[HN Gopher] There's more to mathematics than rigour and proofs (... ___________________________________________________________________ There's more to mathematics than rigour and proofs (2007) Author : _ttg Score : 75 points Date : 2022-04-19 18:30 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (terrytao.wordpress.com) (TXT) w3m dump (terrytao.wordpress.com) | ffhhj wrote: | Which are the newest developments in math? Someone told me | Geometric Algebra has been around for a long time but wasn't | really useful until some recent theorems. | peterhalburt33 wrote: | It really depends on which field you are talking about. I'd say | it is very hard to find an area of math that's completely new , | but you will often find existing areas where novel perspectives | are driving math forward. Geometric algebra may be a hot topic | in some areas, but the ideas of exterior algebra go back more | than a century at this point, so is it really new?? | | Just to humor you though, I think Deep Operator learning is a | vastly exciting new field which combines ideas from functional | analysis and deep learning in order to do things like solving | PDEs. | paulpauper wrote: | #2, #3 means being at the stage where you can look at something | and be like "no this cannot work" or "maybe this can work" | without having to do all the steps. | devnulll wrote: | One day I'll retire and go back to school. The idea of learning | Math - really learning & understanding Math - as a fun pastime is | so appealing. | | What's stopping me now? That sweet overpaid SDE salary and the | endless obligations that come from being an adult. I suspect I am | not alone... | paulpauper wrote: | keep the salary. if the goal it to change the world, to | understand reality, to have an impactful life, have a good | standard of living, etc. math is one of the hardest ways of | achieving that. It's such a saturated field. Almost everything | you can imagine has been done to the highest possible degree of | abstraction. Every stone overturned except for things which may | take a lifetime to even try to understand. Writing a blog post | is probably way more fulfilling and also a doable challenge. A | top mathematician may spend years working on a result that | maybe if he is lucky be worthy of a footnote somewhere. | | As a field I think math is well past its diminishing returns | imho. It's like 'what was the last big philosophical | discovery'...yeah...hard to think of one. Maybe the P zombie | concept or the simulation hypothesis. But new and important | books, fiction and non fiction, are being written all the time. | lordnacho wrote: | This is why I'm happy to simply read the well established | facts of a variety of fields. There's more than enough to | learn for a lifetime, and from what I read about research | there's a heck of a lot of BS in the way for small | incremental gains. | | Having said that, if something does come along that interests | someone, they should try it. A friend of mine is doing his | 2nd PhD 40 years after his first, having found his way into | it via a love of jazz music. | andi999 wrote: | About the simulation hypothesia, how is that different from | Descartes evil demon? | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon | | (apart from saying that the evil demon is a future type | computer) | ffhhj wrote: | I couldn't wait that much, started researching stochastic | processes a few years ago and been developing a theory for | supertasks. | bombcar wrote: | I think the whole point would be to _retire_ and do math for | fun, not desiring anything more than the joy of discovery, no | footnotes, no recognition, just math. | | 99.99% of everyone won't be remembered for their | "contributions" so why not do something you enjoy? | DecentAI wrote: | What was this utter gibberish I just read? I'm absolutely | positive you have the least idea of what modern mathematical | research entails or is even about. Please refrain from | sharing your opinions on subject matters which you clearly | lack any understanding of. | nextos wrote: | I totally agree with what you say, but there's a _lot_ of low | hanging fruit in mathematizing biology. | | It's not easy, but it's certainly very impactful. | ratzkewatzke wrote: | I'm not going to gainsay your experience, but it doesn't | match mine. Much of what you do in graduate school is to | discover where the accessible areas of research are--where do | we have a foothold, and are making progress, and what are | some achievable results? | | There are big and hairy problems that are bad investments for | a young mathematician. I would steer students clear of the | Collatz conjecture. But once you get up to speed in your | research area, you usually find interesting problems thick on | the ground. | | Tenure-track positions are competitive, but I don't think | there are a lack of interesting things to work on. | paulpauper wrote: | when I worked on math I found that no matter what problem I | was working on, someone had already solved it completely or | to high level of abstraction than I had. got discouraging | after while. | xphos wrote: | This is what a imagine late stage security after OS mature | there stacks and such. The advent/widespread use of robost | memory protections like PAC and Cheri are going to be so | depressing for those on the offensive. | | I wish I just had more time to do math like the OP but the | saturation of the field especially with people who can deeply | understand the abstraction is very very intimidating. | Koshkin wrote: | Be sure not to retire too late. At an older age, with all the | experience you will have under your belt, picking up new | concepts and methods will not be a problem, but retaining | details in memory will. You have no idea how incredibly hard it | will be. So start early. | foobarian wrote: | I'm still grumpy that I accepted I knew what real numbers were | just because I could recite back the definition given by the | teacher. There is so much depth there if you go looking... | gxs wrote: | The way I explain this super simply to people is absolute | value. | | To most people, it just means that when you take the absolute | value of a negative number it becomes positive, and the | absolute value of a positive number stays positive. | | Now there is more to it, but how you might think of absolute | value instead is as a distance function, particularly how far | away from zero you are on a number line. | | This is way over simplified, but an example of how there can | be a little more buried beneath the surface. | markus_zhang wrote: | In the same boat. One of my dreams is to go back to school, | learn vector analysis, differential equation, differential | geometry, classic mechanics, electromagnetic, special | relativity and finally general relativity. | | Actually quite doable as long as one can grit through the Math, | some of which do not need a back to back read. | lordnacho wrote: | Why would you need to go back to school to learn those | things? | | At best school is a syllabus telling you what people think | you should know, fairly easy to get a hold of, and maybe a | bit of accountability to make sure you actually learn it. | markus_zhang wrote: | Yeah I agree with that. I can also buy a few books and go | from there. But essentially O cannot do that now because of | X, Y and Z. | agumonkey wrote: | not alone, or more like the vast majority | | I'm still trying to find a part time dev gig so I can just | focus on graphs and advanced combinatorics | qsort wrote: | One of my biggest regrets is not having studied (more) math. | But would I regret not studying CS had I studied math? | | You really can't win :/ | turtleyacht wrote: | Same. But we can keep looking for opportunities to learn math | in our spare time. For me though, old CS books have a lure | all their own :) Maybe an algorithms book (plus MathOverflow) | or TLA+ as a gateway. | qiskit wrote: | CS is math... | dumpsterlid wrote: | In a practical sense, not really. | stult wrote: | I've had a very similar experience and my solution was to | incrementally move into more and more math intensive jobs, | starting from regular old SWE working on a web app to working | on an aerospace-related web app that involved lots of physics | and geospatial calculations and then moving toward MLE/DS jobs. | All without a STEM degree, teaching myself the math as I go. It | hasn't been easy but I enjoy what I do more and more over time. | stocknoob wrote: | Aim for financial independence on that SDE and you can retire a | few decades ahead of schedule. And you'll have plenty of time | for that sweet math learning. | hebrox wrote: | I'm actually looking into this. Just an hour ago I mailed the | local university that I won't be doing any courses there. My | initial plan was to do a bachelor at around 50% speed. But | working and having to girls (1,5 years and 3 weeks) makes that | quite impossible. And looking at photos of myself at 17 makes | me feel rather out of place at a university at age 42. | | The Open University has an AI master that I'm thinking about | right now. It has about 25% of the math that I want to learn, | so that would be a good start. I did some prep work (an | official high school math certificate) last few months and I | noticed that I need a schedule to keep me going. | | One thing that I'm quite certain about, is that _doing_ math is | the most important thing. And doing math leads to more doing | math. | dang wrote: | Related: | | _There's more to mathematics than rigour and proofs_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9517619 - May 2015 (32 | comments) | | _There's more to mathematics than rigour and proofs_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4769216 - Nov 2012 (36 | comments) | [deleted] | vlovich123 wrote: | I feel like this is how all domain expertise works, no? Start | with intuition which helps you solidify some of the foundation. | Flush out the foundation and start building complicated | structures. Now that you've built up the experience, go back and | use your intuition to figure out new types of buildings to build. | [deleted] | adamnemecek wrote: | I can't wait for theorem provers to be commonplace. | Koshkin wrote: | A proof that no one would understand in not a good proof. The | ideal approach to proving theorems, at least according to how | Grothendieck did it, is to build a beautiful theory in which | the proof becomes elementary. | throwamon wrote: | It's quite a big assumption to think truth can always be bent | so as to satisfy our ridiculously limited cognition. And math | has been used instrumentally from the very beginning, so | results are often much more important than the process. | Theoreticians may still value elegance because that gives | them pleasure or whatever, but few other people care about | that as long as they can use the results. | peterhalburt33 wrote: | I love Terry Tao's writing on math. One thing that strikes me | about him is that, despite being an absolute technical | powerhouse, he writes in a very down to earth style that connects | disparate areas of math - e.g. his article on "what is a gauge" | https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2008/09/27/what-is-a-gauge/am... | where he explains how dimensional analysis might be viewed as a | change of coordinates. Too often exposition in math is myopic and | fails to impart a unique perspective on the subject, but Tao | imbues his writing with a wisdom that I consider the sign of a | true genius. | cpp_frog wrote: | This is remarkably accurate and resonates with me a lot. I did | mathematical olympiads in high-school, where intuition to crack | problems plays a major role. Then went on to college to study an | undergraduate degree in maths (concentration in analysis). | Analysis requires, at least in its rigorous foundations, to be | careful and have a skilled knowledge of logic/quantifiers (more | than elementary abstract algebra in my humble and biased | opinion), often very scrupulously. Then in my graduate studies | intuition along with the maturity of rigor work to produce new | theorems. I'm impressed that several times I look at a paper or | series of results and can read them "diagonally" to get the | motivation without scanning all the text (of course, if the aim | is to cite/build on top of/generalize/apply it then close | attention to reasoning should be paid). ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-04-19 23:00 UTC)