Physics education for all

[Shaw]

I've always believed that the difference between those who know things and those who don't is access to information. And that on a level playing field, we could all pretty much know whatever we truly wanted to know. But while books are a wonderful resource, lectures on any given subject are even better.

Usually lectures require money (tuition) or at the very least time (rearranging your schedule to match a class's schedule)... but not any more!

I started out as a physics major at UCSD, but because I started falling in love with the geometric foundations of General Relativity I switched over to mathematics. So while I would love for this thread to be about how to reach some of my favorite areas of mathematics (specifically topics in differential geometry and differential topology), what I have found so far is actually best suited for those interested in physics (to about the equivalence of a bachelors in the subject).

Foundations...
I really want this to be inclusive, but in the end some background has to be assumed. So for this, I am assuming that you've had a first and second course in calculus (covering single variable calculus, analytic geometry and multivariable calculus). These courses are generally followed by a first course in linear algebra and differential equations, both of which are included in the lower division materials linked to below. I don't know of a place to get the calculus stuff online, but high school calculus (AP Calculus AB and BC) or even those offered at a community college level should cover everything one would need in this area.

If you have had any of this stuff before (and most science and engineering students have the same type of lower division course work as I recall), then skip what you don't need and start up at the first course where you feel the material is new for you.

The upper division classical mechanics is an important subject, and some people will assume that the term classical means it is stuff that can be skipped... believe me, it shouldn't be skipped! This is usually people's first introduction to both Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics (which I don't recall being part of most lower division physics courses).

General Relativity is covered, but I've always felt that the subject can only be best understood by those who have taken the time to really learn the mathematics behind the subject. Unfortunately, I can't (currently) find any good lecture resources of the topics I would want to include. So the best I can do here is recommend some courses that you might be able to sit in on during the latter part of the upper division course work listed here. These courses would include classical differential geometry (upper division math), calculus on manifolds (upper division math), differentiable manifolds (graduate level math), Riemannian geometry (graduate level math) and integration on manifolds (graduate level math).

For other areas of physics I would recommend a course in modern algebra (upper division math, for an introduction to group theory) and complex analysis (upper division math). Between the differential geometry and group theory background one should have the foundations needed to start studying Lie Groups and Lie Algebras (graduate level math), all of which have applications in gauge theories.

If I come across any of the courses I think are missing, I'll add them into this thread.

The courses...
I think that this list of courses is fine if what you are looking for is increased knowledge. In fact, just watching the courses, with or without taking notes and watching some segments more than once (if you don't get a clear understanding the first time) would be more than enough if you aren't planning on doing research or the like in this area.

You can take these materials even further, of course, but at some point I would hope that someone investing a lot of their time into this would realize that they really might want to jump into a real university environment and work towards a degree in this area.

Lower Division Courses

Physics:

• Physics I - Mechanics (MIT) (additional online materials)
• Physics II - Electricity & Magnetism (MIT) (additional online materials)
• Physics III - Vibrations & Waves (MIT) (additional online materials)
• Introductory Astronomy (Michigan Tech)
• Saturday Morning Physics (University of Michigan)

Mathematics:

• Linear Algebra (MIT) (additional online materials)
• Differential Equations (MIT) (additional online materials)

Upper Division Courses

Physics:

• Modern Physics- The Theoretical Minimum, Classical and Quantum Mechanics (Stanford)
• Modern Theoretical Physics- Quantum Entanglement (Stanford)

Mathematics:

• Mathematical Methods for Engineers I (MIT) (additional online materials)
• Mathematical Methods for Engineers II (MIT) (additional online materials)

Graduate Courses

Physics:

• Exploring Black Holes- General Relativity & Astrophysics (MIT) (additional online materials)

 

[FalTorPan]

I started out as a physics major at UCSD, but because I started falling in love with the geometric foundations of General Relativity I switched over to mathematics.

A fellow physics geek, eh? I double-majored in physics and computer science.

 

[Daedalus12]

In addition to Hamilton and Lagrangian I think Hamilton-Jacobi should also be included.

Functional Analysis and Topology. I don't think people should jump into manifolds and differential geometry without being solid in those two areas. A special course focusing only on Hilbert spaces would be very nice. Also add another course on Calculus of Variations in addition to Functional Analysis.

My background is in aerospace controls so the math requirement is a bit different from that of physics although so far I see the difference is very slight. In our case the differential geometry and manifolds topics aren't really used to do general relativity analysis but rather to do geometric control. Overall I think you've covered most of what is necessary.

Interesting that you mentioned Lie Algebra since one very useful application of it is the development of optimal automatic parallel parking control.

 

[JoeZhang]

I really want this to be inclusive, but in the end some background has to be assumed. So for this, I am assuming that you've had a first and second course in calculus (covering single variable calculus, analytic geometry and multivariable calculus). These courses are generally followed by a first course in linear algebra and differential equations.

This requirement would make 90% of the students in the UK ineligible to take your course.

 

[Lindley]

That's about half a Carnegie Mellon math minor, really.

Although I never took a class specifically on differential equations as a math major. And I'm not 100% sure what you're referring to under "analytic geometry".

 

[Shaw]

A fellow physics geek, eh? I double-majored in physics and computer science.

Cool! I didn't start having an interest in computers until around 1994 when I started having easy access to SGI, NeXT and Sun workstations.

Functional Analysis and Topology. I don't think people should jump into manifolds and differential geometry without being solid in those two areas.

Actually, I can't imagine why you would want those first... classical differential geometry doesn't require any of that, and it is the intuition developed there that makes the most difference when moving beyond the ideas of surfaces in euclidean space. There are people who are great at math, but most of them have often substituted seeing what is happening by building up a huge structure between them and their subject.

Half of my issue with how general relativity is still taught today is the fact that they teach the subject with tensor laden mathematics which is best suited for accountants. Most physicist have no geometric intuition for general relativity because they are brought to the subject using mathematics which practically beats the geometry of what is happening out of what is being learned. At the end of those courses the students may be able to calculate the path of a particle, but they have completely missed the global nature of what is happening.

For example... what is a covariant derivative? What does it mean geometrically? Does knowing how to take the covariant derivative mean that you know what your answer actually means (geometrically)? And when introduced in other subjects, most of the time they are only concerned with the case where it is zero (and the path is a geodesic), but what about the non-zero cases?

Going back to the basics is the easiest thing in the world. The first derivative of a path function gives you the tangent vector. The second derivative gives you the curvature vector. If the path exist on some two surface, then the projection of the second derivative vector onto the tangent plane of the surface at that point gives you the intrinsic curvature of the path on that surface.

Other than missing a chalk board to help with drawings of what was said, I just covered a massive amount of differential geometry in 69 words with no equations. Once you start associating what is happening with mathematical notation, then you can start to see what is happening (what is being described) within equations in different places. And when you start forgetting that you are looking at mathematical notation and start to see what is being described in your imagination, that is when so many things open up (for me it was when math went from a chore to a form of art).

For me, intuition has always come first, the rigors of the mathematics second (of course, I do pure mathematics, not applied, which makes a massive difference in how I look at things).

And that right there is most likely the biggest difference in how we are seeing these subjects... I'm looking at this as the ability to finally understand these areas of physics (and mathematics) for people, not for them to start doing research at home. Mathematics is both a language and a tool, and the language aspect can be built up without having to be able to use it as a precise tool... heck if all language was taught like how most people teach math, we'd all have to be lawyers to speak in public.

At the same time, don't mistake my disagreement on what should lead to what as a dislike of any given topic. I, for example, love topology... specially aspects of homotopy theory (which often comes into play in the research I was doing).

Interesting that you mentioned Lie Algebra since one very useful application of it is the development of optimal automatic parallel parking control.

Wow! That is interesting. I rarely see any of this stuff applied anywhere because I've spent most of my time out in the frontiers of mathematics. I highly doubt that any of the stuff I've worked on in my life will ever be applied within my lifetime. It is sad to think that many of the people that helped develop some of the foundations of differential geometry in the 19th century didn't live to see their mathematics first applied to relativity and later gauge theories (starting with Yang-Mills Theory which applies connections on fiber bundles).

I get a big kick out of watching Numb3rs just for the sake of seeing the stuff applied to different types of problems. I think I shied away from anything that could be generally applied because of when I've seen applications of people's work go terribly astray of what the creators had intended.

I helped with a number of differentiable manifolds courses in which the course was for many of the graduate students their first introduction to the subject. I found that one article in American Mathematical Monthly provided the best way to bring them up to speed on the topic. It is called The Geometry of Connections by Millman and Stehney (from May of 1973).

This requirement would make 90% of the students in the UK ineligible to take your course.

Ideally I would love to be able to put up pre-calculus and calculus courses. Those resources would be helpful both here and for many of my clients with kids in high school or starting college.

I did come across a very interesting textbook a couple years ago called Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Differential Forms by Hubbard and Hubbard. It is interesting in that differential forms is the primary area of study in the calculus on manifolds course I took 18 years ago (we used Flanders for that course).

But as for 90% of people not having taken calculus... I honestly can't blame them if it was taught the way I had it in high school. It was painful, and the only reason I took it was so I could be in AP Physics B my junior year and AP Physics C my senior year. It wasn't until I got past teachers teaching by rote that I started loving mathematics.

While I was at UCSD and the NSF Geometry Center I helped a few of my professors (John Conway, Peter Doyle, Bill Thurston and Michael Freedman) with a course called Geometry and the Imagination which was designed to help people seeing many of the more interesting aspects of geometry and topology. The way the course was taught at UCSD when I was there was that there were two courses... Math 17 and Math 117, both taught in the same room, but one was for secondary school teachers while the other was for mathematics majors. The people in the 117 course were expected to help out with the people taking the 17 course as much as possible. The UCSD course was taught by Peter Doyle and Michael Freedman during the Spring of 94, but John Conway did pop in for a week to help out.

I always hoped that the teachers that took that course would drop interesting aspects of mathematics into their high school classes to let students know the type of stuff that awaits them beyond the seemingly endless series of problems sets and exams.

Although I never took a class specifically on differential equations as a math major. And I'm not 100% sure what you're referring to under "analytic geometry".

I guess I just assumed that because it is part of the California community college system, the California State University system and University of California, that differential equations was sort of a universal part of lower division course work everywhere. The MIT course seems pretty much like the one I recall taking. There was an upper division course on partial differential equations that I know a lot of physics (and engineering) majors took when I was at UCSD. I sat in on it (but didn't take it for credit), and it introduced topics like Fourier series.

I hope that I'm not dating myself with the term analytic geometry... it is just a description of the geometric motivations of calculus. Most high school and first year college textbooks back when I was young had the same generic name... Calculus and Analytic Geometry. I used just such a book in high school by Shenk.

The fact that anyone would forget the geometry in early calculus courses shows just how badly early math courses can be. I practically slept through (and barely passed) my high school and lower division math courses. My differential equations teacher was quite good, but I could hardly stand the rest. It wasn't until I took Classical Differential Geometry that mathematics opened up for me. And I had already taken Classical Differential Geometry, Calculus on Manifolds, Differentiable Manifolds, Riemannian Geometry, Integration on Manifolds, Lie Circular Geometry, Clifford Algebras and Projective Geometry before I finally switch to being a math major. And it didn't hurt that the math department had also pulled some strings to actually get me into UCSD either.

But yeah, had anyone asked me if I would have considered majoring in mathematics based on my experiences with high school or lower division mathematics... the answer would have been an energetic no.


Which, by the way, is another way of saying how good I've found the MIT courses on linear algebra and differential equations. I've watched about a half dozen lectures from each and haven't found them the least bit painful.

 

[Lindley]

Oh, they went over the geometric underpinnings of calculus in my AP Calc class in high school....I may have missed the corresponding class in college.

And differential equations was offered by the math track at CMU, it just wasn't required. One of those take-one-of-A,B,C situations. My concentration was discreet math & logic, though.

 

[Shaw]

My concentration was discreet math & logic, though.

That sounds like a great major. I had a friend who when into Combinatorics... it wasn't long before I couldn't follow what she was working on after she headed in that direction. I envy people who have a head for that type of stuff (because I sure don't).

 

[Shaw]

I came across another nice MIT course... It is a lower division Chemistry course that would (in my opinion) help with rounding out a physics background.

Principles of Chemical Science (or here for a less math intensive version of the same course)

Description: 5.112 is an introductory chemistry course for students with an unusually strong background in chemistry. Knowledge of calculus equivalent to 18.01 is recommended. Emphasis is on basic principles of atomic and molecular electronic structure, thermodynamics, acid-base and redox equilibria, chemical kinetics, and catalysis. The course also covers applications of basic principles to problems in metal coordination chemistry, organic chemistry, and biological chemistry.​

There is also this graduate level course on Quantum Mechanics (which I haven't watched any of yet, but I'm including anyways)....

Introductory Quantum Mechanics

Description: This course covers time-dependent quantum mechanics and spectroscopy. Topics include perturbation theory, two-level systems, light-matter interactions, relaxation in quantum systems, correlation functions and linear response theory, and nonlinear spectroscopy.​

Oh... and I haven't given up on trying to find some decent pre-calculus and calculus courses, I just haven't found anything that includes a video lecture series with them.

 

[Shaw]

Here is another interesting course, aimed at high school level and above this time...

Gödel, Escher, Bach: A Mental Space Odyssey (Real Player videos)

Description: What do one mathematician, one artist, and one musician all have in common? Are you interested in zen Buddhism, math, fractals, logic, paradoxes, infinities, art, language, computer science, physics, music, intelligence, consciousness and unified theories? Get ready to chase me down a rabbit hole into Douglas Hofstadter's Pulitzer Prize winning book Gödel, Escher, Bach. Lectures will be a place for crazy ideas to bounce around as we try to pace our way through this enlightening tome. You will be responsible for most of the reading as lectures will consist primarily of motivating the material and encouraging discussion. I advise everyone seriously interested to buy the book, grab on and get ready for a mind-expanding voyage into higher dimensions of recursive thinking.​

While this isn't that much of a physics topic, it is still an interesting one (at least for me).


Just out of curiosity... has anyone been watching any of these lectures? Are they helpful?

I'm sort of an information junkie, so I personally can't get enough of this stuff. I stumbled across these about 7 weeks ago and I've watched a little more than 150 hours worth so far. And that isn't just the science and math stuff that I've put up here, but also courses on philosophy and history too.

Just wondering if anyone else is seeing this as a virtual gold mine like me. Considering the amount of money I've spent (and still owe) on course work and books in my lifetime, this stuff is like winning the lottery for me.

 

[Deleted 2]

Yes, but it's all on iTunes, which makes it impossible to download for people who don't have it. Wake me up when it's on youtube somewhere.

 

[Shaw]

Yes, but it's all on iTunes, which makes it impossible to download for people who don't have it. Wake me up when it's on youtube somewhere.

WAKE UP ARTHUR FRAYN!​

This stuff is anything but limited to iTunes.

I did provide links to the original MIT pages for each of those courses, which included alternate ways of viewing beyond iTunes... but if it helps, here is the list of all their courses that include any AV content. And if you specifically have no ability to view video in any other form other than as a streaming YouTube video (which is hard to imagine as I have watched a lot of these on a laptop from 1998... which puts me as out of the technology mainstream as possible), then maybe the MIT Playlists will prove helpful for you.

The iTunes method was the fastest and easiest way to download all of the materials in one shot. It is free and the files don't require iTunes to watch. I can't imagine that anyone who saw value in this would let iTunes stand between them and this information. Or wouldn't have looked into it further at the mere suggestion that this stuff is even around.

Do you know what set me off on this? An off handed comment in an article...

Robert X. Cringely: "MIT threw videos of all its lecture courses - ALL its lecture courses - up on the web for anyone to watch for free. This was precisely comparable to SGI (remember them?) licensing OpenGL to Microsoft. What is it, then, that makes an MIT education worth $34,986? Is it the seminars that aren't on the web? Faculty guidance? Research experience? Getting drunk and falling in the Charles River without your pants? Right now it is all those things plus a dimensionless concept of educational quality, which might well go out the window if some venture capitalist with too much money decides to fund an ISO certification process not for schools but for students."​

That was all I needed to hear to sent me hunting down everything that I've posted in this thread so far! A small kernel of knowledge that this type of thing was even available at all. I didn't even finish hearing the end of that paragraph before I was searching out these MIT materials.

And here I've fleshed out that idea in this thread and that wasn't enough? You actually still require more hand holding to actually get you to this?

Why is it that hearing about video lectures from MIT was enough to let me find everything I've posted here, but direct links to most of these materials (organized into a form that covers at least physics quite nicely) wasn't enough to keep you awake?

Sorry, we may not have touch teaching yet, but free access to information is still pretty darn amazing in my book!

 

[Daedalus12]

Shaw you do realize not all of us are Windows/Mac users right? If MIT is truly about free flow of information then they wouldn't use a piece of shit software known as iTunes to restrict it. Why not provide a direct http folder link to all the videos so a simple command like wget -r -l 1 <link> would fetch all the videos?

 

[TerriO]

Actually, opinions on iTunes aside, if you consider the market penetration iPods/iPhones have nowadays, is distributing the information in that manner really that bad an idea?

Sure, the more technically inclined are going to know other software, and use other OSes, but if you're looking to get the information out in the easies manner possible to the most people, it does make a bit of sense.

 

[Shaw]

Shaw you do realize not all of us are Windows/Mac users right?

Absolutely... and anyone who isn't a Windows/Mac user should already be well aware of working around such issues. If you aren't proficient at using Linux, then use a platform which might suit you better. I'm mainly a Mac user and I KNOW I could access a majority of this material on either a Linux or Solaris system.

If MIT is truly about free flow of information then they wouldn't use a piece of shit software known as iTunes to restrict it. Why not provide a direct http folder link to all the videos so a simple command like wget -r -l 1 <link> would fetch all the videos?

The distribution of these materials on iTunes was an afterthought to MIT's Open CourseWare project... but you seem to want to whine about this fact rather than taking the steps to enable yourself.

So if you are using platform as an excuse here, then the real problem lies with you.


Just to make sure that we see clearly on this... I use IRIX, Solaris, OPENSTEP and Rhapsody based systems, and other than Solaris these platforms are far smaller and less supported than Linux is today (I'm pretty much the last real Rhapsody user on the planet). If you want to use a minority platform, you have to be able to find solutions to problems on your own. If you aren't able to do that, then maybe you should be using Windows. Because ANY other platform is a minority by comparison right now.

As I spend so much of my time on platforms that make Linux seem absolutely mainstream by comparison, I provided the additional links to make sure that even Linux users would have access to most of this stuff.

But that wasn't enough for you guys? I started with nothing more than the comment "MIT threw videos of all its lecture courses - ALL its lecture courses - up on the web for anyone to watch for free." I didn't know what to expect (for all I knew, these would have required some special Windows-only media player), but with less information than I provided here, I put together enough for most platforms to access these materials.


And if it wasn't clear, Daedalus12, I'm truly disillusioned by you and your comments right now.

 

[Daedalus12]

Shaw you do realize not all of us are Windows/Mac users right?

Absolutely... and anyone who isn't a Windows/Mac user should already be well aware of working around such issues. If you aren't proficient at using Linux, then use a platform which might suit you better. I'm mainly a Mac user and I KNOW I could access a majority of this material on either a Linux or Solaris system.

What is the most universal tool on everyone's machine? It sure as hell ain't iTunes but a http client like a browser or wget.

The distribution of these materials on iTunes was an afterthought to MIT's Open CourseWare project... but you seem to want to whine about this fact rather than taking the steps to enable yourself.

I don't need the lessons myself since I took the majority of the math stuff you've listed. But of course at least the Open CourseWare project had a good sense of just providing direct http links.

So if you are using platform as an excuse here, then the real problem lies with you.

Just to make sure that we see clearly on this... I use IRIX, Solaris, OPENSTEP and Rhapsody based systems, and other than Solaris these platforms are far smaller and less supported than Linux is today (I'm pretty much the last real Rhapsody user on the planet). If you want to use a minority platform, you have to be able to find solutions to problems on your own. If you aren't able to do that, then maybe you should be using Windows. Because ANY other platform is a minority by comparison right now.

I use Solaris, Gentoo, Debian, BSD, and OSX on a daily basis. I am well versed in the *nix universe thank you very much. Don't fucking tell me what I can or can't use. I simply object to MIT using an completely unnecessary 3rd party software when a simpler solution would do just fine. What happened to the good old fashion of you know just putting the links on a web page and then allowing people to download it using any http client. Is that too much to ask?

And if it wasn't clear, Daedalus12, I'm truly disillusioned by you and your comments right now.

You got to be the most easily disillusioned person on the planet.

 

[Shaw]

What is the most universal tool on everyone's machine? It sure as hell ain't iTunes but a http client like a browser or wget.

Again, for anyone who wanted the materials, that option was available... you just choose to ignore it as an excuse to display some form of angry bias.

I use Solaris, Gentoo, Debian, BSD, and OSX on a daily basis. I am well versed in the *nix universe thank you very much. Don't fucking tell me what I can or can't use. I simply object to MIT using an completely unnecessary 3rd party software when a simpler solution would do just fine. What happened to the good old fashion of you know just putting the links on a web page and then allowing people to download it using any http client. Is that too much to ask?

I didn't tell you to use anything, merely suggested that if you aren't up to the challenge of clicking on links in a browser that maybe you might need a computer that assumes you are so challenged.

And yeah, I don't think we can assume you know any of those platforms (based on your word) as anyone with that experience wouldn't have had any issue with clicking links in a browser... which, after all, is truly the step here that seems to have tripped you up so much. There are a number of Linux for Dummies types of books out there, and some of them may even include discussions on topics like using a web browser and the like.



Originally I wouldn't have thought that you required such assistance, but now I'm just not so sure.

You got to be the most easily disillusioned person on the planet.

No... I had assumed you were of an intelligence level based on your first post in this thread that you obviously aren't, and so yes, I am disillusioned by this.

But you are who you are (and you aren't who I thought you were), so your short comings are strictly a disappointment for me while they are simply a fact of life for you. I guess this is what I get for assuming you might know anything at all. I'll endeavor to not make such a mistake in the future with you.

And on that note...

I don't need the lessons myself since I took the majority of the math stuff you've listed.

Can we really be sure of this? You claim to know Solaris, Gentoo, Debian, BSD, and OSX, yet are showing a lack of ability to even master web browsing... maybe you need those math courses more than you think.

 

[Deleted 2]

Why is it that hearing about video lectures from MIT was enough to let me find everything I've posted here, but direct links to most of these materials (organized into a form that covers at least physics quite nicely) wasn't enough to keep you awake?

Sorry, we may not have touch teaching yet, but free access to information is still pretty darn amazing in my book!

I think your last statement is the most fundamental source for our disagreement then. I find nothing particularly amazing to free access to information. I have a library membership card, and I can go to any particular university library to look up information and textbooks about the stuff you posted. I have also had access to the internet for the last eight years of my life, so if I want the compressed form, I know I can look it up on Mathworld or even Wikipedia, and a quick google search will turn up any number of sites with course notes from numerous universities worldwide.

I don't know if this gives you the impression that you've just tossed pearls before a drift of ungrateful swine, but the majority of people do not study physics because they're not interested, and because they have reasonable doubts about their ability to understand it, not because information about it is hard to find.

So, in summary, I did not explode in orgasm when reading your first post, nor did I cry bitter tears of loss when I found your links inaccessible to me.
Speaking as a bored web surfer, your links fell slightly above my Interest Threshold before clicking on them, and fell slightly below my Interest Threshold when I found out they're only accessible to people who use Steve Jobs' happy software (daedalus12 is right about that being a somewhat questionable decision).

And that's it really. Don't get me wrong, I think this thread is a wonderful idea, and will undoubtedly very useful to some people.

 

[Daedalus12]

What is the most universal tool on everyone's machine? It sure as hell ain't iTunes but a http client like a browser or wget.

Again, for anyone who wanted the materials, that option was available... you just choose to ignore it as an excuse to display some form of angry bias.

Again answer the question. Which one is more universal?

I use Solaris, Gentoo, Debian, BSD, and OSX on a daily basis. I am well versed in the *nix universe thank you very much. Don't fucking tell me what I can or can't use. I simply object to MIT using an completely unnecessary 3rd party software when a simpler solution would do just fine. What happened to the good old fashion of you know just putting the links on a web page and then allowing people to download it using any http client. Is that too much to ask?

I didn't tell you to use anything, merely suggested that if you aren't up to the challenge of clicking on links in a browser that maybe you might need a computer that assumes you are so challenged.

WTF are you smoking? The majority of links you provided required iTunes for downloading.

And you missed my point completely. Basically if i am in your shoes I would've just provided direct links i.e like this.

And yeah, I don't think we can assume you know any of those platforms (based on your word) as anyone with that experience wouldn't have had any issue with clicking links in a browser... which, after all, is truly the step here that seems to have tripped you up so much. There are a number of Linux for Dummies types of books out there, and some of them may even include discussions on topics like using a web browser and the like.

Ugh? I was the one who argued that it should be kept to a minimum such as clicking a http link in a browser. You are the one who insisted there is nothing wrong with the iTunes links.

Originally I wouldn't have thought that you required such assistance, but now I'm just not so sure.

WTF?? Where did I say that I need assistance? I was merely pointing out that using iTunes is a bad decision on MIT's part because it's not universal.

No... I had assumed you were of an intelligence level based on your first post in this thread that you obviously aren't, and so yes, I am disillusioned by this.

But you are who you are (and you aren't who I thought you were), so your short comings are strictly a disappointment for me while they are simply a fact of life for you. I guess this is what I get for assuming you might know anything at all. I'll endeavor to not make such a mistake in the future with you.

And on that note...

Can we really be sure of this? You claim to know Solaris, Gentoo, Debian, BSD, and OSX, yet are showing a lack of ability to even master web browsing... maybe you need those math courses more than you think.

Seriously mate you really have a fucking reading comprehension problem if your interpretation of my previous post is that I have problems web browsing.

I think your last statement is the most fundamental source for our disagreement then. I find nothing particularly amazing to free access to information. I have a library membership card, and I can go to any particular university library to look up information and textbooks about the stuff you posted. I have also had access to the internet for the last eight years of my life, so if I want the compressed form, I know I can look it up on Mathworld or even Wikipedia, and a quick google search will turn up any number of sites with course notes from numerous universities worldwide.

I have to echo this sentiment myself as I am a grad student at a large engineering school so I do have free access to tons of technical literatures (AIAA, IEEE you name it) and ample amount of math/engineering books.

 

[Shaw]

I think your last statement is the most fundamental source for our disagreement then. I find nothing particularly amazing to free access to information. I have a library membership card, and I can go to any particular university library to look up information and textbooks about the stuff you posted. I have also had access to the internet for the last eight years of my life, so if I want the compressed form, I know I can look it up on Mathworld or even Wikipedia, and a quick google search will turn up any number of sites with course notes from numerous universities worldwide.

I have tons of books covering all those areas and more, and have had access to the web for 15 years (back when it was strictly the domain of educational institutions), but as I pointed out, attending courses requires either tuition or at the least a rearranging of one's schedule to attend... free video lectures online remove both barriers.

Threshold when I found out they're only accessible to people who use Steve Jobs' happy software (daedalus12 is right about that being a somewhat questionable decision).

Well, the fact that this means little to you most likely is the greatest factor as any statement that MIT's materials are only accessible via iTunes (or Steve Jobs' happy software) is erroneous.

Again answer the question. Which one is more universal?

If possible I provided both... but it isn't my problem (nor am I going to censure myself because of it) if the other institutions didn't provide the same access as MIT to alternatives.

WTF are you smoking? The majority of links you provided required iTunes for downloading.

And you missed my point completely. Basically if i am in your shoes I would've just provided direct links i.e like this.

You are having more reading comprehension issues than I... where ever possible, I provided both HTTP and iTunes links. ALL of the MIT materials included the additional links.

Here... I'll wait while you go back to the top of the thread and reread what I posted. Interesting how that stuff is already there.

But as you volunteered... please provide unique links to every individual lecture provided by MIT that I listed so far. That would be what... over 300 individual links.

Thanks ahead of time for doing that for us!

Ugh? I was the one who argued that it should be kept to a minimum such as clicking a http link in a browser. You are the one who insisted there is nothing wrong with the iTunes links.

You were arguing that they weren't there... I'm saying that they were there from the beginning and that you are unable to work your browser well enough to take advantage of them.

You argued for what I had already provided so that you could attack iTunes. Either that was because you were looking for an issue or you have no idea how to click links... I assumed you were having issues with browsing as the other would have been to pull the thread off topic for your own personal bias.

WTF?? Where did I say that I need assistance? I was merely pointing out that using iTunes is a bad decision on MIT's part because it's not universal.

Again, either you couldn't follow links or you wanted to start a fight here... I assumed you weren't looking for a fight, so incompetence with browsing seemed the obvious choice.

Seriously mate you really have a fucking reading comprehension problem if your interpretation of my previous post is that I have problems web browsing.

I didn't, I knew full well that you were attempting to push your agenda in this thread. Why else would you've argued for what was always there as if it wasn't?

But of course, as you brought it up, reading comprehension might be at the heart of this problem.

Can you read? Did you miss the links I provided? Did you miss them again after I said they were there? Did you further miss them despite the repeated attempt to point them out?

See, I associate a person's reading ability with their writing ability... and people who use terms such as "shit" or "fucking" most likely have a very low vocabulary, so I simply assumed you are such a person based on your need to resort to such terms.


Hmmmm...

I'm starting to realize that you guys were never interested in the topic of this thread at all... you were looking for an excuse to attack something you have a bias against. I provided links to MIT's original pages (which had no Apple encumbrances) and even provided a link to their YouTube account... and yet each of these post returns to the totally off topic subject of iTunes.

If you aren't interested in the topic and are only interested in attacking Apple, please find some where else to post those opinions. This thread is a resource for those who want the resource... if you have no need of it, then the very least you guys could do is not post rather than pull it off topic.