I've heard it said that true understanding is demonstrated when someone can explain difficult concepts well. Tao manages to convey complex ideas without making me feel like he is condescending to me. His depth of understanding is unmistakable.
My changes to his list would be s/Geometry/Topology/ and I might have found a place for logic and type theory. I am especially glad he brought to mind Dynamics since that is a field I know I need to pay more attention to.
Great video, we're lucky to have this kind of content so easily and widely available.
I respected Terence Tao but since listening to his "Mathematics in the age of AI" talk, I've become a fan. I have had nobody else explain so succinctly what is the purpose of Mathematical research, why it matters, and why it is so important to preserve the ways we do math. Even more importantly, I feel it resonates so well with every other field AI is taking over.
Yeh; I mean he's still just a dude, not gonna glaze him, but IMO early public ed should really just focus on math and basic physical experiment design for kids
Save specialization in other fields for later in life. Most fields jargon are bolted on top the physical geometry, color gradient, and additive/subtractive behavior in the natural world anyway.
Imo it's not numbers at all but linked to our awareness of physical relationships
Making it about numbers is like making it about cans when it's more about grasping adding one can to a bag of cans, adding 100 cans (multiplication), or the inverse with subtraction and division
Which is why I never liked numbers before algebra which then chucks numbers in the bin more or less.
Numbers are just syntax meant to represent $anything; 1.5 can be half a pill and a whole pill or T or A; numbers are euphemism.
That they can be infinitely big and yadda yadda isn't that meaningful in and of itself and that little bigness is all due to additive qualities of physical space
Geometry is addition or subtraction of shape
It's all built on 4 operations we see in daily life all the time
Very good resource. However, I fail to understand how a monkey writing the Hamlet is akin to a brute-force problem, in Terence's own words. The thesis seems to be here that given enough time, a monkey will be able to reason as a human.
Edit: Probably refers to the evolutionary aspect of the problem. My criticism is that he compares the time for a monkey needed to learn the hamlet to merely "quadratic time". I disagree that such degree of non-linearity applies here. I think it is grossly simplified/underestimated.
I really enjoyed this video (watched it the other day). It makes me feel like it's possible for me to understand the math that I'm currently trying to understand.
For those not in the know, Terrence Howard's dreams of a career in Astrophysics were eviscerated after Neil Degrasse Tyson reviewed his "Theory of Everything" paper [1]
It was expected that people without established credibility would be looked down on for using AI, but it's been weird to see people with all the credibility in the world lose it for embracing AI.
My changes to his list would be s/Geometry/Topology/ and I might have found a place for logic and type theory. I am especially glad he brought to mind Dynamics since that is a field I know I need to pay more attention to.
Great video, we're lucky to have this kind of content so easily and widely available.
Save specialization in other fields for later in life. Most fields jargon are bolted on top the physical geometry, color gradient, and additive/subtractive behavior in the natural world anyway.
Algebra
Geometry
Probability
Analysis
Dynamics
I loved this talk, but these concepts are like an attempt at dimensional reduction of math research, science, the academics knowledge.
I would have loved to have his thoughts on the mathematical mind, the process, how to reason, infer vs deduct, abstract, prove..
I don’t really know, what are the primitives, essential concepts of math reasoning?
Making it about numbers is like making it about cans when it's more about grasping adding one can to a bag of cans, adding 100 cans (multiplication), or the inverse with subtraction and division
Which is why I never liked numbers before algebra which then chucks numbers in the bin more or less.
Numbers are just syntax meant to represent $anything; 1.5 can be half a pill and a whole pill or T or A; numbers are euphemism.
That they can be infinitely big and yadda yadda isn't that meaningful in and of itself and that little bigness is all due to additive qualities of physical space
Geometry is addition or subtraction of shape
It's all built on 4 operations we see in daily life all the time
Edit: Probably refers to the evolutionary aspect of the problem. My criticism is that he compares the time for a monkey needed to learn the hamlet to merely "quadratic time". I disagree that such degree of non-linearity applies here. I think it is grossly simplified/underestimated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdOXS_9_P4U
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uLi1I3G2N4
Terence Tao.