6 ms·
Q. "When will I use math?" A. In business, whenever you can find a use and start a company to pursue it. Note: (1) I know some math: My Ph.D. dissertation w
by NY_USA_Hacker 15y ago
Q. "When will I use math?"
A. In business, whenever you can find a use and start a company to pursue it.
Note:
(1) I know some math: My Ph.D. dissertation was on the applied math of stochastic optimal control. The work was advanced enough mathematically to address measurable selection, solved a real problem, and made some contributions to making such calculations faster.
(2) I'm pursuing a use of math in business. My current work is an information technology startup based on a Web site. The key to the promise of the work is some original math I did based on some advanced prerequisites.
So, I know something about applications of math.
Jobs? Early in my career, I knew some computing, was at GE which was shrinking (again) in computing, sent some resume copies, and in two weeks got seven interviews and five offers. The computing worked for a job.
Broadly the video is nonsense, contemptible, deceptive, misleading, badly supported nonsense. Students need to be warned.
Wall Street? In graduate school, Wall Street was one of the career directions I had in mind. So, I got a relatively good background in stochastic processes. Later I wrote Fisher Black (as in the Black-Scholes option pricing model) at Goldman Sachs and got a nice letter back saying that he saw no opportunities to apply math on Wall Street.
I interviewed in computing at Morgan Stanley, showed some nice applied math I'd done, and mentioned that I wanted to work on automatic trading but got no interest.
I got a call from Google, and they wanted only C++ programming.
I got a call from Microsoft and explained some work I'd done, and published, that would help Microsoft but never got past the first 'phone-screen' girl.
Early in my career, there was some interest in applied math, but this interest was essentially only for work paid for by the US DoD and for the Cold War. The US DoD has done a lot of good applied math, but those successes have had essentially zero influence in business.
Can look at the Web sites of 500+ US venture capital firms, nearly all in Silicon Valley, near Boston, or in New York City, look at their investment interests, and never see the words math or mathematics. Chris Sacca dropped out of a math Ph.D. program and may have the best background in math of any venture partner in the US. His biography may have the only mention of math on a venture firm Web site.
The interest of math in information technology venture capital is somewhere between zero and deeply negative. E.g., I got back from Ron Conway's son at Andreessen Horowitz
"your company is outside our area of expertise".
By "expertise" he had to mean the math, not the Web site.
Yes, in topics central to Hacker News, there should be interest in math for 'machine learning, data mining, big data, ad targeting' etc., but there is not. Instead, the world would rather stumble along with intuitive approaches to these topics instead of solid (powerful, valuable) math approaches.
Here's the main point: In business, the US is still organized mostly like the factory floor of 100 years ago where the supervisor knew more and the subordinate was there just to apply muscle to the ideas of the supervisor. And that 'inequality in technical knowledge' continues all the way to the CEO and COB who want to believe that they know the most.
So, no one in middle management wants to bet their budget or career record on some project using some math they don't understand; they don't get bad marks for such projects they do not pursue.
Essentially only a CEO could sponsor a project with some significant math, and CEOs rarely sponsor projects directly.
In venture funded information technology entrepreneurship, the 'technology' is supposed to be just routine software that could be understood by a bright, self-taught middle school hacker and, thus, can safely be ignored as crucial 'intellectual property' by any Ivy League history major, Harvard MBA venture partner.
Broadly, bringing high technical expertise as an employee to a business is a fool's errand. Yes, there are a few exceptions, e.g., some technical topic deep in the CIO's organization, but generally the employee is supposed to know less, not more.
An employee who, on the side or whatever, starts a good project based on math will find that their management doesn't like the project. If the employee proposes the project more broadly, then they will be told not to communicate outside of their management chain or face getting fired.
Once as a professor, hired in optimization, I wrote a research paper in optimization based on some math, with theorems and proofs. My department reviewed the paper and concluded that it was "not publishable". It published right away, without significant revision in the 'Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications'. At Yorktown Heights, we were doing some work in server farm and network monitoring of health and wellness using artificial intelligence. I found a much more powerful approach with some original work using some advanced topics in stochastic processes, and the lab concluded that the work was "not publishable". The work published right away without significant revision in 'Information Sciences'. The reason: The people I was working for didn't know math and didn't like it.
Really, if math is to have a significant role in a business, then the main mathematician has to be the founder, CEO of the business, e.g., Jim Simons, Andrew Viterbi. Otherwise, f'get about it.
Broadly, math is by far the most exacting and difficult academic subject, is rarely pursued by students beyond what is needed for K-12 teaching, physics, engineering, or basic statistics, and is just not known, liked, wanted, or even tolerated in society more broadly.
For a good career, mostly an electrician's license is a better foundation than a Ph.D. in math, electrical engineering, or anything else.
My view is that math is by a wide margin the most powerful and valuable topic for the future of information technology entrepreneurship for at least the first half of this century, but to make this promise real the mathematician has to be the founder, CEO of the company, and the math will not be an advantage in seeking equity funding.
To make this promise understood, about the best I can do is be successful financially, buy a yacht over 200' long, and give some interviews on the yacht cruising in Long Island Sound.
Broadly our society does not value, want, like, or tolerate math.
- tokenadult 15y agoMy view is that math is by a wide margin the most powerful and valuable topic for the future of information technology entrepreneurship for at least the first half of this century, but to make this promise real the mathematician has to be the founder, CEO of the company, and the math will not be an advantage in seeking equity funding. An interesting comment. I wonder if the YC funding process is at all an exception, a funding process in which mathematics background might be an advantage.
- NY_USA_Hacker 15y agoSome of the qualifications of some of the YC partners are exceptional for venture partners: You might be correct. But, to add a little detail, it appears that information technology (biotech might be significantly different) venture funding has been reduced to a large font on one side of a 3 x 5" index card: For a seed round, see a demo of the software. For a Series A, see 'traction', that is users and revenue both growing quickly. For a Series B, see good accounting numbers. For a Series C, are basically just buying part of an on-going company. Could teach a dog that 3 x 5" card in a weekend. The Series A criteria are so uniform that my guess is that they are 'suggested' by some of the more important LPs. But, for anyone with a serious background in math, science, or engineering, (information technology) venture funding is a shock because, if only as a special case of the 3 x 5" card, the partners will essentially never take seriously a technical review of the project on paper. This is a shock because essentially all serious work in math, science, and engineering is done just on paper, not with prototypes or 'market ready' products. My joke about venture capital is that they would have said, "You build and test one and get one more ready for delivery, and we will buy half the gas for the Enola Gay". But the bomb was a big waste of money? The bomb cost about $3 billion in 1940s money (see Richard Rhodes), and that's $3000 for each of the 1 million US soldiers that might have been killed or injured in an invasion of the home islands of Japan, that is, a grand bargain just as money. So, (information technology) venture capital just won't judge based on looking in detail at the core 'secret sauce' intellectual property and, in particular, won't consider math. So, if the math helps with the traction or accounting numbers, then fine. The entrepreneur can tell the equity funders that the project is just 'software' and otherwise keep what is crucial in the secret sauce just between his own ears. If he has an algorithm that shows P = NP (not what I have) and is blazingly fast on the full range of NP-complete problems, then don't tell anyone and just let the software run and do logistics, manufacturing scheduling, etc. In my project, the math is the crucial work and the main promise of a valuable company quite beyond just some Series A 'traction' numbers. But the only person in business who can see this promise now is me, and this is at least a surprise. In the end, for me, now, that the venture partners will ignore or just hate the math is no longer very relevant: I have the math and the corresponding software long since done, and it was fairly easy given my background. The rest is just routine programming. Since I'm using Windows, .NET, ASP.NET, and ADO.NET, I've had to learn those topics. This learning has been routine but slow. But a few more Web pages, and the software will be ready for at least first production. Then get and load some good initial 'base data', and I will be able to go live. If the project is good, then there will be good 'traction' numbers. Then I could raise a Series A, but if the project is good soon it should throw off enough cash that I won't t need a Series A. If I get a good business without equity funding, then the venture partners won't be part of it because they refused to evaluate the real promise, the math, and waited until the business was so far along it didn't need equity funding. Then, just why would I want a Board that hated math? Net, for this thread, for an information technology entrepreneur, the math just has to be something the entrepreneur keeps between his ears, and that is a piss poor career direction to recommend to young people.