Everybody know about mathbabe? j.
http://mathbabe.org/2012/02/13/mathematics-has-an-occupy-mom
-------
I change the subject line. I almost didn't read the above because it was hidden a deteriorated thread.
Never heard of her, but wow what fun. I read up on the Elsevier issue and math community revolt a few months ago. I can't remember if I posted anything or not. I got way deep into it. Then there is the other part of her essay:
``Why am I waxing so poetic over this struggle? Because, at the heart of the question of what is the new system is the even more fundamental question, what do we, as a community, wish to treasure and what do we wish to discard? After all, we already have arXiv, or in other words a repository of everything, and the question then becomes, how do we sort out the good stuff from the crap?
I want to stop right there and examine that question, because it's already quite loaded. Let's face it, people don't always agree on what it means for something to be good versus crap, and if there was ever a time to examine that question it's now.
Here's a thought experiment I'd like you to do with me. Since leaving academic mathematics, I've realized the enormous value of being able to explain mathematical concepts to broader audiences, and I've been left with the distinct impression that such a skill is underappreciated inside academic mathematics. In the past 8 months, since writing this blog, I've become sort of a hybrid mathematician and journalist, and it's kind of cool, if unfocused. But what if I decided to really focus on the journalism side of mathematics inside mathematics, would that be appreciated?
So the thought experiment is this. Imagine if, every 6 months, I moved to a new field of mathematics and acted as a mathematical journalist, interviewing the people in math about their work, their field, where it's going, what the important questions are, etc., and at the end of the 6 month gig I wrote an expository article that explained that field to the rest of the mathematicians. I'd do that every 6 months for 20 years, and I've covered 40 fields. Assuming I'm as good at explaining things as I say I am, I've really opened up these fields to a larger audience (albeit still math folks), which may allow for better communication between fields, or may avoid redundant work between fields, or may simply enrich the understanding of what's going on. From my perspective, the work I'd be doing would really be mathematics, and would further the overall creation of mathematics.
However, think about those expository articles I'd be writing. They wouldn't be original, nor would they be particularly hard--if anything the goal would be for people to understand them. Would they ever get published in a top journal (as of now)? I don't think so.''
The importance of undertaking such a project is that few outside mathematics and maybe physics even understand the basic concepts.
Since I went through the standard math education from grade school through undergrad calculus I can testify almost none of it has much to do with mathematics, which is pretty astonishing. Maybe a better way to say this is that the `real' mathematics is there, but most people never see it. This is partly the problem of how math is taught. So mathematics is a complete void to most people, even in technical fields.
Anyway if there are any math nuts out there try this guy. It's about projective geometry using the concept of polars. It took me a long time, fiddling around with polars in the evenings at my drawing board. He gets there in about an hour. These are half hour segments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7oXlrcPBb4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=JJbh0iJ1Agc
What's missing are the applications in theoretical physics. The way to see this, is to understand Wildberger is talking about spaces with different properties. These properties effect the way objects behave. That isn't said very well said, but maybe it gives the general idea.
IMHO, Wildberger breaks down toward the end when he is trying to describe a projective space in modern terms. I think it is much more conherent and elegant to introduce the ideas through transformation methods and invariants. Start with Euclidean transforms, then Affine, and finally Projective. The latter path explicitly links to physics
CG
Wildberger's history series is pretty good to.