Okay, I take for granted I misunderstood you. Maybe you could explain it again so I know what you were saying.

It's literally impossible for me to try to clarify why you are wrong about something simple without you diverting into some other argument about stuff that is besides the point.

No, it's fine, I'll listen.

Oh. Yes, if you don't understand integration as taking the limit of slices, then no, volumes of revolution are absolutely not intuitive.

I posted an essay by G.C. Rota that hasn't been refuted in the slightest by anything you've written. You tried to argue that mathematics departments don't benefit financially by offering calculus to non-math majors, and your supporting argument for this (which you originally brought up to refute a witty retort about this possibility by an internationally renowned mathematician who taught one such course to mostly non-math majors for several decades):



was totally false.

I am marginally interested in this other stuff Reid and I am sorry for snapping at you here, but I need to get other stuff done today.

I think my endless propensity to post on this board is coming to an end (through no fault of yours, though).

Part of my anger here is that I have immense respect for G.C. Rota. He is basically my hero when it comes to mathematics. I highly recommend reading everything this guy wrote. His Indiscrete Thoughts book is highly interesting, even scandalous. He was a superb polemicist.

It's sort of a facile observation though, isn't it? Every department benefits financially from teaching introductory-level courses to non-majors. They totally phone it in, too.

I haven't been trying to refute it. Maybe that's part of the problem, we're not understanding the areas we agree on. I agree lower division differential equations is a mess. I agree that teaching things differently would be a really good idea. I agreed with pretty much everything you said.

The only thing I was trying to point out was, I think the choices for these classes make sense as a logical result of how universities have operated for the past however many decades. And that it's not like the fault of mathematicians for these choices, that there are institutional pressures outside of the math departments that leads to these poor choices.



It was false about UCR, but the statement was accurate about UVA. But that's besides the point, you were right about UCR. Do you want me to reaffirm your correctness in clear terms every time you're correct?

Yep.

Rota was just bitter that he had to teach the same damn course for several decades, all because the administration could point to the fact that he wrote a book on the subject. And he is bitter about having made the mistake of writing a book on the subject early in his career and perpetuating all the mistakes made by previous authors. The essay was deliberately written in a wry, bitter style, in order to provoke. This is what he does.

The meat of the essay, really, was actually about how to improve the sophomore differential equations course. And I think that part was highly interesting.

That's the part I found bothersome. Jones seems to be implying that mathematicians are taking jobs away from other fields so they can poorly teach intro classes that should be instead taught by other departments. Or, I'm not sure what he's implying, to be honest, but his phrasing was irksome.

Agreed. I found that interesting too.

I am sure there are tons of things wrong with all the stuff I wrote. I don't know everything. What I do know is that what I wrote was sufficiently true to correct the original mistake. The other stuff you brought up might be interesting, but if we hammer out everything with extreme precision just because it gets brought up in the course of an argument, we'll be here all day, won't we?

Anyway, we can talk about other stuff too if you want.

Other than not making it clear the degree to which I agreed, I don't see what you're getting at. Do you want me to just affirm opinions, and not drift off into related topics?

For the record, I don't know if this is true. But I haven't seen you refute Rota's insinuation that it is true. It was in the course of a joke, so who knows how accurate it is. And maybe it used to be accurate. Would it be interesting to find out if this is true today? Sorta, maybe? If you can refute it now, I'd be interested to hear it.

I've spent far too long telling other people how they should post here. But if you want my opinion, my suggestion is: please allow me to get away with being imprecise or even partially wrong if I need to do so in the course of correcting something that you completely missed or misread.

I am kinda sorta interested to hear why you think Rota might be wrong about mathematics getting a bunch of cash from teaching lower division courses to non-math majors. If you have an explanation that isn't based on obviously not having actually read the essay, I'd be interested.

Anyway, I don't mean to be rude or to try to apologize too much for my imprecision. But I wish we could stay focused and didn't go off on tangents that were based on failure to read.

Also, I'm not sure it's accurate to frame this as "mathematicians taking away jobs". I haven't said anything about how I think things should be. I believe that historically, calculus has been taught by mathematicians. Who knows, maybe this has changed?

By the way, this is one of the reasons I don't feel the slightest bit ashamed that I took my lower division classes at a community college. For the most part, all I did by doing this was save myself was a giant tuition bill that would have been funding departments to give me a big ass lecture in a room of 300+ students, and then phoning in or even completely automating things like grading.

And then there's this scandalous rumor:



https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-half-of-the-math-PhD-students-at-UC-Berkeley-fail-their-qualifying-exams

I think you're just taking the joke too literally. Yes, we know departments are funded by teaching undergraduates. But Rota said "ha ha, hopefully that will be taught by mathematicians" because academics spend all of their joking power on funding jokes. But no, the existence of mathematics departments does not depends on one single class.

I suppose, instead of reading and dialoguing after, it might be better to not read anything you post than to deal with your insane level of black and white interpretation.

I really don't get why you persist in refusing to read. Where the hell did you get that he said that mathematics departments are being funded by one single class?

Emphasis added.

[quote=G.C. Rota]
The sophomore course in differential equations will never be reformed. It will die of natural
death, and it will be replaced by several shorter courses that will deal with realistic aspects of
differential equations. It is to be hoped that these new courses will be taught by mathematicians
rather than by engineers: the budget of any mathematics department is entirely dependent on
the number of engineering students enrolled in our elementary courses. Were it not for these
courses, which engineers generously defer to mathematicians, our mathematics departments would
be doomed to extinction.
[/quote]

Seriously dude, I don't want to be rude to you. But you are wasting my time here by refusing to read.

I guess bothering to read English counts as insane levels of black and white interpretation? It would have only taken you a few seconds and saved you a hell of a lot longer.

I just reread the conversation to be sure: I really, honestly, do not get what the hell you're talking about. What I said was: there are pressures to make mathematicians teach classes differently that leads to poorer understanding, financial pressures. You said:



Which runs contradictory to experience, as basically every department was hit with budget cuts and teach less courses after the great recession. You called it a cash cow. You claim I don't know English, but a "cash cow" is something that you extract large amounts of money from for little work. Most people teaching math today teach quite a bit, and are expected to put in quite a bit of effort. Nor is this some big boon to mathematics department that other departments don't have. Maybe you should use better terms, ones that aren't misleading.

But more to the point: we were speaking about intro to differential equations, I brought up calculus as an example of how curriculum can get modified by institutional pressures. So the topic at hand was, again, the one course we agree is poorly done, but the context of this post means you're saying that it's part of the courses that mathematicians teach to extract bigger amounts of money than they should have from the department. Which is why I said: the budgets of math departments aren't predicated on teaching differential equations. You took that to mean math departments aren't predicated on teaching lower division courses, what I meant is math departments aren't raking in tons of money from teaching bull**** courses. Most departments have funding issues. You then started acting really weird insisting I can't read. What really happened is you're so locked in a contradictory, defensive mindset you can't handle that your initial interpretation might be off, and just explode for no reason instead of trying to hash out and understand the other person.

I'm not sure if you can, or if you're capable of using words in a way that aligns with their exact meaning and connotation.

You took a joke that said "if we don't shape up, we'll be out of a job haha" way too literally.

The thing about UVA was just a counterexample. I was wrong about UCR, but the point is that engineering departments are already dealing with teaching more about differential equations than they used to. That shift is already happening, in many departments. Some math departments add courses like you describe in dynamical systems to deal with the necessities of education today. Places are already adapting to what Rota has said. And no, that's not effecting math departments very much.

In other words, I thing you're holding onto your idol's words too dearly, dude.

Well then it looks like you managed to read the wrong part. I can't make this any clearer to you without shoving it in your face again.

Look what you just wrote. It's patently false, because you didn't read.



I really don't get why you persist in refusing to read. Where the hell did you get that he said that mathematics departments are being funded by one single class?

Emphasis added.

[quote=G.C. Rota]
The sophomore course in differential equations will never be reformed. It will die of natural
death, and it will be replaced by several shorter courses that will deal with realistic aspects of
differential equations. It is to be hoped that these new courses will be taught by mathematicians
rather than by engineers: the budget of any mathematics department is entirely dependent on
the number of engineering students enrolled in our elementary courses. Were it not for these
courses, which engineers generously defer to mathematicians, our mathematics departments would
be doomed to extinction.
[/quote]

Incidentally (though I am hardly qualified to comment on this), I am pretty sure this is how philosophy used to work: misinterpret other people's words, and then get away with this by being very perceptive and finding some mistake you now see in their writing, spilling so much ink in pointing this out that nobody seems to notice.

I didn't get that out of his text. I said it first, rhetorically. I don't know why you're saying I said he said that, because I didn't. Your outrage is your ****ing misreading.

Nobody else here gives a **** about Rota. I'm not obsessed with proving his words right or wrong. I don't care that much about his opinion. I said I already agreed with it, I just made one aside to comment on a joke he made. You've since gone bat**** about it. I get you really like him but Jesus Christ man, try taking a breath and realize we don't all see the same importance you do in the bull**** you read.

He didn't say it, you did.

OK, so literally a straw man. Congrats, I guess?

This has nothing to do with caring about him. It doesn't even have anything to do with his opinion being true or false.

It's about you starting a big argument on something he never even said, because you didn't feel like reading, and decided to broaden the discussion into a straw man.

Incidentally, philosophy in a nutshell.

This is what happened in the other thread. I pointed out a simple mistake, and got annoyed at your refusal to admit it. The more I try to get you to admit your mistake, the more apparent it becomes that you'd rather call me crazy than ever admit that you were wrong. I guess you did a good job of making me regret trying?

Or maybe, unlike you, I wasn't talking about Rota's views because my entire interest in the topic was exhausted by that point.



Okay, point taken. You're incapable of having discussions or opinions that you're not parroting from another person, and are incapable of interpreting any sort of discussion outside of another text you read. So from now on, when you post a bit of written work, I'll limit my comments to the extent of your reasoning ability.

Also, I did read, I just didn't care that much to center the entire discussion around that point. The misreading was not mine, it was your misreading of my lack of care.

How many times must I repeat: I read Rota, made a comment, then made a rhetorical point about funding departments, which you misread as some sort of take on Rota that I wasn't pushing.

I don't understand.



OK, thanks. You've conceded that the entire discussion is either a deliberate straw man, or a side effect of poor reading comprehension.

But then you go and try to get in the last word by packaging up another corollary of your misunderstanding into a personal attack:




No, dude. It has nothing to do with "parroting". You can't have a meaningful discussion if you just get to make stuff up as a substitute for agreeing on the same words.

This is as simple or as complicated as you want to make it. I'm interested in have a meaningful discussion, where we aren't talking past one another. Otherwise, I have better things to do.



You pretty much forfeited that right when you went off on a straw man and got angry when I pointed this out.

This is how I see it: You "read" Rota, made a comment that showed you didn't read it at all, or at least did so very sloppily, evidenced by the fact that you assumed he was talking about upper division differential equations (whereas he expressly said he was talking about sophomore differential equations, which would have been obvious anyway if you read the content of the essay), then you criticized his joke as wrongheaded based on this misinterpretation, and then got really defensive about it when repeatedly pointed this out to you.

From now on, when I cite somebody's words, limit your comments to things that pop into your head after you've read and comprehended what you're referencing.

Really, am I the bad guy for asking that we keep the discussion on track by agreeing to actually read what is written and not get angry when the other one of us insists that we do this?

The other parts of this discussion are interesting too, but I don't see why you can't take a simple criticism without lashing out.

That much is clear.



Oh, no, no, no. Read again what I wrote:



I never said lower division courses weren't the source of funding. I disputed your description of these classes as a "cash cow". I then said that math departments are not solely funded by elementary differential equations, and also said if the class was just a "cash cow" class cashing in on poor engineers, then it would look different. The presentation you're giving is that mathematicians are desperately holding onto those teaching jobs to keep funding. One, that's not true. They don't need elementary ODEs. Two, even if it was true, then that double goes against your description of lower division courses as a "cash cow".

I did start out the discussion by saying Rota was maybe wrong, then you pointed out I made a mistake, which I conceded to.

From here on out you've just been ranting and raving about your misreading of my post.

You keep saying I'm wasting your time, but you post relentlessly. If you're so busy, you're welcome to admit your mistake and move on.