JSH: Learning consensus
- From: jstevh@xxxxxxx
- Date: 20 May 2006 22:52:06 -0700
Reality of "pure math" is that you depend on some other person saying
an argument is correct.
That's just fact.
In other areas where mathematics has application, it doesn't matter who
agrees or does not agree with the math as if it works, it works.
Think about it.
My suggestion to you is that students who specialize in "pure math"
areas, learn that consensus is all that matters because it IS all that
matters in their world.
If enough other mathematicians say they are right in that world, then
by that society's rules, they are right.
If enough other mathematicians say you are wrong, in that world, then
by that society's rules, you are wrong.
It is a destructive force the need for consensus and makes the current
math field in "pure math" a democracy.
Sure they talk about mathematical proof, but just toss that up as a
phrase that sounds good.
Reality is acceptance depends on what people SAY versus in applied
mathematics, who cares what people say?
In applied mathematics, it just has to work.
That explains a lot of what I go through on this newsgroup, and how I
can present VERY simple and basic arguments relying on just a bit of
algebra, and people lie about them, and get CONSENSUS from the group,
in defiance of even basic mathematics.
That's how they're taught.
James Harris
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: JSH: Learning consensus
- From: Rupert
- Re: Learning consensus
- From: Abstract Dissonance
- Re: JSH: Learning consensus
- From: Proginoskes
- Re: JSH: Learning consensus
- From: Justin
- Re: JSH: Learning consensus
- From: fishfry
- Re: JSH: Learning consensus
- From: Gib Bogle
- Re: JSH: Learning consensus
- Prev by Date: Re: Graphical calculation of a centroid
- Next by Date: Re: help with number problem
- Previous by thread: Topological Group Terminology
- Next by thread: Re: JSH: Learning consensus
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|