If you had some worries listening to prof. Kellen on decolonisation of the history of mathematics but not with this presentation you are not paying attention but just reacting through previous known to you political propaganda. Pay attention to these words and how he uses them: 'feel', 'narration', 'authoritative', 'canonical', 'vocabulary' and the importance given to the 'author'. This kind of analysis is interesting and legitimate, for example his study of the genealogy of Euclides book is very interesting to understand how mathematicians thought math in their time and what notions we inherited and who developed those notions. But there are some questions you should ask yourself: What interests are this kind of analysis responding to? Whose people this kind of analysis is useful? Pay attention to his remark about 'mathematical traditions' other than the euclidian one because that explain the goal of this conference and the perspective pushing forward his 'rethinking' of the history of mathematical proof. You will see that both Keller and Oosterhoff are collaborating for the same project. One part of the project needs to 'rethink' (retell, reframe, reappropriate) the history of western mathematical 'traditions' or 'history' and the other one needs to do the same for the non western ones. They are not isolated research projects.
I like that they have a series on mathematical proofs.
Thank you!
If you had some worries listening to prof. Kellen on decolonisation of the history of mathematics but not with this presentation you are not paying attention but just reacting through previous known to you political propaganda. Pay attention to these words and how he uses them: 'feel', 'narration', 'authoritative', 'canonical', 'vocabulary' and the importance given to the 'author'. This kind of analysis is interesting and legitimate, for example his study of the genealogy of Euclides book is very interesting to understand how mathematicians thought math in their time and what notions we inherited and who developed those notions. But there are some questions you should ask yourself: What interests are this kind of analysis responding to? Whose people this kind of analysis is useful? Pay attention to his remark about 'mathematical traditions' other than the euclidian one because that explain the goal of this conference and the perspective pushing forward his 'rethinking' of the history of mathematical proof. You will see that both Keller and Oosterhoff are collaborating for the same project. One part of the project needs to 'rethink' (retell, reframe, reappropriate) the history of western mathematical 'traditions' or 'history' and the other one needs to do the same for the non western ones. They are not isolated research projects.