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

Mathematics is hard for mathematicians to understand too

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 152 posts

Re: Mathematics is hard for mathematicians to understand too

#141

Post by djmips »

karmakurtisaani wrote: post #72

A lot of people here suggesting they'd be great mathematicians if only it wasn't for the pesky notation. What they are missing is that the notation is the easy part..

It's like saying that learning Arabic is the easy part of writing a great Saudi novel. True, but you have to understand that being literate is the price of admission. Clearly you consider yourself very facile with mathematical notation but you might have some empathy for the inumerate. Not everyone had the good fortune of great math teachers or even the luxury of attending a good school. I believe there is valid frustration borne out of poor mathematical education.

Re: Mathematics is hard for mathematicians to understand too

#142

Post by worthless-trash »

nkrisc wrote: post #79
worthless-trash wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same problem, but unlike math notation, it is MUCH clearer and even my 10 year old newphew can tell python from javascript and C.

I would wager that a vast majority of people on the planet could not distinguish Python from JavaScript from C.

When it says "this python" program, they dont need to, it says its python. Math notation doesn't have that clarity.

Re: Mathematics is hard for mathematicians to understand too

#143

Post by moi2388 »

I think notation and motivation matters greatly, in the context of learning.

Awesome that for mathematicians notation does not matter, an every solved problem is trivial..

But for a student this is not the case yet.

Take the simple pi vs tau debate. Of course it doesn’t matter which you use once you understand them.

But if you don’t understand it yet, and learn about it for the first time, tau makes everything a lot more intuitive.

Re: Mathematics is hard for mathematicians to understand too

#144

Post by Doxin »

xigoi wrote: post #124
UltraSane wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. Over and over I find really intimidating math notation actually represents pretty simple concepts. Sigma notation is a good example of this. Hmm, giant sigma or sum()?

Imagine how much unnecessary time would be added to a course about series if the lecturer had to write sum() instead of ∑ every time. If you find it hard to remember that ∑ means sum, math might not be for you, and that’s fine.

it's not so much remembering what ∑ means insomuch as that it's completely impossible to google the first time you run across it. It'll be in some PDF that doesn't allow you to copy-paste the symbol and you won't know what it's called. Rinse and repeat for any of the million symbols mathematicians use, never mind that loads of symbols are context dependent even if you could google them.

I hope mathematicians have a better reason than "it's tradition" for making the entire field completely opaque to anyone who hasn't studied math extensively.

Re: Mathematics is hard for mathematicians to understand too

#145

Post by xigoi »

Doxin wrote: post #144
xigoi wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine how much unnecessary time would be added to a course about series if the lecturer had to write sum() instead of ∑ every time. If you find it hard to remember that ∑ means sum, math might not be for you, and that’s fine.

it's not so much remembering what ∑ means insomuch as that it's completely impossible to google the first time you run across it. It'll be in some PDF that doesn't allow you to copy-paste the symbol and you won't know what it's called. Rinse and repeat for any of the million symbols mathematicians use, never mind that loads of symbols are context dependent even if you could google them. I hope mathematicians have a b…

Basic notation like sums is covered in every undergraduate math course. Any non-standard notation will be introduced by the author using it. Nobody is trying to obscure anything from you.

Re: Mathematics is hard for mathematicians to understand too

#146

Post by UltraSane »

Doxin wrote: post #144
xigoi wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine how much unnecessary time would be added to a course about series if the lecturer had to write sum() instead of ∑ every time. If you find it hard to remember that ∑ means sum, math might not be for you, and that’s fine.

it's not so much remembering what ∑ means insomuch as that it's completely impossible to google the first time you run across it. It'll be in some PDF that doesn't allow you to copy-paste the symbol and you won't know what it's called. Rinse and repeat for any of the million symbols mathematicians use, never mind that loads of symbols are context dependent even if you could google them. I hope mathematicians have a b…

Yes, mathematical notation is not very discoverable at all.

Re: Mathematics is hard for mathematicians to understand too

#147

Post by agumonkey »

assemblyman wrote: post #89

I find software engineers spend too much time focused on notation. Maybe they are right to do so and notation definitely can be helpful or a hindrance, but the goal of any mathematical field is understanding. It's not even to prove theorems. Proving theorems is useful (a) because it identifies what is true and under what circumstances, and (b) the act of proving forces one to build a deep understanding of the phenome…

Math rarely emphasize on this. You either have talent and you get intuition for free or you're average and you swim as much as you can until the next floater. It's sad because the internal and external value is immense

Re: Mathematics is hard for mathematicians to understand too

#148

Post by karmakurtisaani »

djmips wrote: post #141
karmakurtisaani wrote: post #72

A lot of people here suggesting they'd be great mathematicians if only it wasn't for the pesky notation. What they are missing is that the notation is the easy part..

It's like saying that learning Arabic is the easy part of writing a great Saudi novel. True, but you have to understand that being literate is the price of admission. Clearly you consider yourself very facile with mathematical notation but you might have some empathy for the inumerate. Not everyone had the good fortune of great math teachers or even the luxury of attending a good school. I believe there is valid frus…

Well yeah, but this empathy and frustration is simply misplaced. I have empathy for people who didn't get good education, and they should be frustrated towards their bad schooling. Math notation is simply the wrong target.

If they can't see that, it's hard to think they have much chance with the actual math. "A mathematician is a person who knows how to separate the relevant from the irrelevant", a saying I was told in school.

Re: Mathematics is hard for mathematicians to understand too

#149

Post by djmips »

karmakurtisaani wrote: post #148
djmips wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's like saying that learning Arabic is the easy part of writing a great Saudi novel. True, but you have to understand that being literate is the price of admission. Clearly you consider yourself very facile with mathematical notation but you might have some empathy for the inumerate. Not everyone had the good fortune of great math teachers or even the luxury of attending a good school. I believe there is valid frus…

Well yeah, but this empathy and frustration is simply misplaced. I have empathy for people who didn't get good education, and they should be frustrated towards their bad schooling. Math notation is simply the wrong target. If they can't see that, it's hard to think they have much chance with the actual math. "A mathematician is a person who knows how to separate the relevant from the irrelevant", a saying I was told…

That's funny that you would bring up something you learned in school.

Re: Mathematics is hard for mathematicians to understand too

#150

Post by baobun »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #130
baobun wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, the argument is even dumber than that. The person who writes a poem hasn't created any literature. Sure they have, by virtue of writing it down. It becomes literature when it hits the paper (or computer screen, as it were). (Unless you mean to imply that formulating an original poem in your mind counts as "writing", in which case I guess we illustrate the overarching point of value in shared symbols and languag…

> Unless you mean to imply that formulating an original poem in your mind counts as "writing" You're close. I'm making the point that, in modern English, no other verb is available for the act of creating a poem. Here's a quote from the fantasy novel The Way of Kings that always appealed to me: >> "Many of our nuatoma -- this thing, it is the same as your lighteyes, only their eyes are not light--" >> "How can you be…

> I'm making the point that, in modern English, no other verb is available for the act of creating a poem.

Make, Create, Formulate.

> I am forced to tell people who ask me that the English translation of 姓 is "last name", despite the fact that the 姓 comes first.

"Family name" is availabe, commonly used and a better traslation than "last name" here, no?

> Similarly...

You're probably pretty alone in this thinking.

I don't think the metaphysical argument about Sisyhus is interestng or relevant.

I don't consider all movies to be literature. Do you consider all movies to be literature by definition?

I also write computer programs and banking checks. Does that make them literature to you?

Post reply on HN