As I recall, what you said was
>>> I dunno how many times my dad said that to me... growing up... if you really know it... explain it from basic first principles.. I agree..
which really, I think, is quite different. A first principle is a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. For example, Kolmogorov's axioms. If I had to take you all the way from these axioms to, say, risk theory ..... neither you nor your dad would have the time or the patience.
A concept one may need to explain may dwell quite a long way from first principles, and there would not be enough time in a typical explanation to cover the ground all the way from first principles. Because of this, the best way is usually by analogy ...... and such analogy can convey ideas through simplicity, but without recourse to first principles. Children, for example, generally absorb through analogy and not from first principles. First principles suggest rigor, which is not critical to understanding, though is necessary for development, argument and proof.
On the other hand, you do have the right intent and right idea. :)
|
