Math writing is dull when it neglects the human dimension

Even if you solve a well known problem. I gave a talk once where I did so as a very junior student. During the Q&A a very well known senior person got up and basically asked me what's the point and this is all trivial anyway. Thankfully I remembered the exact place where the founder of the entire field had said just recently this is one of the hardest problems in the space and the problem he had hoped to maybe one day get to when he started the entire enterprise. The audience laughed and the guy apologized.

But I learned my lesson. Talks and papers need a little magic. For some people you can't just solve a cool problem, they need to think that they couldn't have done so and that they don't quite get how you did it. I now include something in every talk that I don't expect the audience to get just so what I'm doing seems "hard" to people who think this way.

Not the biggest issue in maths - the arxiv version usually won't match the journal version 1:1

https://uhra.herts.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/2299/5831/903260.p...

"We lecturers naturally worry about the content of our lectures rather than the emotions we express in giving them. As human beings, students respond immediately to the emotive charge, even if they do not understand the content. The lecturer may have tried to give a balanced account of the debate between X and Y, but his preference for Y shines through. When the students come to write the essay on the relative merits of X and Y, they know where to put their money. The lecturer might try to balance the lecture by suppressing his enthusiasm for Y, but this ‗objective‘ presentation will make a mystery of the whole exercise. The students will wonder why they have to sit through all this stuff about X and Y when even the lecturer does not seem to care much for either of them. The better strategy is for the lecturer to plunge into the works of X, reconstruct X‘s mental world and re-enact X‘s thoughts until he shares some of X‘s intellectual passions. We can be sure that X had intellectual passions, else we would not now have the works of X."

I think this is mostly just down to me not being the target audience, but so many papers seem to be more of a "proof that the author understood this thing", rather than an attempt to actually convey that understanding.

It reminds me of when programmers needlessly optimize or "golf" their code - yes, very clever, but now I can't understand what it does.

What this book did was place mathematics in human and historical context. It starts with Hippocrates' Quadrature of the Lune, then moves on to Euclid's proof of the Pythagorean theorem, and moves along through history all the way down to Euler and Cantor.

I've always thought that the book's format or method is the best way to teach mathematics in a general sense. It beats the rote practice of formulae out of context, and it simultaneously teaches the history of mathematics and science. I'm always gifting parents of school-age children copies of this book.