A Mathematician's Apology (1940) [pdf]
math.ualberta.ca
A Mathematician's Apology (1940) [pdf]
1–10 of 36 posts
Re: A Mathematician's Apology (1940) [pdf]
#2I did not care much for Hardys opinion about how innocent pure math was. Since it was later proved wrong by nukes. But the novella was a real glimpse into the austere life of a curmudgeon and some of the oxford culture. In addition to the culture of the elite as well, which unsurprisingly respect science and math much more than proles.
Re: A Mathematician's Apology (1940) [pdf]
#3He'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 right person to do it?’ will always be ineffective himself and a discouragement to others. He must shut his eyes a little and think a little more of his subject and himself than they deserve."
Re: A Mathematician's Apology (1940) [pdf]
#4Despite saying,
"I have never done anything 'useful'. No discovery of mine has made, or is likely to make, directly or indirectly, for good or ill, the least difference to the amenity of the world."
He contributed a lot of practical findings in math. The Hardy-Weinberg principle[0] comes to mind...
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%E2%80%93Weinberg_princip...
Re: A Mathematician's Apology (1940) [pdf]
#5Despite saying, "I have never done anything 'useful'. No discovery of mine has made, or is likely to make, directly or indirectly, for good or ill, the least difference to the amenity of the world." He contributed a lot of practical findings in math. The Hardy-Weinberg principle[0] comes to mind... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%E2%80%93Weinberg_princip...
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!
Re: A Mathematician's Apology (1940) [pdf]
#6I did not care much for Hardys opinion about how innocent pure math was. Since it was later proved wrong by nukes. But the novella was a real glimpse into the austere life of a curmudgeon and some of the oxford culture. In addition to the culture of the elite as well, which unsurprisingly respect science and math much more than proles.
Well, it's not math that kills, it's people... I mean, I don't think it is fair to blame scientists, engineers, workers, etc. - let alone the tools that they use - for the way the product of their work is used.
Also, to be fair, the elementary analysis book which Hardy wrote under the title A Course of Pure Mathematics by today's standards would hardly qualify as a book on 'pure math' anyway.
Re: A Mathematician's Apology (1940) [pdf]
#7This was Aaron Swartz's inspiration for, “A Non-Programmer's Apology”, where he battles with and ultimately justifies his own decision to favour teaching and campaigning over programming, despite being a talented programmer: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/nonapology
“I am saved, I think, because it appears that Hardy’s logic to some extent parallels mine. Why is it important for the man who “can bat unusually well” to become “a professional cricketer”? It is, presumably, because those who can bat unusually well are in short supply and so the few who are gifted with that talent should do us all the favor of making use of it. If those whose “judgment of the markets is quick and sound” become cricketers, while the good batters become stockbrokers, we will end up with mediocre cricketers and mediocre stockbrokers. Better for all of us if the reverse is the case.
But this, of course, is awfully similar to the logic I myself employed. It is important for me to spend my life explaining what I’d learned because people who had learned it are in short supply — much shorter supply, in fact (or so it appears), than people who can bat well.”
Re: A Mathematician's Apology (1940) [pdf]
#8I did not care much for Hardys opinion about how innocent pure math was. Since it was later proved wrong by nukes. But the novella was a real glimpse into the austere life of a curmudgeon and some of the oxford culture. In addition to the culture of the elite as well, which unsurprisingly respect science and math much more than proles.
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?
Re: A Mathematician's Apology (1940) [pdf]
#9Anyone who enjoyed reading that (especially the bit about mathematical reality) absolutely must read Anathem by Neal Stephenson. The proof is rather enumerative, which I will leave as an exercise ;)
As for discussion. Is not the quote "We live either by rule of thumb or on other people’s professional knowledge." the most antithetical to hacker culture you've ever heard?!?
Re: A Mathematician's Apology (1940) [pdf]
#10I did not care much for Hardys opinion about how innocent pure math was. Since it was later proved wrong by nukes. But the novella was a real glimpse into the austere life of a curmudgeon and some of the oxford culture. In addition to the culture of the elite as well, which unsurprisingly respect science and math much more than proles.
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.