3 ms·
Michael J. Barany, the OP of the scientificamerican article, wrote a response to this response: http://mbarany.com/ReplyToThonyC.html http://mbarany.com/ReplyT
by ivan_ah 10y ago
Michael J. Barany, the OP of the scientificamerican article, wrote a response to this response: http://mbarany.com/ReplyToThonyC.html http://mbarany.com/ReplyToThonyC.html (not very convincing, IMHO, mainly because all the "math is elitist"-arguments Barany makes are not specific to math, but to any intellectual endeavour. One could /s/math/writing/g in the whole article and it would continue to make sense.)
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- posterboy 10y agoThat's an interesting thought. But I don't generally share the resentment (although I didn't even read the link). Writing still has to be logical, most of the time. Math papers are verbalized a lot. You can't draw a fine line between writing (literature) and maths. That's why the argument still holds. They are both the same thing from a different perspective, what you called intellect. Mathematics is the most reduced form, though, and it is maybe more exclusive by nature, since it is all about learning and abstraction, whereas literature and language is most basically developed from calls to action, like, literally developed from calls.