3 ms·

Thanks you. Nice to see a condensed history of Mathematics in it. First non-fiction book that I read cover to cover was a little book in college library called

Thanks you. Nice to see a condensed history of Mathematics in it. First non-fiction book that I read cover to cover was a little book in college library called "the history of numbers" (If I remember it correctly). Somehow I really love when a chapter starts with historical overview of the subject. The seemingly "obvious" ideas have taken so many centuries to become "obvious" to everyone. I find it both scary -- how slow the truth propagates -- and humbling as well.

antioedipus 3y ago
You (or others) may like Struik’s A Concise History of Mathematics [1]. It’s also quite easy to read cover-to-cover. My other favorite, Stillwell’s Mathematics and Its History, is excellent as well. In my opinion, Stillwell’s book is better to read as a way to motivate a particular topic, whereas Struik’s book really tries to illustrate the arc of mathematics through history—of course, Struik’s approach has its limits. History can motivate otherwise inscrutable or dry mathematics in a way that would probably interest many students. Why isn’t the history of math a serious part of secondary school? I don’t think US students remember that much of whatever we do teach there anyway. [1]: https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Concise_History_of_Mathematics/ECkXB-T2mwIC https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Concise_History_of_Ma... or https://archive.org/details/concisehistoryof0000dirk https://archive.org/details/concisehistoryof0000dirk
- TylerE 3y ago
  > Why isn’t the history of math a serious part of secondary school? Because 4 years already isn't enough time.
- galaxyLogic 3y ago
  That sounds like a great idea. It might help reduce the Dunning-Krueger effect which says that people who don't know what they don't know are overly confident about the knowledge they (think they) possess. Teaching the history of math would tell the students what they don't know and would no doubt motivate many to learn more. I had a short course on History of Philosophy in high-school which I liked but which was kind of fuzzy because that's the way philosophy is. It was hard to discern any progress or direction in the study of philosophy over the centuries. Whereas with math, there is no fuzziness about it, except in Fuzzy Logic of course.
plumeria 3y ago
> I find it both scary -- how slow the truth propagates -- and humbling as well Very true, similar to what happened to geometric algebra.

antioedipus 3y ago

You (or others) may like Struik’s A Concise History of Mathematics [1]. It’s also quite easy to read cover-to-cover. My other favorite, Stillwell’s Mathematics and Its History, is excellent as well. In my opinion, Stillwell’s book is better to read as a way to motivate a particular topic, whereas Struik’s book really tries to illustrate the arc of mathematics through history—of course, Struik’s approach has its limits. History can motivate otherwise inscrutable or dry mathematics in a way that would probably interest many students. Why isn’t the history of math a serious part of secondary school? I don’t think US students remember that much of whatever we do teach there anyway. [1]: https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Concise_History_of_Mathematics/ECkXB-T2mwIC https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Concise_History_of_Ma... or https://archive.org/details/concisehistoryof0000dirk https://archive.org/details/concisehistoryof0000dirk

TylerE 3y ago
> Why isn’t the history of math a serious part of secondary school? Because 4 years already isn't enough time.
galaxyLogic 3y ago
That sounds like a great idea. It might help reduce the Dunning-Krueger effect which says that people who don't know what they don't know are overly confident about the knowledge they (think they) possess. Teaching the history of math would tell the students what they don't know and would no doubt motivate many to learn more. I had a short course on History of Philosophy in high-school which I liked but which was kind of fuzzy because that's the way philosophy is. It was hard to discern any progress or direction in the study of philosophy over the centuries. Whereas with math, there is no fuzziness about it, except in Fuzzy Logic of course.

plumeria 3y ago

> I find it both scary -- how slow the truth propagates -- and humbling as well Very true, similar to what happened to geometric algebra.