Subject: Re: [HM] Bourbaki, theory, and problems
From: David Stump (stumpd@usfca.edu)
Date: Sat Apr 08 2000 - 11:52:20 EDT
It seems to me that the following discussion raises a general and very
important question, namely how do we as historians determine the "major
trends" of mathematics.
Do we look at research, at teaching in graduate schools, undergraduate
schools, mathematical associations, journals, all of the above? What
is mathematics, in the phrase 'history of mathematics'?
David Stump
At 12:34 PM 4/8/00 -0300, Julio Gonzalez Cabillon wrote:
>
snip
>
> First of all, many thanks to Volker and Colin for their thoughtful
> posts. In short, I find myself in tune with most of their points
> and concerns. Despite "the pace of abstraction has never lessened
> on any large scale, and concrete problems have always gotten plenty
> of attention", I would like to point out that this has not been as
> such outside the _math factory_. J.Dieudonne et al had a tremendous
> impact on the transmission and reception of mathematics for a long
> time, which changed curricula at schools -- at all levels -- during
> the 60s and 70s (and also 80s here in UY). This minor (?) aspect
> should be taken into consideration ( at least tangentially) in this
> discussion.
David J. Stump voice: (415) 422-6153
Department of Philosophy FAX: (415) 422-5356
University of San Francisco email: stumpd@usfca.edu
2130 Fulton Street
San Francisco, CA 94117-1080 USA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Apr 08 2000 - 11:56:38 EDT