It's unbelievable that the average human being has access to the lectures of some of the best universities in the world for free. 31 hours of in-depth mathematics by some of the best people in their field.
Although I have always been struggling with keeping up with long lecture playlists. I always try to find shorter videos which explain the concept faster (although probably lacking depth). And end up ditching it halfway as well. Perhaps the real motivation to keep up with the material comes from actually enrolling the university? Has anyone completed such type of lectures by themselves? How do you stay consistent and disciplined?
I find courses in some platforms (coursera/khanacademy) a bit more motivating because they kind of push me with deadlines. I guess I am used to deadline-oriented studying.
I love math, completed a PhD, and am very self-disciplined. But even so, I don't think I would have been able to learn much on my own with video lectures, at least not at the start. For some reason, it seems like you need to reach a "critical mass" of knowledge first before you can do that, and I've observed that a crucial component is being in a program with others, and definitely having a very experienced mentor.
Without a very experienced mentor, I think it's very difficult to get to the independent-learning stage with math. That's the key. You need someone to go through your work, correct you, and make sure you don't go off in a very wrong direction.
So my advice is find at least a graduate student in math to help you. It's like a piano teacher, if you've ever taken piano, you know it's absolutely mandatory to have a teacher. People who self-learn from the start end up being able to play but not very well.
Edit: one other crucial component is time. If you're really interested in knowing something like linear algebra, analysis, or calculus with fluency, expect to spend at least 10 hours per week on it for a year. Two hours per week will give you a cursory and very weak understanding only.
abhink · 1h ago
> But even so, I don't think I would have been able to learn much on my own with video lectures, at least not at the start.
This was exactly my situation. Videos can give you a lot of structured, well presented information. And for MIT courses you'd get this knowledge from the very best. The problem is that no matter how well the subject matter is presented, I would hit some conceptual snag that I couldn't resolve just by repeating the sections in the video.
Now, years ago, to clear up the concepts, I would go to math stack exchange, write down exactly what I wanted to understand using mathjax and hope that someone will provide a detailed enough explanation. Most of the time I did learn from the answers, but sometimes the answer would be too succinct. In such cases there would be a need for a back and forth and stackexchange is not really designed around that usage pattern. This hassle would eventually make me give up the whole endeavor.
Now however there are LLMs. They don't need mathjax to understand what I am talking about and they are pretty good at back and forth. In the past 6 months I have gone through 2 full MIT courses with practice sheets and exams.
So I would encourage anyone who went through the route of self learning via videos and found it to be too cumbersome and lacking to give it another go with your favorite LLM.
j7ake · 1h ago
Like piano it’s important to tackle courses that are appropriate for your level
Self taught people often skip too much of the basics so they struggle to properly tackle the fancy stuff
kindkang2024 · 1h ago
LLM could be the teacher, one of the best already..
ktallett · 1h ago
I would say that you need to start at a lower level when self learning with a simpler resource. Something like Openstax. People get far too obsessed with the name attached to a resource than whether it is the right method of learning.
onetimeuser24 · 3h ago
I got through a few lectures by recognizing that I didn’t have the mathematical training/practice to finish up one video in one sitting. Often times I would need to scurry on over to have some basics explained to me on another site. I did one lecture over several days (weeks if I had to). I think most of the discipline comes from expectation management. Expect to get stuck and need a few moments or days or weeks to mull something over until it becomes more intuitive. Keep a list of things you do and don’t understand (a simple text file / paper is enough) and keep doing it for a few months if you have to and you’ll get there.
t8q8 · 3h ago
I completed an earlier version of this class and found structure to be helpful. Found consistent time and place each day to spend some time learning and that helped a ton, but still had weeks of not touching it so the struggle is real :)
A bit of a side note but I find that the lectures are not the most interesting/useful part of those courses. The problem sets and the time spent trying to solve them ended up solidifying so many ideas that I had fooled myself into believing I understood. So I highly recommend heads-down solving some problems. It sinks much more time than the lectures but you come out of it better off
globalnode · 3h ago
Its so hard to be self disciplined like that, I find I have to enroll to force myself to engage. I know its a weakness.
William_BB · 3h ago
In my experience, coursera/khan academy courses have never been able to compete with a rigorous university course. They're great resources when you need alternative explanations, but never stood up on their own.
I think long lecture playlist is a feature, not a bug. It's much harder to commit to such material when you're not full timing education.
barrenko · 3h ago
My 5 cents, the value of KA is that it gives you some sort of basic curriculum you can follow. To finish calculus (the "basic", single variable) I've had to pull in lots of other books, youtube channels, courses from other universities, but it still has it's worth. It's like a rope bridge over a high river.
Major weaknesses are some cool sections like Linear Algebra that have no exercises in their respective "tree", but that's very rare.
rhubarbtree · 3h ago
“A world class education available for free, to the undistractable.”
There are a few unusual parts, like the last lecture ("Large Deviations"). I'm not familiar with the entire course, but IMO the lecture on state machines is very good; it discusses invariants and uses an approchable example (the 15-puzzle).
If you have never looked at it, the problems there are very nice. For example, instead of some dry boolean logic problem about A and Not(B), you have Problem 3.17 on page 81, which begins:
This problem examines whether the following specifications are satisfiable:
1. If the file system is not locked, then. . .
(a) new messages will be queued.
(b) new messages will be sent to the messages buffer.
(c) the system is functioning normally, and conversely, if the system is
functioning normally, then the file system is not locked.
[...]
(a) Begin by translating the five specifications into propositional
formulas using the four propositional variables [...]
vardhanw · 16m ago
The Units seem to be independent i.e. could be followed in any order. Can someone knowledgeable confirm this? I know Set theory etc is the basis of many things usually in a formal mathematical setting, hence asking.
mturmon · 4h ago
I was also pleased to see large deviations, although the lecture notes don’t actually define what a large deviation is.
They do give an example of a Chernoff (exponential) bound for a sum of iid random variables. The bound of course has an exponential form - they just don’t call it a large deviation. So it’s a bit of a missed opportunity, oven that the name is in the chapter title.
These bounds come up all over the place in CS, but especially lately in learning theory.
dernett · 1h ago
I'm going to try formalizing this course in Lean--not sure how hard it is going to be. If anyone is interested in doing the same, please feel free to contribute!
A lot of these topics sound interesting, though I think the average software engineer needs approximately none of that. When I first started programming, I was surprised how little mathematics was involved in practice.
Of course, these MIT lectures are aimed at computer scientists, not software engineers, which US universities consider to be quite different.
Although I have always been struggling with keeping up with long lecture playlists. I always try to find shorter videos which explain the concept faster (although probably lacking depth). And end up ditching it halfway as well. Perhaps the real motivation to keep up with the material comes from actually enrolling the university? Has anyone completed such type of lectures by themselves? How do you stay consistent and disciplined?
I find courses in some platforms (coursera/khanacademy) a bit more motivating because they kind of push me with deadlines. I guess I am used to deadline-oriented studying.
If anyone else is struggling with attention span and is looking for shorter lectures (although they may not have the same depth): https://www.youtube.com/@ProfessorDaveExplains/playlists
Without a very experienced mentor, I think it's very difficult to get to the independent-learning stage with math. That's the key. You need someone to go through your work, correct you, and make sure you don't go off in a very wrong direction.
So my advice is find at least a graduate student in math to help you. It's like a piano teacher, if you've ever taken piano, you know it's absolutely mandatory to have a teacher. People who self-learn from the start end up being able to play but not very well.
Edit: one other crucial component is time. If you're really interested in knowing something like linear algebra, analysis, or calculus with fluency, expect to spend at least 10 hours per week on it for a year. Two hours per week will give you a cursory and very weak understanding only.
This was exactly my situation. Videos can give you a lot of structured, well presented information. And for MIT courses you'd get this knowledge from the very best. The problem is that no matter how well the subject matter is presented, I would hit some conceptual snag that I couldn't resolve just by repeating the sections in the video.
Now, years ago, to clear up the concepts, I would go to math stack exchange, write down exactly what I wanted to understand using mathjax and hope that someone will provide a detailed enough explanation. Most of the time I did learn from the answers, but sometimes the answer would be too succinct. In such cases there would be a need for a back and forth and stackexchange is not really designed around that usage pattern. This hassle would eventually make me give up the whole endeavor.
Now however there are LLMs. They don't need mathjax to understand what I am talking about and they are pretty good at back and forth. In the past 6 months I have gone through 2 full MIT courses with practice sheets and exams.
So I would encourage anyone who went through the route of self learning via videos and found it to be too cumbersome and lacking to give it another go with your favorite LLM.
Self taught people often skip too much of the basics so they struggle to properly tackle the fancy stuff
A bit of a side note but I find that the lectures are not the most interesting/useful part of those courses. The problem sets and the time spent trying to solve them ended up solidifying so many ideas that I had fooled myself into believing I understood. So I highly recommend heads-down solving some problems. It sinks much more time than the lectures but you come out of it better off
I think long lecture playlist is a feature, not a bug. It's much harder to commit to such material when you're not full timing education.
Major weaknesses are some cool sections like Linear Algebra that have no exercises in their respective "tree", but that's very rare.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/6-1200j-mathematics-for-computer...
Lecture notes:
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/6-1200j-mathematics-for-computer...
There are a few unusual parts, like the last lecture ("Large Deviations"). I'm not familiar with the entire course, but IMO the lecture on state machines is very good; it discusses invariants and uses an approchable example (the 15-puzzle).
Text (last revised 2018): https://courses.csail.mit.edu/6.042/spring18/mcs.pdf
If you have never looked at it, the problems there are very nice. For example, instead of some dry boolean logic problem about A and Not(B), you have Problem 3.17 on page 81, which begins:
They do give an example of a Chernoff (exponential) bound for a sum of iid random variables. The bound of course has an exponential form - they just don’t call it a large deviation. So it’s a bit of a missed opportunity, oven that the name is in the chapter title.
These bounds come up all over the place in CS, but especially lately in learning theory.
https://github.com/dernett/Lean61200J
Of course, these MIT lectures are aimed at computer scientists, not software engineers, which US universities consider to be quite different.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/6-1200j-mathematics-for-computer...
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP61VNvICqk2H...