2 ms·

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 cultur

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.

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.