It was unnecessary, he argues, for Bertrand Russell and Alfred Whitehead to write 378 pages of logic in their “Principia Mathematica” in order to prove 1+1=2 — when empirically it’s obvious. To Raju, this and much of formal math is “metaphysical junk,” an

While I can relate to the title, much of the article is vague and dodgy sounding.

And as students and academics accelerate the process of decolonization across South African universities, the spotlight has fallen onto mathematics.

Exactly what decolonizing math would entail isn’t entirely clear: Curriculum revisions that promote non-Western contributions to the field, new teaching methods rooted in indigenous cultures, and greater openness to ideas outside the academic mainstream are all under discussion. Some want to go further, challenging the philosophical foundations of mathematics itself.

...

Yet an opposing view regards mathematics as an evolving work-in-progress whose truths are dependent on culture and invented, rather than universal and discovered. Mathematics, in this view, developed as a result of problems that needed to be solved: the development of geometry to help ships navigate, or the invention of statistics to support the insurance industry.

“Truths in mathematics are never absolute, but must always be understood as relative to a background system,” writes Paul Ernest, a philosopher of mathematics at the University of Exeter and a proponent of this ‘fallibilist’ understanding of mathematics.

[–] Kannibal [OP] 0 points (+0|-0)

I have a book on ethno-mathematics

a lot of it has to do with different cultural takes on the basics, like how the Babylonians used a system based on 60, etc.

But once you get past this and get into things where you are using abstract stuff like formulas, it becomes more independent of culture.

Imaginary numbers, for example, are used in electronics to calculate impedance (i.e. resistance) for electric current at different frequencies. So stuff like that is quite practical.

[–] smallpond 0 points (+0|-0)

For example, learning imaginary numbers by focusing on applications in electronics is a pretty dumb thing to do. It is better to gain a solid understanding of the abstract theory of imaginary numbers, and then apply that theory to electronics, or one of the many applications that use imaginary numbers, as necessary.

I agree with many of the comments on this article - ie. basically it's crap.

It was unnecessary, he argues, for Bertrand Russell and Alfred Whitehead to write 378 pages of logic in their “Principia Mathematica” in order to prove 1+1=2 — when empirically it’s obvious. To Raju, this and much of formal math is “metaphysical junk,” an

3 comments

/s/FoodForThought