3 ms·
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 hist
by 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 agoI 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.