Mathematics is not redundant

Innovative applications rest on the solid ground of novel fundamental tools

This just doesn't make sense. They are programming their own mediocrity

Keep pure math research!

"Mathematics is the part of physics whose experiments are cheap", Vladimir Arnold said. Pure Mathematics is too cheap to prevent big investments in other areas. Preserve it in Leicester

I cannot see how decreasing research acitvity can be equated to shaping excellence.

Obviously, the administrators behind this proposal know very little how mathematics - not just standard undergraduate mathematics - is ubiquitous in the advancement of MOST branches of science, including computer science, chemistry, economics, physics, biology, and engineering. It seems that mathematics is threatened each generation but its utility and import outlasts the people who try to destroy or underfund it. I sincerely hope that this is the case here again at Leicester. Shame on these administrators!!

The next logical step for the University should be to abolish all other "useless" fields of research, such as arts, letters, humanities... If you decided to pursue that path, then go all the way, do it properly.

A poor choice at a poor time; as if pure math research would not strengthen research in AI, data science, etc.!

I have been bothered for some time by the fact  that "pure" mathematics has been the cause of a repressed schism among many, if not most,  mathematicians  and also among non-mathematicians. The result of my action and analysis of the problem are contained in the e-mail which I sent to all the instructors, the staff, and the graduate students in the mathematics department. Dear Colleague, This past semester I completed a poll among ten members of our academic community, five from the Mathematics Department and five from the outside. The latter included college counselors and a dean from one of our colleges. The poll consisted of having them answer the following question: “What is the first thing that comes to mind when you assess ‘pure’ mathematics?” The result produced the following off-the-cuff answers: 1.  “it has no motivation in applications” 2.  “it has no application, even though I understand it is beautiful” 3.  (i) “lack of motivation;”, (ii) ”Who cares!” 4.  (i) “lack of applications”; (ii) ”lack of people who care” 5.  “don’t talk to the general public [about “pure” mathematics]” 6.  “not useful” 7.  “no practicality, no usefulness, no bearing on anything” 8.  “beautiful, but does not care about applications”. 9.  “implies mathematics is contaminated” 10. “is outside the context of the real world” The criticism implied by these answers is summarized bluntly by # 7: “pure” mathematics has “no practicality, no usefulness, no bearing on anything”. Conversely, mathematics which is practical and useful is viewed as “contaminated”, i.e. “impure”, because it is about the world. What the ten answers highlight is an error originated by Plato and promoted by seventeenth and eighteenth century philosophers. They claimed that there is a fundamental cleavage in knowledge, including quantitative knowledge; it divides mathematics into two mutually exclusive (and jointly exhaustive) types, “pure” and “im

stop shaping your excellence !

This is a mistake that will produce a devastating effect on reputation of the university.

This is a very short-sighted proposal. Pure mathematics is a subject that needs research-active lecturers, as otherwise the teaching will tend to focus on teaching what is easily examinable, rather than the heart of the subject which is difficult, but therein lie the essential skills which make a mathematics degree so useful, and valuable to employers.

Pure math is very important!

Without fundamental science the applied science is dead, and so is society.

Once again, a few years later? In which language should one tell you this???

Dear Professor Canagarajah. If your academic background was divorced from the Sciences - and thus be ignorant of the fundamental part that Mathematics plays in the Sciences - I would have some small understanding of your decision (wrong headed though it would still be). However, given your own professional path, I am at a complete loss to comprehend what you are proposing. A university without a fully thriving Mathematics department has no right to be considered a university, and I appeal to you to reconsider your plans. In your interview at the foot of this document: http://www.bris.ac.uk/engineering/media/publications/lynchpinspring2009.pdf there is this exchange: Q. What did you want to be when you were a child? A. I always wanted to be a Professor (in Maths or Engineering) – they command enormous respect in Sri Lanka Now, dear Professor Canagarajah, regain some respect by reversing your proposal with respect to Leicester's Mathematics Department.

Cutting the roots kills the whole tree.

I urge the University of Leicester's administration to reconsider budget reductions to the department of Mathematics, especially with respect to its basic research activity. It would be a grave blow to its reputation and international standing.

It is a very bad decision to cease research in pure mathematics.

It is inacceptable that decisions are taken by persons whithout understanding for the matter.