4 ms·
On a whole, I found this article somewhat condescending. It starts out declaring that it will try to create an "impossibly pure" mathematician in order to displ
by loeber 11y ago
On a whole, I found this article somewhat condescending. It starts out declaring that it will try to create an "impossibly pure" mathematician in order to display paradoxical & problematic aspects of his role, but it really does neither. It shows a (negatively) stereotypical mathematician hopelessly confined to his field, and by this example uncovers nothing paradoxical or self-contradicting, but rather pokes at the perceived societal shortcomings of the mathematician in a way that could be interpreted as flippant.
And this "pure mathematician" is even contrived in an unrealistic fashion: no ideal mathematician would say that a proof is simply "an argument that convinces someone who knows the subject." This entire student-mathematician exchange is facetious at best.
This article really reminds me of a strawman: it pretends to paint a picture of an "ideal mathematician," but at points like the above simply resorts to vaguely offensive stereotypes (in most of the exchanges, the mathematician is stereotypically bad at explaining just about anything).
The final point the authors (who, by the way, are reputable mathematicians) make about mathematicians and their relationship to the outside world is a deserving one. There are many humorous and correct insights in this article (for example, the convention of concealing any sign that the author or intended reader is a human being is one that I find to be quite unfortunate and worthy of address), but I really found the pseudo-platonic dialogues to be nothing but off-putting. I think this might have been much better delivered as an earnest essay.
- elevenfist 11y ago" no ideal mathematician would say that a proof is simply "an argument that convinces someone who knows the subject." This entire student-mathematician exchange is facetious at best." From your point of view, what would be a possible definition of proof from an ideal mathematician, and what would be a more-correct form of the article's definition?
- pathsjs 11y agoAs a former mathematician, I found it quite entertaining :-) Plus, not only I would not find absurd the claim that a proof is simply "an argument that convinces someone who knows the subject." I actually agree with it! For an egregious example, look at Perelman proof of Poincaré conjecture. According to a few experts, it is a complete proof, and it is just a matter of sketching out the details. According to Yau, it is more like a plan of attack, and the actual proof is due to his students. We are talking about two field medalists talking about one of the most famous problems in mathematics and disagreeing whether something constitutes a proof
- dkural 11y agoYau is wrong. Perelman proved it just fine. Hamilton made the plan of attack. Perelman executed it. Mere mortals could finally follow the argument, Yau & his students transparently tried to steal credit from a man who doesn't care for formal recognition.
- pathsjs 11y agoI did not check it myself, so I cannot tell, but this is what I have heard most often. Still, it was just to highlight the fact that there is a certain degree of subjectiveness when evaluating whether something constitutes a proof