Talk:A Mathematician's Apology

message: I'm not sure, but I believe that Wikipedia's WP:COPY policy wouldn't support the link at the bottom of the article. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, please don't link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). I believe the general policy is to act in compliance with the laws of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are stored, so even though the site is in public domain in Canada, America's bazillion year long copyright laws are still in effect, so this linking might be a form of contributory infringement. I won't do anything about it, because I'm ignorant of these matters. I just thought I'd bring it up. Geuiwogbil 20:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to copyrighted works 

message: Just wanted to let people know. --OberMegaTrans (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Being translated into German 

message: Huh? That are very, very basic results, used anywhere… --Chricho ∀ (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement is not about how basic the results are, it is about the practical utility of the results. These are beautiful mathematical results, but there is no real world problem that I can think of that uses the results in a meaningful way. --Bill Cherowitzo  (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  „Hardy's more prominent examples of elegant mathematical discoveries with no use (proofs of the infinity of primes and the irrationality of the square root of two) still hold up.“ 

message: The proof of the irrationality of root two does have at least one practical application.  In 3D computer graphics, it demonstrates the impossibility of designing finite-precision algorithms for drawing polygons on finite resolution displays without cracks and/or overlaps when the vertex of only polygon lies on the edge of another. SteveBaker 19:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are pretty bogus concerns. From a practical point of view every use of the square root of two involves a rational approximation and if you assume that the error of approximation is on the order of Planck's constant, any of these theoretical results can be established. Elliptic curve cryptography is done mostly over finite fields and there is no concept of rationality in that setting. For all practical purposes, the infinitude of the primes can be replaced by "a really large number of primes" (like Skewes number, or other unimaginably large numbers). I replaced the sentence, as it still holds up. --Bill Cherowitzo  (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Irrationality of Root-two 

message: "Prosiness"? That strikes me as an unnecessary and confusing word, and I'm not quite sure what it's supposed to convey. Hunting through the text, I can't find any good synonym for prosiness applied to applied math. He never says applied math is unimaginative or dull. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I also can not find anything resembling "prosiness" in the text, but it might be trying to be a succinct way (perhaps too succint) of describing the contrast between how pure mathematicians can say things in clear and precise ways, while applied mathematicians must deal with the "physical reality" thus forcing them to deal with some vagueness inherent in that arena (section 23). I think Hardy would approve, but the term is more likely to have come from some commentator. He does say that at least some areas of applied mathematics (such as ballistics and aerodynamics) are "repulsively ugly and intolerably dull" (section 28). These are, however, areas with wartime applications and I don't think the condemnation holds for all of applied mathematics. --Bill Cherowitzo  (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this is a cultural difference compared to Britons but I bet 95% of Americans have no idea what "prosiness" even means. It's not good to have such an obscure word in an encyclopedia article. But I'm not quite sure what to replace it with. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  closing paragraph