4 ms·
I view some of these math researchers like startup founders who are absolutely brilliant technically, but who lack almost all ability to interact with customers
by ryporter 11y ago
I view some of these math researchers like startup founders who are absolutely brilliant technically, but who lack almost all ability to interact with customers, investors, etc. As a solo founder, they will fail. However, if they attract a co-founder who complements their skills, they can be wildly successful. It sounds like Mochizuki would have benefited greatly from such a co-author, in order to truly prove his result to the community.
- enewc 11y agoMath is objective. The proof is either correct or not. Human interaction doesn't matter, except for perhaps marketing the importance of the results. In this case, the history of the problem itself has done the marketing, so any valid solution would be a wild success regardless of how socially eccentric the researcher is. Another recent example of such a mathematician is Grigori Perelman.
- moron4hire 11y agoMathematics, being a human endeavor, is fundamentally about human interaction. There's no point to doing math if there is no communicating it to other people.
- eveningcoffee 11y agoThere's no point to doing math if there is no communicating it to other people. I would not agree with that. One can do math for personal pleasure.
- webkike 11y agoYou can argue that everything can be reduced to human interaction, but mathematics is certainly not about human interaction in any meaningful sense
- moron4hire 11y agoIt's the only pure way to describe existence. That isn't meaningful? Mathematics is a language, first and foremost. To argue otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand its goals, methods, and form. You can draw all the squiggly lines on paper that you want, but it won't mean anything until someone else interpets it. You cannot prove logic that only exists in your own head, because you cannot prove yourself rational. Your very existence does not even make sense without other people perceiving you.
- webkike 11y agoLanguages do not require human interaction. I do not argue that there is no mathematical language.
- moron4hire 11y agoLanguage without human interaction is an undefined operation, like raising zero to the zeroth power, or clapping with one hand.
- imh 11y agoMath? No. Math in the form of a research community which has built up centuries of work for each other to further build on? Absolutely.
- MrQuincle 11y agoIf the proof cannot be understood, it might very well be the case that another researcher more concerned with advancing knowledge for us all, will be credited. There are many roads to Rome. Proofs that cannot be grasped are like unproven truths. Worth very little... They only stand through the credibility of the inventor. It downgrades the mathematician to a politician.
- chriswarbo 11y agoThe proof is a human interaction: it is a series of papers written by one person to transmit their ideas to other people. If it were a giant Coq term then sure, you can ignore those pesky details like "understandability".
- Ar-Curunir 11y agoMathematics as done by humans is not just objective. There's a very social aspect to it; if you dress up the most amazing result in a drab and ununderstandable manner then nobody will notice it. You have to take the effort to make your result digestible and relatable, even for experts. The proof can be completely fine, but if no one can understand it then it won't be accepted.
- thanatropism 11y agoI view some of these math researchers as club sandwiches, but that's probably because I'm very very hungry right now.
- matheist 11y agoMochizuki would have benefited greatly from such a co-author, in order to truly prove his result to the community. Except that, from reading the article, it sounds like he doesn't much care about proving his result to the community. Don't make the mistake of assigning the motives and values of a founder to a late-career tenured mathematician. According to the article, he doesn't care for travel. It's not a stretch to conclude that he doesn't care to communicate his proof to other mathematicians. I'm guessing he found an argument that was sufficient to convince him (and only him), put it online as a slight concession to his colleagues, and then kicked his feet back. Surely everyone else would benefit from his having a co-author, but it sounds like he can't be bothered, and doesn't care if no one else understands his ideas.