Timeline for Taylor's theorem and the symmetric group
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 25, 2014 at 23:34 | history | edited | Andrés E. Caicedo |
edited tags
|
|
| Aug 10, 2013 at 13:01 | answer | added | Pierre-Yves Gaillard | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 13, 2011 at 17:50 | comment | added | Will Sawin | Ideally one should have an understanding on both a simple and a complex level, no? The deep and complex answer will be useful in other contexts and illuminate some aspects of the original problem, while the more elementary answer will illuminate other aspects and may inspire more deep math. To have a complete understanding of the problem, it pays to have both. Unless you're Grothendieck. | |
| Nov 13, 2011 at 17:25 | vote | accept | Steven Gubkin | ||
| Nov 13, 2011 at 15:15 | comment | added | Henry Cohn | @nothappy: It's true that these answers are, in a sense, making something simple more complicated, or at least more subtle. It would be crazy to teach Taylor's theorem to calculus students using such an approach. However, it's important in mathematics to take simple ideas and ask what they mean in a deeper context. This is not always fruitful, but it can lead to richer interconnections and conceptual understanding. People can reasonably disagree about whether they have learned something, based on their background and taste, but it is silly to insist that nobody is learning anything here. | |
| Nov 13, 2011 at 15:01 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Well, alright then. Let me change gears in that case. Welcome to MO. I hope to see more positive and productive contributions from you in the future. | |
| Nov 13, 2011 at 12:49 | comment | added | nothappy | @Todd: Same applies to you :-) | |
| Nov 13, 2011 at 12:49 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | @nothappy: I am sorry, but unless you can prove that these answers obscure understanding, and you cannot, this answer is subjective and argumentative. | |
| Nov 13, 2011 at 12:44 | comment | added | nothappy | You see my stance, is that these answer actually obscure the understanding. I can read them and understand them, but I still think that what we're doing here is just trying to fit something that doesn't quit fit into what we want it to fit. | |
| Nov 13, 2011 at 12:40 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | You are very wrong, even spiritually wrong. Even simple ideas in mathematics can become springboards to deeper understandings, and the fact that these answers haven't produced this understanding in you doesn't mean they don't enlighten anyone else. To pick out one, I'd say Tom Goodwillie's answer reflects great depth of understanding, based on decades of his own research. | |
| Nov 13, 2011 at 12:19 | comment | added | nothappy | Looking at the answers leaves me with an un-easy feeling. We just made something simple into something very complicated. The understanding produced was borderline nil, because the question was wrong in the first place. Why make a simple thing complicated? | |
| Nov 12, 2011 at 22:19 | answer | added | Phil Isett | timeline score: 20 | |
| Nov 12, 2011 at 13:25 | answer | added | Tom Goodwillie | timeline score: 51 | |
| Nov 12, 2011 at 12:29 | answer | added | Marc van Leeuwen | timeline score: 4 | |
| Nov 12, 2011 at 8:26 | answer | added | Will Sawin | timeline score: 30 | |
| Nov 12, 2011 at 1:28 | answer | added | Qiaochu Yuan | timeline score: 25 | |
| Nov 12, 2011 at 1:03 | history | asked | Steven Gubkin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |