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

Math is still catching up to the genius of Ramanujan

quantamagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 447 posts

Re: Math is still catching up to the genius of Ramanujan

#41

Post by rowanG077 »

babyent wrote: post #5

That was a fun read. What really stuck out to me was how R failed in a bunch of other subjects except math because he wasn’t interested in them. I know society and norms expect students to learn all these other subjects. But what if those just aren’t interesting to someone? I wonder how many geniuses we skip on because doing the chores of homework and getting through boring classes is busywork and memorization for th…

I agree. That's also why I just don't believe at all when people say we have a shortage of talent (as in we need stuff like H1B) there is a ton of talent wasted. Everyone know that smart person who is working a menial job.

Re: Math is still catching up to the genius of Ramanujan

#42

Post by kiba »

barrettondricka wrote: post #23
babyent wrote: post #5

That was a fun read. What really stuck out to me was how R failed in a bunch of other subjects except math because he wasn’t interested in them. I know society and norms expect students to learn all these other subjects. But what if those just aren’t interesting to someone? I wonder how many geniuses we skip on because doing the chores of homework and getting through boring classes is busywork and memorization for th…

The best way to learn is to play and come up with stuff yourself. But playing doesn't get you anywhere specific. People who play around a lot, clearly know much more and in depth than everyone else, but when you hand them a random checklist, chances are they won't know a few. Standardized tests are screwing everything up. People who learn on their own might stumble upon the entire alphabet except for the letter "B,"…

Standardized tests are tool for systems to be able to compare and work toward a uniformity of outcome. Expecting it to help anything beyond that is a foolish errand. Public schools need to educate million of people each years with differing deposition and life circumstances and do so with relative competency.

Excellence requires individual attention and cannot be so readily mass produced.

Re: Math is still catching up to the genius of Ramanujan

#43

Post by oh_my_goodness »

nordsieck wrote: post #12
babyent wrote: post #5

That was a fun read. What really stuck out to me was how R failed in a bunch of other subjects except math because he wasn’t interested in them. I know society and norms expect students to learn all these other subjects. But what if those just aren’t interesting to someone? I wonder how many geniuses we skip on because doing the chores of homework and getting through boring classes is busywork and memorization for th…

IMO, you're thinking about this backwards. It's good that public school exposes children to many subjects - hopefully most of them. So that they can discover if they click with one of them. The real danger is that someone never gets exposed to a subject at all. College is the place to specialize in a subject.

It is good to expose them. But that doesn't mean the previous point is backwards.

Re: Math is still catching up to the genius of Ramanujan

#44

Post by makeitdouble »

nick__m wrote: post #31
makeitdouble wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what effects do you expect from that on a societal scale in the long term (at least 3,4 decades) ? For instance we banned meth and other drugs that have tremendous productivity effects at the expense of the individual and how we had to deal with them, so it's not a rhetoric question.

You will be surprised to learn that methamphetamine is not banned and that it is currently prescribed for refractary ADHD under the name desoxyn!

I'm aware we never "ban" any specific substance, as we say the dose makes the poison. And any substance that has any effect is also a potential cure for the disease that has the opposite effect.

I should have been clear I saw it in the "make people smart" light, as doping an already acceptable situation, instead of correcting something perceived as a pathology.

Meth was widely available over the counter at some point, and we made it legally disappear outside of strict medical settings.

Re: Math is still catching up to the genius of Ramanujan

#45

Post by tightbookkeeper »

babyent wrote: post #5

That was a fun read. What really stuck out to me was how R failed in a bunch of other subjects except math because he wasn’t interested in them. I know society and norms expect students to learn all these other subjects. But what if those just aren’t interesting to someone? I wonder how many geniuses we skip on because doing the chores of homework and getting through boring classes is busywork and memorization for th…

But if you notice the people who are in administrative positions are the people who are “well rounded” not those who are good at one thing.

Even within academic stem fields you have people who know how to promote and speak and they have the most influence.

I guess what I’m trying to say is the system is mostly selecting for what it wants.

Re: Math is still catching up to the genius of Ramanujan

#46

Post by WgaqPdNr7PGLGVW »

irjustin wrote: post #34
seiferteric wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exposure is good, but success in school requires you to be successful in these subjects as well. I have had similar thoughts recently as OP thinking about what I want for my young kids and what my experiences in school were. Being _really_ good in one thing should allow you to make up for being subpar in other areas, but it doesn't. You can only get an A (or A+) in math for example, even if your a genius. But maybe y…

> Exposure is good, but success in school requires you to be successful in these subjects as well. Being specific, it's not school, it's what school grants you i.e. a paying job. The higher paying, thusly more coveted jobs, generally filter against good grades which then the requirement pushes downwards into schools because, at scale, it's a decent system; leveraging the schools to help decide who is good. > Being _r…

> but I think your "_really_" is actually just "_pretty_" and you're trying to include more than the 1 in 100 million.

I don't quite understand your point. Pretty good still puts you far ahead of the average. I could easily handle second year college maths and computer science while in high school. And I couldn't hold a candle to Ramanujan.

I still needed to do well in my other courses in order to be able to get into my chosen college.

Re: Math is still catching up to the genius of Ramanujan

#47

Post by hnfong »

Arainach wrote: post #30
brutal_true_101 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most colleges now inundate students with painful core classes that go on into senior year. It's getting ridiculous.

College is not trade school. College exists not to generate people who are masters of Framework v3.0, but to generate people who can quickly learn to use whatever tool they're given and who can connect the dots to solve generic problems. Part of that is exposure to a broad range of ideas. Part of that is showing that you can learn about and deliver results on things you're not necessarily excited about.

> Part of that is showing that you can learn about and deliver results on things you're not necessarily excited about.

Why is that useful besides for the employer trying to impose Framework v3.0 onto their subjects?

To me at least, learning things one is not excited about is only useful to capitalist society that views human beings as replaceable resources.

Re: Math is still catching up to the genius of Ramanujan

#48

Post by WgaqPdNr7PGLGVW »

esafak wrote: post #40
Arainach wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

College is not trade school. College exists not to generate people who are masters of Framework v3.0, but to generate people who can quickly learn to use whatever tool they're given and who can connect the dots to solve generic problems. Part of that is exposure to a broad range of ideas. Part of that is showing that you can learn about and deliver results on things you're not necessarily excited about.

Isn't that what high school is for? What's the difference then?

High school has been dumbed down and is mostly a waste of time.

Re: Math is still catching up to the genius of Ramanujan

#49

Post by vbezhenar »

babyent wrote: post #5

That was a fun read. What really stuck out to me was how R failed in a bunch of other subjects except math because he wasn’t interested in them. I know society and norms expect students to learn all these other subjects. But what if those just aren’t interesting to someone? I wonder how many geniuses we skip on because doing the chores of homework and getting through boring classes is busywork and memorization for th…

Education is optimized for average citizen who must work through boring tasks every day. I feel like geniuses probably more like survive in school rather than being supported.

Re: Math is still catching up to the genius of Ramanujan

#50

Post by elijaht »

WgaqPdNr7PGLGVW wrote: post #46
irjustin wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Exposure is good, but success in school requires you to be successful in these subjects as well. Being specific, it's not school, it's what school grants you i.e. a paying job. The higher paying, thusly more coveted jobs, generally filter against good grades which then the requirement pushes downwards into schools because, at scale, it's a decent system; leveraging the schools to help decide who is good. > Being _r…

> but I think your "_really_" is actually just "_pretty_" and you're trying to include more than the 1 in 100 million. I don't quite understand your point. Pretty good still puts you far ahead of the average. I could easily handle second year college maths and computer science while in high school. And I couldn't hold a candle to Ramanujan. I still needed to do well in my other courses in order to be able to get into…

I think that's the point - "pretty good" isn't good enough for a top school to want to admit you. Second year college/CS is pretty good but I went to a great high school where there were 50+ kids at that level. That's not enough to stand out in a meaningful way.

Whereas if someone was Ramanujan-level, their raw talent would be so apparent they wouldn't have this issue and would clearly stand out.

Post reply on HN