Math is a language, pt. 2

In my previous post, I argued mathematics can be considered as an highly sophisticated, fractal language in which ideas are layered on each other to build very tall mathematical buildings. Rigourous proofs are the strong mortar keeping the tower standing up. All of this was philosphical and suggestive, and stemmed from the evergreen question 'of … Continue reading Math is a language, pt. 2

Math is a language.

I always been a lover of 'math for the sake of math' and I found annoying to ask 'but what is this useful for?' when learning about a new concept. It might seem weird, but to a pure mathematician 'apply' sounds like 'spoil'. Applications are a kind of low rank pursue for a mathematician, something … Continue reading Math is a language.

On humanities papers and mathematical naivety.

I just finished reading What does a mathematical proof prove?, a (supposedly) classic in philosophy of math by Imre Lakatos and it confirmed what I feared was happening: I can no longer bear any humanities paper. Everything[0] you read typically has a 10x multiplier on words, and usually boils down to one/two interesting perspectives on … Continue reading On humanities papers and mathematical naivety.