A Mathematician’s New Year’s Resolutions

Mathematician New Years 0Mathematician New Years 1

Mathematician New Years 2Mathematician New Years 4Mathematician New Years 5Mathematician New Years 6Mathematician New Years 7Mathematician New Years 8Mathematician New Years 9

51 thoughts on “A Mathematician’s New Year’s Resolutions

  1. It is clear that you should use “obviously.” Even a freshman knows that such language can be intimidating and off-putting. And it is so trivial to use other language! Obviously, we should be better than this.

  2. Yeah, in lay conversation, the mathematician’s “proof” is abused like the scientist’s “theory”.

    1. If physics everything is “nice.” (i.e. differentiable) They don’t know what to do with discontinuities.

      1. Hmm… It took mathematicians 25 years to come to terms with Dirac’s delta “function”. Physicists took to it instantly.

      2. Physicists aren’t the only ones who have a thing for ‘nice’ functions.

        Many (umm, thirty five? thirty six?) years ago, seven of us were in
        the library working on an assignment for Quantum
        400-I-forget-the-number. There was the brainy guy, the other brainy
        guy, the other other brainy guy, the brainy girl, the other brainy
        girl, the brainy chemist guy

        and me.

        Despite all those brains, we made slow progress. I don’t remember the
        details (three and a half decades will do that) but I remember it was
        a fairly subtle problem. Eventually we made headway, though — we
        managed to prove some things about the solution. (I say ‘prove’ but a
        physicist’s proof is like Alanis’ irony — vaguely similar to the real
        thing, but not really the same at all.) “I bet” I told the assembled
        brains “that what we know about the functional form of the solution is
        sufficient. I bet there’s even a theorem.” We agreed to send a
        delegation to Dr. A because he was the physics prof that knew the most


        Dr. A talked for over an hour and what with his special cases and
        caveats and warnings, not only did we not learn the answer but we
        probably knew less at the end than when we started. The delegation
        trudged back to the library, disappointed, disheartened and

        “Maybe” one of the brainy guys suggested “maybe we need a Real
        Mathmematician. Do you know any of those, Rose?”

        Well, yes. I did. I knew a few but there was one in particular… He
        was approachable, friendly and he habitually wore cardigans so you
        could tell he was a Real Mathematician. Another delegation was formed
        and slogged over to the math building to talk to Dr D.

        We got there and found him in his office, doing mathematician-y
        things. He wasn’t visibly perturbed when three physicists burst in
        and began drawing on his blackboard. (In those days we had
        blackboards.) He sat patiently while we babbled and scribbled and
        scribbled and babbled. When we paused to draw breath, he adjusted his
        glasses, rebuttoned his cardigan and asked his first and only

        “This solution — is it nice?”

        1. I burst into laughter at the cardigan line. A real, absolute LOL. And the final line? It-a was-a a-beautiful.

  3. Lost me on the first sentence. When I was in college,there were no physicists nor mathematicians (sp.?) only reading writing and arithmetic. We all understood each other when we talked about our interests. Da

  4. Thanks for a couple of useful ones. I’ll borrow the “I admire your casual contempt for logic” and after having thought about it, will also follow you down the path of eliminating the “obvious”. Good luck on your resolutions đŸ™‚

  5. “But it’s converging toward cleanliness!” — I will definitely remember that one! đŸ™‚

  6. Is it just me or is this just a soft article used to humorize pseudo intellectuals but instead is a very cleverly made Trump campaign ad?

    1. And it really *is* a triangle out of scale! Take the projective plane as our space, and let one of the sides of the figure be the point at infinity. Then we have three lines and three corners.

  7. I took an astrophysics class a few years ago. All I remember is, “Well, this can be approximated by this function which can be used to approximate this action and the result closely mirrors what we see in experiments.” And I’m just sitting in my desk wondering how, after so many approximations, any of this was supposed to mean, let alone prove, anything about the universe.

  8. This remark isn’t in the spirit of things, but the domestic chores resolution is not always such a good one. Many chores — dusting, for example — seem to have a half life, in the sense that it takes roughly the same amount of time to divide what you’re trying to get rid of by 2, whatever you start with (within reason). In such a situation, truncating a convergent process is the best thing to do, and you should truncate it fairly soon, since it will typically be of more benefit to switch to another chore, or even another activity altogether. However, it’s only fair to point out that I’m not sure my wife would agree with me about this — I’m too cowardly even to find out.

  9. Well no wonder your family members are confused. You didn’t make it clear that G is a group and that ab is an operation within that group. That’s what you get for talking like a physicist!

  10. neighborhood colleges.? They found that Elvis’s operating velocity is
    about 6.39 meters per second and his swimming speed about zero.Seventy
    three meter per second https://math-problem-solver.com/ .
    You would possibly use the acronym “CHESS” for cheese, ham, eggs, cleaning soap, and salsa.

Leave a Reply to Per PerssonCancel reply