Skip to main content
7 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Feb 1, 2011 at 5:06 comment added David Feldman @ Michael The Ogilvy and the Honsberger are fundamentally different books. Ogilvy emphasizes theories (inversive geometry, projective geometry) from which theorems drop out - in that sense it seems "modern" and pre-professional. Honsberger just develops these wonderful, elegant, but seemingly ad hoc results. Ogilvy:Honsberger:: Chewable vitamins : exotic desserts.
Feb 1, 2011 at 4:41 comment added Daniel Litt Fair enough--I guess I'll read the book!
Feb 1, 2011 at 4:39 comment added David Feldman @Daniel All I can say is that I'd probably agree with you...if I'd never seen the book. But actually, I think categories do have a lot to say to an English major (think about characters and plots, etc.) for roughly the same reason they have a lot to say to computer scientists interested in the semantics of programming languages. But developing that point would probably better be done over lunch than in a MO comment. :)
Feb 1, 2011 at 4:09 comment added Daniel Litt @David Feldman: While I agree with the sentiments of almost everything you write, and while I haven't read "Conceptual Mathematics," I notice that on Amazon its subtitle is "A First Introduction to Categories." I think that the language of categories, as much as I value it, is unlikely to do anything other than annoy the average (even quite intelligent) English major--do you disagree?
Feb 1, 2011 at 4:05 comment added Michael Hardy In the realm of what you call proof-oriented spectator mathematics, there is a very beautiful book by Stanley Ogilvy called Excursions in Geometry, that a 15-year-old who knows next to nothing can read and enjoy. (I read it when I was 14 or 15.) Non-mathematically inclined undergraduates intensely hate that book.
Feb 1, 2011 at 3:56 history made wiki Post Made Community Wiki by S. Carnahan
Feb 1, 2011 at 3:39 history answered David Feldman CC BY-SA 2.5