Deduce is a proof checker designed specifically for educational settings. It aims to bridge the gap between informal mathematical reasoning and formal proof construction by providing a simple, accessible interface and a focused set of logical connectives. Its primary goal is to teach the core concepts of formal logic and proof techniques without overwhelming users with complex syntax or advanced features. The system supports natural deduction style proofs and offers immediate feedback, guiding students through the process of building valid arguments step-by-step. Deduce prioritizes clarity and ease of use to make learning formal logic more engaging and less daunting.
Steve Losh's "Teach, Don't Tell" advocates for a more effective approach to conveying technical information, particularly in programming tutorials. Instead of simply listing steps ("telling"), he encourages explaining the why behind each action, empowering learners to adapt and solve future problems independently. This involves revealing the author's thought process, exploring alternative approaches, and highlighting potential pitfalls. By focusing on the underlying principles and rationale, tutorials become less about rote memorization and more about fostering genuine understanding and problem-solving skills.
Hacker News users generally agreed with the "teach, don't tell" philosophy for giving feedback, particularly in programming. Several commenters shared anecdotes about its effectiveness in mentoring and code reviews, highlighting the benefits of guiding someone to a solution rather than simply providing it. Some discussed the importance of patience and understanding the learner's perspective. One compelling comment pointed out the subtle difference between explaining how to do something versus why it should be done a certain way, emphasizing the latter as key to fostering true understanding. Another cautioned against taking the principle to an extreme, noting that sometimes directly telling is the most efficient approach. A few commenters also appreciated the article's emphasis on avoiding assumptions about the learner's knowledge.
Facing a terminal cancer diagnosis, Stanford professor Bryant Lin refused to abandon his students. Instead, he integrated his experience with esophageal cancer into his final course, "Living With Cancer," offering a uniquely personal and real-time perspective on the disease. He openly shared his treatment journey, physical struggles, and emotional reflections, providing students with invaluable insights into the medical, social, and ethical dimensions of cancer. Lin's dedication to teaching and his willingness to be vulnerable transformed his classroom into a space of shared humanity and learning, inspiring students even as he confronted his own mortality.
HN commenters discuss the Stanford professor's decision to teach a class about his cancer journey. Several praise his bravery and openness, viewing it as a powerful way to educate students and destigmatize illness. Some question the emotional toll on both the professor and the students, wondering about the appropriateness of such a personal subject in an academic setting. Others express skepticism about the framing of the NYT piece, suggesting it's overly sentimentalized. A few commenters also share their own experiences with cancer and teaching, drawing parallels to the professor's situation. The potential for triggering students facing similar challenges is also brought up, along with concerns about the blurring of lines between professional and personal life.
Learning in public, as discussed in Giles Thomas's post, offers numerous benefits revolving around accelerated learning and career advancement. By sharing your learning journey, you solidify your understanding through articulation and receive valuable feedback from others. This process also builds a portfolio showcasing your skills and progress, attracting potential collaborators and employers. The act of teaching, inherent in public learning, further cements knowledge and establishes you as a credible resource within your field. Finally, the connections forged through shared learning experiences expand your network and open doors to new opportunities.
Hacker News users generally agreed with the author's premise about the benefits of learning in public. Several commenters shared personal anecdotes of how publicly documenting their learning journeys, even if imperfectly, led to unexpected connections, valuable feedback, and career opportunities. Some highlighted the importance of focusing on the process over the outcome, emphasizing that consistent effort and genuine curiosity are more impactful than polished perfection. A few cautioned against overthinking or being overly concerned with external validation, suggesting that the primary focus should remain on personal growth. One user pointed out the potential negative aspect of focusing solely on maximizing output for external gains and advocated for intrinsic motivation as a more sustainable driver. The discussion also briefly touched upon the discoverability of older "deep dive" posts, suggesting their enduring value even years later.
Summary of Comments ( 22 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43434503
Hacker News users discussed the educational value of the Deduce proof checker. Several commenters appreciated its simplicity and accessibility compared to other systems like Coq, finding its focus on propositional and first-order logic suitable for introductory logic courses. Some suggested potential improvements, such as adding support for natural deduction and incorporating a more interactive tutorial. Others debated the pedagogical merits of different proof styles and the balance between automated assistance and requiring students to fill in proof steps themselves. The overall sentiment was positive, with many seeing Deduce as a promising tool for teaching logic.
The Hacker News post titled "A proof checker meant for education" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43434503) discussing the Deduce proof checker (https://jsiek.github.io/deduce/index.html) has a modest number of comments, focusing primarily on comparisons to other proof assistants and the potential role of Deduce in education.
Several commenters compare Deduce to Lean, a popular interactive theorem prover. One commenter points out that Lean's steeper learning curve might make it less suitable for introductory logic courses, while Deduce's simplicity could be beneficial for beginners. This comment highlights the potential niche Deduce fills by prioritizing ease of use over advanced features. Another echoes this sentiment, suggesting Deduce's focus on natural deduction could be a pedagogical advantage compared to Lean's more complex tactics. The user praises Deduce's accessibility, particularly for those unfamiliar with the intricacies of dependent type theory.
Another discussion thread centers around the practical applications of proof assistants in education. One commenter questions the overall value proposition of teaching formal proofs, arguing that it might not be the most efficient use of limited class time. They express skepticism about whether the rigor of formal proofs translates to improved "informal reasoning" skills valuable in other mathematical contexts. A counter-argument suggests that, while the direct benefits might not be immediately apparent, the process of constructing formal proofs can enhance a student's understanding of logical structure and the importance of precise definitions.
Another comment focuses on the target audience for Deduce. The commenter speculates that it seems most appropriate for students already comfortable with mathematical reasoning, rather than complete beginners. This implies Deduce serves as a bridge to more advanced tools like Lean, rather than a replacement for introductory logic texts.
Finally, one commenter expresses interest in the technical details of Deduce's implementation, specifically how it handles quantifier instantiation and substitution. This suggests a desire for more documentation or transparency about the internal workings of the system. However, this thread does not receive any further replies.
In summary, the comments generally appreciate Deduce's simplicity and potential for educational use, particularly in introductory logic courses. The discussion revolves around comparisons with other tools like Lean, the pedagogical benefits of formal proofs, and the specific target audience for Deduce. There's also a brief, unanswered question about the technical details of its implementation.