"How big a gap is there between how you think about mathematics and what you say to others? Do you say what you're thinking? Please give either personal examples of how your thoughts and words differ, or describe how they are connected for you." - mkz

"I've been fascinated by the phenomenon the question addresses for a long time. We have complex minds evolved over many millions of years, with many modules always at work. A lot we don't habitually verbalize, and some of it is very challenging to verbalize or to communicate in any medium. Whether for this or other reasons, I'm under the impression that mathematicians often have unspoken thought processes guiding their work which may be difficult to explain, or they feel too inhibited to try. One prototypical situation is this: there's a mathematical object that's obviously (to you) invariant under a certain transformation. For instant, a linear map might conserve volume for an 'obvious' reason. But you don't have good language to explain your reason---so instead of explaining, or perhaps after trying to explain and failing, you fall back on computation. You turn the crank and without undue effort, demonstrate that the object is indeed invariant." - mkz

Vay, mkz basgan. - der wille

Ozledik. - der wille

Dervi! - mkz

Altta "bu soruyu anonim sekilde sorsan dakkasinda silerlerdi valla" demisler hemen. Madalyonun forsu. - mkz

Thurston'in bir de susu vardi benzer mevzulara degindigi: On Proof and Progress in Mathematics - http://arxiv.org/abs... Tekrar tekrar okunasi, uzerine tefekkure cekilinesi. - mkz

"Mathematical knowledge can be transmitted amazingly fast within a subfield. When a significant theorem is proved, it often (but not always) happens that the solution can be communicated in a matter of minutes from one person to another within the subfield. The same proof would be communicated and generally understood in an hour talk to members of the subfield. It would be the subject of a 15- or 20-page paper, which could be read and understood in a few hours or perhaps days by members of the subfield. / Why is there such a big expansion from the informal discussion to the talk to the paper? One-on-one, people use wide channels of communication that go far beyond formal mathematical language. They use gestures, they draw pictures and diagrams, they make sound effects and use body language. Communication is more likely to be two-way, so that people can concentrate on what needs the most attention. With these channels of communication, they are in a much better position to convey what’s going on, not just in their logical and linguistic facilities, but in their other mental facilities as well. / In talks, people are more inhibited and more formal. Mathematical audiences are often not very good at asking the questions that are on most people’s minds, and speakers often have an unrealistic preset outline that inhibits them from addressing questions even when they are asked. / In papers, people are still more formal. Writers translate their ideas into symbols and logic, and readers try to translate back. / Why is there such a discrepancy between communication within a subfield and communication outside of subfields, not to mention communication outside mathematics?" - mkz

Bir de bilgisayarcilari sevindirecek (mi?) alinti: "I have spent a fair amount of effort during periods of my career exploring mathematical questions by computer. In view of that experience, I was astonished to see the statement of Jaffe and Quinn that mathematics is extremely slow and arduous, and that it is arguably the most disciplined of all human activities. The standard of correctness and completeness necessary to get a computer program to work at all is a couple of orders of magnitude higher than the mathematical community’s standard of valid proofs. Nonetheless, large computer programs, even when they have been very carefully written and very carefully tested, always seem to have bugs." - mkz

Bu mathoverlow nasil abi? Takiliyor musun? - der wille

Bi de boyle iste teknik olur felsefe melsefe olur, inceden sozluk gibi (tamamen ayni kafada olmasina gerek yok), yazabilecegim edebilecegim ecnebi diyari var mi? Tavsiyelerin neler? (everything2 filan vardi gerci, hic bakmadim oralara) - der wille

MO muazzam ya. Utopya gibi. Biri Fields madalyali bi adamin bilmemnesiyle ilgili soru soruyor, adam kendi gelip cevap veriyor. Soyle bi ornek vardi komik, klasik oldu: http://mathoverflow.net/questio... Green-Tao bilmemnesi hakkinda soru, biri cevap vermis, Green'le Tao da gelip sevimlilik yapmislar cevabin altina. Teknik seviye genelde yuksek, ama arada bu yukaridaki gibi daha genel sorular da oluyor. Ben bir cevap ve bir soru kadar katildim simdilik, ama birkac konunun RSS feed'lerini takip ediyorum. (Genelde basliklari okumak kadar da olsa.) - mkz

Dedigin turden cok site bilmiyorum aslinda, gene bu Stack Exchange altyapisi uzerine kurulmus fizik/istatistik/machine learning seyleri de vardi, soyle bi baktiydim, fena gorunmediydi seviyeleri, signal/noise oranlari. - mkz

Sunlardi galiba gorduklerim: Istatistik: http://stats.stackexchange.com/ Fizik: http://physics.stackexchange.com/ CS: http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/ - mkz

Ehah gecen bizim arkadasa da benzer bisii olmus (valla bak). Bunun bi arkadasi facebook'ta David Chalmers hakkinda atip tutuyor, duvarda. Sonra David Chalmers bizzat geliyor "Ne diyon la? Yuzume soyle." diye eheheh. - der wille

Hmm sagolasin abi link'ler icin. Ben nispeten 'generic' mekanlar ariyorum aslinda ama, bunlar da iyi. - der wille

Iyiymis :) (Everything2 misali daha generic'ini bilemedim, bulursan bana da pasla valla.) - mkz

Oke. :) - der wille

Thurston ölmüş. Yukarıda yorumda linklediğim Proof/Progress dışında bi tane bişeyini okumuştum sadece, ama üzüldüm bayağı. - mkz