as many different styles of explanation as possible, because you get different intuitions from each.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
Arnold is IMO overreacting (perhaps for performative and political reasons) against the horrors of mid20C French mathematics.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
That era was something of a Grothendieck cargo cult, and did for mathematics education what Le Corbusier did for architecture. Still...
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Speaking as a perhaps-decent algebraist once upon a time who nevertheless is hopeless at both logic AND physics.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @St_Rev @Meaningness
I was hopeless at algebra, so maybe that is my problem...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @drossbucket @St_Rev
I remember being blown away by the proof of Galois’ theorem, as being qualitatively bigger than anything I’d encountered before.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @St_Rev
Some day maybe I'll learn Galois theory in a form I can understand. It's so obviously pretty that even I can tell I'm missing out :(
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @drossbucket @St_Rev
Wish I could explain it in 140 chars, but a minimal prerequisite would be remembering how the proof works… and it’s been 35 years
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Rev is so clear-thinking that maybe can give a 140 character explanation—or summarize in a few tweets… ?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
Very wise mathematician once said, roughly: "In the beginning there were i and -i. But we don't know which is which. That's Galois theory."
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
*searches web for adequate WHOA reaction gif, fails*
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.