3 ms·
Also, rigor was romantacized. With the exception of The Elements, very little math till the last maybe 200 years had that level of rigor. Newton and Leibniz sur
by babesh 5y ago
Also, rigor was romantacized. With the exception of The Elements, very little math till the last maybe 200 years had that level of rigor. Newton and Leibniz sure didn't.
- ttyprintk 5y agoThis is one of my pet peeves, too, an obsession with referencing the first to try innovative math. Maybe Babylonian root finding is a simplified case of what we call Newton’s method. The minimum level of rigor for a concept to go from theorem to proof is both human and philosophical. We get very little recognition for the mathematicians putting in the hard work, and detrimental recognition for concepts that don’t exactly widen a field of math for innovation. Recent movements to revise the recognition of Pythagoras are doing the right thing when they acknowledge the path dependence of unbroken written communication of ideas is often mistaken for awarding prestige to a particular institution, educational tradition, or culture.
- babesh 5y agoYes, and that path dependence isn't limited to mathematics, but people love prestige.