3 ms·

Is the test about ability to understand or about finding it very interesting? Of course it's easier to understand what has already become old hat and popularize

Is the test about ability to understand or about finding it very interesting? Of course it's easier to understand what has already become old hat and popularized in the field.

vouaobrasil 2y ago
I would say both are dwindling. Few people can understand modern results and few people find them interesting.
- Chinjut 2y ago
  Again, it's not clear to me that if you asked 1950s mathematicians to look at math journals in the 1950s, they would react very differently. You haven't presented any evidence of this. It's certainly true that math is a more fragmented specialized field today than it was in the eras of Euler or Gauss, but without some more concrete evidence or objective claim, I don't know what is so bad about math journals today compared to 1950.
  - Chinjut 2y ago
    For what it's worth, I also have a PhD in mathematics and I also ultimately left academia with some disappointment at the gap between what it is and my sense or fantasy of what it once was or could be.
    - esd_g0d 2y ago
      Do tell more... does it have to do with hyperspecialization, not being able to get fluent in a large enough proportion of the field as was the case in Euler's time, say?
      - Chinjut 2y ago
        No, while it may have been fun to be a generalist in Euler's era, that wasn't bothersome to me. To be clear, the issues I found in academia had little to do with math specifically, and affected academia broadly. The usual issues you've likely heard about dwindling ability to make a comfortable career of it without a great deal of luck.
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    I will attempt a more rigorous study with citation figures and data analysis and write part two then.
Qem 2y ago
I bet Salami slicing[1] explains part of it. Before publish or perish culture, It was more common to see more complete papers, that gave a holistic view of the subject, easier to understand and appreciate. Now those papers are sliced into N least publishable units, less interesting and harder to get the big picture in isolation, but hey, why to have one paper when you can have five? [1]. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing_tactics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing_tactics

Is the test about ability to understand or about finding it very interesting? Of course it's easier to understand what has already become old hat and popularized in the field.

vouaobrasil 2y ago

I would say both are dwindling. Few people can understand modern results and few people find them interesting.

Chinjut 2y ago
Again, it's not clear to me that if you asked 1950s mathematicians to look at math journals in the 1950s, they would react very differently. You haven't presented any evidence of this. It's certainly true that math is a more fragmented specialized field today than it was in the eras of Euler or Gauss, but without some more concrete evidence or objective claim, I don't know what is so bad about math journals today compared to 1950.
- Chinjut 2y ago
  For what it's worth, I also have a PhD in mathematics and I also ultimately left academia with some disappointment at the gap between what it is and my sense or fantasy of what it once was or could be.
  - esd_g0d 2y ago
    Do tell more... does it have to do with hyperspecialization, not being able to get fluent in a large enough proportion of the field as was the case in Euler's time, say?
    - Chinjut 2y ago
      No, while it may have been fun to be a generalist in Euler's era, that wasn't bothersome to me. To be clear, the issues I found in academia had little to do with math specifically, and affected academia broadly. The usual issues you've likely heard about dwindling ability to make a comfortable career of it without a great deal of luck.
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  I will attempt a more rigorous study with citation figures and data analysis and write part two then.

Qem 2y ago

I bet Salami slicing[1] explains part of it. Before publish or perish culture, It was more common to see more complete papers, that gave a holistic view of the subject, easier to understand and appreciate. Now those papers are sliced into N least publishable units, less interesting and harder to get the big picture in isolation, but hey, why to have one paper when you can have five? [1]. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing_tactics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing_tactics