4 ms·
> This is why figuring out an elegant, concise, and powerful set of mathematical models which apply to multiple domains, and then devoting effort to simplifying
by rndn 11y ago
> This is why figuring out an elegant, concise, and powerful set of mathematical models which apply to multiple domains, and then devoting effort to simplifying, organizing, and explaining those ideas in an accessible way is so important.
This reminds me of this Von Neumann quote about the importance of mathematics having an 'empirical source':
—
I think that it is a relatively good approximation to truth—which is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations—that mathematical ideas originate in empirics, although the genealogy is sometimes long and obscure. But, once they are so conceived, the subject begins to live a peculiar life of its own and is better compared to a creative one, governed by almost entirely aesthetical motivations, than to anything else and, in particular, to an empirical science. There is, however, a further point which, I believe, needs stressing. As a mathematical discipline travels far from its empirical source, or still more, if it is a second and third generation only indirectly inspired by ideas coming from "reality" it is beset with very grave dangers. It becomes more and more purely aestheticizing, more and more purely I'art pour I'art. This need not be bad, if the field is surrounded by correlated subjects, which still have closer empirical connections, or if the discipline is under the influence of men with an exceptionally well-developed taste. But there is a grave danger that the subject will develop along the line of least resistance, that the stream, so far from its source, will separate into a multitude of insignificant branches, and that the discipline will become a disorganized mass of details and complexities. In other words, at a great distance from its empirical source, or after much "abstract" inbreeding, a mathematical subject is in danger of degeneration. At the inception the style is usually classical; when it shows signs of becoming baroque, then the danger signal is up. It would be easy to give examples, to trace specific evolutions into the baroque and the very high baroque, but this, again, would be too technical.
In any event, whenever this stage is reached, the only remedy seems to me to be the rejuvenating return to the source: the re-injection of more or less directly empirical ideas. I am convinced that this was a necessary condition to conserve the freshness and the vitality of the subject and that this will remain equally true in the future.
- chestervonwinch 11y ago"I'art pour I'art" should be "l'art pour l'art". I'm only nitpicking because I recently started compiling a list of interesting quotes and intend to save this one :)
- reagency 11y agoYou wrote the same quote twice.
- LGBT_2000 11y agoI had to read it over and ended up pastiing it into IPython before I realized that.
- antimagic 11y agoIs this some kind of affirmational statement, kind of a counter to "ceci n'est pas une pipe"????
- rndn 11y agoIt basically suggests an intrinsic motivation in something. The pipe statement suggests that there is a difference between an actual thing and a representation of it.