Timeline for What is the point of reading classics over modern treatments?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
28 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 27, 2021 at 9:47 | answer | added | Phil Harmsworth | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 19, 2021 at 10:18 | comment | added | ARG | There are some cases where the modern treatments "streamlines" too much the original, and so information is lost. A particular case of this are "Folner sequences". This concept is very convenient to use. But many cite Folner's paper (1950's) without reading it and the criterium for amenability in the paper is stronger than the "Folner sequence" one. (Strong enough that mathematicians in the 2010's gave a proof of a weaker statement thinking it was a new result.) I also hear in the early 2000's someone reading Euler's work and finding pertinent stuff there (but I forgot the details). | |
| Jan 10, 2021 at 20:00 | comment | added | Robbie Goodwin | Are you suggesting reading classics over modern treatments applies to maths only and not, for instance, to archaeology or geography, politics or semantics? Either way, your basic choices are to work solely with what's state-of-the-art, or to understand what led to that, or some combination… | |
| Jan 10, 2021 at 17:12 | comment | added | YCor | @AsafKaragila You might mean the set theory book of Bourbaki, because some books by Bourbaki have a better reputation (notably Lie which I find excellent), but I also appreciate Algebra or Topology, albeit certainly more as a reference book than a book to read comprehensively. Without judging the substance of your example anyway, I guess "of recognized value" still applies to define "classic", the issue being the way the value is recognized (rather than the definition of "classic"). | |
| Jan 10, 2021 at 16:58 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | @YCor: At the same time, some people try to read Bourbaki's "Set Theory" because they have the impression that Bourbaki is "the masters" and somehow important. And that's a terrible book, and it should be read either for historical purposes, or to understand how much Bourbaki were missing a set theorist (or at least a logician) in their midst. But still, some people are upset when I say that Bourbaki's treatment is set theory is awful from a mathematical, pedagogical, and literary points of view. Why? Because "classics!" | |
| Jan 9, 2021 at 11:41 | comment | added | niemiro | Older books are often closer to how the material was first discovered. Modern books tend to favour the shortest / most elegant known proof. Yet the first proof may have been radically different, and learning how the mathematicians of old discovered their new maths could teach you a lot about how you could discover new maths. Sometimes being closer to history teaches more. | |
| Jan 9, 2021 at 0:11 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | Does this answer your question? Do you read the masters? | |
| Jan 8, 2021 at 23:05 | comment | added | Qfwfq | Dually, I would ask: can reading a paper that uses an obsolete mathematical language or style be even harmful for one's understanding of a theory? | |
| Jan 8, 2021 at 20:35 | answer | added | Abdelmalek Abdesselam | timeline score: 8 | |
| Jan 8, 2021 at 17:23 | comment | added | YCor | From Merriam-Webster: classic: "serving as a standard of excellence: of recognized value". | |
| Jan 8, 2021 at 17:21 | comment | added | YCor | Your definition of "classic" is somewhat exotic. First, classic usually involves being well-accepted for a while. If a thorough treatment is published of a 5-years old theory, it's hard to call it classic. Second, a classic book (in the usual sense) doesn't have to be written by a major contributor of the theory. For instance, Helgason is the main classic book in the theory of symmetric spaces (which I find excellent), but all the theory (at least basic) developed there is due to earlier mathematicians, notably Killing, E. Cartan. I don't think this is an exception. | |
| Jan 8, 2021 at 15:02 | answer | added | Hollis Williams | timeline score: 9 | |
| Jan 8, 2021 at 1:56 | answer | added | KConrad | timeline score: 10 | |
| Jan 7, 2021 at 22:29 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Jan 7, 2021 at 19:13 | answer | added | Alexandre Eremenko | timeline score: 17 | |
| Jan 7, 2021 at 17:30 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| Jan 7, 2021 at 17:04 | comment | added | R. van Dobben de Bruyn | In the case of Pontryagin, I have repeatedly come across references to it, and had a difficult time finding other sources (and the problem is exacerbated by the unavailability of said book). But maybe I just didn't search hard enough (this was a long time ago)... | |
| Jan 7, 2021 at 16:58 | answer | added | fedja | timeline score: 20 | |
| Jan 7, 2021 at 16:49 | comment | added | Deane Yang | A particular area that tends to be lacking in modern treatments is the presentation of elucidating examples. | |
| Jan 7, 2021 at 16:26 | answer | added | Ryan | timeline score: 27 | |
| Jan 7, 2021 at 16:20 | comment | added | Deane Yang | Forgotten perspectives and knowledge. No single approach to any mathematical idea or theory is ever the best, period. Ideas get forgotten. Sometimes, the modern approach works best, but it's not uncommon for someone to find in an old paper a long forgotten approach or theorem that provides crucial insights or even calculations needed for the particular problem they're struggling with. | |
| Jan 7, 2021 at 15:57 | answer | added | abx | timeline score: 17 | |
| Jan 7, 2021 at 15:43 | history | edited | user676464327 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Jan 7, 2021 at 15:26 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jan 11, 2021 at 17:59 | |||||
| Jan 7, 2021 at 15:19 | history | edited | user676464327 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
"In my observation, here are the pros and cons of reading classics:." Old Question: "Are there significant advantages to reading classic texts aside from what I listed above? Disadvantages? Does this depend on the level of the student (e.g. undergrad, grad, ...)"
|
| Jan 7, 2021 at 14:38 | comment | added | Francesco Polizzi | This is like asking if reading Dostojevski presents advantages or disadvantages. It depends. From the cultural point of view, there are only advantages. From the practical point of view, it is impossible to give an answer out of context and without knowing your situation. | |
| Jan 7, 2021 at 14:33 | comment | added | Geoff Robinson | Q: What is the point? A : You might learn something. | |
| Jan 7, 2021 at 14:27 | history | asked | user676464327 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |