Controversial area of mathematicsToposophy vs Set theoretical multiverse philosophyHow platonistic is your...
Controversial area of mathematics
Toposophy vs Set theoretical multiverse philosophyHow platonistic is your attitude towards mathematics?Badiou and MathematicsLogic in mathematics and philosophyEssential reads in the philosophy of mathematics and set theoryEuler's mathematics in terms of modern theories?Is there an observer dependent mathematics?Meta$^{n{-}th}$ mathematicsWhy aren't functions used predominantly as a model for mathematics instead of set theory etc.?Does this axiomatic system satisfy requirements for founding mathematics?Set-theoretical foundations of Mathematics with only bounded quantifiers
$begingroup$
I am a set theorist. Since I began to study this subject, I became increasingly aware of negative attitudes about it. These were expressed both from an internal and an external perspective. By the “internal perspective,” I mean a constant expression of worry from set theorists and logicians about the relevance of their work to the broader community / “real world”, with these worries sometimes leading to career-defining decisions on the direction of research.
For me, this situation is unwanted. I studied set theory because I thought it was interesting, not because I wanted to be a soldier in some kind of movement. Furthermore, I don’t see why an area needs defending when it produces a lot of deep theorems. That part is hard enough.
Does this kind of political situation plague other areas of mathematics? In what areas are scholars free to study according to the standards of their discipline, without feeling pressure to defend the relevance of their whole subject?
set-theory lo.logic soft-question mathematical-philosophy
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am a set theorist. Since I began to study this subject, I became increasingly aware of negative attitudes about it. These were expressed both from an internal and an external perspective. By the “internal perspective,” I mean a constant expression of worry from set theorists and logicians about the relevance of their work to the broader community / “real world”, with these worries sometimes leading to career-defining decisions on the direction of research.
For me, this situation is unwanted. I studied set theory because I thought it was interesting, not because I wanted to be a soldier in some kind of movement. Furthermore, I don’t see why an area needs defending when it produces a lot of deep theorems. That part is hard enough.
Does this kind of political situation plague other areas of mathematics? In what areas are scholars free to study according to the standards of their discipline, without feeling pressure to defend the relevance of their whole subject?
set-theory lo.logic soft-question mathematical-philosophy
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
+1, nice question; another area where I’ve seen this type of internal negative attitude expressed is category theory, for example in this discussion where Sridhar was asked at one point to explain what the ‘payoff’ for categorical versions of set theoretical constructions were for ‘classical mathematics’... ;) (mathoverflow.net/questions/318996/…) I would also like to understand why these demands are made more often of people working in arguably very ‘abstract’ branches of mathematics.
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
56 mins ago
$begingroup$
@AlecRhea Fair enough. I would say I was trying to understand the impact of something on my area coming from outside, so I used the language of “applications” to make my point rhetorically. This may have been unfair.
$endgroup$
– Monroe Eskew
51 mins ago
$begingroup$
It's completely understandable, and I think this provides a lens on the set theory issue as well -- set theory has been touted and accepted as 'the' rigorous foundation for mathematics for decades (excepting some developments in category theory), but an analyst or algebraic geometer can have a completely healthy and productive career without ever really understanding any of the deeper constructions in set theory. I think requests for applications and consequences in fields outside set theory are usually attempts to get a grasp on an abstract branch of mathematics from a familiar perspective.
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
42 mins ago
$begingroup$
If you (and your colleagues) have enough funding, no worries. I suspect it is not the research area so much as the economics plus the psychology of the players. While my research path is primarily my own responsibility and my own fault, I believe it was influenced by how certain players viewed Universal Algebra at the time. Not all of the players were universal algebraists. Gerhard "Politics Isn't For The Individual" Paseman, 2019.04.27.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
29 mins ago
$begingroup$
I think I've heard similar worries from those in lattice theory. It wouldn't surprise me much if semigroup theorists felt similarly plagued. On the opposite end, I would expect algebraic geometry and algebraic number theory don't suffer as much from this kind of worry (not to speak of hard analysis). Incidentally, Monroe: do you subscribe to FOM? You can find there lots of robust assertions about the relevance of set theory to mathematics generally.
$endgroup$
– Todd Trimble♦
1 min ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am a set theorist. Since I began to study this subject, I became increasingly aware of negative attitudes about it. These were expressed both from an internal and an external perspective. By the “internal perspective,” I mean a constant expression of worry from set theorists and logicians about the relevance of their work to the broader community / “real world”, with these worries sometimes leading to career-defining decisions on the direction of research.
For me, this situation is unwanted. I studied set theory because I thought it was interesting, not because I wanted to be a soldier in some kind of movement. Furthermore, I don’t see why an area needs defending when it produces a lot of deep theorems. That part is hard enough.
Does this kind of political situation plague other areas of mathematics? In what areas are scholars free to study according to the standards of their discipline, without feeling pressure to defend the relevance of their whole subject?
set-theory lo.logic soft-question mathematical-philosophy
$endgroup$
I am a set theorist. Since I began to study this subject, I became increasingly aware of negative attitudes about it. These were expressed both from an internal and an external perspective. By the “internal perspective,” I mean a constant expression of worry from set theorists and logicians about the relevance of their work to the broader community / “real world”, with these worries sometimes leading to career-defining decisions on the direction of research.
For me, this situation is unwanted. I studied set theory because I thought it was interesting, not because I wanted to be a soldier in some kind of movement. Furthermore, I don’t see why an area needs defending when it produces a lot of deep theorems. That part is hard enough.
Does this kind of political situation plague other areas of mathematics? In what areas are scholars free to study according to the standards of their discipline, without feeling pressure to defend the relevance of their whole subject?
set-theory lo.logic soft-question mathematical-philosophy
set-theory lo.logic soft-question mathematical-philosophy
asked 1 hour ago
community wiki
Monroe Eskew
1
$begingroup$
+1, nice question; another area where I’ve seen this type of internal negative attitude expressed is category theory, for example in this discussion where Sridhar was asked at one point to explain what the ‘payoff’ for categorical versions of set theoretical constructions were for ‘classical mathematics’... ;) (mathoverflow.net/questions/318996/…) I would also like to understand why these demands are made more often of people working in arguably very ‘abstract’ branches of mathematics.
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
56 mins ago
$begingroup$
@AlecRhea Fair enough. I would say I was trying to understand the impact of something on my area coming from outside, so I used the language of “applications” to make my point rhetorically. This may have been unfair.
$endgroup$
– Monroe Eskew
51 mins ago
$begingroup$
It's completely understandable, and I think this provides a lens on the set theory issue as well -- set theory has been touted and accepted as 'the' rigorous foundation for mathematics for decades (excepting some developments in category theory), but an analyst or algebraic geometer can have a completely healthy and productive career without ever really understanding any of the deeper constructions in set theory. I think requests for applications and consequences in fields outside set theory are usually attempts to get a grasp on an abstract branch of mathematics from a familiar perspective.
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
42 mins ago
$begingroup$
If you (and your colleagues) have enough funding, no worries. I suspect it is not the research area so much as the economics plus the psychology of the players. While my research path is primarily my own responsibility and my own fault, I believe it was influenced by how certain players viewed Universal Algebra at the time. Not all of the players were universal algebraists. Gerhard "Politics Isn't For The Individual" Paseman, 2019.04.27.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
29 mins ago
$begingroup$
I think I've heard similar worries from those in lattice theory. It wouldn't surprise me much if semigroup theorists felt similarly plagued. On the opposite end, I would expect algebraic geometry and algebraic number theory don't suffer as much from this kind of worry (not to speak of hard analysis). Incidentally, Monroe: do you subscribe to FOM? You can find there lots of robust assertions about the relevance of set theory to mathematics generally.
$endgroup$
– Todd Trimble♦
1 min ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
+1, nice question; another area where I’ve seen this type of internal negative attitude expressed is category theory, for example in this discussion where Sridhar was asked at one point to explain what the ‘payoff’ for categorical versions of set theoretical constructions were for ‘classical mathematics’... ;) (mathoverflow.net/questions/318996/…) I would also like to understand why these demands are made more often of people working in arguably very ‘abstract’ branches of mathematics.
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
56 mins ago
$begingroup$
@AlecRhea Fair enough. I would say I was trying to understand the impact of something on my area coming from outside, so I used the language of “applications” to make my point rhetorically. This may have been unfair.
$endgroup$
– Monroe Eskew
51 mins ago
$begingroup$
It's completely understandable, and I think this provides a lens on the set theory issue as well -- set theory has been touted and accepted as 'the' rigorous foundation for mathematics for decades (excepting some developments in category theory), but an analyst or algebraic geometer can have a completely healthy and productive career without ever really understanding any of the deeper constructions in set theory. I think requests for applications and consequences in fields outside set theory are usually attempts to get a grasp on an abstract branch of mathematics from a familiar perspective.
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
42 mins ago
$begingroup$
If you (and your colleagues) have enough funding, no worries. I suspect it is not the research area so much as the economics plus the psychology of the players. While my research path is primarily my own responsibility and my own fault, I believe it was influenced by how certain players viewed Universal Algebra at the time. Not all of the players were universal algebraists. Gerhard "Politics Isn't For The Individual" Paseman, 2019.04.27.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
29 mins ago
$begingroup$
I think I've heard similar worries from those in lattice theory. It wouldn't surprise me much if semigroup theorists felt similarly plagued. On the opposite end, I would expect algebraic geometry and algebraic number theory don't suffer as much from this kind of worry (not to speak of hard analysis). Incidentally, Monroe: do you subscribe to FOM? You can find there lots of robust assertions about the relevance of set theory to mathematics generally.
$endgroup$
– Todd Trimble♦
1 min ago
1
1
$begingroup$
+1, nice question; another area where I’ve seen this type of internal negative attitude expressed is category theory, for example in this discussion where Sridhar was asked at one point to explain what the ‘payoff’ for categorical versions of set theoretical constructions were for ‘classical mathematics’... ;) (mathoverflow.net/questions/318996/…) I would also like to understand why these demands are made more often of people working in arguably very ‘abstract’ branches of mathematics.
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
56 mins ago
$begingroup$
+1, nice question; another area where I’ve seen this type of internal negative attitude expressed is category theory, for example in this discussion where Sridhar was asked at one point to explain what the ‘payoff’ for categorical versions of set theoretical constructions were for ‘classical mathematics’... ;) (mathoverflow.net/questions/318996/…) I would also like to understand why these demands are made more often of people working in arguably very ‘abstract’ branches of mathematics.
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
56 mins ago
$begingroup$
@AlecRhea Fair enough. I would say I was trying to understand the impact of something on my area coming from outside, so I used the language of “applications” to make my point rhetorically. This may have been unfair.
$endgroup$
– Monroe Eskew
51 mins ago
$begingroup$
@AlecRhea Fair enough. I would say I was trying to understand the impact of something on my area coming from outside, so I used the language of “applications” to make my point rhetorically. This may have been unfair.
$endgroup$
– Monroe Eskew
51 mins ago
$begingroup$
It's completely understandable, and I think this provides a lens on the set theory issue as well -- set theory has been touted and accepted as 'the' rigorous foundation for mathematics for decades (excepting some developments in category theory), but an analyst or algebraic geometer can have a completely healthy and productive career without ever really understanding any of the deeper constructions in set theory. I think requests for applications and consequences in fields outside set theory are usually attempts to get a grasp on an abstract branch of mathematics from a familiar perspective.
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
42 mins ago
$begingroup$
It's completely understandable, and I think this provides a lens on the set theory issue as well -- set theory has been touted and accepted as 'the' rigorous foundation for mathematics for decades (excepting some developments in category theory), but an analyst or algebraic geometer can have a completely healthy and productive career without ever really understanding any of the deeper constructions in set theory. I think requests for applications and consequences in fields outside set theory are usually attempts to get a grasp on an abstract branch of mathematics from a familiar perspective.
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
42 mins ago
$begingroup$
If you (and your colleagues) have enough funding, no worries. I suspect it is not the research area so much as the economics plus the psychology of the players. While my research path is primarily my own responsibility and my own fault, I believe it was influenced by how certain players viewed Universal Algebra at the time. Not all of the players were universal algebraists. Gerhard "Politics Isn't For The Individual" Paseman, 2019.04.27.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
29 mins ago
$begingroup$
If you (and your colleagues) have enough funding, no worries. I suspect it is not the research area so much as the economics plus the psychology of the players. While my research path is primarily my own responsibility and my own fault, I believe it was influenced by how certain players viewed Universal Algebra at the time. Not all of the players were universal algebraists. Gerhard "Politics Isn't For The Individual" Paseman, 2019.04.27.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
29 mins ago
$begingroup$
I think I've heard similar worries from those in lattice theory. It wouldn't surprise me much if semigroup theorists felt similarly plagued. On the opposite end, I would expect algebraic geometry and algebraic number theory don't suffer as much from this kind of worry (not to speak of hard analysis). Incidentally, Monroe: do you subscribe to FOM? You can find there lots of robust assertions about the relevance of set theory to mathematics generally.
$endgroup$
– Todd Trimble♦
1 min ago
$begingroup$
I think I've heard similar worries from those in lattice theory. It wouldn't surprise me much if semigroup theorists felt similarly plagued. On the opposite end, I would expect algebraic geometry and algebraic number theory don't suffer as much from this kind of worry (not to speak of hard analysis). Incidentally, Monroe: do you subscribe to FOM? You can find there lots of robust assertions about the relevance of set theory to mathematics generally.
$endgroup$
– Todd Trimble♦
1 min ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Timothy Gowers' essay,
Gowers, William Timothy. "The two cultures of mathematics." Mathematics: Frontiers and Perspectives 65 (2000): 65.
PDF download
seems relevantly analogous:
"Loosely speaking, I mean the distinction between mathematicians who regard their central
aim as being to solve problems, and those who are more concerned with building and
understanding theories."
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f330146%2fcontroversial-area-of-mathematics%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Timothy Gowers' essay,
Gowers, William Timothy. "The two cultures of mathematics." Mathematics: Frontiers and Perspectives 65 (2000): 65.
PDF download
seems relevantly analogous:
"Loosely speaking, I mean the distinction between mathematicians who regard their central
aim as being to solve problems, and those who are more concerned with building and
understanding theories."
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Timothy Gowers' essay,
Gowers, William Timothy. "The two cultures of mathematics." Mathematics: Frontiers and Perspectives 65 (2000): 65.
PDF download
seems relevantly analogous:
"Loosely speaking, I mean the distinction between mathematicians who regard their central
aim as being to solve problems, and those who are more concerned with building and
understanding theories."
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Timothy Gowers' essay,
Gowers, William Timothy. "The two cultures of mathematics." Mathematics: Frontiers and Perspectives 65 (2000): 65.
PDF download
seems relevantly analogous:
"Loosely speaking, I mean the distinction between mathematicians who regard their central
aim as being to solve problems, and those who are more concerned with building and
understanding theories."
$endgroup$
Timothy Gowers' essay,
Gowers, William Timothy. "The two cultures of mathematics." Mathematics: Frontiers and Perspectives 65 (2000): 65.
PDF download
seems relevantly analogous:
"Loosely speaking, I mean the distinction between mathematicians who regard their central
aim as being to solve problems, and those who are more concerned with building and
understanding theories."
answered 47 mins ago
community wiki
Joseph O'Rourke
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f330146%2fcontroversial-area-of-mathematics%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
+1, nice question; another area where I’ve seen this type of internal negative attitude expressed is category theory, for example in this discussion where Sridhar was asked at one point to explain what the ‘payoff’ for categorical versions of set theoretical constructions were for ‘classical mathematics’... ;) (mathoverflow.net/questions/318996/…) I would also like to understand why these demands are made more often of people working in arguably very ‘abstract’ branches of mathematics.
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
56 mins ago
$begingroup$
@AlecRhea Fair enough. I would say I was trying to understand the impact of something on my area coming from outside, so I used the language of “applications” to make my point rhetorically. This may have been unfair.
$endgroup$
– Monroe Eskew
51 mins ago
$begingroup$
It's completely understandable, and I think this provides a lens on the set theory issue as well -- set theory has been touted and accepted as 'the' rigorous foundation for mathematics for decades (excepting some developments in category theory), but an analyst or algebraic geometer can have a completely healthy and productive career without ever really understanding any of the deeper constructions in set theory. I think requests for applications and consequences in fields outside set theory are usually attempts to get a grasp on an abstract branch of mathematics from a familiar perspective.
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
42 mins ago
$begingroup$
If you (and your colleagues) have enough funding, no worries. I suspect it is not the research area so much as the economics plus the psychology of the players. While my research path is primarily my own responsibility and my own fault, I believe it was influenced by how certain players viewed Universal Algebra at the time. Not all of the players were universal algebraists. Gerhard "Politics Isn't For The Individual" Paseman, 2019.04.27.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
29 mins ago
$begingroup$
I think I've heard similar worries from those in lattice theory. It wouldn't surprise me much if semigroup theorists felt similarly plagued. On the opposite end, I would expect algebraic geometry and algebraic number theory don't suffer as much from this kind of worry (not to speak of hard analysis). Incidentally, Monroe: do you subscribe to FOM? You can find there lots of robust assertions about the relevance of set theory to mathematics generally.
$endgroup$
– Todd Trimble♦
1 min ago