Timeline for Mathematical research interrupted by a war
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
27 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 19, 2017 at 15:57 | comment | added | tomasz | @fedja: The exact quote: "That's why it's always worth having a few philosophers around the place. One minute it's all Is Truth Beauty and Is Beauty Truth, and Does A Falling Tree in the Forest Make A Sound if There's No one There to Hear It, and then just when you think they're going to start dribbling one of 'em says, Incidentally, putting a thirty-foot parabolic reflector on a high place to shoot the rays of the sun at an enemy's ships would be a very interesting demonstration of optical principles." | |
| Dec 19, 2017 at 1:24 | comment | added | Dan Brumleve | I see more positive idea about mathematics hidden in the V. I. Arnold quote. To whatever extent mathematics has been guided and limited by artificial human purposes like war, there is an opportunity to escape that and possibly return to nature through problems that don't have that kind of motivation by virtue of not having any at all. You know, recreational problems, palindromic primes, the Collatz conjecture, that sort of thing. Cryptography is a lesson that supports fedja's point about the generals finding a way to use it. But I don't see why it always has to turn out that way. | |
| Dec 18, 2017 at 16:09 | comment | added | Sergei Akbarov | Alexandre, there must be statistics to persuade people that everything is so simple and cheap. | |
| Dec 18, 2017 at 15:58 | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | @Sergei Akbarov: this is not an "axiom" but an experimental fact. And the "power of ideas" is not sufficient: someone has to pay salaries to mathematicians, and to finance math education. I suspect that Archimedes was payed mainly because of his usefulness to the state (construction of war machines). | |
| Dec 18, 2017 at 15:53 | history | edited | Alexandre Eremenko | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 601 characters in body
|
| Dec 18, 2017 at 15:52 | comment | added | Sergei Akbarov | @fedja the necessity to persuade "smart generals" (with exaggeration of their smartness) follows from this cynical axiom, "war moves science". Things become much easier without it. And you underestimate the power of ideas. | |
| Dec 18, 2017 at 15:49 | comment | added | Sergei Akbarov | Alexandre, this lies in the nature of people: to analyse what happened, why this happened, what would happen if some mistakes would have not been made. I would call this "experience". People use this in their life to solve problems. Usually without reflection of "alternative history". | |
| Dec 18, 2017 at 15:44 | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | @Sergei Akbarov: yes of course this is a post factum judgment, as all history is. "Alternative history" (=what could happen if) is an empty speculation on my opinion. | |
| Dec 18, 2017 at 15:38 | comment | added | Sergei Akbarov | @AlexandreEremenko this is a post factum judgement. You can't prove that these inventions -- computers, internet, etc. -- would have been impossible without the arms race. The other things, which were not less important for mankind, -- books, radio, cinema, television, motor, airplain -- were invented without military. Yes, in 20th century - the era of victorious state control - many things (maybe too many) became in one or another way connected to state and to military. But this doesn't prove the necessity of these mediators. | |
| Dec 18, 2017 at 15:01 | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | @SergeiAkbarov: The fact is that computers, Internet, nuclear energy, space exploration, and GPS are byproducts of military research. Yes, they happen to be useful in ordinary life. But they were DEVELOPED and financed with military applications in mind. Can you give another comparable motivation of similar developments? | |
| Dec 18, 2017 at 13:21 | comment | added | fedja | @SergeiAkbarov If you are agree then there is no need for us to seek another globe I agree. But let's try to convince some other people about that. Putin is on you, Trump on me. Deal? | |
| Dec 18, 2017 at 6:47 | comment | added | Sergei Akbarov | @fedja, in each society, independently of globe, the members of this society can understand each other only if they take care of common rules of game. There are no other ways to solve problems but finding common agreement in communications. There is a problem in what I state in my post. It needs discussion, finding common points of view, for its solution. If you are agree then there is no need for us to seek another globe. | |
| Dec 18, 2017 at 6:35 | comment | added | fedja | @SergeiAkbarov it is evident for me that playing on fear is a dishonest trick Agree 100% Have another globe? | |
| Dec 18, 2017 at 6:31 | comment | added | Sergei Akbarov | @fedja, this is normal that developement requires investitions. Of course it is much easier to persuade investors by treatening them. But some people consider this to be a prohibited method. | |
| Dec 18, 2017 at 6:25 | comment | added | Sergei Akbarov | @AlexandreEremenko the question is what plays a bigger role in the desire to develop your business: profit or fear (of neighbors, competitors, etc.) I don't believe that it is possible to separate one from another. But it is evident for me that playing on fear is a dishonest trick. | |
| Dec 18, 2017 at 6:08 | comment | added | fedja | @SergeiAkbarov It is much more convenient to recognize them useful because of their usefulness in everyday life If only that recognition had ever come as easily as you seem to imply! :-) But this is a sideline to the original question anyway, so I'll stop here. We can dispute it somewhere else, if you are in the mood. | |
| Dec 18, 2017 at 6:01 | comment | added | Sergei Akbarov | @fedja the vast majority of useful things around are useful in our life without any connection to the war. It is much more convenient to recognize them useful because of their usefulness in everyday life, than to ask permission from "smart generals" for this (and praise after that their wisdom). The chain from a producer to the customer becomes much shorter. | |
| Dec 18, 2017 at 5:40 | comment | added | fedja | @SergeiAkbarov then everything that can't be applied in war (or does not promise immediate application in war), does not deserve research Ah, Sergei, but there isn't anything that cannot be used for war and really smart generals knew it since the prehistoric times. And they also knew that, as Terry Pratchett put it, "while 99% of philosophy is about truth being beauty and beauty being truth, the remaining 1% says that if you use mirrors curved in a certain way to focus the sunlight on an enemy ship, etc" (Small Gods, quoting from memory). | |
| Dec 18, 2017 at 3:07 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| Dec 18, 2017 at 0:50 | history | edited | Alexandre Eremenko | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 138 characters in body
|
| Dec 18, 2017 at 0:48 | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | @Sergei Akbarov: I did not say "everything". I said this is an important factor. What is the weight of this factor among others is subject to discussion. Possibly it is the most important, judging from previous history. | |
| Dec 17, 2017 at 17:33 | comment | added | Jyrki Lahtonen | I think V.I. Arnold exaggerated. Canadian friends told me once that the math department at the University of Alberta offers courses in fluid dynamics if and only if the key people are not desperately needed by an oil company. | |
| Dec 17, 2017 at 15:35 | comment | added | Sergei Akbarov | @RodrigodeAzevedo what about Non-commutative geometry? :) | |
| Dec 17, 2017 at 15:32 | comment | added | Rodrigo de Azevedo | Quoting V. I. Arnold: "All mathematics is divided into three parts: cryptography (paid for by CIA, KGB and the like), hydrodynamics (supported by manufacturers of atomic submarines) and celestial mechanics (financed by military and other institutions dealing with missiles, such as NASA)." | |
| Dec 17, 2017 at 14:46 | comment | added | Sergei Akbarov | Alexander, there is one thing in this position that I can't accept: if preparation to war is the only argument that can convince anybody (especially government), then everything that can't be applied in war (or does not promise immediate application in war), does not deserve research. I would say, the history of Soviet Union showed what happens when people are blinded by the idea of war. In my opinion this slogan - war moves science - is a speculation. Not everything in science follows from this. I do not know the statistics, but the role of war is doubtful for me. | |
| Dec 17, 2017 at 14:34 | history | edited | Alexandre Eremenko | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 220 characters in body
|
| Dec 17, 2017 at 14:23 | history | answered | Alexandre Eremenko | CC BY-SA 3.0 |