>>11380281Yes, I'm talking about pedagogy. You're missing my point, I mean there's no point talking about mind blowing conjectures of his time because it has nothing to do with what he said. Arnold said people need to teach math closer to physics to future mathematicians, and less axiomatic.
Well, his future mathematicians are educated entirely differently, they are taught math close to axiomatic development, pretty much every math students have to learn how to build the real numbers from ZFC set theory, and at least several versions of axiom of choice. At the end of undergrad the pure math students know some set theory, some model theory, some computability. Even when you look at future applied mathematicians who are supposed to learn some physics, well it turns out nowadays they need statistics and computing more in order to useful applied work, not physics. Professors from MIT etc are integrating examples of neural networks into their linear algebra, analysis classes for first year. Not Landau and Lifschitz stuffs.
