On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 11:58:24 -0600, Michael Ash wrote:

In rec.aviation.student WJRFlyBoy wrote:
It certainly is and learning is a somewhat mathematical function over time.
If X is max knowledge, then Y is a function of X, the more Y early on the
closer to X you can get as long as T Time doesn't = zero.

If only life were that simple.

The reality is that learning is a ridiculously complex vector function in
an incomprehensible number of dimensions. Because of this there is no
meaningful value for X, max knowledge. Doing more learning early on
doesn't guarantee that you'll be better off, and can even make you worse
off, as you get stuck with pre-conceived notions and such. It sounds like
you may be a computer person, so imagine learning to program by sitting
down with stacks of books about BASIC and COBOL. It'll be
counterproductive. I'm not suggesting that your course of action is
equivalent to starting with BASIC and COBOL, but just that it's not as
simple as you make it out to be, and if you overdo your head start you
could end up worse off in the long run.

T=zero=death (end of learning) and X which I would agree are max knowledge
and your assessment of it. The interim learning cycle is Y. If the sum of Y
is calculable (that which one learns in life, a task or series of
experiences), then the more of Y one learns at the beginning of the
learning cycle, the greater the chance the sum of Y is larger than if one
learns little at the beginning of the cycle.

This is a simple paradigm, it was all that I was proposing, it is one that
has consistently worked for me. YMMV
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!