3 ms·
> Second, for us non-mathematicians, the value of math isn't in understanding exactly why a result is true, it’s in how those results can be applied to actually
by kaffekaka 22d ago
> Second, for us non-mathematicians, the value of math isn't in understanding exactly why a result is true, it’s in how those results can be applied to actually improve our lives.
This is just the problem with the Navier-Stokes solution. We now (supposedly) know the truthiness of the statement, but we have no more understanding of why or how it applies to our quality of life. This is exactly the issue Tao is pointing at.
- brap 22d agoRight, but this leads to my main question: is this still necessary? By analogy with code, do we still need code to be maintainable/readable if machines write it all? (Obviously for now the answer is yes, but I’m not sure this will be the case in 5-10 years)
- timmg 22d agoWhat I don’t get: this letter seems to argue that if a human had solved this problem then that wouldn’t be the case (?)