mathematics is unconstrained by any desired artificial 'engagement' requirement
engagement is as easy as acting on and developing an interest
and i encourage everyone to engage with mathematics
your attempts to create an artificial toll or make a case for one, especially in lieu of your argument being unsolicited from the contents of the linked article, is suspicious at best, and wholly detrimental at worst
> very hard to engage with outside of formal education - or at least nobody has really found a great model for doing so yet
this seems like contradictory logic.. you appear to be denying 'informal' students from using the same model you advocate from these 'formal' sources
also i think you need to flesh out your definitions a bit..
what precisely do you mean by: formal education, outperform, general programming, scientific programming?
you also seem to be setting up a logical fallacy in your attempt to define your thesis of 'mathematical maturity'
> my colleagues who entered industry straight after their Masters or even Bachelors, and those who completed Doctorates or even held postdoctoral positions
are you comparing a ~20 year old at their first job to a ~30 year old who spent thaer twenties in academia? have you tested your hypothesis by comparing others of similar time spent on the subject but lack receipts for the money they paid into the academic institution? are there anomalies present in your investigations?
your argument seems to lack any substantial scrutiny, and this would seem to me to be the defining element of some such concept of an interest in mathematics 'maturing': devotion to rigor
I did not downvote your comment, but to me your comment seems to be building up a bunch of straw men, peppered with negativity. It also doesn't clearly communicate anything relevant that I can understand.
The original commenter is noticing a difference of culture between the startup community and the academic mathematics community: the stereotypical attitude of startup folks is "establishment be damned," but that attitude doesn't seem to fare well when it comes to mathematics because the process of learning mathematics is so incremental. Disruption and the hackathon mentality won't help you learn math (in the author's opinion).
Meanwhile you're nitpicking definitions that seem to me to already have satisfactory informal definitions with no need for that level of scrutiny. It doesn't add to the conversation in a meaningful way. What I can glean from your comment is that if you have the right attitude toward math, then none of the original commenter's points hold. And I think everyone agrees with that. It's just that the people being discussed don't have the right attitudes, so it seems mildly pointless to say "Well if only they had the right attitude!" The same statement applies to most discussions about human behavior.
I sincerely hope this helps you communicate your views better in the future.
my desire to respond was instigated by this quote from the gp:
> However, I truly believe that Mathematics is a discipline that is very hard to engage with outside of formal education - or at least nobody has really found a great model for doing so yet.
my views:
mathematics is unconstrained by any desired artificial 'engagement' requirement
engagement is as easy as acting on and developing an interest
and i encourage everyone to engage with mathematics
mathematics is unconstrained by any desired artificial 'engagement' requirement
engagement is as easy as acting on and developing an interest
and i encourage everyone to engage with mathematics
your attempts to create an artificial toll or make a case for one, especially in lieu of your argument being unsolicited from the contents of the linked article, is suspicious at best, and wholly detrimental at worst
> very hard to engage with outside of formal education - or at least nobody has really found a great model for doing so yet
this seems like contradictory logic.. you appear to be denying 'informal' students from using the same model you advocate from these 'formal' sources
also i think you need to flesh out your definitions a bit..
what precisely do you mean by: formal education, outperform, general programming, scientific programming?
you also seem to be setting up a logical fallacy in your attempt to define your thesis of 'mathematical maturity'
> my colleagues who entered industry straight after their Masters or even Bachelors, and those who completed Doctorates or even held postdoctoral positions
are you comparing a ~20 year old at their first job to a ~30 year old who spent thaer twenties in academia? have you tested your hypothesis by comparing others of similar time spent on the subject but lack receipts for the money they paid into the academic institution? are there anomalies present in your investigations?
your argument seems to lack any substantial scrutiny, and this would seem to me to be the defining element of some such concept of an interest in mathematics 'maturing': devotion to rigor