> Singling me out and talking down to me in public in no way improves your actual article. I think I see why you took it that way, but I am quite sure that tha

> Singling me out and talking down to me in public in no way improves your actual article. I think I see why you took it that way, but I am quite sure that that is not how Colin meant it, because I have seen him bend over backwards to educate, over the last decade or two. He said: > what it makes clear is that you never encountered any real pure math. That sounds bad to you at first blush, ok...but the thing is that it is literally true, not an insult, and not just of you, but of almost everyone who is not an outright mathematician, because "math" is not what people think it is. As a very general truth, it includes you, without at all picking you out from the general population. To a mathematician, the college 101 courses like calculus and calculus-based statistics (and their prerequisites like arithmetic, algebra, geometry, trig) are not "math", they are more like the alphabet is to an English Literature major -- absolute necessary, but too low level to be directly about the subject at hand. "Math" is about reasoning, not about e.g. knowing formulae to use on a pocket calculator. Colin's blog post implies that people with a mathematical turn of mind will itch to know answers. And I take it to be aimed at people who can sympathize with that itch: to know/understand answers to abstract problems. I don't speak for Colin, but I myself welcome you or anyone who itches to know the answers, and I am unapologetic about defining outsiders as those who don't care. It's not about your coursework scores, it's about what one's interests include, really. Disclaimer: Colin is a real honest-to-god mathematician, I myself am merely a philomath.