5 ms·

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 hypothesi

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.

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.