How do real mathematicians learn enough

  • Thread starter Thread starter metric tensor
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the process of acquiring high-level mathematics knowledge and the ability to produce rigorous mathematical papers at a young age. It questions whether achieving such expertise requires years of dedicated study or if some individuals enter college with advanced knowledge. The conversation highlights the significant gap between the high-level mathematics found in research papers and the content typically covered in college courses. It notes that exceptional mathematicians, like Manjul Bhargava, often have early exposure and a strong foundational background, which can accelerate their research capabilities. Additionally, the dialogue emphasizes that mathematics is not just about problem-solving; it is a language that requires a deep understanding, which is often not effectively taught by educators who may lack a mathematician's perspective. This disconnect in teaching methods contributes to the challenges students face in transitioning from basic math to producing advanced work.
metric tensor
2
0
This post is inquiring about the process of how one obtains high level math knowledge .How does one produce papers such as this at 24-27 yrs old?

http://books.google.com/books?id=c8...&sa=X&ei=8qXkUZWxEeH9iwLx2YFQ&ved=0CGsQ6AEwCA

I remember taking calculus at 17 or so and reading some books on math but nothing, including my homework even approached anything like this. Is it just 5 years of constant study or do these people learn everything really fast while in HS and enter college with graduate level of knowledge?
How does one go about writing mathematics in this type of rigor? how does one make the jump from just fooling around to producing serious, PHD quality, respectable math like the example given? There seems to be a huge chasm between high-level math in papers versus what is contained in most college courses and textbooks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
One can learn a lot it 5-10 years. I don't know where your get 24-27 though McKean was it his thirties and Kiyoshi Itō was older than that. You are right that there is a significant difference. Both between an average and unusual student and between a given student and the same student after 10 years hard work.
 
I'm not qualified to answer all of your questions, but I can share what I know. The kind of "head start" can make a difference. For example, the mathematician Manjul Bhargava finished his high school math courses by age 14 and his mother was also a mathematician. As a result, he conducted phenomenal research in his twenties. More info: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manjul_Bhargava.
 
Most math courses are taught that math is something you do, such as solving problems. But math isn't just about that. It's a way of thinking, and this isn't normally taught. Mathematicians talk about it as a language. Only those who understand that language can use it to communicate. And I think that's where the problem is: most math teachers aren't mathematicians; they know how to teach students to solve problems but don't know how to teach math as a language. It's easy to take a math teacher licensing test and pass if you've taken a number of math courses but these tests don't require you to understand math as a language.
 
I’ve been looking through the curricula of several European theoretical/mathematical physics MSc programs (ETH, Oxford, Cambridge, LMU, ENS Paris, etc), and I’m struck by how little emphasis they place on advanced fundamental courses. Nearly everything seems to be research-adjacent: string theory, quantum field theory, quantum optics, cosmology, soft matter physics, black hole radiation, etc. What I don’t see are the kinds of “second-pass fundamentals” I was hoping for, things like...
I have a specialization in condensed matter physics and materials physics, and off-late, I have been seeing a lot of research directions moving towards quantum computing (AMO and non-linear optics) and the huge chunk of quantum materials research (and funding) is dedicated towards QIS and QC research. I am wondering (sort of in a dilemma), if I should consider switching my field? I am currently at the stage of a postdoc.

Similar threads

Replies
43
Views
7K
Replies
102
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
2K
Back
Top