ChristinaTherese Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 So, my brother sent me a wonderful article. I get that it's very long and nobody is going to read it, but It's absolutely wonderful. You are allowed to only begin it. DtA is required to read all of it if she has time. Here's the link: https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf I would summarize, but I still haven't finished it. It'll have to keep until tomorrow. Thoughts? (Also, this inspired me to start doodling and come up with a lovely observation which you might find if you draw a circle, split it in half with a line, draw a circle inside the new half, and think about relative areas.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristinaTherese Posted September 9, 2014 Author Share Posted September 9, 2014 I actually finished the article. I meant to leave it until tomorrow and do the homework that's kinda due in the morning and I haven't started, but... So, here are my first thoughts: Nope, I shan't summarize beautiful writing. It's a work of art and would be as cruel as summarizing one of Bach's cello suites. I'm glad my parents always taught math as a puzzle. I was never stuffed into a box. (I mean, it's not like I would've stayed anyway. I didn't exactly prove cooperative when I was supposed to memorize multiplication tables.... (But, why should I memorize 8x6 when I know 4x3 and can multiply that by 2 twice?) And, when a class in college did suck the life out, I was quite frustrated. And finished off math education with a sour taste because I didn't understand multi-variable calc. Two is fun, though. Although I don't remember, I'm sure I could. Question: Do you think his complaint that math is being reduced to a set of rules devoid of beauty can be applied to other subjects? Honestly, in the average school curriculum I think most classes suffer from that ailment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not The Philosopher Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 I thought the != symbol meant "does not equal". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cartermia Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Blasphemy!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrysostom Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 I thought the != symbol meant "does not equal". She accidentally put a space in the wrong location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristinaTherese Posted September 10, 2014 Author Share Posted September 10, 2014 I thought the != symbol meant "does not equal". No. It either means that I was excited or factorial, that you multiply 1x2x3x4x5x... Until you find my non-numerical words. (If you forget that words are not numbers it's more reasonable.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deus te Amat Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 No. It either means that I was excited or factorial, that you multiply 1x2x3x4x5x... Until you find my non-numerical words. (If you forget that words are not numbers it's more reasonable.) In some coding languages, != means does not equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deus te Amat Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 So, my brother sent me a wonderful article. I get that it's very long and nobody is going to read it, but It's absolutely wonderful. You are allowed to only begin it. DtA is required to read all of it if she has time. Here's the link: https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf I would summarize, but I still haven't finished it. It'll have to keep until tomorrow. Thoughts? (Also, this inspired me to start doodling and come up with a lovely observation which you might find if you draw a circle, split it in half with a line, draw a circle inside the new half, and think about relative areas.) Homework?! At my age?! I will respond soon. Someday. I promise. I think. :P It looks delightful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristinaTherese Posted September 10, 2014 Author Share Posted September 10, 2014 In some coding languages, != means does not equal. I forgot.... And then I thought about factorial (which I prefer to call vroom) and got all happy. But, yeah, I kinda knew that in my reply. I'm coming up empty on logical alternatives, though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catherine Therese Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 What is Math! anyway? Math x ath x th x h? i.e. (77*97*116*104) * (97*116*104) * (116*104) * 104 = 90,106,016 * 1,170,208 * 12,064 * 104 =1.3229442e+20 ? Or is it simply 90,106,016! ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Obligatory post, quoting Augustine: "The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell" (St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram, Book II, xviii, 37). I'll send the link to my girlfriend, she was a math (and theology) major, and I'm sure she'll enjoy something mathematical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristinaTherese Posted September 10, 2014 Author Share Posted September 10, 2014 So, what was St. Augustine referring to? I mean, I laugh but I'm sure he had a reason for what he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starets Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 I suspect that Augustine was referring to astrologers rather than what we would call Mathematicians. that would make the first group of people a subset of the second group and thus make a lot more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Math is anything but fun. Matches, however, are the most fun thing in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 I suspect that Augustine was referring to astrologers rather than what we would call Mathematicians. that would make the first group of people a subset of the second group and thus make a lot more sense. Yep. This is correct. The Latin word "mathematici" could be transliterated mathematician, but was used to refer to astrologers. But where's the fun in explaining the joke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now