3 ms·
I'm not sure if I'm atypical, but I do remember having Hugh Woodin give a talk about set theory that I, as a non-specialist (heck, as a computer scientist moonl
by gchpaco 17y ago
I'm not sure if I'm atypical, but I do remember having Hugh Woodin give a talk about set theory that I, as a non-specialist (heck, as a computer scientist moonlighting in math grad courses to keep my brain on!) could follow reasonably easily. I still don't know what projective geometry is, but it wasn't necessary to follow his argument.
- abstractbill 17y agoThere are some mathematicians who make big efforts to make their talks accessible to a wider audience. Inexplicably, at least in the mathematics department where I did my PhD, those kinds of talks were actually looked down on by many people.
- barry-cotter 17y agoSame reason most postmodernism and literary theory uses obscurantist language. People value more what they had to work harder for, whether it's understanding or a mug. Making something comprehensible to a broad audience doesn't do anything for the people whose opinion really matters to you, your colleauges, and it makes their work less prestigious by association, because its theoretically comprehensible. [Rant about Edward Said, and how he said some worthwhile stuff, then made it virtually incomprehensible thought better of]