3 ms·

Hey, Rider - Thanks for the reply. I agree that this is sort of a fluffy subject, but I'm genuinely curious and figured here on HN I'd be able to get some inte

Hey, Rider - Thanks for the reply. I agree that this is sort of a fluffy subject, but I'm genuinely curious and figured here on HN I'd be able to get some interesting opinions on the subject. I use the term 'beauty' in a more limited sense than you are. The two phrases that come to mind are 'pleasing to the eye' and 'pleasing to the ear', and neither of those has anything substantial to do with math. When you say that there are things you want to work on and consider, the word I would use would be "compelling." I have ?'s I've chewed on in my own head for over a decade, and they keep coming back, but I wouldn't call them "beautiful". Is that what you mean? You bring up an interesting point that things can be "acquired tastes", so to speak, and that I might simply be math blind. I don't have substantial math background compared to most of the people here. My official math education stopped at differential equations, and I picked up what I needed throughout grad school but it was very piecemeal. When I look at things like Cantor's diagonalization, for example, I don't see an obvious truth - I see a trick of logic with interesting applications. I can follow the logic, but at no point do I feel like I'm doing anything more than moving symbols around in an internally consistent manner. Just out of curiosity, what's your background with math?

RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
I use beauty as "Pleasing to the perception" which doesn't limit it to sight, sound, touch, taste, or any other physical sense. To take your example, Cantor's diagonalisation - after a time - takes on a life of its own. Treating math as simply pushing symbols around makes it devoid of meaning, and it's meaning that makes it possible to do. Creating a proof requires more than exploring all the ways of pushing symbols around - you need a sense of "rightness" to guide you. Similarly, writing a program is more than banging out something that's syntactically correct. You form it from your internal sense of what's right. For reference, I did a PhD in 1983-88 specialising in Graph Theory and Combinatorics. Since then, in addition to my day job, I've given around 100 presentations a year on what math is really about. Patterns, predictions, testing, proofs, structure, and why things work. Whay are all primes of the form 4k+1 equal to the sum of two squares? You can puch symbols around all you like, but finding a proof requires seeing structure, form, pattern and "truths" underneath the simple statements. Following someone else's proof is usually unenlightening. There really is beauty and elegance there.
- bartonfink 16y ago
  Thank you very much, Rider - this is very interesting. I hate to take up more of your time, but do you mind if I shoot you an e-mail at your solipsys account to continue this if you have the time or interest? I'm not sure an HN thread is the best way to maintain what seems to be a dialogue instead of a discussion. And again, thanks for the replies - this has made a bleak Tuesday fun.
  - RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
    Feel free. No time, responses will be sporadic, but happy to engage as able.

RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago

I use beauty as "Pleasing to the perception" which doesn't limit it to sight, sound, touch, taste, or any other physical sense. To take your example, Cantor's diagonalisation - after a time - takes on a life of its own. Treating math as simply pushing symbols around makes it devoid of meaning, and it's meaning that makes it possible to do. Creating a proof requires more than exploring all the ways of pushing symbols around - you need a sense of "rightness" to guide you. Similarly, writing a program is more than banging out something that's syntactically correct. You form it from your internal sense of what's right. For reference, I did a PhD in 1983-88 specialising in Graph Theory and Combinatorics. Since then, in addition to my day job, I've given around 100 presentations a year on what math is really about. Patterns, predictions, testing, proofs, structure, and why things work. Whay are all primes of the form 4k+1 equal to the sum of two squares? You can puch symbols around all you like, but finding a proof requires seeing structure, form, pattern and "truths" underneath the simple statements. Following someone else's proof is usually unenlightening. There really is beauty and elegance there.

bartonfink 16y ago
Thank you very much, Rider - this is very interesting. I hate to take up more of your time, but do you mind if I shoot you an e-mail at your solipsys account to continue this if you have the time or interest? I'm not sure an HN thread is the best way to maintain what seems to be a dialogue instead of a discussion. And again, thanks for the replies - this has made a bleak Tuesday fun.
- RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
  Feel free. No time, responses will be sporadic, but happy to engage as able.