{"title":"评论","authors":"Thomas B Drucker","doi":"10.1080/00029890.2023.2208027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many of us have had the experience of being introduced to algebra via a course on group theory. If your experience was like mine, you were given the axioms and asked to prove a number of consequences. I am willing to believe that many of you fared better than I did in that introductory course. I always feel that I actually started to understand group theory when I took a course from H.S.M. Coxeter at the University of Toronto in which groups were viewed as symmetry groups of polygons. At the time I could not help feeling that I would have done better originally with that sort of introduction and my subsequent teaching was always motivated by the recognition that axioms made more sense when they were presented against a more concrete background. The story of what led to the abstract/axiomatic presentation of mathematics has been told in many places, but one telling is by Leo Corry in his Modern Algebra and the Rise of Mathematical Structures [1]. This approach is typically attributed to Hilbert’s influence, and Corry traces the sequence of texts and approaches that led to Bourbaki and beyond. Bourbaki is often given the credit for providing a definitive formulation of the axiomatic approach, thanks to their presentation from which it often seems that the intuition has been excluded. There is also a literature that looks at ways in which mathematical practice may reflect more general societal and cultural factors. For example, Vladimir Tasic’s Mathematics and the Roots of Postmodernist Thought [6] searches out philosophical and literary connections for recent mathematics. Some of the connections are disputable, but the effort is a reminder of mathematical practice not being isolated. Alma Steingart’s Axiomatics: Mathematical Thought and High Modernism is an attempt to combine the story of abstraction with developments outside of mathematics. In fact, the author claims that mathematics and its drive for abstraction were crucial ingredients in what she identifies as ‘high modernism,’ roughly the period between 1930 and 1970. This runs all the way from applications of mathematics through the social sciences to art and architecture. In telling the story, the author invokes the names of many of the leading mathematicians in the United States through that period and provides a good deal of documentation in the form of quotations and references. Dr. Steingart is a history professor at Columbia who studied mathematics as an undergraduate and researches the interplay between mathematics and politics, and as such she presents this material from a very interesting and well-informed perspective. The introduction assures the reader that this is a history of mathematical thought and not a history of mathematics. In particular, she expresses the belief that no acquaintance with mathematics is required to make sense of her text. However, one might suspect that few without a background in mathematics would find the names","PeriodicalId":7761,"journal":{"name":"American Mathematical Monthly","volume":"130 1","pages":"689 - 692"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reviews\",\"authors\":\"Thomas B Drucker\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00029890.2023.2208027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Many of us have had the experience of being introduced to algebra via a course on group theory. If your experience was like mine, you were given the axioms and asked to prove a number of consequences. I am willing to believe that many of you fared better than I did in that introductory course. I always feel that I actually started to understand group theory when I took a course from H.S.M. Coxeter at the University of Toronto in which groups were viewed as symmetry groups of polygons. At the time I could not help feeling that I would have done better originally with that sort of introduction and my subsequent teaching was always motivated by the recognition that axioms made more sense when they were presented against a more concrete background. The story of what led to the abstract/axiomatic presentation of mathematics has been told in many places, but one telling is by Leo Corry in his Modern Algebra and the Rise of Mathematical Structures [1]. This approach is typically attributed to Hilbert’s influence, and Corry traces the sequence of texts and approaches that led to Bourbaki and beyond. Bourbaki is often given the credit for providing a definitive formulation of the axiomatic approach, thanks to their presentation from which it often seems that the intuition has been excluded. There is also a literature that looks at ways in which mathematical practice may reflect more general societal and cultural factors. For example, Vladimir Tasic’s Mathematics and the Roots of Postmodernist Thought [6] searches out philosophical and literary connections for recent mathematics. Some of the connections are disputable, but the effort is a reminder of mathematical practice not being isolated. Alma Steingart’s Axiomatics: Mathematical Thought and High Modernism is an attempt to combine the story of abstraction with developments outside of mathematics. In fact, the author claims that mathematics and its drive for abstraction were crucial ingredients in what she identifies as ‘high modernism,’ roughly the period between 1930 and 1970. This runs all the way from applications of mathematics through the social sciences to art and architecture. In telling the story, the author invokes the names of many of the leading mathematicians in the United States through that period and provides a good deal of documentation in the form of quotations and references. Dr. Steingart is a history professor at Columbia who studied mathematics as an undergraduate and researches the interplay between mathematics and politics, and as such she presents this material from a very interesting and well-informed perspective. The introduction assures the reader that this is a history of mathematical thought and not a history of mathematics. In particular, she expresses the belief that no acquaintance with mathematics is required to make sense of her text. However, one might suspect that few without a background in mathematics would find the names\",\"PeriodicalId\":7761,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Mathematical Monthly\",\"volume\":\"130 1\",\"pages\":\"689 - 692\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Mathematical Monthly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"100\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00029890.2023.2208027\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"数学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MATHEMATICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Mathematical Monthly","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00029890.2023.2208027","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"数学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
我们中的许多人都有通过群论课程被引入代数的经历。如果你的经历和我的一样,你会被赋予公理,并被要求证明一些后果。我愿意相信,你们中的许多人比我在那门入门课上表现得更好。我一直觉得,当我从多伦多大学的H.S.M.Coxeter那里学习一门课程时,我才真正开始理解群论,在这门课程中,群被视为多边形的对称群。当时,我忍不住觉得,如果有这样的介绍,我本来会做得更好,而我后来的教学总是因为认识到公理在更具体的背景下呈现时更有意义。导致数学抽象/公理化呈现的故事在很多地方都有讲述,但Leo Corry在他的《现代代数与数学结构的兴起》[1]中讲述了一个故事。这种方法通常归因于希尔伯特的影响,科里追溯了导致布尔巴基及其后的文本和方法的序列。Bourbaki经常被认为提供了公理方法的明确公式,这要归功于他们的陈述,而直觉似乎经常被排除在外。还有一篇文献探讨了数学实践如何反映更普遍的社会和文化因素。例如,弗拉基米尔·塔西奇(Vladimir Tasic)的《数学与后现代主义思想的根源》(Mathematics and the Roots of Postmodernist Thought[6])为近代数学寻找了哲学和文学上的联系。其中一些联系是有争议的,但这一努力提醒我们,数学实践并非孤立的。阿尔玛·斯坦加特的《公理主义:数学思想与高现代主义》试图将抽象的故事与数学之外的发展结合起来。事实上,作者声称,数学及其对抽象的驱动是她所认为的“高度现代主义”的关键组成部分,大约在1930年至1970年之间。这贯穿了从数学应用到社会科学再到艺术和建筑的整个过程。在讲述这个故事时,作者引用了那段时期美国许多顶尖数学家的名字,并以引文和参考文献的形式提供了大量文献。Steingart博士是哥伦比亚大学的历史教授,她在本科时学习数学,研究数学和政治之间的相互作用,因此她从一个非常有趣和见多识广的角度介绍了这些材料。引言向读者保证,这是一部数学思想史,而不是数学史。特别是,她表达了这样一种信念,即不需要熟悉数学就可以理解她的文本。然而,人们可能会怀疑,很少有没有数学背景的人会找到这些名字
Many of us have had the experience of being introduced to algebra via a course on group theory. If your experience was like mine, you were given the axioms and asked to prove a number of consequences. I am willing to believe that many of you fared better than I did in that introductory course. I always feel that I actually started to understand group theory when I took a course from H.S.M. Coxeter at the University of Toronto in which groups were viewed as symmetry groups of polygons. At the time I could not help feeling that I would have done better originally with that sort of introduction and my subsequent teaching was always motivated by the recognition that axioms made more sense when they were presented against a more concrete background. The story of what led to the abstract/axiomatic presentation of mathematics has been told in many places, but one telling is by Leo Corry in his Modern Algebra and the Rise of Mathematical Structures [1]. This approach is typically attributed to Hilbert’s influence, and Corry traces the sequence of texts and approaches that led to Bourbaki and beyond. Bourbaki is often given the credit for providing a definitive formulation of the axiomatic approach, thanks to their presentation from which it often seems that the intuition has been excluded. There is also a literature that looks at ways in which mathematical practice may reflect more general societal and cultural factors. For example, Vladimir Tasic’s Mathematics and the Roots of Postmodernist Thought [6] searches out philosophical and literary connections for recent mathematics. Some of the connections are disputable, but the effort is a reminder of mathematical practice not being isolated. Alma Steingart’s Axiomatics: Mathematical Thought and High Modernism is an attempt to combine the story of abstraction with developments outside of mathematics. In fact, the author claims that mathematics and its drive for abstraction were crucial ingredients in what she identifies as ‘high modernism,’ roughly the period between 1930 and 1970. This runs all the way from applications of mathematics through the social sciences to art and architecture. In telling the story, the author invokes the names of many of the leading mathematicians in the United States through that period and provides a good deal of documentation in the form of quotations and references. Dr. Steingart is a history professor at Columbia who studied mathematics as an undergraduate and researches the interplay between mathematics and politics, and as such she presents this material from a very interesting and well-informed perspective. The introduction assures the reader that this is a history of mathematical thought and not a history of mathematics. In particular, she expresses the belief that no acquaintance with mathematics is required to make sense of her text. However, one might suspect that few without a background in mathematics would find the names
期刊介绍:
The Monthly''s readers expect a high standard of exposition; they look for articles that inform, stimulate, challenge, enlighten, and even entertain. Monthly articles are meant to be read, enjoyed, and discussed, rather than just archived. Articles may be expositions of old or new results, historical or biographical essays, speculations or definitive treatments, broad developments, or explorations of a single application. Novelty and generality are far less important than clarity of exposition and broad appeal. Appropriate figures, diagrams, and photographs are encouraged.
Notes are short, sharply focused, and possibly informal. They are often gems that provide a new proof of an old theorem, a novel presentation of a familiar theme, or a lively discussion of a single issue.
Abstracts for articles or notes should entice the prospective reader into exploring the subject of the paper and should make it clear to the reader why this paper is interesting and important. The abstract should highlight the concepts of the paper rather than summarize the mechanics. The abstract is the first impression of the paper, not a technical summary of the paper. Excessive use of notation is discouraged as it can limit the interest of the broad readership of the MAA, and can limit search-ability of the article.