5 ms·

This article was not written for a layperson; it was written for someone who had taken college-level math classes and has a more-than-casual interest in math, b

This article was not written for a layperson; it was written for someone who had taken college-level math classes and has a more-than-casual interest in math, but had until now been put off by overly-technical (read: very very technical) descriptions of tensors. I fall precisely into this category, and enjoyed the article. I found the tone and phrasing of the article quite natural, but as an academic I realize the wording might sound unnatural to others. You must have a very poor impression of academics if you found the language of this article offensive. What's wrong with the word jest? If he isn't allowed to say 'jest', why do you get away with 'para-academic elitism' and 'rhetorical affectations'? Also, I realize that saying "we" might sound strange, but I didn't know it could offend. (It's not a royal 'we'; it refers to 'you and I', FWIW.) What's a tofferie, by the way?

lmz 13y ago
> What's a tofferie, by the way? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toff
tedsanders 13y ago
For what it's worth, I enjoyed the article. I've used tensors a little bit, but I remain uncomfortable with them. Perhaps I'm exactly the audience you were targeting. :)
escape_goat 13y ago
It's not a question of the word "jest" having anything wrong with it, and I think you mistake my point somewhat if your impression was that I was offended by the author’s rhetoric. In North America, one does not hear the word “jest” that often. It is a perfectly decent word, but it is also — along with other turns of phrase employed here — symptomatic of a particular discourse that makes assertions regarding social order and fundamental power relationships between humans. My objection is not to the author’s rhetoric. My objection is that the article suggests it will help the reader conquer the ‘fear’ of tensors while still using language that confronts the reader with an anxious situation. He is bluntly interpolating an elite — those with a notion of belonging to an elite — and presenting material as a test of membership in that category. This is a good way to teach smart kids who are strongly motivated by the notion of belonging to a high(er) ranking peer group. (In the short term, at least.) It is a very, very bad way to teach anyone who has learned, consistently, that this language specifically disincludes them, and it is bad enough when it comes to teaching those who have learned that they are not, in fact, a member of any sort of intellectual elite. “Tofferie” is a (probably misspelt) inferred word; that is, there is no such word, but its meaning is readily deducible. A “toff” is a person who displays mannerisms associated with wealth and status; the usage of this word in the North American context would be an example of the sort of signalling I am talking about. I’ve met professors, both associate and full, in various social contexts; I probably have a very ordinary (or even mundane) impression of academics.
- ChristianMarks 13y ago
  Let me guess: it was the bow tie.
  - j2kun 13y ago
    Bow ties are cool.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- dded 13y ago
  > In North America, one does not hear the word “jest” that often That's not my experience. But certainly I'll admit that North America is a big place, and your experience could be different. I grew up in a blue collar town in the midwest of the US. I hear "jest" all the time, and hear it in all kinds of company. But usually I only hear it in one of two idioms: "I jest", usually said after a joke if it's apparent that the listener is taking offense to something just said; and "only half in jest", indicating that the speaker wants you to take what s/he just said seriously. It's that second idiom that he uses.
- lambdaphage 13y ago
  I've read your comments three times, and the original article twice. I'm still very confused about what your point is. Before I read your comments, which call direct attention to the author's style, my impression of it was that the author was writing in a deliberately informal, encouraging and sympathetic tone. The material is somewhat difficult, he admits, but not as difficult as it is made out to be, and the reader will be rewarded with the understanding of an elegant concept if they just push on for a bit. Having read and done a bit of mathematics myself, I recognize this tone as the one I try to adopt when I explain concepts to others, or write notes for my own understanding. (Which is half of the reason Kun writes these things himself, I assume. Kudos to him for it.) It is far from condescension-- if anything, it is _commiseration_. Your concerns, so far as one can find them stated explicitly, are nits about style. These would be minor even if they were accurate, but they are not. For example, "half in jest" is twice as popular as "half-joking", according to google. "We", as other commenters have noted, would have been perfectly fine even if it weren't alraedy completely standard usage in mathematics. Which it is. I am reminded of a line from the "Note on Notation" in Hodges' _Model Theory_: > 'I' means I, 'we' means we. For all the objections about uncommon vocabulary, I can't help but observe that the only usage that seems to have confused readers in this thread (myself included) was "tofferies". But I learned a new word today, so thank you for that. But I still don't understand how "jest" is "symptomatic of a particular discourse that makes assertions regarding social order and fundamental power relationships between humans". In fact, the phrase: > symptomatic of a particular discourse that makes assertions regarding social order and fundamental power relationships between humans strikes me as _rather a lot more_ "symptomatic of a particular discourse that makes assertions regarding social order and fundamental power relationships between humans". In particular, the discourse of critical theory, which has become so cloistered and self-referential that you can pick it out a mile away. I would be grateful if you would spell out exactly what those assertions are, so long as you are charging the author with making them. I catch another whiff of that with phrases like "he is bluntly interpolating an elite". Either you mean "interpolating" in the sense of approximating a function between two known values, in which case I have no idea what you're talking about. Or you mean "interpellating", in the Althusserian sense, which is the only interpretation that the context seems to support. But in that case, look what you're doing: you're walking into a forum on hacking with highly, _highly_ abstruse jargon that even the average English-speaking philosopher does not understand. I would say that you are hoist by your own petard here, but perhaps that phrase would strike you as oppressive. Finally, I don't understand what you intend by "an anxious situation". Do you simply mean that math produces anxiety? There's no shame in admitting that, but you might at least acknowledge that it's precisely that anxiety which Kun attempts to combat in his tutorial. I don't see how you can miss that Kun is, in fact, making an extremely generous effort to encourage the reader. PS: Those "little tests of the intellect" are what we in math call "exercises", which are how one actually grasps the material. You cannot learn math by passive absorbtion-- you have to sharpen your pencil and puzzle it out for yourself. Not because "we did it so you have to, too", but because we sincerely know of no other way to put mathematical understanding in another human being's head. Well-selected exercises are actually a strong signal to the reader that the author really cares about the reader's comprehension. I don't know of a charitable way of putting this, but for one criticizing the OP's engagement with the conventions of mathematical writing, you seem rather innocent of them yourself.
SiVal 13y ago
Tofferies are things done by toffs that show they are toffs, where "toff" is a snooty, upper crust, elitist, aristocratic twit who holds commoners in contempt. Or so I learned while working in the UK. It's all a part of the jargon of British class warfare. We have toffs in the US (Fraser Crane was a good example), but when Hollywood wants to create the ultimate toff, one whose every vowel drips with contempt and condescension, they will always give him a certain British toff accent that screams toff to every native English speaker--even those of us who don't know the word toff.

lmz 13y ago

> What's a tofferie, by the way? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toff

tedsanders 13y ago

For what it's worth, I enjoyed the article. I've used tensors a little bit, but I remain uncomfortable with them. Perhaps I'm exactly the audience you were targeting. :)

escape_goat 13y ago

It's not a question of the word "jest" having anything wrong with it, and I think you mistake my point somewhat if your impression was that I was offended by the author’s rhetoric. In North America, one does not hear the word “jest” that often. It is a perfectly decent word, but it is also — along with other turns of phrase employed here — symptomatic of a particular discourse that makes assertions regarding social order and fundamental power relationships between humans. My objection is not to the author’s rhetoric. My objection is that the article suggests it will help the reader conquer the ‘fear’ of tensors while still using language that confronts the reader with an anxious situation. He is bluntly interpolating an elite — those with a notion of belonging to an elite — and presenting material as a test of membership in that category. This is a good way to teach smart kids who are strongly motivated by the notion of belonging to a high(er) ranking peer group. (In the short term, at least.) It is a very, very bad way to teach anyone who has learned, consistently, that this language specifically disincludes them, and it is bad enough when it comes to teaching those who have learned that they are not, in fact, a member of any sort of intellectual elite. “Tofferie” is a (probably misspelt) inferred word; that is, there is no such word, but its meaning is readily deducible. A “toff” is a person who displays mannerisms associated with wealth and status; the usage of this word in the North American context would be an example of the sort of signalling I am talking about. I’ve met professors, both associate and full, in various social contexts; I probably have a very ordinary (or even mundane) impression of academics.

ChristianMarks 13y ago
Let me guess: it was the bow tie.
- j2kun 13y ago
  Bow ties are cool.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
dded 13y ago
> In North America, one does not hear the word “jest” that often That's not my experience. But certainly I'll admit that North America is a big place, and your experience could be different. I grew up in a blue collar town in the midwest of the US. I hear "jest" all the time, and hear it in all kinds of company. But usually I only hear it in one of two idioms: "I jest", usually said after a joke if it's apparent that the listener is taking offense to something just said; and "only half in jest", indicating that the speaker wants you to take what s/he just said seriously. It's that second idiom that he uses.
lambdaphage 13y ago
I've read your comments three times, and the original article twice. I'm still very confused about what your point is. Before I read your comments, which call direct attention to the author's style, my impression of it was that the author was writing in a deliberately informal, encouraging and sympathetic tone. The material is somewhat difficult, he admits, but not as difficult as it is made out to be, and the reader will be rewarded with the understanding of an elegant concept if they just push on for a bit. Having read and done a bit of mathematics myself, I recognize this tone as the one I try to adopt when I explain concepts to others, or write notes for my own understanding. (Which is half of the reason Kun writes these things himself, I assume. Kudos to him for it.) It is far from condescension-- if anything, it is _commiseration_. Your concerns, so far as one can find them stated explicitly, are nits about style. These would be minor even if they were accurate, but they are not. For example, "half in jest" is twice as popular as "half-joking", according to google. "We", as other commenters have noted, would have been perfectly fine even if it weren't alraedy completely standard usage in mathematics. Which it is. I am reminded of a line from the "Note on Notation" in Hodges' _Model Theory_: > 'I' means I, 'we' means we. For all the objections about uncommon vocabulary, I can't help but observe that the only usage that seems to have confused readers in this thread (myself included) was "tofferies". But I learned a new word today, so thank you for that. But I still don't understand how "jest" is "symptomatic of a particular discourse that makes assertions regarding social order and fundamental power relationships between humans". In fact, the phrase: > symptomatic of a particular discourse that makes assertions regarding social order and fundamental power relationships between humans strikes me as _rather a lot more_ "symptomatic of a particular discourse that makes assertions regarding social order and fundamental power relationships between humans". In particular, the discourse of critical theory, which has become so cloistered and self-referential that you can pick it out a mile away. I would be grateful if you would spell out exactly what those assertions are, so long as you are charging the author with making them. I catch another whiff of that with phrases like "he is bluntly interpolating an elite". Either you mean "interpolating" in the sense of approximating a function between two known values, in which case I have no idea what you're talking about. Or you mean "interpellating", in the Althusserian sense, which is the only interpretation that the context seems to support. But in that case, look what you're doing: you're walking into a forum on hacking with highly, _highly_ abstruse jargon that even the average English-speaking philosopher does not understand. I would say that you are hoist by your own petard here, but perhaps that phrase would strike you as oppressive. Finally, I don't understand what you intend by "an anxious situation". Do you simply mean that math produces anxiety? There's no shame in admitting that, but you might at least acknowledge that it's precisely that anxiety which Kun attempts to combat in his tutorial. I don't see how you can miss that Kun is, in fact, making an extremely generous effort to encourage the reader. PS: Those "little tests of the intellect" are what we in math call "exercises", which are how one actually grasps the material. You cannot learn math by passive absorbtion-- you have to sharpen your pencil and puzzle it out for yourself. Not because "we did it so you have to, too", but because we sincerely know of no other way to put mathematical understanding in another human being's head. Well-selected exercises are actually a strong signal to the reader that the author really cares about the reader's comprehension. I don't know of a charitable way of putting this, but for one criticizing the OP's engagement with the conventions of mathematical writing, you seem rather innocent of them yourself.

SiVal 13y ago

Tofferies are things done by toffs that show they are toffs, where "toff" is a snooty, upper crust, elitist, aristocratic twit who holds commoners in contempt. Or so I learned while working in the UK. It's all a part of the jargon of British class warfare. We have toffs in the US (Fraser Crane was a good example), but when Hollywood wants to create the ultimate toff, one whose every vowel drips with contempt and condescension, they will always give him a certain British toff accent that screams toff to every native English speaker--even those of us who don't know the word toff.