3 ms·

I wouldn't assume my definition is a better one than any other. But I am just like the articles author confounded by the idea that you can communicate this equa

by tinco 10y ago

I wouldn't assume my definition is a better one than any other. But I am just like the articles author confounded by the idea that you can communicate this equation on a public forum without making it absolutely clear that you are interpreting the equation in a way that is different from the way an undergraduate or just regular person would interpret it. I get how it's fun for intellectual people to come up with new definitions for things that expand our knowledge and understanding of the universe, and tease people who have the old simple understanding with seemingly impossible quandaries. But I would like the emphasize that I think this teasing is counterproductive. It leads people to believe mathematicians operate in a field that is fully disconnected from reality. Either take the time to explain how you define your construct, so they can truly appreciate the usefulness and ingenuity of the equation, or use different symbols and present it as a valuable yet opaque contribution to practical mathematics by showing its applications. Both cases will yield the much deserved admiration.

manish_gill 10y ago
What you're actually saying: "Make math simple enough for regular people to understand" Problem with what you're saying: Hundreds and Hundreds of years of history and tradition and the sheer knowledge that's been built up in the current way we do Maths. Another problem: It's not teasing if the ideas are actually complicated. Which this one most certainly is. Another problem: Not all Math is practical and applied, some of it almost certainly operates in a field that is "disconnected from reality". Another problem: Your solution of using different symbols has the same problem as XKCD standards. Another problem: "Regular people" is vague. People fear math for a reason. They can suck at it. Another problem: This idea is also fairly old. So your part about "old simple understanding" also doesn't hold true. Only thing we can agree on: Math can suck at communicating ideas if you're not used to it and/or don't have the context and knowledge.
- GavinMcG 10y ago
  I think you're missing one important consideration, here: they're saying "make math simple enough for regular people to understand when your audience is regular people." Scientific American is targeted at educated laypeople. The author's job is to communicate with that target audience. And it absolutely is a tease to use a headline that, to that audience, will come over as a bizarre indication that they're actually clueless.

by tinco 10y ago

manish_gill 10y ago

What you're actually saying: "Make math simple enough for regular people to understand" Problem with what you're saying: Hundreds and Hundreds of years of history and tradition and the sheer knowledge that's been built up in the current way we do Maths. Another problem: It's not teasing if the ideas are actually complicated. Which this one most certainly is. Another problem: Not all Math is practical and applied, some of it almost certainly operates in a field that is "disconnected from reality". Another problem: Your solution of using different symbols has the same problem as XKCD standards. Another problem: "Regular people" is vague. People fear math for a reason. They can suck at it. Another problem: This idea is also fairly old. So your part about "old simple understanding" also doesn't hold true. Only thing we can agree on: Math can suck at communicating ideas if you're not used to it and/or don't have the context and knowledge.

GavinMcG 10y ago
I think you're missing one important consideration, here: they're saying "make math simple enough for regular people to understand when your audience is regular people." Scientific American is targeted at educated laypeople. The author's job is to communicate with that target audience. And it absolutely is a tease to use a headline that, to that audience, will come over as a bizarre indication that they're actually clueless.