Timeline for What do named "tricks" share?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 5, 2017 at 22:10 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | As I mentioned under James Nixon's answer, I think that in promoting the trick of differentiating under the integral sign to a method, Gert Almkvist and Doron Zeilberger understand something like what is said in this answer. | |
| Mar 2, 2017 at 7:02 | comment | added | Włodzimierz Holsztyński | @james.nixon, thank you (on this sooo-harsh board, you're spoiling me :-) ). | |
| Mar 2, 2017 at 6:43 | comment | added | user78249 | And your edit made it even more poignant! | |
| Mar 2, 2017 at 4:51 | history | edited | Włodzimierz Holsztyński | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
missing grammatical "a" (I think).
|
| Mar 2, 2017 at 4:36 | comment | added | user78249 | @WłodzimierzHolsztyński That's a very functional linguistics thing to say on a math forum. It's nice to see mathematicians engage in a healthy dialogue of the ideal semantics of a word; the blurred line between signifiers and the signified. After reading your comment; it framed your answer much more clearly. +1 | |
| Mar 2, 2017 at 3:47 | history | edited | Włodzimierz Holsztyński | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
:-)
|
| Mar 2, 2017 at 3:45 | comment | added | Włodzimierz Holsztyński | @NoahSchweber, even in pure mathematics, we do have definitions but we hardly ever have anything like "real meaning". Even great mathematicians were fooling themselves when they expected, say, "true real numbers"--again, there was never anything like "true real numbers". Thus, the definitions should be profound and useful but shouldn't attempt "real meaning". Ironically, the same definition (but for trivial linguistic variations) may be meaningful to different chapters of mathematics, e.g. probability and mechanics. Then how can it have one true meaning (in the usual sense)? Funny. | |
| Mar 2, 2017 at 3:36 | comment | added | Włodzimierz Holsztyński | @NoahSchweber, there are vague intentions of what people expect from a word. Those expectations are not consistent. That's how natural languages are. And then people ask about the so-called "real meaning" of a word. But there is no such thing. Thus, the best, if we care, we should hopefully agree on the definition of the term which is the most useful. This in particular means simplicity(!). Other considerations are avoiding a new synonym, etc. Of course, one needs to sacrifice some examples. *** There is need of definitions of terms also outside mathematics, e.g. in poetry. | |
| Mar 2, 2017 at 2:50 | comment | added | Noah Schweber | I really disagree with this - I think there are lots of things called "tricks" which we completely understand. E.g. I don't think there's really anything left to understand about Craig's trick. | |
| S Mar 2, 2017 at 2:05 | history | answered | Włodzimierz Holsztyński | CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
| S Mar 2, 2017 at 2:05 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Włodzimierz Holsztyński |