Prev: Subdivide And Acquire Game
Next: Z12 x Z15 x Z10 - Existence of subgroup of order 18
From: JSH on 24 Jul 2010 15:34
You know I just got through with some exchanges that were maybe heated
a bit but not terribly more than normal, and the issue of probability
and statistics has come up in my threads, and it occurs to me: how
badly educated IS our modern culture?

How many people are there out there who think they understand issues
like global warming but have no clue about the math?

They think they know, but they see a cold day in the summer and go to
themselves, Hah!

Does Usenet maybe make it worse for some of them, by giving them the
illusion that they're engaging in rational discourse even if they're
painfully inept at it? How aware ARE posters in these math areas when
they stumble mightily and show complete ignorance?

YES! I know many of you wish to say that's me! Ok then, use me as an
example I don't care.

How big is it as an issue how uneducated our culture is when people
are "loud and proud" and really to yell to the world their opinion on
just about any issue?

For math relevance (it is a math newsgroup of course) to what extent
are arguments on the sci.math newsgroup driven by a horrible
understanding of the mathematics, as in pathetic to the point of
absurd? Almost as if the person yollering knows next to no valid
mathematics AT ALL?


James Harris
From: Mark Murray on 24 Jul 2010 16:13
On 24/07/2010 20:34, JSH wrote:
> You know I just got through with some exchanges that were maybe heated
> a bit but not terribly more than normal, and the issue of probability
> and statistics has come up in my threads, and it occurs to me: how
> badly educated IS our modern culture?

Given the recent heat, isn't it probably a good time to back off the
attack-mode and let things cool down?

This is probably a very good posting for your blogs, but not much more
than a fight-starter in sci.math.

Thanks!

M
--
Mark "No Nickname" Murray
Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
From: Bill on 24 Jul 2010 17:41
JSH wrote:

> For math relevance (it is a math newsgroup of course) to what extent
> are arguments on the sci.math newsgroup driven by a horrible
> understanding of the mathematics, as in pathetic to the point of
> absurd? Almost as if the person yollering knows next to no valid
> mathematics AT ALL?
>
>
> James Harris



IMO, Compared to 10 years ago, the newsgroup is comparably unreadable.
Your threads appear to account for a great deal of the noise. Have you
read any books or articles in mathematics since you started posting?



From: JSH on 24 Jul 2010 20:24
On Jul 24, 2:41 pm, Bill <B...(a)NOSPAM.net> wrote:
> JSH wrote:
> > For math relevance (it is a math newsgroup of course) to what extent
> > are arguments on the sci.math newsgroup driven by a horrible
> > understanding of the mathematics, as in pathetic to the point of
> > absurd?  Almost as if the person yollering knows next to no valid
> > mathematics AT ALL?
>
> > James Harris
>
> IMO, Compared to 10 years ago, the newsgroup is comparably unreadable.
> Your threads appear to account for a great deal of the noise.  Have you
> read any books or articles in mathematics since you started posting?

I have wide math readings but since I've been posting over the last
decade plus only remembering getting a couple of books on primes and
oh yeah, I got a book on the math Archimedes knew, but I'm probably
forgetting some books. I got the books on primes as I was
contemplating my prime counting function trying to figure out if it
was important and how important it might be.

But I was kind of into math as a kid, so had wide readings back then,
as I was a so-called gifted child.

Posters often rant about my supposed disinterest in reading math
textbooks but a lot of them are just attention seekers who couldn't
care less what is true. I, however, do not read math journals, which
I've stated more than once.

I now consider reading math journals to be a complete waste of time.

The complaint about "noise" is one I've heard often over the last
decade.

This thread though is about reasons for that "noise" and the question
of how much might that be about lack of education. Or how much people
*think* it's about lack of education.

As a person with a degree in physics from Vanderbilt University, who
was a gifted child who read widely on a large number of mathematical
topics I'm actually at a very high level of math education by any
objective measure.


James Harris
From: Joshua Cranmer on 24 Jul 2010 23:00
On 07/24/2010 08:24 PM, JSH wrote:
> This thread though is about reasons for that "noise" and the question
> of how much might that be about lack of education. Or how much people
> *think* it's about lack of education.
>
> As a person with a degree in physics from Vanderbilt University, who
> was a gifted child who read widely on a large number of mathematical
> topics I'm actually at a very high level of math education by any
> objective measure.

I can tell you from my experience that saying you were a "gifted" child
does not say anything, per se, about your math education. In particular:

1. If I interpret it to mean that you were labelled as such by the
school system, and that no further action was taken, then it is has
essentially no meaning. Education can be a touchy business, as most
parents are adamant that their children are above average, objective
results be damned.

2. If I interpret it to mean that you were enrolled into a Gifted and
Talented program (as my school district called it, at least), it again
means nothing. Math ability is not the sole determinant of this
classification, so it can vary wildly: at an objective level, it means
taking calculus anywhere from 8th grade to 12th grade, if at all.

3. Similarly, most schools are not well-equipped to handle the top
echelon math students. Depending on your school district, calculus is
either the end of the line, or perhaps you might get some multivariable
calculus thrown in afterwords. Another alternative is taking actual math
courses at a local university, but since you did not evidence of this,
I'll assume it did not happen in your class.

4. In addition, most "accelerated" math programs at the high school
level focus on Calculus and related derivatives (multivar, linear
algebra, differential equations). Your main area of "research" is more
related to non-linear algebra or number theory, which is not typically
taught in such cirricula.

5. You mention getting a degree in physics. I'm not a physics major
myself, but I believe most of the math involved is similarly
calculus-track stuff, not number theory. About the only germane portion
I can see being undertaken during such a degree is statistics, yet you
seem to not understand statistical hypothesis testing correctly.

While it may all be evidence that you understand some math at the
appropriate level, it is not evidence that you understand the math that
is germane to the topic at hand.

--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Subdivide And Acquire Game
Next: Z12 x Z15 x Z10 - Existence of subgroup of order 18