Comment by derrida

My point is that each of the material above (and i forgot to add the original Quantum Mechanics papers) were major watershed moments in science/mathematics and hence are not easy to read/understand. You need a good background in the subject matter(and mathematics) and/or somebody guiding you through them.

So what i do is try and find books which are written for the "educated common reader" by an expert who guides you through the original paper/book. It is still difficult to understand if you do not have the necessary background but at least you have a good starting point.

Some books in my collection;

1) Newton's Principia for the Common Reader by S.Chandrasekhar

2) Maxwell on the Electromagnetic Field: A Guided Study (Masterworks of Discovery) by Thomas Simpson

3) Einstein's Miraculous Year by John Stachel.

4) The Annotated Turing by Charles Petzold.

What we need is for a group of professors to get together and start writing a series on explaining the original papers to the "educated common reader" i.e. not too trivial nor too overwhelming. I think there is a huge market for this since it humanizes how science is done in real life which is fundamental for motivation.

Seconding that that one stood out to me. Actually studying at-least large portions of it is typical at a handful of liberal arts colleges that favor the "great books" approach, at least a couple of which have pretty good reputations and are likely to have turned out some folks who work in tech (maybe the programmer next to you... maybe your manager's manager), plus it's pushed in great books home learning programs that surely at least a fair number of people have credibly attempted, even if the overwhelming majority of those who start such programs don't complete them (and it's usually very early in those programs, so even those who gave it a real shot but abandoned it before getting far were likely exposed to quite a bit of Euclid, though maybe they dropped off before On Conic Sections or other texts common in those reading sequences).

... plus it's relatively approachable as such things go, and short enough that closely reading most or all of it isn't a crazy idea, and it was recently-enough widely used as an actual textbook that between that and ongoing modern interest in its use in that capacity, there are tons of study-oriented editions of it floating around and still being published. I mean hell "recreational mathematics" is a thing and lightly-annotated-and-updated Euclid's a pretty solid text for people with that kind of interest to noodle on, with bonus historical appeal since it's super-old and also is assumed background for all educated people into at least the early 20th century, so pops up all the time in historical writing and literature.

Now, Newton? That's more like it. Nobody reads a large amount of his mathematics unless they're some variety of mathematical historian.

I have tried to read some articles and watch some videos "explaining" Godel but never really understood it. Everyone seems to be explaining the mechanics of what Godel did but explaining the Why is lacking i.e. What was it in mathematics that got him even thinking on these lines in the first place? Can this problem be demonstrated with a simple toy axiomatic formal system? How did he hit upon his approach? Answers to these sort of questions is what seems to me the most important thing to understand before following his arguments.

I recently came to know of The Annotated Godel: A Reader's Guide to his Classic Paper on Logic and Incompleteness by Hal Prince which i think i need to sit with :-)

They may have learned mechanics by studying Newton but they can’t have learned calculus. Principia includes geometric series and limits etc but given as geometric arguments so you don’t come out of newton’s principia knowing how to do calculus. If they learned the method of fluxions from Newton (which is equivalent to calculus) then I feel very sorry for them missing out on the far better modern presentation of Leibnitz’s calculus that they would get in studying say Spivak or Stewart or any other modern textbook. For the same reason everyone teaches Taylor series (which are fantastically useful) rather than Newton’s wildly inferior series derivation which he used because Taylor series hadn’t been (re)discovered yet.[1]

Euclid isn’t surprising. School children used to learn plane geometry from Euclid until the 1950s or so. I learned geometry at school using a syllabus from Euclid and we learned the modern form of Euclid’s postulates etc but we didn’t study Euclid itself.

[1] Taylor series were developed in the modern form by James Gregory who was trying to reverse engineer how Newton had come up with his series expansions. I say rediscovered above because they were first written down by Madhava of Sangamagrama who gave Taylor series expansions for the trigonometric functions and natural logarithms/exponential function in the 14th century.

I heard about St. John's from a twitter thread and find it deeply baffling.

It's as if a group of monks wanted to keep the quadrivium and trivium but their clock stopped at the 16th century. One of their faculty proudly said they study analysis by reading Descartes! Which I thought was a highbrow joke but nope, dead serious.

There's a reason that 'standing on the shoulders of giants' is a thing. Dive into the classics after you have gained the maturity from modern texts.

Take one of the easier problems from Rudin. Prove that a continuous function from the unit interval [0,1] to itself has a fixed point. I wonder how a student immersed in the 'classics' would even begin to tackle this.

I did give it a try many years ago, I think as undergrad, but gave up after a few pages, because for me it was nearly impossible to parse the syntax.

Derrida, go back to your grave, you messed up the quote!