Timeline for Did Bishop make those comments in his oral presentation?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 10, 2018 at 10:18 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Apr 10, 2018 at 8:42 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 44 characters in body
|
| Apr 10, 2018 at 8:37 | answer | added | Mikhail Katz | timeline score: 7 | |
| Mar 23, 2017 at 10:08 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Mar 23, 2017 at 9:19 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 909 characters in body
|
| Mar 22, 2017 at 7:58 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @AndrejBauer, I agree that infinitesimal analysis has no place in introductory courses, but infinitesimal calculus certainly does; see e.g. this article. Much ink has been needlessly spent due to insufficient attention to this distinction. | |
| Mar 22, 2017 at 0:16 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Mikhail Katz, but it seems to me that he's expecting logicians to object to the implicit assumption that non-standard analysis leads to "debasement of meaning," not that he's expecting logicians to object to introducing non-standard analysis in introductory calculus per se. | |
| Mar 21, 2017 at 21:34 | comment | added | Andrej Bauer | I am a logician and I agree that non-standard analysis has no place in introductory calculus. What is most needed in introductory calculus is logical hygiene, i.e., preference for direct proofs to non-direct ones, and proper respect for the distinction between free and bound variables. That helps students when they need to do calculus on a computer. | |
| Mar 21, 2017 at 17:42 | comment | added | Gerald Edgar | Per Note 1. It seems quite reasonable to me that a logician could agree that nonstandard analysis should not be introduced into calculus courses. | |
| Mar 21, 2017 at 14:56 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz |
edited tags
|
|
| Mar 21, 2017 at 14:23 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @CarloBeenakker, fabulous, I wasn't aware of this resource! | |
| Mar 21, 2017 at 14:22 | comment | added | Carlo Beenakker | the 46 participants of this 1974 meeting are listed here -- barring pseudonyms, none seem to be MO users... | |
| Mar 21, 2017 at 13:55 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @MichaelGreinecker, OK, I gave my reason for doubting that he actually said that. If there is any further context that would be helpful please let me know. | |
| Mar 21, 2017 at 13:54 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 409 characters in body
|
| Mar 21, 2017 at 13:50 | comment | added | Michael Greinecker | I think it would be appropriate to give some reason why you doubt that Bishop said this in the first place. Without the first comment, I was puzzled why you want to know this. | |
| Mar 21, 2017 at 13:45 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | At any rate let me know what kind of context you want filled in. 28 pages is also a lot of pages :-) | |
| Mar 21, 2017 at 13:44 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @MichaelGreinecker, I thought you were referring to this text. Manning did not post his email to me anywhere and "private communication" sources can always be challenged. | |
| Mar 21, 2017 at 13:39 | comment | added | Michael Greinecker | The arxiv version is 28 pages long. It says "there was, in fact, nothing to challenge him on. Bishop did not say a word about non-standard analysis in his oral presentation, according to a workshop participant [40] who attended his talk." Here [40] is "Manning, Kenneth: private communication, july ’09." This seems to answer the question. | |
| Mar 21, 2017 at 13:36 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @MichaelGreinecker, whew, that was an 80-page paper :-) I would be glad to amplify the context if you give a rough indication in what direction to take this. | |
| Mar 21, 2017 at 13:34 | comment | added | Michael Greinecker | This question would be much better if you would actually add the relevant context, as found in your paper. | |
| Mar 21, 2017 at 13:26 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @CarloBeenakker, that's evidence; I am looking for testimony. | |
| Mar 21, 2017 at 13:24 | comment | added | Carlo Beenakker | isn't the negative answer given here? | |
| Mar 21, 2017 at 12:13 | history | asked | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |