Showing posts with label terminology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terminology. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

Extra Special Mathematics Terminology


Wednesday, November 21, 2018

Introduction to "Confusion Equations"

Proposal: "Convection–Diffusion Equations" should be called "Confusion Equations" (or at least "Conffusion Equations").

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Rigged Hilbert Spaces

I love the term rigged Hilbert space, which I just encountered from a paper on the arXiv. I was hoping that thinking about probabilities in there would appropriately motivate the name (and maybe that's true in the applications to quantum mechanics), but it isn't immediately obvious to me that this should be the case. I want it to be true, though!

Tuesday, October 07, 2014

Thesis-like Objects

I think that the term "thesis-like object" ought to be in standard academic usage. That is all.

Friday, August 02, 2013

Claim: Big Data Often Seems to Entail Small Thinking

My new reviled term is 'big-data approach'. This term makes me want to cry. The term 'big data' bothers me somewhat, but the term 'big-data approach' bothers me a lot. It's not a fucking approach to anything! It has nothing whatsoever to do with an approach or a way to actually solve a problem, dammit! Indeed, as far as I can tell, many people seem to try to sell their product (i.e., their research) with big data instead of with good science or big thinking. Sigh...

As an alternative, I advocate a 'big-thinking approach' (whether or not the data is big or small). I want people to stop equating big data with good science (or even with good data).

Unfortunately, I think this battle is lost.

Friday, August 03, 2012

"Bloody Minded"

Yesterday, Somerville's Principal told me that I am "bloody minded". I've decided to take this as a compliment.

(As far as I can tell, this is the British term for "pain in the ass".)

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

"Theoretical Mathematics" > "Pure Mathematics"

I am going to rant briefly. :)

The term "pure mathematics" is incredibly obnoxious. It is highly charged, as it suggests a superiority over applied mathematics with which I (and many others) beg to differ. Of course, it is better than the term "unadulterated mathematics" that I once saw on a blog, but that isn't exactly a difficult lower bound to surpass.

A far better---not only less charged but also considerably more accurate---substitute for the term "pure" mathematics is theoretical mathematics. This would also be consistent with other fields: Nobody in their right mind would use the terms "pure chemistry", "pure physics", "pure biology", "pure computer science", etc. This terminological denigration of other areas of a discipline seems to be the exclusive domain of mathematics. (Please let me know of any other examples if you're aware of them.)

There are relevant differences to note. For example, physics that is not "applied physics" is still done in the laboratory. But from the perspective of what research is done and the goals thereof, the term "theoretical mathematics" is rather consistent with similar terminology in other fields. The term "pure" mathematics needs to go.

Friday, June 29, 2012

Network Topology versus Network Geometry

There is a terminological issue in the study of networks about which I need to rant.

Many people write about network topology, and this is good terminology when referring to connectivity alone. Ignore whether edges have any weights and just consider which ones are connected to which others (with either directed edges or undirected edges). Such terminology is a good extension of the mathematical notion of topology, which only cares about how things are connected to each other but doesn't care a whit about actually measuring distances. Things either are connected or they're not.

The problem is that numerous papers still use the word "topology" when they are talking about the weights of edges. That is a notion of distance, so using the word topology is in fact dead wrong. When one is describing edges weights and playing around with them, the term that people should be using is in fact network geometry, as the point of the mathematical notion of geometry is measuring distance.

So please, please, please distinguish between "network topology" and "network geometry" when you give talks, write papers, etc. Otherwise you are committing a rather egregious mathematical sin.

Saturday, January 07, 2012

Nonlinear Progress

This article, which concerns the contract extension just signed by the Angels' Howie Kendrick, includes an absolutely wonderful line:

Kendrick was one of the Angels' brightest prospects through the minor leagues, where he batted .360, but his progress in the majors was far from linear.

This kind of language in an article on a topic like baseball just warms my nonlinear heart.

Friday, March 04, 2011

"Invented" in 1999, right?

Here is a plot of appearances of "cumulative advantage" and "preferential attachment" in books since 1860.

Ahem...

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Coefficient of Obliviousness

This paper has the best scientific term ever: the coefficient of obliviousness, which is denoted by a backwards question mark.

(Tip of the cap to the Annals of Improbable Research newsletter.)