Totally worth reading, all the way through.

My only quibble is that he sees recreational mathematics as unique, and suggests that, for example, “recreational physics” doesn’t exist. My uncle spent his professional life creating physics demonstrations for the University of Minnesota. Many of them were large-scale demonstrations. This was recreational physics at its best. And many “Smarter Every Day” and “Mythbusters” episodes are also recreational physics. Can you name a vocation (vocation, not job) that you can state confidently doesn’t have a recreational aspect?

But that’s a trivial complaint about one paragraph in an essay full of gracious wisdom.

Mathematics for Human Flourishing

Imported from Google+ — content and formatting may not be reliable