Math writing is dull when it neglects the human dimension
golem.ph.utexas.edu
Math writing is dull when it neglects the human dimension
1–10 of 186 posts
Re: Math writing is dull when it neglects the human dimension
#2I’m no mathematician, so I only took basic school math, but I hated every moment of it. Mostly because overwhelmingly there was never any context or justification for learning any of it. Why does this exist? What actual real world problems does it solve? How did folks come up with and it, prove it works and start using it? Crickets. Just learn this formula, then that. The first time I heard the ancients calculated the distance to and size of the moon with trigonometry I was floored. Oh ok so that’s the kind of cool shit they came up with it for. Now I’m listening.
Re: Math writing is dull when it neglects the human dimension
#3I’m no mathematician, so I only took basic school math, but I hated every moment of it. Mostly because overwhelmingly there was never any context or justification for learning any of it. Why does this exist? What actual real world problems does it solve? How did folks come up with and it, prove it works and start using it? Crickets. Just learn this formula, then that. The first time I heard the ancients calculated th…
Sounds like you had crappy teachers.
Re: Math writing is dull when it neglects the human dimension
#4I’m no mathematician, so I only took basic school math, but I hated every moment of it. Mostly because overwhelmingly there was never any context or justification for learning any of it. Why does this exist? What actual real world problems does it solve? How did folks come up with and it, prove it works and start using it? Crickets. Just learn this formula, then that. The first time I heard the ancients calculated th…
That is a consistent problem with the education system no matter what the topic is with few exceptions.
Re: Math writing is dull when it neglects the human dimension
#5I’m no mathematician, so I only took basic school math, but I hated every moment of it. Mostly because overwhelmingly there was never any context or justification for learning any of it. Why does this exist? What actual real world problems does it solve? How did folks come up with and it, prove it works and start using it? Crickets. Just learn this formula, then that. The first time I heard the ancients calculated th…
That is a consistent problem with the education system no matter what the topic is with few exceptions.
I think the economic returns to "decent understanding of X plus decent communication skills" are much higher when X is math than when X is art or language or history, so you need a greater passion for teaching to select it in spite of that fact, and this shrinks the pool of good math teachers relative to other subjects.
Re: Math writing is dull when it neglects the human dimension
#6I’m no mathematician, so I only took basic school math, but I hated every moment of it. Mostly because overwhelmingly there was never any context or justification for learning any of it. Why does this exist? What actual real world problems does it solve? How did folks come up with and it, prove it works and start using it? Crickets. Just learn this formula, then that. The first time I heard the ancients calculated th…
Hard to meet everyone where they are and at the same time give them a relevant practical application for their own life. Good learners just soak it up and look for the application later. But that also doesn’t fit all. It’s hard to even write a pop song that everyone likes so math education that appeals to all is almost impossible
Re: Math writing is dull when it neglects the human dimension
#7I’m no mathematician, so I only took basic school math, but I hated every moment of it. Mostly because overwhelmingly there was never any context or justification for learning any of it. Why does this exist? What actual real world problems does it solve? How did folks come up with and it, prove it works and start using it? Crickets. Just learn this formula, then that. The first time I heard the ancients calculated th…
Sounds like you had crappy teachers.
Establish why its "crappy teacher" and not "crappy student". I've seen far more of the latter than the former.
I don't think its hard to find something interesting about math either, and it is immediately applicable, even with what I think is extremely stupid in the form of common core as presented in the USA, you are literally being presented story problems about common every day occurrences and activities.
Re: Math writing is dull when it neglects the human dimension
#8I’m no mathematician, so I only took basic school math, but I hated every moment of it. Mostly because overwhelmingly there was never any context or justification for learning any of it. Why does this exist? What actual real world problems does it solve? How did folks come up with and it, prove it works and start using it? Crickets. Just learn this formula, then that. The first time I heard the ancients calculated th…
I’ve been teaching mathematics for decades. Know how many students like the cool applications at the time they are taking the class? Very, very few. Usually, it’s later on in one’s journey through life that appreciation for the cool applications occur. At the time of taking the class doing cool applications inspires 1, pisses off 50 because it’s too hard, and leaves 49 rolling their yes.
Re: Math writing is dull when it neglects the human dimension
#9I always liked Lockhart's Lament
https://maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/devlin/LockhartsLame...
It makes a very different point about teaching, or learning/discovering math, not writing about math.
Re: Math writing is dull when it neglects the human dimension
#10As somebody who works in a mathy subarea of computer science, oh man, I agree. My heart always falls when I need a result and it turns out the original paper is some terse typewritten notice from the 70s whose first sentence is a definition with a bunch of proper nouns and whose main theorem is given at the most general possible level with no applications at all.
I have talked with math people about why this is, and responses are some combination of
a) being concise and being elegant are the same, same for maximum generality/abstraction
b) the people who should read the paper don't need things explained
c) I am afraid that some smart egotistical professor whose opinion I value for some reason will call me soft if I add extra handholding material
(Nobody has ever really said c, but my sense is it's true. Academic writing has a lot of imitation of style to prove you're part of the in-group.)