4 ms·
Does elegance describe well-defined observable properties that are independent of the observer? The point being, that if not, we're still within the domain of
by fnordsensei 7y ago
Does elegance describe well-defined observable properties that are independent of the observer?
The point being, that if not, we're still within the domain of the subjective. It seems arbitrary to allow one set of subjective descriptions and disallow another.
- mlevental 7y agoelegant: "the quality of being pleasingly ingenious and simple; neatness." definitely less subjective than beautiful. and it's not arbitrary - i've alluded to an argument that can be made. i'm not going to spell it out because as usual no one on here is receptive anything that doesn't valorize stem.
- jjuel 7y agoBeauty: "a combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight." So I cannot like the shape or form when I look at a proof or function? I cannot have my aesthetic senses pleased by looking at STEM field things?
- mlevental 7y agoi'm sorry but what is the shape or form of a proof? a function maybe - and calligraphy is certainly an art but what's wholly different from what the function encodes.
- tempWinHater 7y agoProofs have structure, i.e., shape or form.
- mlevental 7y agothey have a logical structure (claim, lemma, lemma, proof, etc.). they do not have a shape in the sense that the person i responded to intends.