thank u Oxford😍😍

Impressed by biology of math how math explains thought and patterns of thought in a deeper way!

I found it disappointing that the panelists didn't mention polymath projects explicitly although one person from the audience mentioned it. Also, it's hard to imagine that there won't be more computer verified proofs in the next 100 years, even machine generated (and then verified) proofs are imaginable. These topics should have been mentioned I think.

@thetedmang

4 жыл бұрын

Seems like it's up to you to bring those points to fruition. Good luck fellow math lover.

I have had disagreements with teachers, about changes to school chemistry sylabus. Some new ideas being taught, are pointless. I think the older ideas were better and more useful.

100 years - what a clickbait title, I doubt this panel has much foresight . Two impacts from outside math may become game changers: automated proving and quantum computing. I can imagine a mathematician in 2119 guiding an algorithm to a proof that nobody will ever be able to read fully. Next level of abstraction.

What a great lecture, I really enjoyed it!

"Pure mathematicians don't retire, they just lose their facutly" @36mts ;)

I have masters of mathematical statistics, not really used it but had to fight my way getting degree, with best tutors but they never seen me really I love thinking with my brain but society gives you choices, to take insights forward, ok I did machine learning but am extremely skeptical there. How to get ground work more global!? More people understanding it! Not water waving maths for nothing...

A devastating question from the audience at 37:30 produces a few moments of confused silence followed by two answers that simply deny there is a gap between what is taught in schools and what now would make sense. Disappointing.

@donbasti

Жыл бұрын

What would be a valid answer from your point of view ?

@matthewleitch1

Жыл бұрын

@@donbasti Short question but quite a long answer. I wrote about it a few years ago and there are several observations and ideas here: www.workinginuncertainty.co.uk/efficient_maths.pdf Even if you don't think some of them are on target you might still find others that are.

👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

Why do they always feature number theorists for this kind of stuff haha? They have weird opinions, like ''problems that are simple to state'' should be prioritized along with applications, as an answer to the problem of specialization in maths? Of course we need unifying programs instead, eg. langlands, stronger connections between theories and finding the essentials and then reformulating pedagogical material. Univalent foundations is strong with this because it elevates homotopy and allows computers to do some stuff which might give us more time to think about more important things. We need not be afraid of the abstract, if we could normalize the framework of general topology and abstract algebra, the rest of mathematics would follow much more easily, again because these are the most universal theories.

@xyzct

Жыл бұрын

I just bought _Homotopy Type Theory: Univalent Foundations of Mathematics._ I'm ahead of my time ;-)

@ir6plans60

4 ай бұрын

Facts

Some great questions and some good points in response but maybe the topic was a bit ambitious. Maybe need people like author Ian Stewart here?

I believe the mind is an excited state of energy states of the body which might have logic

@intermaths1128

4 жыл бұрын

Total bullshit

"Boiled down" Mathematics is time duration timing-> navigational mapping distribution of e-Pi-i interference, which is the metastable/dynamical objective "vanishing" point of possibility thinking. Form follows Functions, so teaching Mathematics is somewhat like a game of Snakes and Ladders, a pseudo random field of Uncertainty in otherwise specifically resonant applications for which one has the environment and aptitude.. Khan Academy and the World Wide Web make it interesting.

@dickbutt7310

4 жыл бұрын

shut up nerd

All these self proclaimed mathematical ‘stars’ effing around with number theory with very little tangible results or genuine breakthroughs.

@thetedmang

4 жыл бұрын

Mathematician on the far left is a number theorist and number theory has continued heavily to cryptography.

@matthewleitch1

Жыл бұрын

@@thetedmang It would be interesting to quantify the amount of number theory effort that actually did contribute directly to cryptography. I suspect it would be a very small proportion and would undermine this often-mentioned example of useful application. How much more could have been contributed to society if the number theorists had more often set out, deliberately, to be useful? Probably quite a lot. Relying on lucky discoveries is not really a strategy, even though it does produce some winners sometimes.

@thetedmang

Жыл бұрын

@@matthewleitch1 Totally agree, the only meaningful contribution might be the modulus operation, which didn't even originate in number theory.