Live data from Hacker News

How to Read Mathematics

people.vcu.edu

31–40 of 144 posts

Re: How to Read Mathematics

#31
FTA :

>>> One can now check that the next statement is true with a certain amount of essentially mechanical, though perhaps laborious, checking. I, the author, could do it, but it would use up a large amount of space and perhaps not accomplish much, since it'd be best for you to go ahead and do the computation to clarify for yourself what's going on here. I promise that no new ideas are involved, though of course you might need to think a little in order to find just the right combination of good ideas to apply.

I hate that. When I program my computer, I specify all the steps to accomplish something. If it's too verbose, then I abstract it in a function.

I even add comments to make sure that a human reader easily and completely understands what I do.

I do that because I want the computer and the human reader to be productive in their understanding of what I do. And because I want the human reader to see that it's either elegant or just mechanical.

I'm not that pretentious to say "hey, I've hidden a few details because if you are as smart as I am, then you'll understand easily".

I had this when learning maths. As a student I was sometimes lost because I always thought maths were hard. Should I have had all the details, I'd seen it was indeed much easier than I thought and wouldn't have been intimidated. Now, I'm older, and I know all of that and I'm much better at mathematics. But what a waste of time.

And the space argument, come one. Just put all the stuff in annexes and it'll be fine.

Re: How to Read Mathematics

#32
post #2

One thing that I really would like to impress upon computer people is that mathematics is not (usually) a formal computer language. Symbols and technical terms change meaning depending on the author, people write with different "accents". There's a little ambiguity and informality at times, but a whole lot less than other kinds of writing. Mathematics is (usually) written for humans, not computers. Don't attempt to r…

Why is that? Why is there not a universal way of writing mathematics that is not ambiguous and can be read by anyone that understands the 'language'?

I have a deep dread and fear of numbers and mathematics in general because I don't understand them and I have never learned. Now I learn that there isn't one thing to learn but a vast array? No thanks. I had this apparently romantic view that an equation is an equation (the same equation) anywhere in the world.

Re: How to Read Mathematics

#33

Feynman’s method to understand complex problems is so simple and elegant! Surely you’re joking, mr Feynman: ”I can’t understand anything in general unless I’m carrying along in my mind a specific example and watching it go. Some people think in the beginning that I’m kind of slow and I don’t understand the problem, because I ask a lot of these “dumb” questions: “Is a cathode plus or minus? Is an an-ion this way, or t…

I read that in Feynman's voice in my mind. His tone is unmistakable with each word he utters you can hear him smile with astonishment at the complexity of things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqtuNXWT0mo

Re: How to Read Mathematics

#34
post #32
post #2

One thing that I really would like to impress upon computer people is that mathematics is not (usually) a formal computer language. Symbols and technical terms change meaning depending on the author, people write with different "accents". There's a little ambiguity and informality at times, but a whole lot less than other kinds of writing. Mathematics is (usually) written for humans, not computers. Don't attempt to r…

Why is that? Why is there not a universal way of writing mathematics that is not ambiguous and can be read by anyone that understands the 'language'? I have a deep dread and fear of numbers and mathematics in general because I don't understand them and I have never learned. Now I learn that there isn't one thing to learn but a vast array? No thanks. I had this apparently romantic view that an equation is an equation…

I think the answer is that such a language would be overly verbose. You could ask the same question about human language and the same answer applies.

Re: How to Read Mathematics

#35
One good advice our calculus lecturer gave us was:

"Proofs are not meant to be understood by reading them from beginning to end. They are usually meant to be `checked` that way. Most of the time, I start reading the proof from the conclusion and work backwards. Often I write my proofs that way as well."

Re: How to Read Mathematics

#36
post #32
post #2

One thing that I really would like to impress upon computer people is that mathematics is not (usually) a formal computer language. Symbols and technical terms change meaning depending on the author, people write with different "accents". There's a little ambiguity and informality at times, but a whole lot less than other kinds of writing. Mathematics is (usually) written for humans, not computers. Don't attempt to r…

Why is that? Why is there not a universal way of writing mathematics that is not ambiguous and can be read by anyone that understands the 'language'? I have a deep dread and fear of numbers and mathematics in general because I don't understand them and I have never learned. Now I learn that there isn't one thing to learn but a vast array? No thanks. I had this apparently romantic view that an equation is an equation…

Why is there not a universal way of writing anything that is not ambiguous and can be read by anyone that understands the 'language'? Because humans have a tendency to defy attempts at classification and constraint. Constructed real-world languages (Lojban, Esperanto) haven't really taken off, while non-constructed languages mix and match whenever they feel like it ("le parking", "Schadenfreude"). The same is true in maths: people use what is easiest.

Re: How to Read Mathematics

#37
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Analogies on their own are limited if you don't continue to the technical definition. They are a raft to cross the river.

When you are a student, rather than a researcher, formal definitions must come first, and intuition can be developed later. Otherwise, you are just allowing yourself to say nonsense.

I worry about the fact that you're being downvoted, because what you're saying is utterly crucial and important. I fear those who ignore it will waste a lot of time with really misguided ways of doing mathematics. The analogy approach works for programming, but it's not applicable to seriously studying mathematics.

Re: How to Read Mathematics

#38
post #34
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that? Why is there not a universal way of writing mathematics that is not ambiguous and can be read by anyone that understands the 'language'? I have a deep dread and fear of numbers and mathematics in general because I don't understand them and I have never learned. Now I learn that there isn't one thing to learn but a vast array? No thanks. I had this apparently romantic view that an equation is an equation…

I think the answer is that such a language would be overly verbose. You could ask the same question about human language and the same answer applies.

It probably is also the case that the language used in sci articles is constantly changing, too.

We may take advantage of libraries in programming (but even then they may not work on all of the physical platforms), but it's not that well defined, what is "the fundamental language" of mathematics; at least not as of today.

Although I find it cool that tools like Coq are getting increasingly popular, so we will eventually get there.

Re: How to Read Mathematics

#39
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shameless plug, I write about math on BetterExplained.com For each symbol, I try to make an analogy. For "e", for example, I have the notion of "continuous growth". The formal definition is this: https://betterexplained.com/ColorizedMath/content/img/E_(mat... "The base for continuous growth is the unit quantity earning unit interest for unit time." Once you see the role of each part of the definition, the idea snaps…

I like that figure you made! Though shouldn't the whole 1/n fraction be red and not just the numerator?

Thanks! So, the red 1 represents the 100% interest we intend to earn; the pink n in the denominator represents the compounding pieces we divide it into.

For example, an approximation of e would be (1 + .01)^100, where the 100% interest had been chopped into 100 separate segments of 1%.

Re: How to Read Mathematics

#40

How I read Mathematics. First try to find the paper. First use http://front.math.ucdavis.edu . If you can't find it then use google scholar. If that fails then go on the authors academic website. If that fails then see if the author is live and try to contact them. Then repeat for their grad students. If all else fails post it to r/math or HN and ask for the pdf. First you want to see if this paper is even worth read…

> First try to find the paper. First use http://front.math.ucdavis.edu . If you can't find it then use google scholar. If that fails then go on the authors academic website. If that fails then see if the author is live and try to contact them. Then repeat for their grad students. If all else fails post it to r/math or HN and ask for the pdf.

Or, go directly to arxiv, scihub or a similar service.

Fully agree with the following steps, though.

Post reply on HN