I miss modernism!
Principia Mathematica is modern and insightful
71–80 of 175 posts
Re: Principia Mathematica is modern and insightful
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
The foundation of math is (mostly) ZFC.
It is not. The foundation of math is contested -- but afaik it is widely held that HoTT is the, erm, hottest contender to the throne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homotopy_type_theory
There is not a single foundation - you can choose. The differences are rarely important for working mathematicians though. Most know enough of ZFC to get by and ignore foundations tbh
Re: Principia Mathematica is modern and insightful
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well said. Thanks for calling out these sort of posers and charlatans on HN. We should not tolerate these people if we are to discuss/argue/motivate interesting/hard subjects productively. I automatically discount anybody on HN (until i have looked at their profile/comment history/any personal bio websites etc.) who claim they have read/studied a) Euclid's Elements b) Newton's Principia c) Maxwell's Treatise on Elect…
I don't know the exact curriculum and I'm sure it's changed over the years, but one of my girlfriends from back in the day really did go to a school that had one like this. St. John's College, which has two campuses in Annapolis, MA and Santa Fe, NM. They had no majors and everyone learns by reading the classics directly. They also have to learn classical Latin and Greek and read many in their original languages. I d…
They may have learned mechanics by studying Newton but they can’t have learned calculus. Principia includes geometric series and limits etc but given as geometric arguments so you don’t come out of newton’s principia knowing how to do calculus. If they learned the method of fluxions from Newton (which is equivalent to calculus) then I feel very sorry for them missing out on the far better modern presentation of Leibnitz’s calculus that they would get in studying say Spivak or Stewart or any other modern textbook. For the same reason everyone teaches Taylor series (which are fantastically useful) rather than Newton’s wildly inferior series derivation which he used because Taylor series hadn’t been (re)discovered yet.[1]
Euclid isn’t surprising. School children used to learn plane geometry from Euclid until the 1950s or so. I learned geometry at school using a syllabus from Euclid and we learned the modern form of Euclid’s postulates etc but we didn’t study Euclid itself.
[1] Taylor series were developed in the modern form by James Gregory who was trying to reverse engineer how Newton had come up with his series expansions. I say rediscovered above because they were first written down by Madhava of Sangamagrama who gave Taylor series expansions for the trigonometric functions and natural logarithms/exponential function in the 14th century.
Re: Principia Mathematica is modern and insightful
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well said. Thanks for calling out these sort of posers and charlatans on HN. We should not tolerate these people if we are to discuss/argue/motivate interesting/hard subjects productively. I automatically discount anybody on HN (until i have looked at their profile/comment history/any personal bio websites etc.) who claim they have read/studied a) Euclid's Elements b) Newton's Principia c) Maxwell's Treatise on Elect…
I don't know the exact curriculum and I'm sure it's changed over the years, but one of my girlfriends from back in the day really did go to a school that had one like this. St. John's College, which has two campuses in Annapolis, MA and Santa Fe, NM. They had no majors and everyone learns by reading the classics directly. They also have to learn classical Latin and Greek and read many in their original languages. I d…
I heard about St. John's from a twitter thread and find it deeply baffling.
It's as if a group of monks wanted to keep the quadrivium and trivium but their clock stopped at the 16th century. One of their faculty proudly said they study analysis by reading Descartes! Which I thought was a highbrow joke but nope, dead serious.
There's a reason that 'standing on the shoulders of giants' is a thing. Dive into the classics after you have gained the maturity from modern texts.
Take one of the easier problems from Rudin. Prove that a continuous function from the unit interval [0,1] to itself has a fixed point. I wonder how a student immersed in the 'classics' would even begin to tackle this.
Re: Principia Mathematica is modern and insightful
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well said. Thanks for calling out these sort of posers and charlatans on HN. We should not tolerate these people if we are to discuss/argue/motivate interesting/hard subjects productively. I automatically discount anybody on HN (until i have looked at their profile/comment history/any personal bio websites etc.) who claim they have read/studied a) Euclid's Elements b) Newton's Principia c) Maxwell's Treatise on Elect…
I've certainly read and studied material explaining f), but I haven't read the original paper (besides, isn't that in German?). The proofs aren't that hard, as I remember them, maybe they're harder in original form? To be clear: I specialized in logic, formal verification and programming language theory at uni. This was a while ago, and I'm on new parent amounts of sleep, so pls b nice.
[deleted]
Re: Principia Mathematica is modern and insightful
#76It always amazes me how a random dump of someone who read the first 40 pages of PM attracts dozens comments on HN. This really must be a very math-starved community of people who wanted to learn math but never quite could.
Two thoughts on someone who went out of their way to learn math: 1. If you can already program, the worst thing you can do is think of mathematics as learning a programming language. It is not, and you will waste your time being frustrated with things like syntax and notation. You get “used to” mathematics by doing it, and it’s something on its own. Just go with it. It’s ok to be confused. 2. Do the exercises, and st…
I think your latter comment is kind of analogous to people writing python (or any high-level language) without understanding assembly. I think maybe that reduces the mystery a bit?
Re: Principia Mathematica is modern and insightful
#77"Principia Mathematica is an odd book, worth looking into from a historical point of view as well as a mathematical one. It was written around 1910, and mathematical logic was still then in its infancy, fresh from the transformation worked on it by Peano and Frege. The notation is somewhat obscure, because mathematical notation has evolved substantially since then. And many of the simple techniques that we now take for granted are absent. Like a poorly-written computer program, a lot of Principia Mathematica's bulk is repeated code, separate sections that say essentially the same things, because the authors haven't yet learned the techniques that would allow the sections to be combined into one."
- Mark Dominus (https://blog.plover.com/math/PM.html)
Re: Principia Mathematica is modern and insightful
#78If you can read this book cover-to-cover, you're an absolute hero. Sometimes I wonder if they inserted a big logical error in the middle just to troll people under the assumption nobody would bother to read it.
It was required reading for my Logics class in undergrad. Pretty sure it was also on the optionals (aka required) for my Set Theory class as well. It's also pretty typically a part of History Of Mathematics and Philosophy of Mathematics courses.
You might be thinking of Russell's Principles of Mathematics which is a bit easier going.
Re: Principia Mathematica is modern and insightful
#79[dead]
Re: Principia Mathematica is modern and insightful
#80It blows my mind that Russell invented (formalized) types. Such an elemental concept, but so useful.