The Nature of Mathematics: Michael Randy Gabel at TEDxGeorgeMasonU

[@michaelembley4644]

Not a snoozefest at all...simple someone who is very good, presenting something in a measured and deeper way than is usual. Something to be understood and appreciated.

[@Juxtaroberto]

It's probably a problem of the modern world that we don't find things riveting without lots of moving graphics, bright colors, and perhaps an explosion here and there.

[@Pivitrix]

Michael Embley the examples were far too basic, and too few to actually show much. All it served was the purpose of driving home his point about mathematics. There isn't anything to be understood or appreciated, i don't think it was a bad presentation, he just didn't do alot in 20 minutes. But i guess that is the problem, he is probably afraid of intimidating or scaring away people.

[@gabbyloombo3595]

i don't have a lot of back round in math in fact i suck but the way you explained this to me i did understand it so Michael you are wrong! and you have inspired me to learn more about math so thank you!........

[@swavekbu4959]

A fine DESCRIPTION of mathematics, but hardly a discussion of its nature. It's nature is in CONCEPTS, that evolved into symbols, just like any other language. The nature of mathematics is a rigorization (or "simplification") of concepts into some form that can be communicated (which is the symbolic logic formulation). New mathematics comes sometimes from analytical derivation, other times is motivated by nature (e.g., you see a circle, you describe the circle with an abstract function). To understand the nature of mathematics, you have to delve into its historical development, immerse yourself into what a language is, and study how much mathematics was born out of a desire to describe (not necessarily explain) things we see in nature. It's a convenient language that allows for relatively easy communication to account for empirical data. But it was first and foremost born out of mushy concepts. "Continuity" isn't a mathematical idea. It's an idea first and foremost. Mathematicians rigorized it so that it's easier to work with. Get the "Hollywood" out of mathematics and you'll see it for what it really is, and it'll lose its mystery really fast. It's truly fascinating, but not mysterious. New mathematics objects arise out of logical necessity to keep the "system" alive and expanding. Get "underneath" the surface of mathematics and you'll see it for what it is, the top of the water of a deeper underground. What is under the sea (metaphorically speaking) is what gave rise to mathematics objects.

[@princeohaegbu5424]

This is one of the best descriptions of mathematics I’ve come across. Thanks!

[@pjtrusci]

Great presentation.

[@joshuacook2]

1/11 does repeat in blocks of 6, it just also repeats in blocks of every positive multiple of 2.

[@hugocoolens]

A nice example of "things not to do when you do a presentation": I'd suggest to read: Trees, maps, and theorems (effective communication for rational minds) by Jean-luc Doumont Concerning the "proof of the Pythagorean theorem", there is no explanation why the two large squares should have equal areas, just seeing it is not sufficient

[@CallMeIshmael999]

Hugo Coolens Both squares have sides length a + b. He mentions this.

[@hugocoolens]

CallMeIshmael999 Yes, he mentions it, but for the right square in particular he also should explain why

[@RainaEmeral]

Thank you! I thought my reaction to this was a consequence of the fact that I only learned very basic math skills, 50 years ago. But I felt the same way about the " proof" of the theory, that seeing it was not enough. But I figured that just proved why I'm so bad at math. I'm going to try to find the book you recommended. Thanks!

[@mullergyula4174]

I like the ending. It is surprising but very true.

[@keniangervo8417]

The talk itself was too stretched out and basic, didn't really bring anything to the table. Other thing: the volume was way too low on this video. Serious issue.

[@arekkrolak6320]

Pythagoras theorem is quite obvious as it has word 'theorem' in its name, the only other one I can think of is Fermat's last theorem, and no surprise most people find Pythagoras more appealing... On second question I has 3rd, not 5th :)

[@mathpanther]

Pythagoras is the first one to connect Mathematics and Musics

[@alef7236]

Great content! But he walks around too much, I can not correlate his body language to points he's trying to make. Mathematicians are awkward, that's my conjecture.

[@reichplatz]

you dont have to correlate his body language to anything, you just need to listen to what he says -.-

[@alef7236]

Джонатан Свифт -.-

[@zhao-yuhe9108]

The mathematics education in elementary and middle schools in the US are problematic. I cannot image the professor is using such simple maths to show its importance. What he is talking about is really the content of a maths class of Grade 2 in elementary school in China. ----- A graduate student in Arizona from China

[@PushhProductions]

he did it that way because vector arithmetic was created after the pythagorean theorem.

[@miguelmiguel9766]

what is peace?peace,Free from war,Dying,pain and suffering,which is what every man wants.if any man says different there irrational.before space and time came into being there was no wars,pains,suffering of any kind,which means there was peace.sense there was no wars,or any kind of suffering before S-T,peace is not space,or time neither limited to it and therefor spiritual and eternal.the bible speaks of these things and further calls peace God Judges 6:24. and this God will like you to dwell with him Isaiah 32:18. will you accept Jesus?

[@marcosrodriguez2496]

+Miguel Miguel you off your meds again?

[@theeditor8776]

Miguel Miguel peace is intended, you can't just have piece because of default. So empty space is the type of peace we all want? No, not at all. I'd take wars and bloodshed but for the betterment of mankind over nothingness any day.

[@ZenSkin]

DUDE! Stop Looking at the fucking display!!!!!!!!!!!

[@BrianDornTFP]

I've got some bad memories of math class.

[@32266ms]

You probably like your way because that's the way you like - no good reason. Your way requires more Math foundation to be intact in a person before that person is ready to understand your way. The presenters way probably requires the least amount of Math foundation to be intact in a person before they're in a position to understand. I also strongly agree with the sentiment -- I think that's the point of the presentation - not how to prove the pyth. thm. btw 1/9 = .11111..... not .011111.....

[@anthonyrampersad6303]

Very poorly delivered! Sitting and waiting to hear the core message is intolerable.

[@Silly.Old.Sisyphus]

Proof - as if any were needed, that mathematicians should not be allowed to teach mathematics, let alone teach teachers. It is clear that he understands what he is saying. And it is equally clear that he has no idea how to explain what he understands to anyone who doesnt already understand what he understands. If you dont understand what i am saying, then you shouldn't be a teacher either. For example, Jacob Bronowski WAS a good teacher - an excellent one - and in his TV series The Ascent of Man he provides a constructive proof of Pythagoras' theorem - in all likelihood the proof of which Pythagoras himself conceived - that absolutely everyone over the age of three can understand. This speaker's proof presentation is a tortured version of that constructive proof, presented in such a way as to make it look like magic, which is by definition incomprehensible. The speaker clearly suffers from that ego problem that so many mathematics teachers have: he thinks "Ha ha, I'm smarter than you", whereas in reality he is merely more autistic.

[@ThePlatineist]

It is because we puller science and liberal arts apart and said: you do one half of a thing of what humans can do and you do the other half and never work to improve your weak areas, cause your brain isn't made for that. The most condescending non-sense in the history of teaching. Mathematicians can't speak logically and coherently or explain concepts in a sophisticated way because they didn't learn that. And then you have the liberal arts folk who may be very articulate and know how to make a proper argument people can follow, but there is sometimes no substance or the content is mundane. That's what specialising does. Time to have a proper training for teachers no matter what the level.

[@jasper5016]

the way he talks is quite boring. I am feeling sleepy.

[@dasaint0]

Not the best presenter but brilliant non the less.

[@daviddemar8749]

He's a terrible teacher This is a very disappointing Ted talk. I bet he discouraged a lot of his audience from exploring this topic further. I recommend comparing this guy to Eddie Woo on his KZbin channel -wootube

[@yow448]

deadass torture