4 ms·

This is a biographical page about Cantor, rather than an article about the Continuum Hypothesis proper. (Which is explained, as are many of Cantor's results, as

This is a biographical page about Cantor, rather than an article about the Continuum Hypothesis proper. (Which is explained, as are many of Cantor's results, as narration proceeds along his life and achievements as a mathematician.)

dang 8y ago
The submitted title was 'An Introduction to the Continuum Hypothesis'. We changed it to the article subtitle which seems more informative than the article title. "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- tolmasky 8y ago
  It's funny because I was just thinking "wow, this is such a great way to do an introduction to the continuum hypothesis". You get the same "introduction" that Cantor did: you walk through his early successes and learning that lead to ask these important questions. I remember wishing math was taught this way more generally (especially in grade school), where these results are often just thrown at you as if they came from the sky, whereas, at least for me, they make so much more sense when you first learn about the failures and why we arrived at these ideas. The only time that really stands out to me where this is done is with integrals and doing rectangles and newton's method first. Anyways, all this to say, I clicked the link with the original title and was very happy, but I probably would not click the current link since I wouldn't really know what it means or what to expect.
  - dang 8y ago
    I totally agree with your first paragraph. If you or anyone can suggest an accurate, neutral title that has this property, we'd happily change it again. "Introduction to the Continuum Hypothesis" isn't quite accurate.
  - andrewflnr 8y ago
    Interestingly, physics is taught the opposite way. It is routinely taught in chronological order of discovery, and while I can't exactly fault it, sometimes I wish they would ease off with faithfully relating every false start.

dang 8y ago

The submitted title was 'An Introduction to the Continuum Hypothesis'. We changed it to the article subtitle which seems more informative than the article title. "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

tolmasky 8y ago
It's funny because I was just thinking "wow, this is such a great way to do an introduction to the continuum hypothesis". You get the same "introduction" that Cantor did: you walk through his early successes and learning that lead to ask these important questions. I remember wishing math was taught this way more generally (especially in grade school), where these results are often just thrown at you as if they came from the sky, whereas, at least for me, they make so much more sense when you first learn about the failures and why we arrived at these ideas. The only time that really stands out to me where this is done is with integrals and doing rectangles and newton's method first. Anyways, all this to say, I clicked the link with the original title and was very happy, but I probably would not click the current link since I wouldn't really know what it means or what to expect.
- dang 8y ago
  I totally agree with your first paragraph. If you or anyone can suggest an accurate, neutral title that has this property, we'd happily change it again. "Introduction to the Continuum Hypothesis" isn't quite accurate.
- andrewflnr 8y ago
  Interestingly, physics is taught the opposite way. It is routinely taught in chronological order of discovery, and while I can't exactly fault it, sometimes I wish they would ease off with faithfully relating every false start.