On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 9:20 PM, Robert Hansen <email@example.com> wrote: > > On Sep 9, 2012, at 8:53 PM, Paul Tanner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > And you, with your mere undergraduate physics degree, having taking > much, much less math than even one with a mere undergraduate math > degree like myself, know more mathematics than Devlin, a PhD in > mathematics, with all these accomplishments? > > http://www.stanford.edu/~kdevlin/ > > Quote: > > "Dr. Keith Devlin is a co-founder and Executive Director of the > university's H-STAR institute, a co-founder of the Stanford Media X > research network, and a Senior Researcher at CSLI. He is a World > Economic Forum Fellow and a Fellow of the American Association for the > Advancement of Science. His current research is focused on the use of > different media to teach and communicate mathematics to diverse > audiences. He also works on the design of information/reasoning > systems for intelligence analysis. Other research interests include: > theory of information, models of reasoning, applications of > mathematical techniques in the study of communication, and > mathematical cognition. He has written 32 books and over 80 published > research articles. Recipient of the Pythagoras Prize, the Peano Prize, > the Carl Sagan Award, and the Joint Policy Board for Mathematics > Communications Award." > > > > I never said he wasn't a good populist author. I said he wasn't a good > mathematician
And you with having taken less math than even just any undergraduate math major makes you qualified to say this about any PhD in math much less him...how? I mean, this person you claim to be qualified to judge as a bad mathematician has over 80 published research articles. And you have how many published research articles? Zero? With an undergraduate degree in math (not math ed, math) and one published research article, I'm more qualified than you to judge and I would never consider myself so qualified.