I wasn't stating that as the assumption - I was stating that they wouldn't be interested in reading a/book/ about it enough for it to be "classic," no matter how well it was written.
"Moby Dick" is a classic. "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" (sp?) is a classic.
The *lay person* won't find a *math book* worthy of being a "classic" anything. It will be, at best, something they read when they're feeling like dorks.
That being said, don't project your own interests onto the masses. The lay person simply
The lay person has only as much use for high level theoretical mathematics as high level theoretical mathematics is able to accurately model reality. In other words, not very much.
Can you show me something that CAN be accurately modeled- to any degree of precision- with mathematics? I can't think of one. Estimated, sure. Close enough to achieve some great things, sure. But to any degree of precision? Not even close. And to most of the nuanced, grey scale problems in the average layman's life, hardly at all. Most lay people never need calculus- compound interest is the most complex calculus problem they ever use, and it's equally solvable by itera
The key word here is "ANY" degree of precision- close enough to achieve some great things is NOT equal to any degree of precision. Achieving great things is also not equal to achieving common things that can be achieved in other ways. Mathematics is not the end-all way to model the universe, yet. It's close. It's as close as the number of bytes of precision you want to do it in. But it will NEVER model the universe completely- and it's unreasonable to expect lay people to be interested in a method that
Part of learning mathematics is learning to communicate your thoughts in an unambiguous manner. This is an important and useful lesson even for lay persons such as yourself.
The ambiguousness is on purpose- the world is not unambiguous and neither is humanity- thus learning to communicate your thoughts in an unambiguous manner is neither important nor usefull in all situations, and can sometimes be uttlerly non-usefull.
A mathematician is like a guy with a hammer to whom every problem looks like a nail- so
How do people tell which problems are mathematical and which problems are non-mathematical?
An easy way is to take a concept from mathematics itself. The definition of a function. For any n-dimentional function, there should be n-1 solutions for any given input. Non-mathematical problems have MULTIPLE right answers- they are ambiguous not only in the original question, but also in the solution.
Why is that you want to take hammers out of the hands of lay people?
THERE IS A story about two friends, who were classmates in high school, talking about their jobs. One of them became a statistician and was working on population trends. He showed a reprint to his former classmate. The reprint started, as usual, with the Gaussian distribution and the st
Just because mathematics and science shows us some surprising correlations, does NOT mean that every problem can be solved with mathematics or every theory can come from science. This essay only proves the point behind WHY lay people can be utterly uninterested in Mathematics and still be completely functioning human beings.
Recently in my journal entry on Atheism and Iltheism I pointed this out- that it is equally plausible, from all we now know about energy and brain chemistry, that a soul exists as that
The lay person, on the other hand, is definately not going to be interested.
There's that assumption again. Your wife may not be interested in math, but fortunately there are other lay people who are. (And, frankly, anyone who is competent in calculus can't really be considered uninterested in math.)
This is an important issue because the future of our society depends on our ability to produce citizens who have the intellectual ability/curiosity to understand how the society actually works. Math is a big p
(And, frankly, anyone who is competent in calculus can't really be considered uninterested in math.)
It's possible, for a good student to be competant in something that they're not interested in- simply because they ARE interested in something else that depends on that topic.
I would define interest transitively. Thus, if I am interested in A, which depends on B, I think it's reasonable to say that I'm interested in (at least) the subset of B that is relevant to A.
Without such interest, no one could ever learn a complex topic like calculus.
Note that A can be something very practical (like graduating from high school) at the same time that B is very abstract (like calculus).
I would define interest transitively. Thus, if I am interested in A, which depends on B, I think it's reasonable to say that I'm interested in (at least) the subset of B that is relevant to A.
But chances are, you're only interested in that subset- and will stop learning there.
Without such interest, no one could ever learn a complex topic like calculus.
Not entirely true- some people DO have an interest in mathematics for the sake of the mathematical puzzle- and for them, calculus is a shortcut to the t
I just checked and the first five pages of GEB are about Bach. Nothing complex.
One of the great things about GEB is that it completely obliterates the standard humanities vs. sciences distinction.
I find the anti-science attitude particularly irritating because I've heard it a lot from otherwise intelligent "Liberal Arts" people.
Tell me, do you think the average lay person could understand the first five pages of _Moby Dick_, or a Shakespeare play, or an Emily Dickinson poem? I think not -- yet I don't hear anyone dissuading them from trying.
What's the practical benefit of, say, reading Jane Austen in high school? None. Yet the main complaint you hear is that "I don't want to learn algebra because I'll never use it in my real life".
Why are "average" people discourgaged from learning about science and math?
I guess my point is this. Of all the books you listed, GEB is the only one that there is no possible way (IMHO) that the average person has a chance of comprehending. It is not an entry level text to math and logic. Jane Austen or Moby Dick can be read as a (good) story, as can any other novel, ignoring the deepr subtext. This is not going to happen with GEB.
If you had the average american start reading GEB, a short distance into the novel they are going to decide you are crazy for suggesting it. Why not
Why not try a much more approachable book about science, say Darwin's Voyage of the Beagle, and don't tell them they are going to learn about science?
I agree that some scientific topics will be more approachable than pure math. I limited myself to math books because that was the topic of the original post.
GEB is not approachable (to the average person).
True, but I did not find _Moby Dick_ or Shakespeare very approachable either. That didn't stop my high school English teachers from assigning them.
Tell me, do you think the average lay person could understand the first five pages of _Moby Dick_, or a Shakespeare play, or an Emily Dickinson poem? I think not -- yet I don't hear anyone dissuading them from trying.
You obviousely didn't go to MY high school- where only the smart kids trying to get college credit ahead of schedule read anything by Herman Melville or Emily Dickinson, and the only required play for Shakespeare was Romeo and Juliet- and for that they showed the movie instead of having kids
Mr. Tortise says that the average lay person could not understand the first five pages of Godel, Escher, Bach if their life depended on it.
Achilles says, 'I think you mean "couldn't be bothered to" rather than "could not." In my experience most people are guilty of lack or interest rather than actual stupidity.'
I would agree. Especially when so many people end up in a profession that pays the bills when they would rather be doing something else (whether they were able to do it or chose not to for other reasons). I thought the Derbyshire book was excellent, well written and went well beyond the typical mathematical biography/history and really delved into the mathematics.
I started reading books on mathematics or mathematicians after listening to an Audible version of A Beautiful Mind. Other books of the same ge
An inclined plane is a slope up. -- Willard Espy, "An Almanac of Words at Play"
lay person? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ummm...what would its peers be? Just how many "classic" math books does the lay-person have now?
Could it be that the lay-person wouldn't be interested in any book about math, no matter how well written?
I dunnnoooo...almost sounds completely probable.
Re:lay person? (Score:5, Insightful)
Martin Gardner's series of Mathematical Games books certainly qualifies as classic.
I would put some of Douglas Hofstadter's books in there too. Certainly _Godel, Escher, Bach_ is highly (though not entirely) mathematical.
Richard Smullyan also has a number of very good math/puzzle books.
There are others, too, but you get the idea. I don't think you need to be professional mathematician to enjoy any of these.
Re:lay person? (Score:1)
"Moby Dick" is a classic. "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" (sp?) is a classic.
The *lay person* won't find a *math book* worthy of being a "classic" anything. It will be, at best, something they read when they're feeling like dorks.
That being said, don't project your own interests onto the masses. The lay person simply
Re:lay person? (Score:2)
Re:lay person? (Score:2)
Can you show me something that CAN be accurately modeled- to any degree of precision- with mathematics? I can't think of one. Estimated, sure. Close enough to achieve some great things, sure. But to any degree of precision? Not even close. And to most of the nuanced, grey scale problems in the average layman's life, hardly at all. Most lay people never need calculus- compound interest is the most complex calculus problem they ever use, and it's equally solvable by itera
Re:lay person? (Score:2)
Re:lay person? (Score:2)
The ambiguousness is on purpose- the world is not unambiguous and neither is humanity- thus learning to communicate your thoughts in an unambiguous manner is neither important nor usefull in all situations, and can sometimes be uttlerly non-usefull.
A mathematician is like a guy with a hammer to whom every problem looks like a nail- so
Re:lay person? (Score:2)
An easy way is to take a concept from mathematics itself. The definition of a function. For any n-dimentional function, there should be n-1 solutions for any given input. Non-mathematical problems have MULTIPLE right answers- they are ambiguous not only in the original question, but also in the solution.
Why is that you want to take hammers out of the hands of lay people?
That's reading an intent into my words
Re:lay person? (Score:2)
Re:lay person? (Score:2)
Recently in my journal entry on Atheism and Iltheism I pointed this out- that it is equally plausible, from all we now know about energy and brain chemistry, that a soul exists as that
Re:lay person? (Score:2)
There's that assumption again. Your wife may not be interested in math, but fortunately there are other lay people who are. (And, frankly, anyone who is competent in calculus can't really be considered uninterested in math.)
This is an important issue because the future of our society depends on our ability to produce citizens who have the intellectual ability/curiosity to understand how the society actually works. Math is a big p
Re:lay person? (Score:3, Funny)
I for one welcome our new, math-knowing, Finnish overloards!
And our math-knowing Korean overloards.
And our math-knowing... eh, forget it. At least we beat Portugal [go.com].
Re:lay person? (Score:2)
It's possible, for a good student to be competant in something that they're not interested in- simply because they ARE interested in something else that depends on that topic.
Re:lay person? (Score:2)
Without such interest, no one could ever learn a complex topic like calculus.
Note that A can be something very practical (like graduating from high school) at the same time that B is very abstract (like calculus).
Re:lay person? (Score:2)
But chances are, you're only interested in that subset- and will stop learning there.
Without such interest, no one could ever learn a complex topic like calculus.
Not entirely true- some people DO have an interest in mathematics for the sake of the mathematical puzzle- and for them, calculus is a shortcut to the t
Re:lay person? (Score:1)
Re:lay person? (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the great things about GEB is that it completely obliterates the standard humanities vs. sciences distinction.
I find the anti-science attitude particularly irritating because I've heard it a lot from otherwise intelligent "Liberal Arts" people.
Tell me, do you think the average lay person could understand the first five pages of _Moby Dick_, or a Shakespeare play, or an Emily Dickinson poem? I think not -- yet I don't hear anyone dissuading them from trying.
What's the practical benefit of, say, reading Jane Austen in high school? None. Yet the main complaint you hear is that "I don't want to learn algebra because I'll never use it in my real life".
Why are "average" people discourgaged from learning about science and math?
Re:lay person? (Score:1)
Re:lay person? (Score:2)
I agree that some scientific topics will be more approachable than pure math. I limited myself to math books because that was the topic of the original post.
GEB is not approachable (to the average person).
True, but I did not find _Moby Dick_ or Shakespeare very approachable either. That didn't stop my high school English teachers from assigning them.
As
Re:lay person? (Score:1)
Re:lay person? (Score:2)
You obviousely didn't go to MY high school- where only the smart kids trying to get college credit ahead of schedule read anything by Herman Melville or Emily Dickinson, and the only required play for Shakespeare was Romeo and Juliet- and for that they showed the movie instead of having kids
Re:lay person? (Score:3, Funny)
Achilles says, 'I think you mean "couldn't be bothered to" rather than "could not." In my experience most people are guilty of lack or interest rather than actual stupidity.'
Re:lay person? (Score:1)
Re:lay person? (Score:1)
layperson (lay'pûr'sen) n. A man or woman not interested in math.
Re:lay person? (Score:1)
I started reading books on mathematics or mathematicians after listening to an Audible version of A Beautiful Mind. Other books of the same ge