Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 07:33:13 08/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2002 at 10:13:00, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 22, 2002 at 09:55:38, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On August 22, 2002 at 06:20:00, Mogens Larsen wrote: >> >>>On August 21, 2002 at 18:55:53, Sune Fischer wrote: >>> >>>>It was only a matter of time before you said that, not true of course. >>> >>>Yes, it is. What they do or don't do at your particular institute is completely >>>irrelevant to the general approach to thesis validations in the rest of the >>>country. >> >>I said that the standard seemed low, and it does, to me. >>Problem is that standards vary from low to high, so perhaps it _is_ within range >>at some universities. > >My opinion is that it is better if people get respect more for explaining things >and less for discovering new things. > >The problem in mathematics is that people get respect for proving things when >almost nobody can understand them. I agree, that wouldn't be a bad thing at all. But a "masters" is a title, next step is the Ph.D., so one can't help to expect a certain 'level' of depth in such a thesis. Apparently the 'level' here was okay in the eyes of many, so maybe my 'depth-perception' is broken ;) >I know that the proof of perma theorem(x^n+y^n=-z^n has no solution for n>2) is >so complex that almost nobody can understand it. > >I think that it is better for mathematics if people devote time not to research >of discovering new theorems but to explaining the proof of the theorem such that >everybody can read the proof and understand every stage of it. Mathematics is a language, it's like a Babylon tower that grows forever higher, stone by stone, generation by generation. If you are dedicated to math you can start the climb up the tower. I don't know if proofs can be simplified and still be proofs. One could perhaps outline the idea, but generally things get very technical. >My opinion is that it is going to be better for science if people can get master >thesis and even more than it only for explaining things more clearly. Usually the target isn't the layman, but collegues who 'speak' the language. I think most scientists are very good at explaining things actually, they need to be to pass on their knowledge to the students also. When you learn somebody how to count, then you may use images such as oranges and apples, with fractions you use a pie. It is easier when you no longer have to talk like that, and can use the symbols +,-,*,/. You are not doing it to make things harder, but to make them easier. In some contries people would find those complex. -S. >Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.