3 ms·

> I cannot overstate how destructive this is, because it basically presents math as this arbitrary logic game rather than as a fundamental language of the unive

> I cannot overstate how destructive this is, because it basically presents math as this arbitrary logic game rather than as a fundamental language of the universe. You are making a clear philosophical assumption yet don't realize it. Is math really the 'fundamental language of the universe'? or is it an arbitrary logic game that, in its most common interpretation, describes the universe well? Given that we have no full formulation of the universe in terms of mathematics (no theory of everything), the claim that mathematics as it is today is the 'fundamental language of the universe' seems laughably wrong. On the other hand, there are thousands of formal mathematical systems that don't describe anything 'real' as far as we can tell. I mean, the entirety of the lambda calculus was developed before there were any computers that could realize any it in any physical system. Yet, its development has proven incredibly important in the entire foundations of mathematics (many theorem provers, etc are based on some variant of lambda calculus). I'm not denying that some people learn calculus, algebra, etc (i.e., standard high-school/early college maths) with physical systems in mind. However, mathematics is much more than that and limiting the field only to that which we can sense is actually detrimental to mathematical progress as a whole. It seems best to me to encourage purely mathematical thinking itself in the hope that the arbitrary systems humans create may one day be used to describe something. History is littered with 'useless' subfields of math later becoming fundamental to the economy (number theory and elliptic curves to cryptography, lambda calculus to computation, group theory to quantum physics, etc)

ajkjk 3y ago
Personally I don't care that it's about physical things. But I care that it's about doing things: understanding concepts intuitively, solving problems, being adept at thinking mathematically. The thing that is not useful is tedious definitions and tedious proofs. A simple example is: nobody needs a proof of how differentiation or integration work. They need to know how to do it, think with it, apply it to problems, and generalize it. The proof is a tool for not being wrong, and that is a perfectly fine thing for mathematicians to do and a waste of everybody else's time (unless they really need convincing). It is an absolute travesty how many people enjoy math until they get to their first college class which is taught by a disconnected mathematician that ruins the subject for them. At my school everyone stopped at multivariable because that's the level at which mathematicians systematically ruined math -- by teaching and testing the wrong stuff. Personally, I survived by the skin of my teeth, and then later found physics and actually learned multivariable calculus and learned to love math again. Despite the efforts of the people who were paid to teach it.
- anon291 3y ago
  > Personally I don't care that it's about physical things. But I care that it's about doing things: understanding concepts intuitively, solving problems, being adept at thinking mathematically. The thing that is not useful is tedious definitions and tedious proofs. That's great. Not everyone does. Thinking simply via formal systems is not inherently inferior to 'doing' something with it. Both have their uses. In particular, as I said, quantum mechanics would not be where it's at today if it weren't for many pre-quantum mathematicians pushing around symbols on a page.
  - ajkjk 3y ago
    I'm very much not arguing that nobody should do pure math. I'm arguing that teaching pure math to undergrads who are trying to learn applied math is a tragedy and ruins math for a lot of people.
- Koshkin 3y ago
  > nobody needs a proof of how differentiation or integration work This "nobody" includes a lot of industry workers, e.g. those in finance and economics, not only "pure" mathematicians.
  - ajkjk 3y ago
    They... don't? The only reason they need proofs is to write papers proving other things. Not to do the actual work of their fields.
- nonameiguess 3y ago
  I think you're generalizing far too much from limited experience. Not all mathematics, even applied mathematics, corresponds neatly to intuitive physics models you build naturally by being an animal that interacts with the world. Quantum mechanics was already given as an example, but I had the opposite experience with cryptography. So much of the training as a CS student was along the lines of "accept that this works" and then practice by implementing something, and sure, it worked, but at no point did it ever become obvious why any of it should work. Until I finally went back and spent a solid year and a half learning group theory and algebraic number theory in a more rigorous way, figuring out all of the proofs we had skipped over, at least trying it myself, but giving up and reading someone else's proof if I couldn't figure it out within a day or two. And in this case, the abstraction definitely came before the application. This is math that was thought to be compeletely useless for centuries, but people worked on it anyway just because they loved math. Lo and behold, it made the Internet possible, so I'm glad someone did it and loved the tedium.

ajkjk 3y ago

Personally I don't care that it's about physical things. But I care that it's about doing things: understanding concepts intuitively, solving problems, being adept at thinking mathematically. The thing that is not useful is tedious definitions and tedious proofs. A simple example is: nobody needs a proof of how differentiation or integration work. They need to know how to do it, think with it, apply it to problems, and generalize it. The proof is a tool for not being wrong, and that is a perfectly fine thing for mathematicians to do and a waste of everybody else's time (unless they really need convincing). It is an absolute travesty how many people enjoy math until they get to their first college class which is taught by a disconnected mathematician that ruins the subject for them. At my school everyone stopped at multivariable because that's the level at which mathematicians systematically ruined math -- by teaching and testing the wrong stuff. Personally, I survived by the skin of my teeth, and then later found physics and actually learned multivariable calculus and learned to love math again. Despite the efforts of the people who were paid to teach it.

anon291 3y ago
> Personally I don't care that it's about physical things. But I care that it's about doing things: understanding concepts intuitively, solving problems, being adept at thinking mathematically. The thing that is not useful is tedious definitions and tedious proofs. That's great. Not everyone does. Thinking simply via formal systems is not inherently inferior to 'doing' something with it. Both have their uses. In particular, as I said, quantum mechanics would not be where it's at today if it weren't for many pre-quantum mathematicians pushing around symbols on a page.
- ajkjk 3y ago
  I'm very much not arguing that nobody should do pure math. I'm arguing that teaching pure math to undergrads who are trying to learn applied math is a tragedy and ruins math for a lot of people.
Koshkin 3y ago
> nobody needs a proof of how differentiation or integration work This "nobody" includes a lot of industry workers, e.g. those in finance and economics, not only "pure" mathematicians.
- ajkjk 3y ago
  They... don't? The only reason they need proofs is to write papers proving other things. Not to do the actual work of their fields.
nonameiguess 3y ago
I think you're generalizing far too much from limited experience. Not all mathematics, even applied mathematics, corresponds neatly to intuitive physics models you build naturally by being an animal that interacts with the world. Quantum mechanics was already given as an example, but I had the opposite experience with cryptography. So much of the training as a CS student was along the lines of "accept that this works" and then practice by implementing something, and sure, it worked, but at no point did it ever become obvious why any of it should work. Until I finally went back and spent a solid year and a half learning group theory and algebraic number theory in a more rigorous way, figuring out all of the proofs we had skipped over, at least trying it myself, but giving up and reading someone else's proof if I couldn't figure it out within a day or two. And in this case, the abstraction definitely came before the application. This is math that was thought to be compeletely useless for centuries, but people worked on it anyway just because they loved math. Lo and behold, it made the Internet possible, so I'm glad someone did it and loved the tedium.