-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Computerizing Math.page
44 lines (23 loc) · 2.12 KB
/
Computerizing Math.page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
## Math Browser
[Math Browser]()
## Tricki
Tricki, brought to you by Fields Medalists Timothy Gowers and Terence Tao, is
a brand new Wiki-style site that is intended to develop into a large store of useful mathematical problem-solving techniques.
It’s generally at the level of undergraduate and up.
The front page does a good job of outlining what’s currently available. Here’s an example of a well-developed article on something in an intro analysis class, the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem. It’s quite dense, so I’d have to wait for more concentration and motivation to get through it.
Seems like it could be very useful.
## Notes from Thurston - On Proof and Progress
> In talks, people are more inhibited and more formal. Mathematical audiences are often not very good at asking the questions that are on most people’s minds, and speakers often have an unrealistic preset outline that inhibits them from addressing questions even when they are asked.
> In papers, people are still more formal. Writers translate their ideas into symbols and logic, and readers try to translate back.
> mathematical formalism does not portray all forms of mathematical thinking
> I often feel that I could write it out myself more easily than figuring out what the authors actually wrote
tool idea: attach video, discussions, etc to a formal piece of writing that is handled by computer (verification, produce examples, hiding technicality when unnecessary, etc.) [similar to what tao etc try to do with blogging]
what's the most reasonable way to get these formalisms down in the first place? several options are being developed (planetmath for somewhat formal, other things for very formal)
> many incompatible choices for formalism
> human processes for verifying mathematics are usually good enough
## Doron Zeilberger
Has a lot of fascinating thoughts on this topic. http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/OPINIONS.html
## Missing links
I compiled a ton of links on this topic at some point (specifically, summer 2009), but I can't remember where I put them.
# Refernces
* [Math as language](http://mathgradblog.williams.edu/why-am-i-so-confused/)