0

Why is it that spherical trigonometry is not recognized as a regular subject in many American college curricula?

flag
For those of us who aren't familiar with the NA system: what does it mean for something to be "a regular subject"? Do you mean something with a whole course devoted to it? do you mean an item to be covered as part of a course? – Yemon Choi Sep 27 2010 at 2:54
1 
 Moreover, as it stands your question is a bit lacking in background. How many is "many"? Why do you think the topic ought to be covered? – Yemon Choi Sep 27 2010 at 2:56
You might as well have asked about non-Euclidean geometries in general, and still we can ask why it should be a "regular" (for whatever definition of "regular" you use) subject. – J. M. Sep 27 2010 at 2:59
@Yemon: when I answered, I implicitly took the definition of "regular subject" as "subject of one (or more) whole course", e.g. algebra, trigonometry, calculus... I do not know if that's what the OP had in mind though. – Thierry Zell Sep 27 2010 at 4:19
1 
 I have voted to close (and I am not the only one) as "subjective and argumentative". As written, it sounds like you're trying to start a debate, rather than ask about historical facts: you suggest, as Yemon draws out, that you think the topic ought to be covered. I don't object to questions/discussion about the choices of what topics to devote curriculum to, but it is easy for such topics to become more about internet argument and less about intellectual discussion grounded in fact. So without very clear indication that a question on such topics won't turn into flame --- (continued) – Theo Johnson-Freyd Sep 27 2010 at 6:15
show 1 more comment

closed as subjective and argumentative by Deane Yang, Will Jagy, Igor Pak, Theo Johnson-Freyd, Robin Chapman Sep 27 2010 at 6:40

1 Answer

0

Maybe because it's too specialized to be a bona fide subject?

link|flag
Curiously, in the New York high school statewide math curriculum as recently as the late 1950's there was an entire semester course on spherical trigonometry (though I have no idea if it was largely a course in terminology or proofs or both). It got replaced with the hodge-podge course now called "pre-calculus", which at least got a bit of probability into the curriculum (a topic far more useful than calculus for the vast majority of calculus students). – BCnrd Sep 27 2010 at 4:33
@BCnrd: Interesting to know that. I'm not too surprised, since spherical geometry can be pretty useful. NY state seems to have some oddities in its programs though (e.g. I've heard of geometry courses for secondary ed students which sounded extremely axiomatic). – Thierry Zell Sep 27 2010 at 13:37
I am pretty sure that Pierre Deligne studied spherical trigonometry at the Athénée Adolphe Max in 1960 (+/- 1 year), when he was 16 years old. He was in the normal class for his age, and he entered the Université Libre de Bruxelles only two years later. Although I am not sure that it helped him prove the Weil conjectures, I have never heard a convincing argument that it hindered him. – Georges Elencwajg Sep 27 2010 at 23:19
@Georges: I never heard of any field of mathematics whose study had been conclusively linked to hindering the efforts of budding mathematicians. – Thierry Zell Sep 28 2010 at 0:29
Thierry, you are absolutely right of course. This was a feeble attempt at humour, admittedly not too successful... – Georges Elencwajg Sep 28 2010 at 1:01
show 1 more comment

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.