3 ms·
I don’t think it’s true in pure science. Like, building a team to solve the Riemann hypothesis would actually be counter productive. In experimental science, t
by aborsy 3y ago
I don’t think it’s true in pure science. Like, building a team to solve the Riemann hypothesis would actually be counter productive.
In experimental science, the number of coauthors of a paper has increased, but probably not the number of active coauthors.
Even business is born out of small startups, later expanded into larger teams.
- nuclearnice1 3y agoYou may be interested in Terry Tao’s polymath collaborations. https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2018/01/24/polymath-proposal-upper-bounding-the-de-bruijn-newman-constant/ https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2018/01/24/polymath-proposal-... > As for upper bounds, de Bruijn showed back in 1950 that {\Lambda \leq 1/2}. The only progress since then has been the work of Ki, Kim and Lee in 2009, who improved this slightly to {\Lambda < 1/2}. The primary proposed aim of this Polymath project is to obtain further explicit improvements to the upper bound of {\Lambda}. Of course, if we could lower the upper bound all the way to zero, this would solve the Riemann hypothesis, but I do not view this as a realistic outcome of this project To your point, there was some excitement and progress in the beginning, but it remains an unusual approach to mathematics.