A Mathematician’s Apology • Hacker News Board

Re: A Mathematician’s Apology

#51

Post by mikorym » Tue, Feb 04, 2020, 5:12 AM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #33

mikorym wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "No one has yet discovered any warlike purpose to be served by the theory of numbers or relativity, and it seems unlikely that anyone will do so for many years." > The GPS project was started by the U.S. Department of Defense in 1973 [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

> From 1942 to 1946, the [Manhattan] project was under the direction of Major General Leslie Groves of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

Is relativity used in building an atom bomb? Isn't it more quantum physics?

Re: A Mathematician’s Apology

#52

Post by ducaale » Tue, Feb 04, 2020, 7:01 AM UTC

ggggtez wrote: post #47

ducaale wrote: post #46

> mathematics is a "young man's game" Why is that the case?

Are you asking for a summary of the book? I'm sure you can google that.

No, I mean the phrase. This is not the only time I am seeing that as people age, they lose their edge in math (e.g bertrand russell focused more on philosophy as he got older). Is it same in in computer science

Re: A Mathematician’s Apology

#53

Post by LeanderK » Tue, Feb 04, 2020, 5:14 PM UTC

bonoboTP wrote: post #37

LeanderK wrote: post #14

> On the other hand, Hardy denigrates much of the applied mathematics as either being "trivial", "ugly", or "dull", and contrasts it with "real mathematics", which is how he ranks the higher, pure mathematics. Not sure if this surprising, since he was a vocal pure mathematician. But since I don't agree (and it sometimes looks like the pure mathematicians look down on the applied), I wonder whether there are some text…

Look at this interview with Cornelius Lanczos: https://youtu.be/avSHHi9QCjA?t=141 At the linked timestamp he talks about how he doesn't like the split of "pure" and "applied" math and how it's a very new concept of the 20th century.

wow, this is a fascinating, outstanding interview. I don't know why, but I was immediately hooked. I watched the whole thing.

Re: A Mathematician’s Apology

#54

Post by fsckboy » Tue, Feb 04, 2020, 7:44 PM UTC

FabHK wrote: post #23

spanxx wrote: post #2

Would you recommend that book to a software engineer with an interest in Maths?

No. It's been a while since I read it, but I found it an unapologetic, tedious, arrogant, self-serving screed lionising pure mathematics (and its practitioners, but only the very best), denigrating anything applied or even applicable, yet basically asking the hoi polloi doing that nether pedestrian work of actually working to put food on his table. And, it's not even particularly good in instilling some appreciation…

I'm not complaining, just pointing it out because it's an interesting quibble: "hoi" means "the" in greek, so no need to say "the hoi polloi"

Re: A Mathematician’s Apology

#55

Post by bonoboTP » Tue, Feb 04, 2020, 7:56 PM UTC

LeanderK wrote: post #53

bonoboTP wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at this interview with Cornelius Lanczos: https://youtu.be/avSHHi9QCjA?t=141 At the linked timestamp he talks about how he doesn't like the split of "pure" and "applied" math and how it's a very new concept of the 20th century.

wow, this is a fascinating, outstanding interview. I don't know why, but I was immediately hooked. I watched the whole thing.

Agreed. I somehow can't imagine such an interview being made today. Where mathematicians would talk about the math in a serious but fascinated tone,talking about theoretical stuff without flashy animations or cutesy stories.

The closest I can think of is Brady Haran's Numberphile or perhaps Lex Fridman's AI interviews (for example the Stroustup interview did go into technicalities). But these are still much more palatable and worried about losing the general viewership.