jonah2.0
Full Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2014
- Messages
- 535
DISCLAIMER: Beer soaked rambling/opinion/observation/reckoning ahead. Read at your own risk. Not to be taken seriously. In no event shall the wandering math knight-errant Sir jonah in his inebriated state be liable to anyone for special, collateral, incidental, or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of the use of his beer (and tequila) powered views.
IN MATHEMATICAL
C I R C L E S
A SELECTION OF MATHEMATICAL
STORIES AND ANECDOTES
HOWARD W. EVES
QUADRANTS III AND IV
293°
MATHEMATICIANS AND NATURE LOVERS
LET me, for a moment, step out of my role as mere compiler of these
mathematical stories and anecdotes and become a bit more personal.
Having associated from early years with two particular classes of
scholars-botanists (or, more widely, nature lovers) and mathemati-
cians-I came to notice, and through the years have confirmed, a
striking general difference between these two classes. The botanists
are usually the most pleasant sort of people to be with; they radiate
gentle modesty, are open-minded, enjoy one another's company, are
kind in their professional comments about one another, and are found
interesting by their nonbotanical friends. The mathematicians, on the
other hand, are too often unpleasant to be with; they frequently exude
self-importance, are professionally opinionated, tend to bicker and
quarrel among themselves and to say unkind things of one another,
take an almost gleeful pleasure in unearthing an error in another's
work, and are often quite boring to their nonmathematical acquain-
tances.
The unpleasant features of the mathematical group are noticeable
even among some of the more gifted high school students of the subject,
become sharper among the college graduate students of mathematics,
and often attain an undignified aspect among college instructors and
professors of mathematics. I dare say the history of scholarship reveals
more bitter and senseless quarrels within the mathematical fraternity
than within any other scholarly group.
Thirty-some years ago, when I was a graduate student of mathe-
matics at Harvard University, I had a dear and sage-like friend in the
form of a fellow student with whom I often conversed and rambled.
In one of our walks, I said to my friend: "Tell me, why are botanists
so much nicer to get along with than mathematicians?" I cannot recall
receiving an answer at the time, but a couple of summers ago we two
met again after three decades of separation. To my surprise, my friend
reminded me of my question of so many years ago, and I sked him if
he had arrived at an answer. Part of his answer was this:
"Inherent in the study of mathematics today there is an element
which"makes for conceit. Do not misunderstand me, I do not mean that
all mathematicians are conceited. I mean that the study of mathematics,
especially in the higher echelons-stressing as it must a genius for
analysis and abstraction, intellectual self-sufficiency, the possibility of
perfect achievement, and an almost Jehova-like power to create con-
cepts and systems-together, perhaps, with the extraordinary power
that the subject seems to have in shaping our technological civilization
-somehow tends to encourage the element of latent, unconscious
self-conceit we are all born with."
As for the botanists, it seems quite reasonable that a close associa-
tion with the intricacies and mysteries of nature would perhaps tend
to engender a spirit of modesty, awe, and self-effacement.
IN MATHEMATICAL
C I R C L E S
A SELECTION OF MATHEMATICAL
STORIES AND ANECDOTES
HOWARD W. EVES
QUADRANTS III AND IV
293°
MATHEMATICIANS AND NATURE LOVERS
LET me, for a moment, step out of my role as mere compiler of these
mathematical stories and anecdotes and become a bit more personal.
Having associated from early years with two particular classes of
scholars-botanists (or, more widely, nature lovers) and mathemati-
cians-I came to notice, and through the years have confirmed, a
striking general difference between these two classes. The botanists
are usually the most pleasant sort of people to be with; they radiate
gentle modesty, are open-minded, enjoy one another's company, are
kind in their professional comments about one another, and are found
interesting by their nonbotanical friends. The mathematicians, on the
other hand, are too often unpleasant to be with; they frequently exude
self-importance, are professionally opinionated, tend to bicker and
quarrel among themselves and to say unkind things of one another,
take an almost gleeful pleasure in unearthing an error in another's
work, and are often quite boring to their nonmathematical acquain-
tances.
The unpleasant features of the mathematical group are noticeable
even among some of the more gifted high school students of the subject,
become sharper among the college graduate students of mathematics,
and often attain an undignified aspect among college instructors and
professors of mathematics. I dare say the history of scholarship reveals
more bitter and senseless quarrels within the mathematical fraternity
than within any other scholarly group.
Thirty-some years ago, when I was a graduate student of mathe-
matics at Harvard University, I had a dear and sage-like friend in the
form of a fellow student with whom I often conversed and rambled.
In one of our walks, I said to my friend: "Tell me, why are botanists
so much nicer to get along with than mathematicians?" I cannot recall
receiving an answer at the time, but a couple of summers ago we two
met again after three decades of separation. To my surprise, my friend
reminded me of my question of so many years ago, and I sked him if
he had arrived at an answer. Part of his answer was this:
"Inherent in the study of mathematics today there is an element
which"makes for conceit. Do not misunderstand me, I do not mean that
all mathematicians are conceited. I mean that the study of mathematics,
especially in the higher echelons-stressing as it must a genius for
analysis and abstraction, intellectual self-sufficiency, the possibility of
perfect achievement, and an almost Jehova-like power to create con-
cepts and systems-together, perhaps, with the extraordinary power
that the subject seems to have in shaping our technological civilization
-somehow tends to encourage the element of latent, unconscious
self-conceit we are all born with."
As for the botanists, it seems quite reasonable that a close associa-
tion with the intricacies and mysteries of nature would perhaps tend
to engender a spirit of modesty, awe, and self-effacement.