I actually think there might also be a reader/listener bias. I sometimes feel that I’ve learned a lot more after hearing a lecture and less after reading a textbook, but when it actually comes time for me to manipulate the knowledge I find that the “incomplete” textbook presentation is often a lot more useful than the spoken lecture which I find to be full of gaps that require me to think through things. This may be because my work often requires ideas that I generally only find in rigorous details of the algorithm or proof and such details generally would lose and audience so they are omitted.
Also, to say that in a five-hour lecture series one could cover the “mathematical details” among other aspects of the SVM means that you’ll miss out on a lot of important topics! I use them a lot, have read over a thousand pages on them, and have gone to countless lectures, and I’m still learning what they are about.
I actually think there might also be a reader/listener bias. I sometimes feel that I’ve learned a lot more after hearing a lecture and less after reading a textbook, but when it actually comes time for me to manipulate the knowledge I find that the “incomplete” textbook presentation is often a lot more useful than the spoken lecture which I find to be full of gaps that require me to think through things. This may be because my work often requires ideas that I generally only find in rigorous details of the algorithm or proof and such details generally would lose and audience so they are omitted.
Also, to say that in a five-hour lecture series one could cover the “mathematical details” among other aspects of the SVM means that you’ll miss out on a lot of important topics! I use them a lot, have read over a thousand pages on them, and have gone to countless lectures, and I’m still learning what they are about.