Many of us often find ourselves surrounded by elementary ideas and perplexed about their connect with what actually functions in practice.The connect tends to be apparent, if a long way is seen in to the elementary stuff. It’s only a matter of how one chooses to index knowledge.

Seeing a long way in to elementary stuff is a habit,it can come by practice and lack of it can render the efforts inefficient ,at times ineffective , at worse it may lead to reasoning risk or even a loss of interest in long run.

Overwhelming mass appeal of empirically framed teleological maxims(pitches) and applying them tautologically,often underplays the value of logical equivalence of various schemes to elementary ideas.[0]

For example [1] ,one can treat almost any :

Machine as differential equation(e.g. spring mass oscillator as ,x`` = - kx) [2].

Prepositional statement as either a switch or a button or a negation of latter.

System as a state machine , hence a graph and hence a set.

Bulk of data as matrix.[3]

If only one sees a long way ,while setting one’s sight on the ideas of matrix or set or DE or switch ….., by questioning things innocently and finding answers and developing Shibboleth schemes in kitchen-sinks, till they are tout court , instead of merely convoluting the lessons(and similar formats of knowledge) about tools ,with the reflections from their application.

Also ,the lesson -reflection convolutes incline one to get caught with too many ideas and hence analyzing multicollinearly,which leads to analytical fatigue[4] and loss of the interest in long run .

Are lessons bad?

It is about ontologically reducing the other way round ,e.g. if a lesson can describe X ideas , an idea can also be described using X lessons.

X lessons can describe the controversies and developments ,which prompted people to consider the idea in its current role ,by rejecting one philosophical way for other in order to the perceive the idea in a manner, that led to its’ impact, in its’ domain and depict how it functions in its’ current role, in a manner, that inspires the audience to see a longer way through it.

e.g. Questioning the utility of linked lists [5] can turn out to be much more illuminating, than convolute of a lesson on data structures with their implementations .


While in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason (Newtonian) causality was ranked as a (synthetic a priori) category, the Critique of Judgment treated all teleological maxims only as regulative principles directing human judgment.

It’s not that elementary ideas always commensurate everything that exists and their extension for accepting any recently known existence of something has rarely been smooth.[6]But, that has nothing to do with current value of such elementary ideas.

I am tempted to spell a conclusion , but that will make this post a teleological one…. I d rather say

You are not an app.

That said,at times “not so elementary” ideas are of great help in solving and understanding problems ,e.g. principle of least action can act as the key concept in axiomatizing the theories of physics, but discussing them is not in scope of this post.May be some other time.Your reactions are welcome @sigma_0.

Till then …

[0] This post intends to highlight the effectiveness of some of the latter in practice .

[1] Illustrating the details of these examples is not in the scope of this post , but can be presented ,if so is sought by the reader.

[2.1]If you observe the flow of energy in it.

[2.2] A discrete approximation to a differential equation is a state machine with an infinite state space.

[3] And apply transforms to it.

[4]I have not read about analytical fatigue, but i have witnessed it.


[6]In fact, accounts of cruelty towards declarers of such new existences (from Galileo to Hippasus) frequent the history of human reasoning.