{"id":28811,"date":"2016-05-11T18:00:39","date_gmt":"2016-05-11T23:00:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/mathgradblog\/?p=28811"},"modified":"2016-05-11T18:00:39","modified_gmt":"2016-05-11T23:00:39","slug":"ready-posting-hey-there-grad-student-youre-good-company-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/mathgradblog\/2016\/05\/11\/ready-posting-hey-there-grad-student-youre-good-company-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Hey There, Grad Student, You\u2019re in Good Company – Part 2"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Math3ma\"

Guest post by Tai-Danae Bradley, a second year PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center and founder of Math3ma.com.<\/p><\/div>\n

By Tai-Danae Bradley<\/i><\/p>\n

Welcome to part 2 of our series where we\u2019re taking a candid peek into the world of mathematical research. Last time we chatted about the often laborious process of doing math which, as we heard from Andrew Wiles, is much like stumbling in a dark room while searching for a light switch. The late\u00a0William Thurston<\/a> also described math in a similar fashion in his Math Overflow profile<\/a>. Perhaps you\u2019ve seen it? Here’s a screenshot:<\/p>\n

\"Thurston\"<\/p>\n

I love that first sentence of his second paragraph! In my own experience, I’ve found that\u00a0perseverance really is key<\/a>\u00a0as I’m well acquainted with\u00a0fog,\u00a0muddle,\u00a0<\/em>and\u00a0confusion.\u00a0<\/em>In fact, mathematical fog is one of the main reasons why\u00a0I started my own blog<\/a>.\u00a0But if I’m to be honest,\u00a0there are times when I’m not sure how much of that fog is simply “the nature of the beast” and how much of it is, well, “encouraged.”<\/p>\n

Quite naturally, this brings me to mathematician\u00a0<\/strong>Piper Harron’s<\/a>\u00a0epic thesis, without which no foray into mathematical candor would be complete. No doubt you know what I’m talking about. If you don’t,\u00a0then you\u00a0must<\/em>\u00a0go\u00a0check it out<\/a>. Seriously. Right now. Just browse through the table of contents. With numerous\u00a0laysplanations<\/em>\u00a0(explanations for the layperson) and chapter titles like “Getting Mathy With It,”\u00a0you can’t tell me you won’t want to read more!\u00a0Harron’s thesis is quite the epitome of\u00a0math-made-accessible,\u00a0<\/em>and I was especially drawn in by the transparent honesty in her prologue. There she states that her thesis was written for<\/p>\n

People who, for instance, try to read a math paper and think, ‘Oh my goodness what on earth does any of this mean why can’t they just say what they mean????’ rather than, “Ah, what lovely results!”\u00a0(I can’t even pretend to know how ‘normal’ mathematicians feel when they read math, but I know it’s not how I feel.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is SPOT ON! As I mentioned in our previous post<\/a>, I’m often in the stumbling-in-the-dark-while-groping-for-the-light-switch phase.\u00a0But there are times when it feels like the switch was installed in the most remote, most inaccessible location possible, like, I don’t know, behind the drywall of the ceiling in the attic. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve thought\u00a0Geez! Why can’t mathematicians just say what they mean?!<\/em>\u00a0\u00a0And since this happens so frequently, I can’t help but wonder if there’s a secret math-committee out there whose goal is to obfuscate math as best as they can. But of course that’s silly.\u00a0(Right?)\u00a0There is no such committee. (Right?!)<\/em>\u00a0But it really is nice to hear others voice the same thoughts that have crossed my mind.<\/p>\n

And finally, I\u2019d be remiss to close our discussion without mentioning Terry Tao\u2019s excellent blog post<\/a>\u00a0wherein he answers the question, “Does one need to be a genius to do math?” with an emphatic “NO.\u201d In it he writes,<\/p>\n

In order to make good and useful contributions to mathematics, one does need to\u00a0work hard<\/a>,\u00a0learn one’s field well<\/a>, learn\u00a0other fields<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0tools<\/a>,\u00a0ask questions<\/a>,\u00a0talk to other mathematicians<\/a>, and\u00a0think about the ‘big picture.’<\/a>\u00a0And yes, a reasonable amount of intelligence,\u00a0patience<\/a>, and\u00a0maturity<\/a>\u00a0is also required. But one does\u00a0not<\/strong>\u00a0need some sort of magic “genius gene”\u00a0that spontaneously generates\u00a0ex nihilo<\/em>\u00a0deep insights, unexpected solutions to problems, or other supernatural abilities (emphases original).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Since Tao is one whom most of us would without hesitation call a genius, I found his words to be even more significant.<\/p>\n

And this brings me right back to that Slate article<\/a> I referred to at the beginning of part 1<\/a>\u00a0of this series. After the author reminds us that “no one is born knowing the axiom of completeness,” he goes on to say,\u00a0“even the most accomplished mathematicians had to learn how to learn this stuff.” How true! And I especially love how math teacher and self-proclaimed\u00a0bad-drawer<\/a>\u00a0Ben Orlin illustrates this in his\u00a0‘How to Edit your Math Pessimism’<\/a>\u00a0series:<\/p>\n

\"Negatives\"<\/p>\n

I think it’s comforting to know that we students can replace “negatives” with just about\u00a0any<\/em>\u00a0mathematical concept we’ve struggled with today and be in such good company! Pretty neat, huh?<\/p>\n

I\u2019ll leave you now with a few more links that relate to the topics we\u2019ve chatted about today. And to everyone about to enter final\/qualifying exam season, I wish you all the best of luck!<\/p>\n