TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Why Mathematics is Boring (2007) [pdf]

86 点作者 danbst超过 3 年前

19 条评论

bedobi超过 3 年前
I always struggled (and still struggle) with math.<p>A couple of years ago, randomly browsing YouTube, I came across this home made video asking how they figured out the distance to the moon before modern technology. The host starts out small scale showing he can calculate the distance to things in his back yard using trigonometry and then scales it up to the moon.<p>My mind was blown, because no one ever told me that. It was simple, anyone could understand it. When I was in school, all I was told was to memorize abstract formulae like calculating the length of sides of triangles based on angles and known length of one side. It was never contextualized to any actual, let alone interesting or fascinating, applications.
评论 #28900701 未加载
评论 #28900883 未加载
评论 #28900679 未加载
评论 #28901890 未加载
abdullahkhalids超过 3 年前
If you read any science papers, they start with a clear introduction with the aims, claims, importance and novelty of the work. A lot of math papers (but not all) just start off with a dry statement of what the theorems being proved are, and jump right into the proofs.<p>I always wonder why editors don&#x27;t understand the importance of these things and don&#x27;t enforce them.
评论 #28896407 未加载
评论 #28896868 未加载
评论 #28896288 未加载
评论 #28900933 未加载
评论 #28897390 未加载
评论 #28896828 未加载
评论 #28897495 未加载
decasteve超过 3 年前
Research Math is an inside joke between friends. The jokes fall flat unless you know the same people and attend the same parties.
canada_dry超过 3 年前
An aside: his UC Riverside page is full of interesting stuff: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;math.ucr.edu&#x2F;home&#x2F;&#x2F;baez&#x2F;README.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;math.ucr.edu&#x2F;home&#x2F;&#x2F;baez&#x2F;README.html</a>
评论 #28901168 未加载
civilized超过 3 年前
Meanwhile, on the front page of science.com: &quot;NF-κB activation in cardiac fibroblasts results in the recruitment of inflammatory Ly6Chi monocytes in pressure-overloaded hearts&quot;<p>Sometimes papers are technical and don&#x27;t need to pretend that they are telling an exciting story of interest to a general audience. It isn&#x27;t just a math issue.
评论 #28901611 未加载
Koshkin超过 3 年前
Reading math <i>can</i> be boring (often it&#x27;s not), but solving problems never is. (Math is not a spectator sport.)<p>I also hear people say programming is boring. This is absurd.
评论 #28901670 未加载
bluedays超过 3 年前
I believe this is actually a really great point. For instance, I didn&#x27;t know that it was originally Brahmagupta who started using symbols in math. His initial use of symbols to represent numbers involved using color names like &quot;blue&quot; and &quot;green&quot;.<p>More interestingly before using symbols as variables in math Egyptians were capable of doing Quadratic equations without these variables.<p>If I were teaching math today I would probably teach this. I would try to do algebra without using variables, and then I would use funny words like &quot;blue&quot; as Brahma Gupta use to. I think that this would probably stop a lot of the questions like &quot;why are there letters in math!?&quot;
评论 #28896193 未加载
评论 #28896257 未加载
评论 #28896488 未加载
rramadass超过 3 年前
Mathematics is NOT Boring; the teaching of Maths divorced of Real-World Applications is what is Boring. An over-emphasis on Formalism&#x2F;Abstraction is what is killing people&#x27;s interest in Maths&#x2F;Sciences.<p>The Teaching of all Maths&#x2F;Sciences should always start with a Real-World motivating example and then introduce the Maths as necessary to Solve it.<p>In this context see V. I. Arnold&#x27;s essay; <i>On Teaching Mathematics</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.uni-muenster.de&#x2F;Physik.TP&#x2F;~munsteg&#x2F;arnold.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.uni-muenster.de&#x2F;Physik.TP&#x2F;~munsteg&#x2F;arnold.html</a><p>Quote from the above article:<p>* <i>Attempts to create &quot;pure&quot; deductive-axiomatic mathematics have led to the rejection of the scheme used in physics (observation - model - investigation of the model - conclusions - testing by observations) and its substitution by the scheme: definition - theorem - proof. It is impossible to understand an unmotivated definition but this does not stop the criminal algebraists-axiomatisators.</i><p>* <i>What is a group? Algebraists teach that this is supposedly a set with two operations that satisfy a load of easily-forgettable axioms. This definition provokes a natural protest: why would any sensible person need such pairs of operations? &quot;Oh, curse this maths&quot; - concludes the student (who, possibly, becomes the Minister for Science in the future).</i><p>* <i>We get a totally different situation if we start off not with the group but with the concept of a transformation (a one-to-one mapping of a set onto itself) as it was historically. A collection of transformations of a set is called a group if along with any two transformations it contains the result of their consecutive application and an inverse transformation along with every transformation.</i>
cevi超过 3 年前
The author says that mathematicians find math outside their own field to be boring and difficult to understand. As a mathematician, I think he&#x27;s rather missing the point:<p>- mathematics is boring to <i>everyone</i> right up until the moment you need it. Then suddenly it becomes <i>very</i> interesting.<p>The way mathematicians typically read papers is not by randomly picking through recent submissions to the arxiv and dutifully reading everything they come across. Instead, they stumble on a hard problem in their own research which they don&#x27;t know how to solve, and they search to see if anyone else has worked on it before. The paper you would have discarded as pointlessly abstract or ridiculously overspecialized just yesterday suddenly reads like a riveting novel today. No amount of creative writing tips would have made it any more interesting to you yesterday - unless the writers happened to anticipate the exact reason you would end up becoming interested in it ahead of time.
评论 #28900793 未加载
greenail超过 3 年前
I find that the older I get the more I appreciate math. I did find it boring when I was younger. I&#x27;m not sure if it is for folks like mathologer and 3brown1blue. I tend to think visually and they do a wonderful job in that area. I don&#x27;t recall anyone presenting math like they do when I was in school in the 1980&#x27;s.
GDC7超过 3 年前
To me it&#x27;s the language.<p>You have to learn a whole new alphabet and signs.<p>This is done for the sake of quick communication between mathematicians, but it&#x27;s necessary to make a study and see the pros and cons.<p>While it&#x27;s true that it makes communication faster and straightforward it keeps so many people outside of the field.<p>Maybe the field would benefit to go more towards philosophy and logic, explaining it with words.
评论 #28896306 未加载
评论 #28896427 未加载
评论 #28896534 未加载
LambdaTrain超过 3 年前
I think many people who start finding mathematics interesting at an older age and blame the math education in young age missed that their intellectual capability also strengthen with their age. The whole point of something being &quot;interesting&quot; is that this thing is possible to be understood but not that easily.
erichahn超过 3 年前
It&#x27;s boring but usually everything is well-defined and hence well-understandable.<p>Not the case for most CS papers.
评论 #28896726 未加载
paulpauper超过 3 年前
It&#x27;s hard to understand , not because it&#x27;s boring, but because it&#x27;s inherently hard and opaque. If mathematicians tried to make complicated topics easier to understand the papers would be 10x as long.
greenail超过 3 年前
The title should be &quot;why mathematics papers are boring, how to spice them up with narrative&quot;, that is what the article is about.
评论 #28902512 未加载
omginternets超过 3 年前
I follow the author on Twitter, and really enjoy his exposes of mathematical concepts. I highly recommend him: @johncarlosbaez
paulpauper超过 3 年前
what is the opinion of 3 brown,1 blue
graycat超过 3 年前
Ah, in math writing, it&#x27;s easy enough to say more and be not boring and at times be at least interesting, inviting, even exciting!<p>Let&#x27;s have some examples!!<p>(1) Dimension.<p>So, suppose we are in the first class in linear algebra:<p>&quot;Maybe you have heard that the <i>real line</i> has 1 dimension, is <i>1 dimensional</i>, the <i>plane</i> is 2 dimensional, and the space we live in is 3 dimensional. Well, that&#x27;s all true enough, but in linear algebra we do better and have more: For one, we get to say clearly what is meant by <i>dimension</i>, that, in particular, why the line, plane, and space are 1, 2, 3 dimensional. For much more, for any positive integer <i>n</i> we have <i>n</i>-dimensional space.<p>Next, in linear algebra <i>n</i>-dimensional space is a relatively easy generalization of what we already know well in dimensions 1, 2, 3.<p>Why might we care? For example, we know well what <i>distance</i> is in dimensions 1, 2, 3, and <i>distance</i> in <i>n</i> dimensions is a straight forward generalization. In dimensions 2 and 3, we understand <i>angle</i>, and also that carries over to <i>n</i> dimensions. For more, with computing it is common to have a list of, say, 15 numbers. Well, for just one benefit, with linear algebra we get to regard that list as a point in <i>n</i> = 15 dimensional space, and doing so lets us do some powerful things with <i>representing</i> and <i>approximating</i> that list.&quot;<p>So, we get some sense of <i>previews of coming attractions</i> and some <i>invitation to higher dimensions</i>.<p>(2) Optimization.<p>&quot;There is a subject, with a lot of development just after WWII, called <i>linear programming</i> (LP). The <i>programming</i> is in the English sense of <i>operational planning</i> as in war logistics and planning as was crucial in WWII. The <i>linear</i> is the same as in linear algebra.<p>The main goal, point of LP is to find how to exploit the freedom we have in doing the operations, the work to be done, to get the work done as fast or cheaply as possible, that is, to find an <i>optimal</i> way to do the work.<p>So, the subject LP is part of <i>optimization</i>. There have been some Nobel prizes from applications of LP and other math of optimization to economics. There have been applications of LP to feed mixing, oil refinery operation, management of large projects, and parts of transportation.&quot;<p>(3) The Simplex Algorithm.<p>&quot;Maybe in high school algebra you saw the topic of systems of linear equations. Well, it is fair to say that the <i>standard</i> way to solve such a system is Gauss elimination due to C. F. Gauss.<p>The idea is simple: Multiplying one of the equations by some non-zero number and adding the resulting equation to another of the equations does not change the set of solutions. So, doing that in a slightly clever way results in the system of equations with a lot of zeros, about half all zeros, so that the set of solutions is obvious just by inspection.<p>Then for linear programming, in practice the main solution technique is the simplex algorithm, and it is just but done with <i>optimization</i> in mind.&quot;<p>(4) Completeness.<p>A <i>rational</i> number can be written as <i>p&#x2F;q</i> for integers <i>p</i> and <i>q</i>. We will see, easily, that the rational numbers are not up to <i>carrying the load</i>, are not up to doing the work we need done. So we need a more powerful system of numbers -- we need the <i>real</i> numbers.<p>Here is a really simple place the rational numbers fail to do what we want: At times we consider square roots. E.g., the square root of 9 is 3. Well, what is the square root of 2? Suppose that square root were a rational number, i.e., so that<p><i>(p&#x2F;q)^2 = 2</i><p>Then we have<p><i>p^2 = 2q^2</i><p>so that the left side has an even number of factors of 2 while the right side has an odd number. Tilt. Bummer! That can&#x27;t be. That&#x27;s a contradiction.<p>So, there is no rational number that is the square root of 2. So, for something really simple, just finding a square root, the rational numbers fail us, can&#x27;t carry the load or do the work.<p>The real numbers will let us find the square root of 2 and much more. With the real numbers we get what we call <i>completeness</i>. A joke, basically correct, is that calculus is the elementary consequences of the completeness property of the real numbers. Then we generalize: Banach space is a complete normed linear space. Hilbert space is a complete inner product space. The Fourier transform works because of completeness. So, we move on and see how the real numbers are <i>complete</i> ....&quot;
评论 #28899519 未加载
1cvmask超过 3 年前
Mathematics is not boring to those interested in it and pursuing it. It is a universal language.<p>Adding unnecessary complexity will take away from its &quot;purenesss&quot; and terseness. Language is not a barrier to entry.<p>You will then be graded on incomplete formulas but great storytelling.<p>Let&#x27;s leave the storytelling to all the other fields of life.