Skip to main content

Mathematics is not redundant

2,311 Comments

J
James Appleby
5 years ago

To even consider pure mathematics inessential is to show oneself ignorant of even a rudimentary understanding of the sciences and their interconnected nature.

C
Carolyn Gordon
5 years ago

Applied mathematics cannot exist without pure mathematics. The proposed action would decimate both pure and applied mathematics at Leicester. If research in pure mathematics were to end on a larger scale, then applied mathematics, data science and physics would soon follow.

E
Emilio
5 years ago

I am disagree with your decision, I got a Phd in pure mathematics (representation theory) and currently working as Data Science manager

B
Bas Lemmens
5 years ago

Advances in technology are unthinkable without pure mathematics.

D
Dmitri Vassiliev
5 years ago

I cannot imagine a proper university without academic staff doing research in pure mathematics.

V
Vladimir Novikov
5 years ago

Outrageous and shortsighted decision.

T
Tracy Simmons
5 years ago

Disgraceful decision that and many other proposed redundancies.

J
Johnson Ng
5 years ago

Any of my attempts to pronounce how much my education in Pure Mathematics have benefited me, both professionally and personally, can only be an understatement. I may not have graduated from this university, but Pure Mathematics is an invaluable asset in strengthening minds and empowering its learners to pursue their goals, be it within the field itself, or other disciplines.

P
Petros Kolyvas
5 years ago

Cutting off the research in pure mathematics in the name of the research in areas that have been and always will be based in pure mathematics, is just pure idiocy.

R
Robion Kirby
5 years ago

Cutting pure math to enhance applications of pure math is like cutting research into stopping Covid in order to free up more people to vaccinate.

S
Samuel Lomonaco
5 years ago

Pure math is a driving force providing the new ideas needed for to move the applied sciences to even greater innovation & development.

R
Ruizhi Huang
5 years ago

After so many great achievements made by British mathematicians in last hundreds of years which are essential to human development, it is really hard to believe there are the leaderships in UK's university who think and treat math research in this way at 21st century. What happen to our modern general education!!!

W
Will Brackenbury
5 years ago

This is an atrocious plan that will cut important research. I strongly encourage Leceister to halt this.

R
Robert Bailey
5 years ago

This is unbelievable negligence on the part of a university administration, seemingly more focused on buzzwords than on having a serious academic basis for its programmes and research.

J
Julie Wilson
5 years ago

Unbelievably stupid

B
Boris Kunyavskii
5 years ago

I know the research of three members of the School of Mathematics of the University of Leicester. It is of the highest international level. One of the researchers is a world recognized leading expert in his field. Closing research in pure mathematics would be a wrong move.

D
David Chillingworth
5 years ago

A bizarre and illogical decision: Pure Mathematics lies at the heart of research in AI, computational modelling, etc.

N
Niels Joubert
5 years ago

As a Stanford PhD researcher that rely heavily on the innovations in pure math to drive computer science forward, I am appalled at this idea.

G
Gareth McCaughan
5 years ago

If you abandon pure mathematical research, you will lose applied mathematicians and computer scientists too, and make your university less attractive to undergraduates with mathematical interests. All this in turn will be catastrophic for your alleged future interest in AI, computational modelling and data science. So even if the leadership at Leicester is completely indifferent to scholarship and intellectual progress (as it must be to be suggesting this at all), they ought to see that they are shooting themselves in the foot here. Or perhaps in the head.

S
Som
5 years ago

Mathematics is even more essential that it already was. Redundant, huh?