergraduate mathematics
Arguably so is LaTeX. But it's desirable that students (or just people learning the same material, later) spend some of their undergraduate time learning new things, right? And not just because it's new, but hopefully because it's better. Learning new/different things is just a small step further beyond learning old things with new/different assistants. And maybe some things will have to be cut out, like 17th century prose-proofs (edit: and even just moving to structured proofs without full formal tools is an improvement...), or square roots by hand (http://www.theodoregray.com/BrainRot/)
Because that requires learning a formal proof-verification language. I'm certainly interested in that, but it is a distraction from learning undergraduate mathematics.
> If you're working with graphical concepts, why not code them up, or use a drawing program (or hey, a graphing calculator) rather than pulling out a ruler and such (and maybe learning to draw at all if you don't know how)?
> If you have sloppy handwriting (as I'm sure many of us here do), why not type in something you'll always be able to read later? (Along with whomever you show it to -- I did a lot of college homework using LaTeX. With macros I could do things way more efficiently, with comments I could go back and see what I was thinking at a misstep (if I wrote anything).)
I'm confused; my post was advocating using software, so I'm unclear why you're suggesting I use software.
> A lot of the old methods of learning actually work and so the advice is sound to strictly adhere to them when you're having struggles.
What is that, a flat contradiction of my post?
Very strange, maybe you meant to reply to a different post?