Timeline for Justifying/Explaining math research in a public address
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 7, 2012 at 23:29 | comment | added | user9072 | In general I agree with the assertion "many pure mathematicians have insufficient knowledge of and respect for applied mathematics" (in particular the second part) but I do not think that here this is an issue not even implicitly. Anyway this is perhaps starting to get off-topic and argumentative. I think I will now leave this question. | |
| Aug 7, 2012 at 22:51 | comment | added | Douglas Zare | In addition, many pure mathematicians have insufficient knowledge of and respect for applied mathematics (in a general sense). It looks to me like the OP wants to pretend that pure mathematicians do applied mathematics. This is usually far from the truth. | |
| Aug 7, 2012 at 22:37 | comment | added | user9072 | I interpreted this 'any suggestion' sort-of within the limits given by the specific question. But if 'everybody' (apparently including the OP) thinks that this should be considered in this generality, then indeed you are right. (Changed my vote on your answer, and instead vote to close the question, as then it is way too unspecific. ) | |
| Aug 7, 2012 at 22:15 | comment | added | Douglas Zare | First, the OP said, "I would be grateful for any suggestions which might improve my talk." I think if the OP ignores the advice I and others gave, this talk will probably be a disaster for the vast majority of the audience. Second, I did mention several past MO questions specifically enough that the OP can find them. So, I stand by my answer. I know many people will disagree with it. I see many people voted up this question and think it's wonderful, and I strongly disagree with that. | |
| Aug 7, 2012 at 20:31 | comment | added | user9072 | Does not seem like an asnwer. | |
| Aug 7, 2012 at 19:40 | history | answered | Douglas Zare | CC BY-SA 3.0 |