Live data from Hacker News

Mathematics is hard for mathematicians to understand too

science.org

11–20 of 152 posts

Re: Mathematics is hard for mathematicians to understand too

#11

Mathematics is such an old field, older than anything except arguably philosophy, that it's too broad and deep for anyone to really understand everything. Even in graduate school I often took classes in things discovered by Gauss or Euler centuries before. A lot of the mathematical topics the HN crowd seems to like--things like the Collatz conjecture or Busy Beavers--are 60, 80 years old. So, you end up having to spe…

> Mathematics is such an old field, older than anything except arguably philosophy

If we are already venturing outside of scientific realm with philosophy, I'm sure fields of literature or politics are older. Especially since philosophy is just a subset of literature.

Re: Mathematics is hard for mathematicians to understand too

#12

Mathematics is such an old field, older than anything except arguably philosophy, that it's too broad and deep for anyone to really understand everything. Even in graduate school I often took classes in things discovered by Gauss or Euler centuries before. A lot of the mathematical topics the HN crowd seems to like--things like the Collatz conjecture or Busy Beavers--are 60, 80 years old. So, you end up having to spe…

actually a lot of minimal proof expose more intuition than older proofs people find at first. I find it usually not extremely enlightening reading the first proofs of results, counterintuitively.

Re: Mathematics is hard for mathematicians to understand too

#14

Mathematics is such an old field, older than anything except arguably philosophy, that it's too broad and deep for anyone to really understand everything. Even in graduate school I often took classes in things discovered by Gauss or Euler centuries before. A lot of the mathematical topics the HN crowd seems to like--things like the Collatz conjecture or Busy Beavers--are 60, 80 years old. So, you end up having to spe…

> Mathematics is such an old field, older than anything except arguably philosophy If we are already venturing outside of scientific realm with philosophy, I'm sure fields of literature or politics are older. Especially since philosophy is just a subset of literature.

> I'm sure fields of literature or politics are older.

As far as anybody can tell, mathematics is way older than literature.

The oldest known proper accounting tokens are from 7000ish BCE, and show proper understanding of addition and multiplication.

The people who made the Ishango bone 25k years ago were probably aware of at least rudimentary addition.

The earliest writings are from the 3000s BCE, and are purely administrative. Literature, by definition, appeared later than writing.

Re: Mathematics is hard for mathematicians to understand too

#15
post #2

I thought we were well past trying to understand mathematics. After all, John von Neumann long ago said "In mathematics we don't understand things. We just get used to them."

Many ideas in math are extremely simple at heart. Some very precise definitions, maybe a clever theorem. The hard part is often: Why is this result important? How does this result generalize things I already knew? What are some concrete examples of this idea? Why are the definitions they way they are, and not something slightly different?

To use an example from functional programming, I could say:

- "A monad is basically a generalization of a parameterized container type that supports flatMap and newFromSingleValue."

- "A monad is a generalized list comprehension."

- Or, famously, "A monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors, what's the problem?"

The basic idea, once you get it, is trivial. But the context, the familiarity, the basic examples, and the relationships to other ideas take a while to sink in. And once they do, you ask "That's it?"

So the process of understanding monads usually isn't some sudden flash of insight, because there's barely anything there. It's more a situation where you work with the idea long enough and you see it in a few contexts, and all the connections become familiar.

(I have a long-term project to understand one of the basic things in category theory, "adjoint functors." I can read the definition just fine. But I need to find more examples that relate to things I already care about, and I need to learn why that particular abstraction is a particularly useful one. Someday, I presume I'll look at it and think, "Oh, yeah. That thing. It's why interesting things X, Y and Z are all the same thing under the hood." Everything else in category theory has been useful up until this point, so maybe this will be useful, too?)

Re: Mathematics is hard for mathematicians to understand too

#16
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course. I just find it hilarious that someone like von Neumann would say that.

von Neumann liked saying things that he knew would have an effect like "so deep" and "he's so smart". Like when asked how he knew the answer, claiming that he did the sum in his head when undoutedly he knew the closed-form expression.

I have tingling suspicion that you might have missed the joke.

To date I have not met anyone who thought he summed the terms of the infinite series in geometric series term by term. That would take infinite time. Of course he used the expression for the sum of a geometric series.

The joke is that he missed a clever solution that does not require setting up the series, recognising it's in geometric progression and then using the closed form.

The clever solution just finds the time needed for the trains to collide, then multiply that with the birds speed. No series needed.

Re: Mathematics is hard for mathematicians to understand too

#17
post #2

I thought we were well past trying to understand mathematics. After all, John von Neumann long ago said "In mathematics we don't understand things. We just get used to them."

It's probably a neurological artefact. When the brain just spent enough time looking at a pattern it can suddenly become obvious. You can go from blind to enlightened without the usual conscious logical effort. It's very odd.

Re: Mathematics is hard for mathematicians to understand too

#18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mathematics is such an old field, older than anything except arguably philosophy If we are already venturing outside of scientific realm with philosophy, I'm sure fields of literature or politics are older. Especially since philosophy is just a subset of literature.

> I'm sure fields of literature or politics are older. As far as anybody can tell, mathematics is way older than literature. The oldest known proper accounting tokens are from 7000ish BCE, and show proper understanding of addition and multiplication. The people who made the Ishango bone 25k years ago were probably aware of at least rudimentary addition. The earliest writings are from the 3000s BCE, and are purely adm…

> As far as anybody can tell, mathematics is way older than literature.

That depends what you mean by "literature". If you want it to be written down, then it's very recent because writing is very recent.

But it would be normal to consider cultural products to be literature regardless of whether they're written down. Writing is a medium of transmission. You wouldn't study the epic of Gilgamesh because it's written down. You study it to see what the Sumerians thought about the topics it covers, or to see which god some iconography that you found represents, or... anything that it might plausibly tell you. But the fact that it was written down is only the reason you can study it, not the reason you want to.

Re: Mathematics is hard for mathematicians to understand too

#19
I think this would be extremely valuable: “We need to focus far more energy on understanding and explaining the basic mental infrastructure of mathematics—with consequently less energy on the most recent results.” I’ve long thought that more of us could devout time to serious maths problems if they were written in a language we all understood.

A little off topic perhaps, but out of curiosity - how many of us here have an interest in recreational mathematics? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_mathematics]

Re: Mathematics is hard for mathematicians to understand too

#20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm sure fields of literature or politics are older. As far as anybody can tell, mathematics is way older than literature. The oldest known proper accounting tokens are from 7000ish BCE, and show proper understanding of addition and multiplication. The people who made the Ishango bone 25k years ago were probably aware of at least rudimentary addition. The earliest writings are from the 3000s BCE, and are purely adm…

> As far as anybody can tell, mathematics is way older than literature. That depends what you mean by "literature". If you want it to be written down, then it's very recent because writing is very recent. But it would be normal to consider cultural products to be literature regardless of whether they're written down. Writing is a medium of transmission. You wouldn't study the epic of Gilgamesh because it's written do…

> That depends what you mean by "literature". If you want it to be written down

That is what literature means: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/literature#Noun

Post reply on HN