When you first study mathematics at undergraduate and early post-grad level there is a sense of being overwhelmed with how on earth anyone figured this out. When you read the messy history of maths, and understand it is an organic, growing field, you feel a little less like an imposter struggling to understand how anyone could've come up with this.
Reading these books (primarily as a software engineer), made me feel better about not immediately getting certain concepts, because it's likely the people these theorems are named after didn't get it either, to begin with. They refined it, they collaborated (like a pull request almost) and eventually everything got very neatly packaged up into a set of theorems. Mathematics is rarely taught in that way, I wish more of the "human" aspect was part of the pedagogical process. I think it might temper some of the fear people have.
"Cambridge University History of Mathematics Society presents an illegal, immoral, and fattening lecture series, without the endorsement, approval, or approbation of University authorities on: HISTORY OF SCIENCE IN ANTIQUITY"
Gives me a warm feeling. Here's one of the lectures to get a flavor:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1wkQmFPcrkLM9oJk1G7jF...
Contains this banger of a quote:
"The Greeks were very poor at using YouTube."
What's great about it is that it helps put you in the shoes of the people solving the problems at these times. So it secretly teaches you how to solve problems. He also attacks some of the claims of some historians which are a bit obtuse. The arguments are really well founded and if you're wondering how ancients solved extremely complex math while never inventing the tools you'd think are needed to solve them, then this will answer a lot of that. I think it'll make you see a lot of problems in a different light. It also is just a lot of fun and can be pretty funny.
https://intellectualmathematics.com/opinionated-history-of-m...
The syllogism appears to be:
1. All good science is mathematical
2. Anyone intelligent is very good at math
3. Galileo was not very good at math
4. Therefore Galileo was dumb and did bad science.
> This is why Galileo is the idol of the humanists and the bane of the mathematicians. The philosophers say he invented modern science; the mathematicians that he’s a poor man’s Archimedes. The issue cuts much deeper than merely allotting credit to one century rather than another. Much more than a question of the detailed chronology of obscure scientific facts, it is a question of worldview and how one should approach and understand history.
Viktor also does bring Tycho Brahe, which I think people are much more comfortable dunking on now a days. But in his time he lived it up in the limelite. He held many parties and was well known for his intelligence and brilliance, by the public. Brahe was known by all, but now he's just a footnote and an impedance to Kepler.
Do you not think it is true that some peoples' stories get embellished? Do you not think it is true that some are greatly so? Do you not think history gets retold to make better stories? Do you not think people who have made great contributions have been ignored? Certainly in the long history all this has happened. Do they not deserve credit? If they do, then the unfortunate reality is that this must be "taken" from those that it was misattributed to. Especially in the progression of knowledge where we over attribute contributions to those that cross some "finish line." Or in the words of Einstein: I stand on the shoulders of giants.
> I say that the traditional view of the “Galilean” scientific revolution is not only historically wrong but fundamentally inconsistent with the nature of mathematical thought. When I say Galileo boo, Archimedes yay, my point is not who was the “first” or who should “get credit” for this or that. That’s not so interesting. But Galileo is a window into more important things.
What is the relation between mathematics and science? Was mathematics before Galileo a technocratic enterprise? Compartmentalised, limited to certain computational tasks, blind to its own potential? Was mathematics stuck in that ditch until it was liberated by a “conceptual” breakthrough from without, so to speak; from philosophy? Or was mathematics always an expansive, empirically informed, interconnected study of all quantifiable aspects of the world?
The latter, of course, if you ask me. In any case, Galileo is ground zero for grappling with these questions. And that is why we study him.
I think there is also a relevant recent HN post as well[0] and I'll point out a comment of mine[1]. The mathematics is a necessary component for the explainability, for the causality. These are the essence of physics and science, and the only language we really have to express them through is the language of math. I am biased though, you can check my comment history as I make similar arguments about our approach to machine learning.[2] And I do think we should understand these things. And in my reply to jebarker you'll find a reason for why I believe understanding the history, in an accurate form, is so important for learning how to move forward.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43344703
He's also a nice dude. I reached out to him on Twitter and he happily responds. I'm sure he likes hearing what people think
Twitter: https://x.com/viktorblasjo
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/viktorblasjo.bsky.socialAnother great book is "Infinite Powers" by Steven Strogatz (https://www.amazon.com/Infinite-Powers-Calculus-Reveals-Univ...).
[0]: https://www.amazon.com/Mathematics-Content-Methods-Meaning-V...
Bit misleading as sunya or zero was invented in india, not recognised, there is a difference.