From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/5321 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ronnie Brown Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: Dangerous knowledge Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:27:08 +0000 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: Ronnie Brown NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1259799283 2703 80.91.229.12 (3 Dec 2009 00:14:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 00:14:43 +0000 (UTC) To: Robert Seely , Original-X-From: categories@mta.ca Thu Dec 03 01:14:36 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mailserv.mta.ca ([138.73.1.1]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NFzLA-0000YX-FV for gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 01:14:36 +0100 Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1NFypN-0006r7-Fe for categories-list@mta.ca; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:41:45 -0400 Original-Sender: categories@mta.ca Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:5321 Archived-At: It is easy to criticise others but I think there is a general problem=20 with mathematics teaching (in my limited experience in the UK) of mathematicians not explaining what the subject is about, or even=20 thinking that this is necessary, or useful. I would like to direct=20 attention to our `Knot exhibition' http://www.popmath.org.uk/exhib/knotexhib.html and the discussion of what we were trying to achieve in http://www.bangor.ac.uk/~mas010/icmi89.html : in broad terms, this was to show through the medium of knots some of the=20 methodology of mathematics. The advantages of knots for this aim are many= . In some ways the spirit of this exhibit is expressed by the slogan `advanced mathematics from an elementary viewpoint'. So how much of the baggage can you throw away and still get to, say, a=20 real calculation? I once did a sample Todd-Coxeter enumeration of a presentation of a=20 finite group of order 8 to a class of unprepared 14 year olds,=20 (fortunately I was prepared to do this!) and had them helping me fill in the table=20 (just as well , too) and draw the Cayley graph. I feel there is a real hunger in the public and in other sciences to=20 find out what is going on in mathematics which has some kind of excitemen= t, preferably in terms of new ideas, rather than solving say the Goldbach=20 Conjecture. Higher dimensional algebra is quite useful in this respect. One can discuss what is or should be a higher dimensional formula, and=20 why the idea might, or might not, be relevant to brain function! (I've=20 done this too for an audience of neuroscientists.) Also discussed in http://www.bangor.ac.uk/~mas010/promotingmaths.html is the heretical idea of `promoting mathematics' to students of=20 mathematics! The point I am getting at is that there may be something we can do about `But generally, science documentaries are disappointing, and maths ones even more so.' as suggested by Robert, and the start may be conveying=20 certain attitudes to the many students studying mathematics seriously. Is this done enough? Perhaps those interested in category theory are in a better position to=20 deal with these problems than those with no such interest!!??? Ronnie Brown Robert Seely wrote: > Actually, I think Dana understates the problem with this program. It > suffers from what I call the "PBS documentary syndrome" (equally > afflicting the BBC, however, so the name is not universal enough!): > it repeatedly tells you what's cool about its topic, without ever > actually telling you what the topic really is. Afraid to scare > viewers away with the actual details of the topic, it just talks about > it in terms so general (and often over-inflated or sensationalized, > which was Dana's point) they are really quite meaningless. > > Though not perfect by any means, I think a recent 4-part series "The > Story of Maths" narrated by Marcus du Sautoy does better - he even > tries to sketch some proofs. (The episode closest to "Dangerous > Knowledge" would be the fourth.) Even better is an old series (but > still to be found on Youtube!) called Mathematical Mystery Tour. > > But generally, science documentaries are disappointing, and maths ones > even more so. It's a pity, because you actually can get an audience > of non-specialists to understand (at least a little) what mathematical > results etc are about. I teach an honours Liberal Arts maths & logic > class, and a surprisingly large percentage can actually appreciate the > beauty of (eg) natural deduction proofs in predicate logic, basic > theory of natural numbers (infinitude of primes, irrationality of > primes, the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, ... ), simple > axiomatics (we do Boolean algebras as an example), and even Godel's > theorems, and the "Lambek calculus" for linguistics (even a bit of > category theory there!). This isn't a mickey mouse course (sample > class tests available on request!), and it's a challenge to many of > the students. The point is: they are willing to make the effort if > they know you're not being condescending, and that you are giving them > "the real thing", not some pablum that only looks good in the box. > > I wish more TV documentary producers took that attitude - they might > get a slightly smaller audience, but their audience will appreciate > their efforts more. > > -=3D rags =3D- > [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]