> his definition of utility leans towards the economic sense. I think his preference is probably closer to the generality and “interestingness” of the discover

> his definition of utility leans towards the economic sense. I think his preference is probably closer to the generality and “interestingness” of the discovery. Darwin’s theory is obviously very general and applicable in a multitude of domains in addition to the original one he worked on. Although Ramanujan’s series were not obviously general but they imply some deep mathematical patterns that are more general than specific forms. Neither had much economic utility during the discoverer’s lifetime.