Read on Twitter
This is a well written thread, and I'd push back on this point. Look at how math writers use second-person pronouns. _We_ say _let's_ define...
That may not be political in a partisan sense, but it is political. (1/4») https://twitter.com/wtgowers/status/1290219057539514372
That may not be political in a partisan sense, but it is political. (1/4») https://twitter.com/wtgowers/status/1290219057539514372
Yes, the use of royal "we" in math is a convention of our field. But it implies a consensus between author and reader, on the authority of the author alone.
Not everyone has historically been afforded that authority in equal measure. (2/4»)
Not everyone has historically been afforded that authority in equal measure. (2/4»)
Concerning definitions, they're designed to segregate X's from not-X's. Often w/ unspoken intent to admit examples the author prefers and/or rule out examples they don't. (See, e.g., Hotdog & Sandwich 2019).
Does the reader trust the author's intent? That's political. (3/4»)
Does the reader trust the author's intent? That's political. (3/4»)
Math is a communal activity.
So the enterprise of even abstract math, as soon as ≥2 people are involved in it, relies on tacit agreements, shared suspensions of belief, and exchanges of authority.
"Let's" learn from the scholars of math education who see this so clearly. (4/4)
So the enterprise of even abstract math, as soon as ≥2 people are involved in it, relies on tacit agreements, shared suspensions of belief, and exchanges of authority.
"Let's" learn from the scholars of math education who see this so clearly. (4/4)
PS/ @mathemactivist helpfully points out that the question of "we" in academic discourse is well studied. And the answers are complex. Ex from the linked article:
https://twitter.com/mathemactivist/status/1290274263446904834?s=21
https://twitter.com/mathemactivist/status/1290274263446904834?s=21
