Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!taurus!shimeall
From: shimeall@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall)
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Re: Subtle Math Questions
Summary: Hamming's view
Message-ID: <2149@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Date: 25 Apr 91 16:03:39 GMT
References: <1991Apr23.163231.27780@beaver.cs.washington.edu> <1991Apr23.144230.14500@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> <51667@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <8641@idunno.Princeton.EDU> <4551@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Reply-To: shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 20

Most of these questions have focussed on "puzzle-solving" as a 
measure of math ability.  Having the opportunity, I asked Richard
Hamming (of Hamming codes, Hamming integral, Hamming integration
method and Hamming primes fame...) the question of how to judge a 
person's math understanding.  He indicated that he wouldn't ask them to
solve puzzles.  Instead, he'd ask them to define the field of
mathmatics, the activities mathematicians perform and the skills
needed by students of mathematics.

The trick is, he isn't looking for any specific response.  He feels
that if the respondent is able to put together ANY well-reasoned
response, that would be sufficient.

He makes to cogent point that much of the subtle points of mathematics
are open to debate and to change -- its far better that the teachers
and students have a view of the broad scope of the field, its reasoning
and its use than if they're able to solve a laundry-list of puzzles.
				Tim
-- 
Tim Shimeall ((408) 646-2509)