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

A Mathematician's Apology (1940) [pdf]

math.ualberta.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–36 of 36 posts

Re: A Mathematician's Apology (1940) [pdf]

#31

Post by sn41 »

nextos wrote: post #14
earcaraxe wrote: post #3

He's incredibly ageist and cynical about man's abilities to do great things. Definitely a curmudgeon, but mixed in with some good quotes and advice. I particularly thought this was cute: "It is one of the first duties of a professor, for example, in any subject, to exaggerate a little both the importance of his subject and his own importance in it. A man who is always asking ‘Is what I do worth while?’ and ‘Am I the…

I like Hardy, but I dislike his ageism here too. Erdős is a good counterexample to his argument. Even Euler. Many famous mathematicians have produced good work late in their lives.

G. D. Birkhoff proved the Ergodic Theorem when he was nearly 50. It is one of the high points of twentieth century analysis.

Re: A Mathematician's Apology (1940) [pdf]

#32

Post by jomamaxx »

earcaraxe wrote: post #3

He's incredibly ageist and cynical about man's abilities to do great things. Definitely a curmudgeon, but mixed in with some good quotes and advice. I particularly thought this was cute: "It is one of the first duties of a professor, for example, in any subject, to exaggerate a little both the importance of his subject and his own importance in it. A man who is always asking ‘Is what I do worth while?’ and ‘Am I the…

I didn't it read it as curmudgeon.

I think people these days are just not emotionally honest, people have to be 'positive' all the time.

Re: A Mathematician's Apology (1940) [pdf]

#33

Post by XparXnoiAx »

gjm11 wrote: post #17
Fordrus wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost frightening to me that the Hardy of the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium could be writing this. It's part of a healthy understanding of genetics at all!

I very much doubt that Hardy regarded that as a "discovery". From a pure-mathematical point of view it's completely trivial. (I do not say that to diminish its importance, which is an entirely separate matter. And something can be mathematically trivial but still an important discovery -- the cleverness may e.g. reside in noticing that it's a thing that might be true at all. Be all that as it may, I can't imagine Har…

Math is so huge......I've taken several math classes beyond calculus. Most people I know struggled with algebra, and are confounded and confused by my math skill. My math skill is so far advanced from zero that the average person cannot even conceive what such things mean.....even famous science writers don't understand eigenvalues, but I do.

Despite all that, I consider myself horrible at math. I am aware that I know only a small portion, and even that portion, poorly.

So maybe Hardy spent more time focusing on what he didn't know, and measured his achievements based on that rather than on what he did know.

Re: A Mathematician's Apology (1940) [pdf]

#34

Post by thebarknight »

gjm11 wrote: post #17
Fordrus wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost frightening to me that the Hardy of the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium could be writing this. It's part of a healthy understanding of genetics at all!

I very much doubt that Hardy regarded that as a "discovery". From a pure-mathematical point of view it's completely trivial. (I do not say that to diminish its importance, which is an entirely separate matter. And something can be mathematically trivial but still an important discovery -- the cleverness may e.g. reside in noticing that it's a thing that might be true at all. Be all that as it may, I can't imagine Har…

Yes, that is true. He really did not care about it. The paper he wrote is Mendelian Proportions in a Mixed Population (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/28/706/49.full.pdf+htm...). It is brief, barely a page in length, and he introduces the HW equation with the preamble "A little mathematics of the multiplication table type is enough to that in the next generation the numbers will be [equation]".

As an added bonus, he cites Karl Pearson

Re: A Mathematician's Apology (1940) [pdf]

#35

Post by getbucknaked »

ttflee wrote: post #28
getbucknaked wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Erdos isn't a counter-example to anything. I mean I agree with you. Old people can do math. Look at Yitang Zheng. But Erdos is the exception to every rule ever.

Yitang Zhang, not Zheng.

Oh darn it. I originally spelled it Yiteng Zheng..I caught one typo. thanks

Re: A Mathematician's Apology (1940) [pdf]

#36

Post by [deleted] »

smallnamespace wrote: post #10
nicky0 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to hear more on this idea that nukes prove pure math not innocent. Surely it's applied maths (and physics, and engibeerung) that created nukes?

Sure, but what you think is pure maths today might become applied maths tomorrow. So nothing we consider today to be pure is necessarily so.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN