Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Read Mathematics

people.vcu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–144 of 144 posts

Re: How to Read Mathematics

#141

Post by sevensor »

emacsgifs wrote: post #75
erasemus wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because whenever we read something we have to guess the meaning. To the human mind, all communications are inherently contextual and metaphorical. To put it another way each individual has his own internal private language into which everything he reads must be translated.

It's as if we truly believe that 0 is positive charged and 1 is negative charged. Or to take us a step further, that a certain arrangements of electrons is "negative" and the inverse arrangement is "positive" I often tell CS people that everything in computing is metaphor and it honestly disturbs me that 80% of the time I get blank looks.

> I often tell CS people that everything in computing is metaphor and it honestly disturbs me that 80% of the time I get blank looks

This is why people think Machine "Learning" means that the Singularity is near.

Re: How to Read Mathematics

#142

Post by zitterbewegung »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #14
zitterbewegung wrote: post #3

How I read Mathematics. First try to find the paper. First use http://front.math.ucdavis.edu . If you can't find it then use google scholar. If that fails then go on the authors academic website. If that fails then see if the author is live and try to contact them. Then repeat for their grad students. If all else fails post it to r/math or HN and ask for the pdf. First you want to see if this paper is even worth read…

How I read Mathematics. First try to find the paper. First use http://front.math.ucdavis.edu . If you can't find it then use google scholar. If that fails then go on the authors academic website. If that fails then see if the author is live and try to contact them. Then repeat for their grad students. If all else fails post it to r/math or HN and ask for the pdf. Short of bugging the author, you can also go to Wikipe…

If you don't want to bug the author for their paper then it presupposes that you wouldn't even ask the author a question. It doesn't hurt to send an email that they delete but most likely the author never gets questions and you boost their ego.

Re: How to Read Mathematics

#143

Post by Firadeoclus »

joppy wrote: post #78
retox wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that? Why is there not a universal way of writing mathematics that is not ambiguous and can be read by anyone that understands the 'language'? I have a deep dread and fear of numbers and mathematics in general because I don't understand them and I have never learned. Now I learn that there isn't one thing to learn but a vast array? No thanks. I had this apparently romantic view that an equation is an equation…

Why should all mathematics be written using exactly the same language and conventions? Should all computer programs be written in the same language? People modify the language (natural, mathematical, programming) they are using to suit their problem. It is unreasonable to expect that the kind of language you use at the foundations of mathematics for example (set axioms and so on) would be efficient and useful for sta…

There's also a small but non-negligible chance that you could have understood the paper because you know (part of) the underlying theory under a different name, using different notation and concepts but leading to the same results.

Re: How to Read Mathematics

#144

Post by Aaargh20318 »

Smaug123 wrote: post #36
retox wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that? Why is there not a universal way of writing mathematics that is not ambiguous and can be read by anyone that understands the 'language'? I have a deep dread and fear of numbers and mathematics in general because I don't understand them and I have never learned. Now I learn that there isn't one thing to learn but a vast array? No thanks. I had this apparently romantic view that an equation is an equation…

Why is there not a universal way of writing anything that is not ambiguous and can be read by anyone that understands the 'language'? Because humans have a tendency to defy attempts at classification and constraint. Constructed real-world languages (Lojban, Esperanto) haven't really taken off, while non-constructed languages mix and match whenever they feel like it ("le parking", "Schadenfreude"). The same is true in…

> Why is there not a universal way of writing anything that is not ambiguous and can be read by anyone that understands the 'language'?

You mean like Lojban (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban) ?

Post reply on HN