Re: JSH: Learning consensus
- From: "Justin" <no@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 13:50:40 +0000 (UTC)
jstevh@xxxxxxx wrote:
: Reality of "pure math" is that you depend on some other person saying
: an argument is correct.
No, this is false. All mathematics can be checked through rigorous logic.
: 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.
What you suggest above is true universally in mathematics. It may be
checked and opinions don't matter.
: 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.
This would be irresponsible as this is not how it works in the real world.
We (attempt to) teach our students rigorous logic.
: Sure they talk about mathematical proof, but just toss that up as a
: phrase that sounds good.
I think perphaps you need to start from square one, looking at some basic
mathematics (algebra and so on) to see how it all really works on a
logical level.
: That's how they're taught.
I teach mathematics and neither I nor anyone who ever taught me did it
that way.
Justin
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: JSH: Learning consensus
- From: Proginoskes
- Re: JSH: Learning consensus
- References:
- JSH: Learning consensus
- From: jstevh
- JSH: Learning consensus
- Prev by Date: Re: Fastest way through a traffic signal
- Next by Date: Re: Non-commutative polynomials
- Previous by thread: Re: JSH: Learning consensus
- Next by thread: Re: JSH: Learning consensus
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|