[math-fun] Article in NY Times on math
I'm curious to learn people's opinions of the essay in today's NY Times science section at <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/science/25math.html>, "When Even Mathematicians Don't Understand the Math". --Dan
--- Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> wrote:
I'm curious to learn people's opinions of the essay in today's NY Times science section at <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/science/25math.html>, "When Even Mathematicians Don't Understand the Math".
--Dan
The target audience for the books discussed in the this article consists of people who are looking for a mystical experience, but who are astute enough to appreciate that genuine mysticism is nonsense. When someone solicits my advice on such reading material, I suggest number theory for mathematics, or relativity for physics. Unlike quantized superduperstrings in 69 dimensions, these subjects have hope of actually being understood. Gene __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
I'm amazed ... what kind of person would solicit your advice when seeking a mystical experience? And, if such and improbable thing occurred, why would you recommend number theory as a source for a non-genuine (or quasi?) mystical experience? Hilarie On Tue, 25 May 2004 at 11:43:41 -0700 (PDT) Eugene Salamin mentioned:
The target audience for the books discussed in the this article consists of people who are looking for a mystical experience, but who are astute enough to appreciate that genuine mysticism is nonsense. When someone solicits my advice on such reading material, , I suggest number theory for mathematics, or relativity for physics. Unlike quantized superduperstrings in 69 dimensions, these subjects have hope of actually being understood.
I guess I'm guilty of having stated my comments in a confused manner. What I meant to say is that when nonprofessional people seek my advice about scientific reading material, I recommend number theory (Hardy and Wright style) or relativity, these tending to be immune to the mysticism that generally pervades popularizations of more advanced topics. Gene --- "The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman" <ho@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
I'm amazed ... what kind of person would solicit your advice when seeking a mystical experience? And, if such and improbable thing occurred, why would you recommend number theory as a source for a non-genuine (or quasi?) mystical experience?
Hilarie
On Tue, 25 May 2004 at 11:43:41 -0700 (PDT) Eugene Salamin mentioned:
The target audience for the books discussed in the this article consists of people who are looking for a mystical experience, but who are astute enough to appreciate that genuine mysticism is nonsense. When someone solicits my advice on such reading material, , I suggest number theory for mathematics, or relativity for physics. Unlike quantized superduperstrings in 69 dimensions, these subjects have hope of actually being understood.
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
=Hilarie Orman why would you recommend number theory as a source for a non-genuine (or quasi?) mystical experience?
Number theory is the epitome of genuine mystical experiences. Consider for instance the alchemical genesis of primality from the unending additive dross of the base integers.
=Thane Plambeck (quotes) "The prime number prevents mating between two broods and hybridization,''
No doubt preventing broods of lawyers from hybridizing also explains why the term of US Patents was set at 17 years (the Founders were secretly Pythagoreans).
participants (4)
-
Dan Asimov -
Eugene Salamin -
Marc LeBrun -
The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman