3 ms·

> It seems that most professional mathematicians have never really given it much thought This statement cannot be more wrong. See continuum hypothesis for exam

> It seems that most professional mathematicians have never really given it much thought This statement cannot be more wrong. See continuum hypothesis for example. In the example you gave between you and your tutor, you represent someone who is a complete outsider or amateur, while the tutor represents someone (typical for people hold an undergraduate degree) who thinks what there are taught are the final words describing the truth. None of the 2 samples are in the “professional” category. Why would you think from this you can draw conclusion about “professional mathematician”? And I don’t think “professional mathematician” is the right terminology here, but I’m not a “professional linguist” so I’m not certain here. The paper you are commenting on is in mathematical physics. Mathematics rigorously defines self consistent systems, while (mathematical) physics concerns which “system” or language is describing our universe. So I’d say you entirely missed the point. (By the way, such speculation is not new in mathematical physics either, so don’t think “professional physicists” never given it much thought either.) I’m surprised to see the top comment here missing the point so much. May be this is really just hackers news where topics outside the hacker circle is mostly noise rather than signal.

xanderlewis 3y ago
> This statement cannot be more wrong. See continuum hypothesis for example. 1) ‘it seems that no mathematician has ever considered this’ would be even more (and certainly is) wrong, so my statement certainly could be more wrong (if indeed you think it is). 2) The absolute vast majority of mathematicians would struggle to even state the CH. If you’ve personally thought a lot about set theory, I can see why you might view the world otherwise. About ‘professional mathematicians’, I too hesitated before writing that. Perhaps it is the wrong term. What I intended by it was ‘people who do (pure) mathematics for a living’, so basically mathematicians who work at a university and primarily carry out research. ‘Mathematicians’ would not suffice, since that’s an even more vague term used in all sorts of completely different ways. Please suggest a better term if you have one. > Why would you think from this you can draw conclusion about “professional mathematician”? I don’t. My conclusions are drawn from the sample I have, which includes quite a variety of mathematicians I’ve chatted with online and in person. In case it’s the word ‘tutor’ that confused you, it’s worth mentioning that the person in question is a renowned mathematician (and professor, which means something in the UK, unlike in the US) who has been doing research for about four decades. If that’s not ‘pro’ then I don’t know what is. My comment doesn’t directly address the article and isn’t physics-related so I’m sorry if that means I’ve ‘missed the point’. I was just adding something I thought might be of interest to others, and it seems it was.
- KolenCh 3y ago
  Ok, fair enough. But shouldn't a direct comment be addressing to the paper instead? I might be wrong and am certainly not well versed in HN. I am not disappointed in your comment per se, I'm disappointed that is the top comment. May be because replies to your comment got more upvote (again, not knowing HN well enough to understand this.) But if that's the case, that's more because of a controversial comment attracting more refutals than the comment itself being more relevant to the discussion.
  - xanderlewis 3y ago
    > shouldn't a direct comment be addressing to the paper instead? Perhaps, yes. I’m not sure what’s considered acceptable and it’s not as if I intended it to reach the ‘top’ (if it has?).
    - KolenCh 3y ago
      No hard feelings. It tells more about the community than you. Cheers.

xanderlewis 3y ago

> This statement cannot be more wrong. See continuum hypothesis for example. 1) ‘it seems that no mathematician has ever considered this’ would be even more (and certainly is) wrong, so my statement certainly could be more wrong (if indeed you think it is). 2) The absolute vast majority of mathematicians would struggle to even state the CH. If you’ve personally thought a lot about set theory, I can see why you might view the world otherwise. About ‘professional mathematicians’, I too hesitated before writing that. Perhaps it is the wrong term. What I intended by it was ‘people who do (pure) mathematics for a living’, so basically mathematicians who work at a university and primarily carry out research. ‘Mathematicians’ would not suffice, since that’s an even more vague term used in all sorts of completely different ways. Please suggest a better term if you have one. > Why would you think from this you can draw conclusion about “professional mathematician”? I don’t. My conclusions are drawn from the sample I have, which includes quite a variety of mathematicians I’ve chatted with online and in person. In case it’s the word ‘tutor’ that confused you, it’s worth mentioning that the person in question is a renowned mathematician (and professor, which means something in the UK, unlike in the US) who has been doing research for about four decades. If that’s not ‘pro’ then I don’t know what is. My comment doesn’t directly address the article and isn’t physics-related so I’m sorry if that means I’ve ‘missed the point’. I was just adding something I thought might be of interest to others, and it seems it was.

KolenCh 3y ago
Ok, fair enough. But shouldn't a direct comment be addressing to the paper instead? I might be wrong and am certainly not well versed in HN. I am not disappointed in your comment per se, I'm disappointed that is the top comment. May be because replies to your comment got more upvote (again, not knowing HN well enough to understand this.) But if that's the case, that's more because of a controversial comment attracting more refutals than the comment itself being more relevant to the discussion.
- xanderlewis 3y ago
  > shouldn't a direct comment be addressing to the paper instead? Perhaps, yes. I’m not sure what’s considered acceptable and it’s not as if I intended it to reach the ‘top’ (if it has?).
  - KolenCh 3y ago
    No hard feelings. It tells more about the community than you. Cheers.