Jacob's EDCP 442 Blog

  Wow, what an impressive system! We talk about demystifying mathematics, but I can't imagine trying to teach someone these techniques: it seems as though there is no justification for their use beyond some accumulation of evidence that they work. Because of the lack of generalization tools, the system is entirely algorithmic (which is really just a less symbol-oriented algebra). I thought it was very interesting that the Babylonians seemed to have conceptions into three dimensions with their definitions of lagab, asha, sahar.  It makes sense that you wouldn't really require set terms for anything in more dimensions, since we only operate in three in our day to day lives. Of even more interest, though, is the fact that there was clearly some amount of abstraction as evidenced by the Babylonians treating high dimension systems as "hidden quadratics." As to the second question, I would be hesitant to try to contain mathematics in two words. I certainly do think that gen...

Three things that surprised me (and why): Thing the first: I was surprised by the initial focus of the book on the direct impact of colonialism and how current scholars are working to decolonize. It makes complete sense as a starting point for this sort of text, but my experience with mathematics instruction generally had prepared me for a text that was not so self-critical. It makes me think of how those colonial impacts are still felt today with what we consider to be "real mathematics" and the European focus on formalism and the mathematics of the academic class. I'm always very inspired by people without formal math training who think in new, creative, mathematical ways. A historical example of this would be Ramanujan, for example. Thing the second: I didn't realize that Spain was closely connected with Arab mathematics. I don't have a good understanding of the political history of that time beyond a simplistic understanding of what was happening in Europe and...