4 ms·
Okay so this is one thing that boils me about quanta magazine. The authors obviously have enough background in mathematics to know the nature of the field, yet
by boxfire 5y ago
Okay so this is one thing that boils me about quanta magazine. The authors obviously have enough background in mathematics to know the nature of the field, yet they do these very long winded, vague intros, which serve to mystify the subject and build it up. That is a major disservice to the knowledge itself. Sure you can't drop the mathematical definitions in the front, but your thesis paragraph can say least say the names of the major branches you're unifying without having to read half the article. Holy moley, everything is written to waste our attention on suspense and it's driving me wild. Where's the dry but laymen-approachable math and physics publication at? Oh yeah that doesn't sell time in the face of ads.
- Y_Y 5y agoAnd then about ten paragraphs in the reveal that a torus is like a donut, and now it's time for symplectic geometry. I think that it's a noble effort, but you can't go from zero to graduate level geometry in a little article like that.
- voldacar 5y agoHuge agree. I knew it was quanta just from the headline. For the life of me I will never understand who their target audience is. People who claim to like math but cant actually be trusted to learn any??