240 pointsby matthewsinclaira day ago11 comments
  • stillpointlab4 hours ago
    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.

  • esalman5 hours ago
    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.
  • thedreammachinean hour ago
    Related and a great read: "The Joy of X: A Guided Tour of Math, from One to Infinity" by Steven Strogatz:

    https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13356649-the-joy-of-x

    • bobthe3an hour ago
      The Joy of X and I think now renamed to “The Joy of y” is a great podcast for general knowledge building!
  • iTokio5 hours ago
    Numbers

    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?

    • Isamu5 hours ago
      So… numbers, algebra, geometry, probability, analysis, dynamics are not the primitives or essentials ?
      • MrbroJangles3 hours ago
        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

    • binyu3 hours ago
      Why do you feel this is a reduction? If anything, it is an attempt to summarize the various areas of math and how they relate to each other.
      • alansaberan hour ago
        Isn't every summarization a reduction?
    • SMEbooop3 hours ago
      [dead]
  • binyu3 hours ago
    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.

    • hmokiguess2 hours ago
      Could you be conflating writing hamlet with understanding how to write hamlet? as in, what it takes to end up with the same raw output though devoid of intent and meaning
    • 3 hours ago
      undefined
    • 3 hours ago
      undefined
  • laybak6 hours ago
    this is great foundational content! I also enjoyed his earlier appearance on 3Blue1Brown

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdOXS_9_P4U

  • bobajeff5 hours ago
    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.
  • matthewsinclair6 hours ago
    Apologies for the typo. I’ve asked mods to fix it.
  • mc322 hours ago
    Maybe he was joking -not sure but around the 5:45 mark he says "irrational" in irrational numbers comes from the Latin for insane or unreasonable. But just before that he defines the numbers as not being able to be expressed as a ratio (that's what we all learn). Just seems odd he'd juxta that. Or it's dry wit.
  • Agentus5 hours ago
    i blinked and read terrence howard. i was like good god
  • pixelpoet7 hours ago
    At least spell his name correctly, my goodness...

    Terence Tao.

    • dang6 hours ago
      Can't believe we missed that. Fixed now. Thanks!
    • 1294767 hours ago
      [flagged]
      • femiagbabiaka6 hours ago
        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.
        • 6 hours ago
          undefined
        • orf6 hours ago
          What credibility has he lost?
          • femiagbabiaka6 hours ago
            To sensible people? None. But the amount of criticism of his work that boils down to "he uses AI" is undeniable.
            • orf6 hours ago
              Can you share some of the criticism? I’ve not seen any from anyone real.
        • pfdietz6 hours ago
          It's weird to believe he's lost credibility.
        • nutjob26 hours ago
          Tao gives or takes credibility from AI, not the other way around.