Timeline for Why does Arnold put Hardy on the same level as Bourbakists?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 1 at 10:28 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 1 at 20:31 | |||||
| Jul 1, 2022 at 17:59 | comment | added | Francesco Polizzi | Honestly, I do not think that speculating about Arnold's supposed prejudices can be useful in any way. Let's stick to the evidence. | |
| Jul 1, 2022 at 13:51 | comment | added | Geoff Robinson | I don't want to get into the finer points of this discussion, but there is a distinction between arguing that the motivation of Pure Mathematics is not its application ( though many Pure Mathematicians might dispute that anyway) and taking pride in the view that Pure Mathematics is "useless". The most famous quote of Hardy on the matter is open to the latter interpretation, and, as such, it has probably done a disservice to the public perception of Pure Mathematicians, since it is widely quoted. | |
| Jul 1, 2022 at 5:01 | comment | added | Sergei Akbarov | This often happens among mathematicians, when a person is good in some area of his own, but becomes incompetent as soon as he goes beyond it (and what is most amazing, he doesn't feel that something is wrong). Arnold himself often demonstrates this quality, in particular when he criticises other mathematicians, for example, Bourbaki and Hardy, and I see this as a manifestation of the general crisis of modern science: now educational institutions produce robots, not humans. In my opinion, this is what should be discussed in situations like this. | |
| Jul 1, 2022 at 5:00 | comment | added | Sergei Akbarov | Hardy's "Mathematician's Apology", when published in Russian, astounded me with the poverty of the arguments. Looking at the title, the reader might expect a coherent explanation of why mathematics is useful and why it should be studied, but Hardy makes only one clear argument - that mathematics is not used for war. This is amazing, firstly, because this is not true, and, secondly, because that is all that came to Hardy's mind. From this essay, I concluded that Hardy, at least, was not a diversified person. | |
| Jun 30, 2022 at 22:23 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Jun 30, 2022 at 22:17 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jul 3, 2022 at 15:09 | |||||
| Jun 30, 2022 at 22:02 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | This looks like a question for History of Science and Mathematics, not for this site. | |
| Jun 30, 2022 at 15:55 | comment | added | Moishe Kohan | What does "objective" mean in this context? Are you asking if Hardy had done some objectively measurable harm to math and math education? Or, maybe, you are asking if Hardy expressed views that Arnold found to be harmful and abhorrent. (The existence of such expressions of view is objectively verifiable.) | |
| Jun 30, 2022 at 15:15 | comment | added | Chris Leary | Hardy was eccentric and opinionated. According to C. P. Snow, in the foreword to the Apology, Hardy had quite a few friends who thought kindly of him. Snow also says that Hardy was painfully shy, a condition that can be misread for arrogance. Hardy made his distaste for "applied" mathematics known, but expressed deep appreciation for mathematical physics. I believe I would have found Hardy outrageous but delightful. But, outspoken, opinionated people do tend to make enemies. Such is life. | |
| Jun 30, 2022 at 15:11 | answer | added | Carlo Beenakker | timeline score: 15 | |
| Jun 30, 2022 at 14:23 | history | asked | Tyrell | CC BY-SA 4.0 |