3 ms·
The backlash he experienced might be due to the style in which he introduces his interesting work. While not quite obvious, he could be seen as adverserial by
by _Microft 8y ago
The backlash he experienced might be due to the style in which he introduces his interesting work.
While not quite obvious, he could be seen as adverserial by labelling hierachical structured proofs as "proofs of the 21st century" and the ones other mathematicians use as "17th century proofs".
Promoting them as a thorough way to write proofs with additional advantage for the reader to adjust the level of detail of the explanation to their respective level of knowledge might have been a way to get people involved. He's even asking for feedback [1], unfortunately only to denigrate the adressed people in the next sentence [2].
It reminds a bit of Ignaz Semmelweis who managed to do good by reducing mortality of women in childbed by requiring desinfection before examinations but failed to spread the idea by being adverserial to his colleagues [3].
[1] "I am sure my way of writing proofs can be improved, and I encourage mathematicians to improve it", How to Write a 21st Century Proof, p. 5
[2] "They will not do it by remaining stuck in the 17th century.", How to Write a 21st Century Proof, p. 5
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
- stevesimmons 8y agoI feel you do Leslie Lamport a disservice here. I read the SciAm article and the full "How to Write a 21st Century Proof" and did not get any sense of denigrating people or being adversarial. Sure, he is concerned about clarity and correctness, but that is the exact point of mathematical proofs. So everyone else, please skim the SciAm article and then take 15 minutes to enjoy reading the paper [1] in Lamport's own words. [1] https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/pubs/proof.pdf https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/pubs/proof.pdf
- _Microft 8y agoIt's not clarity or correctness but how it is said. See page 2 of the paper (page 5 of the PDF) for example. That is where he is talking about people being stuck in the 17th century and "how sloppy their proofs are" [1]. I am not arguing that this might not be true! - I argue that it is not helpful to approach introducing and advertising the idea in this way. I'm not a mathematician but I'd understand if someone reacted with defiance to wording like this. [1] https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/pubs/proof.pdf https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/pubs/proof.pdf, p.2 (PDF page 5)