Thread

1. ForgotMyUUID · 1789802300 · focus · HN ↗

   I’m reminded of that famous debate between Poincaré and Hilbert at the International Congress of Mathematicians in Paris in 1900. It was then that everyone decided to follow Hilbert’s path, and proof came to be valued more than intuition. I think modern math at school and at applied university kind of lost this intuitive part.

   I try to teach my students that mathematics is, first and foremost, a very precise language of communication. It’s sometimes amusing to ask those who don’t like math to do without it entirely, just to see how much harder it becomes to describe the things around them.

   Second thing I tell them, formulas are the essence of mechanisms in their purest form. And in this form, they’re much easier to grasp and mentally manipulate. It always amused me, after taking a mechanics course, to imagine that for any formula, you could visualize a mechanism or process that implements it.

   And third thing, I suppose, the ability to verify one’s own statements as proof. Although, of course, mathematicians would probably tear me apart here for my heresy:sorry, I’m not a mathematician, but an engineer. You can make mistakes by using incorrect assumptions, but at some point, analysis itself will show you that you were mistaken. There’s a wonderful book, How to Prove It by Daniel Velleman, which provides an introduction to proof for the uninitiated like me. I really enjoyed it.

   1. bananaflag · 1789810853 · focus · HN ↗

      As a math prof, I care(d) much more about proof than intuition, not because proof is more important, but exactly because intuition is (I'm a bit Chesterton-ish here haha). You cannot do proof without intuition hence, if you emphasize proof, intuition will take care of itself. Whereas if you emphasize intuition, students won't have any idea of what a rigorous proof should be.

      1. Aerroon · 1789830515 · focus · HN ↗

         >You cannot do proof without intuition hence, if you emphasize proof, intuition will take care of itself.

         This isn't always the case. Our algebra (or analysis) course focused a lot on proofs for the exam. The result was that a lot of people learned the proofs by heart.

         1. jvvw · 1789833029 · focus · HN ↗

            I think intuition is hard to test in a way that feels 'fair'.

            You can do it - I doubt you could have got a first when I was at Oxford just by learning and understanding the material, but you should probably have been able to get an upper second. The final part of every question virtually always involved insight, but you'd obviously then have to prove what that insight helped you understand.

            If you give people questions like those, there is the risk of complaints about the university not having been taught the material for the exams I guess, or you might find that nobody can answer those harder intuition parts. Certainly most students at Oxford couldn't answer that many of them - you needed to answer about three 'final' parts out of about ten questions say in each three hour exam to get a first and perhaps about 20 percent of students got firsts?

            1. bradleyjg · 1789856901 · focus · HN ↗

               An aside, but tests should be that difficult. Otherwise you aren’t getting any signal at the high end. Even in the face of grade inflation that signal can be translated into grad school recommendations (in the uk case, getting all 10 might even garner a “really not bad.”)

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.