Pedagogically unique--very different from most mathematics texts.
If you come from a humanist background or otherwise worry that you don't "get" math, I strongly recommend these.
I also recommend them if you passed through these classes without ever feeling like you understood, at a deeper level, why you were doing the manipulations you were doing. Braver will fix that.
The key to the book are carefully scaffolded problem sets not designed to test knowledge so much as to lead the reader/problem solver to discover truths themselves. Some of his best problems will be something like "10. Now go explain this concept to another human being."
I believe Braver was a St. John's tutor -- that college where they study mathematics and science by reading Euclid and Newton.
This book is not that, but it clearly informs his approach.
Though he does not come out an say it outright, he clearly presents the standard calc/pre-calc material in a way that matches the historical development of the concepts involved.
There is also far more geometry involved than standard pre-calc books.
If you are completely new to these topic I would recommend supplementing it with these books, which are much more hand-holdy and include details on some problem types Braver doesn't cover.
Braver also has a linear algebra book but I have not gotten there yet, so cannot recommend from personal experience.
It seems to follow the same philosophy as these earlier books (geometric explanations when possible, sense of intuition informed by history of math).
I don't think this style of textbook is for everyone (and because he sometimes teaches things in a weird order you will struggle to find online lectures that match).
But this style really worked for me. I think it is a bit criminal that these books are not better known.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Implicit in the piece is that the best model for this future China is either periods of Chinese weakness in more recent history or to its relationship with other neoconfucian powers when itself was a strong neoconfucian empire.
My thread explains why the second precedent is no convincing to me; the first just strikes me as obviously unwise.
I think the time has come for me to write my take on @daveckang's entire research ouvre--its strengths and the limitations I find in its central arguments.
I do think that his new piece in IO really rests on ideas and assumptions of this earlier work, even if they are not cited.
Essentially I think all of these books, and the many articles that precede them, are variations on a central theme -- a thesis about Chinese statecraft that extends back several thousand years but is rooted in concerns about the present.
The concern with the present is this: Kang is worried, and has been worried for two decades, about the possibility of war between America and China.
It seems like the claim "absent slavery industrialization and capitalism would have gone chugging along just fine, thank you, and probably would have grown faster" seems different to me than "slavery did not play a decisive role in American/British industrialization."
Maybe there is a motte bailey thing here, though each side has its own motte and its own bailey. One side wants to claim that industrial capitalism could have only been created via slavery. This is wrong.
One of the takeaways from this book’s section of the Ming Dyansty was just, for lack of a better term, how hard core the Ming officialdom could be.
The Ming is just full of stories of these Confucian officials standing up to emperors knowing full well it meant they would be killed for doing so. Real Christians being fed to the lions energy.
Two weeks ago Christian Whiton, who served in the first Trump admin State Department, published an essay for @DominoTheoryMag that went viral in Taiwan.
Its title: "How Taiwan Lost Trump."
The essay went *so* viral, in fact, that the Taiwanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs published a press release rebutting it
I have asked this question on this platform several times over the last two years—usually not in reference to vibes but hard statistics, which support the idea that women have become the main (American) world travelers.
Before I get into these answers a preliminary note. This topic makes many men defensive. It probably should. Decline in willingness to travel is a decline in appetite for adventure. I think that’s bad. We can do better.
A lot of men feel the weight of a culture that berates and demeans them—that sees both their success and their failures as a problem. In this context any argument that we should widen male horizons is taken as an attack on the American man.