Re: Peano's space-filling curve
From: John Morgan (john.morgan_at_REMOVECAPSataraxie.fr)
Date: 06/10/04
- Next message: John Morgan: "Re: Peano's space-filling curve"
- Previous message: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- In reply to: Daniel Grubb: "Re: Peano's space-filling curve"
- Next in thread: Daniel Grubb: "Re: Peano's space-filling curve"
- Reply: Daniel Grubb: "Re: Peano's space-filling curve"
- Reply: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: Peano's space-filling curve"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:28:11 +0200
Daniel Grubb <grubb@lola.math.niu.edu> wrote in message
news:ca4uv5$hv4$1@news.math.niu.edu...
>
> >Only the comprehensible ones, as I carefully explained in
> >my answer to your request above. When you get the
> >Dirac equation jargon thrown at you from all angles,
> >which you will, just try to treat it as water off a
> >duck's back. Someone, somewhere out there, will have
> >the necessary ability and skill to: A) understand fully
> >the Dirac equation (it isn't me, that's for sure) and; B)
> >a clear mind, solid colloquial language and sufficient
> >patience to see you through the dark days ahead (that
> >might just be me, but then I don't meet requirement A).
> >The incomprehensible will wait on Google until you are
> >ready for it. Hope this helps. Good luck in your quest!
>
> One big problem with this is that colloquial language is
> not specific enough to get any handle on the Dirac
> equation. You may be able to discuss some of its
> consequences, but you certainly won't understand the
> equation itself. In order to understand it, you will have
> to learn new, technical terminology (aka jargon).
> For example, you cannot expect someone to understand
> nuclear physics without knowing the general concepts of
> charge, protons, neutrons, and isospin. These may all be
> considered to be 'jargon' to outsiders, but they are
> crucial for the area. If a person doesn't know them, they
> have to learn about them, thus gaining familiarity with
> the jargon.
These are very good points, all absolutely true, and all
very regrettable. Why? Because we are entering a new dark
age, where young people distrust and show disdain for
boffins,mathies and their ilk, whom they call "nerds". And
they do this because of exactly what you have observed. The
technical language has subtle meanings that are hidden from
them. They would see this in the same light as we see our
forefathers being kept in the dark about what was going on
by using e.g. Latin, for the liturgy. I keep banging on to
you all about using plain language because I see our failure
to do so as being a problem.
> In math this happens to an even greater degree. Because
> the results are often counter-intuitive, precise language
> is crucial for real understanding. In your own posts, you
> use the 'jargon' of onto, surjection, bijection,
> one-to-one, function, etc. The problem is that you don't
> seem to really understand what these concepts are
> saying. Part of the frustration that some people feel is
> that you are using this jargon incorrectly. Part is that
> you are trying to criticize results that depend heavily on
> the subtleties of those concepts and you seem to be
> unwilling to relearn the definitions correctly.
I'm a willing pupil, really, even if a little dense and
irascible at times. Also no criticism of the results
intended. It's the scientific method at work. I have to
assume the result is falsifiable to be able proceed.
Try talking your talk with a bunch of so-called "New Age
Travellers" and don't be surprised when they tell you they
prefer the predictions of Nostrademus. When I see virtually
every popular newspaper devoting half-a-page of print to
astrological pseudoscience daily, but hardly a line to any
real science, it's hardly surprising I'm upset by the
failure of us nerds to communicate with the hoi-polloi. And
if we are to avoid the return to the Dark Ages we need to
urgently address this failure of ours. We're the ones
they'll burn at the stake next time around. Who should I see
about that?
> BTW, did last few posts make any sense to you?
Good news, Dan, though I think I transmitted it already. I
believe I am sorting out the tangle in my mind and have
begun back-tracking with the help of Google to see if I can
now follow the early stuff.
What you say above reminds me of the way in which a child
might learn vocabulary. You hear it used. You have an idea
what it means so you use it. Then somebody corrects it. You
hope they do a good job because you don't want to repeat the
process too often. They may give an ambiguous definition,
through no fault of their own. You pick up the wrong sense
and go further wrong. In olden times they would've probably
then beaten the crap out of you, but times have changed. You
get the correct meaning finally, then move on to the next
word.
Writing that has just shown me that I learned a whole lot
more than maths! I said in another post I hoped you were a
teacher. But it's not just you, but all of us. How else can
we hope to avoid ending our lives choking on a dense cloud
of wood smoke? That's assuming we don't die on the rack
first.
Cheers
John
Keep a clean nose
Watch the plain clothes
You don't need a weather man
To know which way the wind blows
- Bob Dylan
- Next message: John Morgan: "Re: Peano's space-filling curve"
- Previous message: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- In reply to: Daniel Grubb: "Re: Peano's space-filling curve"
- Next in thread: Daniel Grubb: "Re: Peano's space-filling curve"
- Reply: Daniel Grubb: "Re: Peano's space-filling curve"
- Reply: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: Peano's space-filling curve"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
