From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,a9b0810d3106d9b8 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Subject: Re: Fun with C Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de Organization: cbb software GmbH References: <4b5748dc-60fa-4cec-a317-054626e9a1ca@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <1908th3tyz101.1f6c5w8t9mggy.dlg@40tude.net> <2118e788-7b3e-4d25-8d0f-5e60498e3a3b@cu4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <1hnl95prvrt6i$.1s675gncbjxsu$.dlg@40tude.net> <5d44db50-ceff-4f4d-8bc7-714f31fbca06@hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <1uthrsrabx8di$.8i74uk28axo0.dlg@40tude.net> <84b83223-e191-4912-8f73-318deb4dd783@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <1j2bi0982bjcs.1beq9xn9za9yb$.dlg@40tude.net> <9j18r6hrlf06adfv4rdothhdrjmfdrmeno@4ax.com> <1qe52ny88vlk9$.hcf0wgd0xcmh.dlg@40tude.net> Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 21:46:53 +0200 Message-ID: <117x5uepxzqrn$.zu65rz3wdey9.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Apr 2011 21:46:53 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: ca4abe64.newsspool2.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=<8e>;KoZQFEAa;:RKVJ>LEA9EHlD;3YcB4Fo<]lROoRA8kF On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 12:07:37 -0700, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: > Do then you start teaching students nonlinear systems before > linear systems? If you are going to teach them pendulum, would it make much sense to pretend it linear? x is a pretty good approximation of sin(x) near 0. BTW, there is an important difference between empirical and fundamental laws of nature. > Your point that we should start learning general relativity > before classical mechanics makes no sense to me. My point is that historic views need not to be taught. Anyway, importance of classic mechanics looks overestimated. You cannot see planets when living in a large city, but do can the computer on your desk. Explain why it works using Newtonian mechanics. > Then why not start with string theory first before general > relativity? String theory is not yet generally accepted. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de