4 ms·

> An article, written on a keyboard with keys measured to fit in their place. > Transmitted to the computer using error detecting codes (in USB) > Being run t

• davidy123 10y ago
  Do you think it's a reasonable strategy for an average person with daily struggles to put all their effort into coming up with a proof for the Riemann hypothesis?
  • sooheon 10y ago
    Yes, some people by virtue of their completely average mediocrity can't excel. But isn't this the case for every field? Why is that mathematics' problem?
    • davidy123 10y ago
      It's not mathematics' "problem." But it is a problem for people who may or may not be "average mediocrity" and can't drop everything to focus on this topic.
      • macspoofing 10y ago
        But you can say that about anything! Meaningfully contributing to any area (from academia, to sports, to Sunday bake sales) requires time commitments not everyone has. In most cases there may also be a requirement for some minimum level of knowledge, experience or skill. Welcome to life.
        • nzp 10y ago
          You're right in that it can be said about almost anything, but it's not about time. If you're born into poverty, you can have all the time in the world, but you'll find it extremely hard to get proper education before you even get a chance to put some time into it. In other words, to even get a chance to commit time to something like mathematics at the level we're talking about, there are hard practical social and economic preconditions which have nothing to do with one's abilities, or even the field of endeavor as such. The article just conflates the field itself with these wider socio-economic conditions, constructs a weird argument out of the confusion, and comes out really bad.
          • macspoofing 10y ago
            >If you're born into poverty, you can have all the time in the world, but you'll find it extremely hard to get proper education before you even get a chance to put some time into it. Your hypothetical setup is strange. If you have all the time in the world - you can do anything. >In other words, to even get a chance to commit time to something like mathematics at the level we're talking about, there are hard practical social and economic preconditions which have nothing to do with one's abilities, or even the field of endeavor as such. Like what preconditions exactly?
            • nzp 10y ago
              The one you quote first.
  • Kenji 10y ago
    There are true stories of housewives with no formal advanced mathematical training at all who grew the body of mathematical knowledge by finding out new things, thus participating in 'elite mathematics'.
    • davidy123 10y ago
      Of course there are, many stories I'm sure. There are a lot of people on the planet. The point is not that people can't, they can and will if the conditions and imperatives exist.
    • kaitai 10y ago
      Marjorie Rice, pentagonal tilings!
  • macspoofing 10y ago
    I take your point, but then I have no idea what the author is arguing for. He blurs the line between things like university math departments and academic culture, math as a scholastic pursuit, and math as a specific body of knowledge. In the specific case of Riemann hypothesis, contributions from outside of the system are most certainly welcome, and there are countless examples of this in history of mathematics. But no, the average person will not be able to contribute in the same way that the average person is barred from playing in professional sports leagues. Is that what he means when he argues that Math doesn't belong to everyone?
    • davidy123 10y ago
      Math can be considered at least aspect of everything (though this is often reductionist). There is an unrealistic expectation that everyone can or should turn their attention to it, and a reality that those who have math training often have an advantage, especially in key societal positions. The author is stating that there is an advantage for some people to have the conditions to learn. The final paragraph seems to indicate that conditions need to be created for more people to have this opportunity. It would be magical thinking to expect the vast majority of people could juggle their everyday lives to become very good at math in ways that are more meaningful than being good at crossword puzzles or baking or taking care of their families at key times, not to mention having more than one focused interest. Since there is a "society" it shouldn't be critical for everyone to have the same developed skills, which the conclusion seems a bit disconnected from.
      • macspoofing 10y ago
        >There is an unrealistic expectation that everyone can or should turn their attention to it, and a reality that those who have math training often have an advantage, especially in key societal positions. Ok. That makes sense. Specialized knowledge is required for specialized work. What's your point? >The author is stating that there is an advantage for some people to have the conditions to learn. I guess this is the meat of the argument the author is making, with some ideologically-driven, and here unstated, reasons that explain this 'advantage'. >Since there is a "society" it shouldn't be critical for everyone to have the same developed skills, which the conclusion seems a bit disconnected from. But it isn't critical. There is a requirement to have a base level understanding of mathematics in order function in society (roughly high-school level), just as there is a requirement for literacy - but there's certainly no requirement to have in-depth knowledge of it. Nor is a deep understanding of math a prerequisite for success, financial or otherwise.
  • kaitai 10y ago
    A reasonable strategy for what? If they're obsessed with the Riemann hypothesis and it brings them pleasure to think about it, sounds great. If they'd prefer to have the largest collection of salt and pepper shakers in the world, visiting flea markets would be a better effort. If you're asking whether an average person has a good chance of proving the Riemann hypothesis or has access to the latest ideas in the field, the answer is no. But I make my own clothes without having access to Paris or Milan or Hong Kong. We can all do rewarding non-elite things.
• vidarh 10y ago
  > And it claims maths is not everywhere. I just have to laugh. Math is everywhere in the same sense that I need an understanding of physics to throw a ball. That is, yes, you can find it if you look, and sometimes you may even have a trained understanding of the application of some principle, but you do not need to be able to explain it or consciously apply it step by step. Sometimes it would help to know how to apply it, or know other ways of solving a problem, but most people need far less conscious use of maths than people with a maths background tend to think. > No, we do not. This is a factually false statement. We have to recognize that maths is open to everyone who is determined enough and has access to the internet or a library and that tribalism like this brings us nowhere. Anyone can participate in elite mathematics. If you come up with a proof for the Riemann hypothesis, go ahead and publish it! Nobody cares about your background if your work is good. Mathematics is blind to gender, race and class. This both manages to not address the quote you were "answering" and be a demonstration of relative privilege at the same time. It doesn't address it because the quote is not saying that elite mathematics isn't open to everyone in theory, but that it de facto is something that is mostly accessed by a certain group. You brush against this yourself when you write that it is open to everyone "who is determined enough". And this is where privilege comes in. People are shaped by their surroundings. If you grow up in a working class family, it is not always that you couldn't get into a top university and aim for a top job, but that even if you can you are vastly less likely to be aware of the opportunities, and to have the support network, and to have the contacts, or to have the same expectations of being able to do something, because you constantly see people around you who has achieved it, as someone growing up more privileged. It is not just about money. I did not grow up in a rich household. But I did grow up in a household where getting a university degree and aiming for a job requiring one was considered so self evident it was never something we discussed. It wasn't "are you planning on going to university or trade school or start working after graduation?" it was "which universities are you applying to?" Most of my close relatives are academics, with three professors amongst my aunts and uncles. As a result it never once crossed my mind growing up to go for a career in a manual trade for example. Subtle differences, some backed by money, some just byproducts of growing up in families with money or connections or, as in my case, an innate expectation that your future should involve studying for a degree, makes a huge difference. I've also noted in the past on HN that one of the things that growing up in Norway did for me was that I never had a sense of worrying about unemployment. When I did my first startup, it was never a consideration that I might be without a job. Why would it? I'd be financially secure no matter what. In my case it was because of a strong social security net first and foremost, but access to help from family etc. does the same. Even just living in a society where making enough to save to set aside a rainy day fun is something a majority can do makes a huge difference. Growing up in a position of relative privilege alters things in many ways: You may be expected to study instead of being expected to start earning as early as possible. You likely grew up with enough food to avoid being damaged by malnourishment. You're less likely to have urgent, stressful financial concerns make it infeasible to set aside time to ponder more intellectual issues. You're more likely to have a job that earns you enough to allow you to spend time on other things. You're more likely to have people around you that achieve something intellectual to inspire you. And so on. So yes, "anyone" can participate in elite mathematics. And sometimes people from unexpected backgrounds does. But in practice, more privileged people are more likely to. This isn't specific to mathematics - it applies to pretty much any field where "payoff" is uncertain or requires lengthy investment in education first, which causes less privileged people to self-select away to a greater extent than people with more privilege.