3 ms·
I'd (conservatively) speculate most of us here are in the global 1% in terms of "ability to understand math". Have tried multiple times to follow his work (fro
by avip 7y ago
I'd (conservatively) speculate most of us here are in the global 1% in terms of "ability to understand math".
Have tried multiple times to follow his work (from the blog). But I'm not math-fluent enough to understand or otherwise appreciate the content. Possibly I could but it requires so much effort.
It's much easier to enjoy Bach's or Messi's genius :)
- ska 7y agoThis (Bach) is a parallel that comes up often in both lay and professional music on the nature of "genius". I've had some success with the following analogy. Music is not math, but the conversation between research mathematicians is a bit like the conversation between composers. In order for them to understand each other well they must understand the notation, but also the instruments/tools, the history, etc. However we non-composers can still listen to what they wrote if someone performs it for us - we may not catch everything another composer does, but we can enjoy it. The tough thing about mathematics is that there is no orchestra or possibility of one; in order to consume it at all you have to learn some of the details.
- mistrial9 7y agoits often said around school, that the higher level mathematicians cant sit down and talk to each other about their work much .. things go too far into specialization..
- ska 7y agoThis is true, that there are lot of silos in mathematics which make communication difficult. In this sense the analogy breaks down a bit.
- nightcracker 7y agoMusic is no exception either. Many if not most people (myself included) do not appreciate highly advanced jazz as it's 'spoken' in a language too technical for it to make sense to them.