>>16818116
depends. post an example of your notes.

>>16818116
https://calnewport.com/monday-master-class-conquer-complicated-material-with-the-mini-textbook-method/
https://calnewport.com/you-know-what-you-write-the-textbook-method-for-ultra-learning/

I think so. It's like people who latexed their notes and homeworks in math/physics. From experience, these students tend to do well. Rewriting things in your own words and making things flow logically will definitely teach you something.

But perhaps doing it verbally is more efficient. Like in active recall method where you try to teach an empty class about the stuff you have learned. Vocalized loudly, not just in your mind.

Obviously facts and figures are better learned with flashcards/anki.

Just a factoid i share really, no answer: Steven Weinberg allegedly learned most of his GR by writing a book and also knocking together a graduate course he then taught
And also allegedly Witten said he learned GR from that book in a eternity of 10 days
So if you're Witten or Weinburg go for it. Actually not Weinberg any more. He might struggle. Here any way.

>>16818116
>Is writing a book on a topic a legit way of learning something?
It depends on your self-reflection capacity. Having to nail ideas down using well-chosen words, all while providing justifications for the statements you make, is an excellent test for gaps in your understanding/reasoning, provided that you don't just pave over such gaps using vague language and sophistry. Most people can't actually do it. They write it like LLMs.

>>16818180
Serge Lang obviously. He wrote textbooks to learn about the topic.

>>16818116
Yeah if you feel the urge do it. I usually just wrote a shorter thing for look ups and cheat sheets as I hate rewriting.

>>16818146
>It's like people who latexed their notes and homeworks in math/physics.
Who has the time THOUGH? I know I didn't.