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

Steven Strogatz on chaos theory, game theory, and why math isn’t boring

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 66 posts

Re: Steven Strogatz on chaos theory, game theory, and why math isn’t boring

#31

Post by posterboy »

zeroer wrote: post #25
posterboy wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know what the uni~ i universe means? It means only (one-ly). How could there be multiple? That's just non-sense. The parent implied counting, not the natural numbers, need two dimensions. But even in Set Theory you need at least one level deep nested sets to build the natural numbers. Qunatification is the (a?) difference between zero and higher order logic, I suppose.

In my particular comment, I meant that THE Universe (proper noun) could have different physics. Max Tegmark uses the term a bit differently, but he's quite clear about what he means. As for your second paragraph, I really don't have any idea what you two are on about.

I'm not really interested in metaphysics, hence my opposition to the claim.

>As for your second paragraph, I really don't have any idea what you two are on about.

I didn't quite understand the parent, but he clearly related to Computational Complexity of operations on Countable Sets. I happen to study that subject at the moment, so I am taking this discussion as an opportunity to test my understanding.

[deleted] apparently I need to learn a bit more.

Re: Steven Strogatz on chaos theory, game theory, and why math isn’t boring

#32

Post by j2kun »

gravypod wrote: post #19
j2kun wrote: post #11

Shameless promotion: I'm writing a book in which I introduce mathematics for programmers specifically. If you found yourself here you may be interested. https://jeremykun.com/2016/04/25/book-mailing-list

I'd be willing to spend a good 40 bucks on something like this (that may not seem like a lot but 40$ to a college student is a lot). Something that has a twinkle of a promise in teaching a programmer math is something I need in my life. I just don't "get" what is being told to me when it's in the context of math-notation. As a result I do horrible in math classes in college. The only thing that was taught with a CS-S…

In anticipating a book like this, would you ideally want to learn the math context and notation (provided one goal of the book is to teach that), or skip that entirely in favor of the underlying ideas (as in your example with Newton's Method).

Also, would you be interested in being paid to read a chapter or two and provide feedback?

Re: Steven Strogatz on chaos theory, game theory, and why math isn’t boring

#33

Post by elliotec »

j2kun wrote: post #11

Shameless promotion: I'm writing a book in which I introduce mathematics for programmers specifically. If you found yourself here you may be interested. https://jeremykun.com/2016/04/25/book-mailing-list

You mention this is a "step up" from the Better Explained book, which was supposed to be an intro and went right over my head, still making lots of assumptions about what I should already know.

I'm a decent programmer, maybe above average, and I know I could understand this stuff if I found the right resources and put in the time, but I'm not sure what value it can provide me at this point.

Re: Steven Strogatz on chaos theory, game theory, and why math isn’t boring

#34

Post by posterboy »

justinpombrio wrote: post #29
posterboy wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe our ideas are formed in our brain, that is part of the physical word. So I think the schism you presented would be void.

It's not very helpful to study the ideas that form in human brains, though, since so many of them are nonsense. It would largely be a study of misconceptions and biases. I think you could just as well have said "I believe our ideas are often formed on paper, when we write therm down. And that writing is part of the physical world. So I think the schism you presented would be void."

It would well be notable which ideas are wrong, no?

Sure I could've said, writing is physical. I just did, in another comment.

Re: Steven Strogatz on chaos theory, game theory, and why math isn’t boring

#35

Post by j2kun »

elliotec wrote: post #33
j2kun wrote: post #11

Shameless promotion: I'm writing a book in which I introduce mathematics for programmers specifically. If you found yourself here you may be interested. https://jeremykun.com/2016/04/25/book-mailing-list

You mention this is a "step up" from the Better Explained book, which was supposed to be an intro and went right over my head, still making lots of assumptions about what I should already know. I'm a decent programmer, maybe above average, and I know I could understand this stuff if I found the right resources and put in the time, but I'm not sure what value it can provide me at this point.

When I look at Better Explained most of what I see is "a friendly guide to the logarithm" and "intuition for the law of cosines" (though Kalid does have some more advanced topics). I haven't seen his book so I can't comment on it.

My blog, on the other hand, tends to be more like "Here's an algorithm/theorem you can only find in research papers or graduate textbooks, proved, explained, and implemented." If you don't know proofs, most of my blog posts are too much too fast.

My book is trying to be in between the two. You have seen logarithms before and you know (or can look up) what similar triangles are. However, reading a typical math book is immediately too fast, the notation is too foreign, and the proofs seem to leave out a lot. My goal is to bring the reader in the fold w.r.t. notation and mindset and expectations (using programming analogies and leaning on the concepts you already understand well), showcase impressive applications in Python at the end of every chapter, and survey different areas of math relevant for software applications like machine learning and crypto.

I would be interested to know more about what specific topics you find difficult, maybe using Kalid's book as a reference?

Re: Steven Strogatz on chaos theory, game theory, and why math isn’t boring

#36

Post by posterboy »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #17
posterboy wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know what the uni~ i universe means? It means only (one-ly). How could there be multiple? That's just non-sense. The parent implied counting, not the natural numbers, need two dimensions. But even in Set Theory you need at least one level deep nested sets to build the natural numbers. Qunatification is the (a?) difference between zero and higher order logic, I suppose.

> Do you know what the uni~ i universe means? It means only (one-ly). How could there be multiple? That's just non-sense. Do you know what "atom" in "atom" means? "Indivisible". But somehow we've been dividing them for power for quite some time. Arguments from etymology are invalid, because words are not obliged to be backwards compatible.

> Arguments from etymology are invalid, because words are not obliged to be backwards compatible.

That's how you end up with loads of confusing homonyms, which the parent almost admited to. I mean, sure an etymologic argument can be insufficient or even wrong.

Re: Steven Strogatz on chaos theory, game theory, and why math isn’t boring

#37

Post by posterboy »

zeroer wrote: post #25
posterboy wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know what the uni~ i universe means? It means only (one-ly). How could there be multiple? That's just non-sense. The parent implied counting, not the natural numbers, need two dimensions. But even in Set Theory you need at least one level deep nested sets to build the natural numbers. Qunatification is the (a?) difference between zero and higher order logic, I suppose.

In my particular comment, I meant that THE Universe (proper noun) could have different physics. Max Tegmark uses the term a bit differently, but he's quite clear about what he means. As for your second paragraph, I really don't have any idea what you two are on about.

>Max Tegmark uses the term a bit differently

>he's quite clear about what he means.

but I didn't read him and it's pretty arrogant to assume I had to. Sure, I hadn't to butt in on the discussion, but I had to read the comment to find out I didn't want to read it, first. So I felt I had to say something. I mean, I thought it was informative, but obviously I didn't hit the right tone.

Re: Steven Strogatz on chaos theory, game theory, and why math isn’t boring

#38

Post by j2kun »

j2kun wrote: post #35
elliotec wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mention this is a "step up" from the Better Explained book, which was supposed to be an intro and went right over my head, still making lots of assumptions about what I should already know. I'm a decent programmer, maybe above average, and I know I could understand this stuff if I found the right resources and put in the time, but I'm not sure what value it can provide me at this point.

When I look at Better Explained most of what I see is "a friendly guide to the logarithm" and "intuition for the law of cosines" (though Kalid does have some more advanced topics). I haven't seen his book so I can't comment on it. My blog, on the other hand, tends to be more like "Here's an algorithm/theorem you can only find in research papers or graduate textbooks, proved, explained, and implemented." If you don't…

I should also mention that I don't expect every programmer to find career value out of the book. I like math, I hear from a lot of programmers who want to like math more (for fun or side projects or work), and I feel like I'm in a good position to help them.

Re: Steven Strogatz on chaos theory, game theory, and why math isn’t boring

#39

Post by j2kun »

tgb wrote: post #22
ColinWright wrote: post #7

So here's the dilemma. People who see the beauty and elegance of mathematics are always going to go into something that exercises that, and will never go into teaching. Why would anyone who is seriously good at lots of math go into teaching? Especially in the USA, UK, or other countries where teaching has such a low status. In many cases teachers are genuinely despised. Why would anyone good at math ever go into teac…

Steven Strogratz is a teacher. He's also a popular math writer (he had a NYT column for a while).

Yes but don't forget he is primarily a researcher (and an extremely famous one at that).

Re: Steven Strogatz on chaos theory, game theory, and why math isn’t boring

#40

Post by charlieflowers »

j2kun wrote: post #32
gravypod wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be willing to spend a good 40 bucks on something like this (that may not seem like a lot but 40$ to a college student is a lot). Something that has a twinkle of a promise in teaching a programmer math is something I need in my life. I just don't "get" what is being told to me when it's in the context of math-notation. As a result I do horrible in math classes in college. The only thing that was taught with a CS-S…

In anticipating a book like this, would you ideally want to learn the math context and notation (provided one goal of the book is to teach that), or skip that entirely in favor of the underlying ideas (as in your example with Newton's Method). Also, would you be interested in being paid to read a chapter or two and provide feedback?

Not the GP, but I'd want to learn both the ideas and the notation. That way, more math would become accessible to me.

Just don't let the notation get in the way of reaching clarity on the ideas.

Post reply on HN