Contemporary researchers in the mathematical sciences enjoy countless advantages over their counterparts of a century ago. A vastly larger and better-funded community now has convenient access to the literature, and to communication channels that make global collaboration easy.
-
-
In particular, looking just at mathematics, we find the following names associated with profound innovations made in the first two decades of the last century: Frobenius, Burnside, Poincaré, Hilbert, Minkowski, Hadamard, Cartan, Takagi, Ramanujan, Weyl, Hecke, Noether, Banach.
Show this thread -
It is impossible to argue that the first two decades of mathematical research in this century have produced any innovations as profound as group representation theory, functional analysis, dynamical systems theory, the geometry of fiber bundles, or class field theory.
Show this thread -
Great researchers in mathematics are certainly not ten times more numerous today than they were a century ago; indeed, it takes some audacity to argue that we have as many. (It's far from clear, for example, whether anyone alive today can bear close comparison with Poincaré.)
Show this thread -
But if conditions today are so spectacularly more favorable to successful research in the mathematical sciences than a century ago, and the number of trained researchers has grown by at least an order of magnitude, why is there no corresponding growth in achievement?
Show this thread -
Mathematics itself may be the most illuminating case to study, because a "depletion of low-hanging fruit" explanation of modern stagnation is least tenable there. All the fundamental laws of physics may already have been discovered, but nothing like this is true in mathematics.
Show this thread -
Indeed, mathematics is demonstrably inexhaustible, and the exceedingly long history of the art records no fallow period during which its master practitioners believed they might be unable for fundamental reasons to discover deep new results of lasting interest.
Show this thread -
Note that this contrasts strikingly with physics: in 1894, Michelson judged it likely that "most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established," and that "the future truths of physical science are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals."
Show this thread -
No similarly eminent mathematician has mooted a similarly pessimistic view of the art's prospects. On the contrary: great mathematicians have tended to predict extraordinary things to result from the art's inevitable assimilation and refinement of recent breakthroughs.
Show this thread -
Because mathematicians have the freedom to devise and pursue entirely new fields of research -- a freedom successfully exploited, repeatedly, by its greatest past masters -- the formidable intricacy of its current best-established fields is no bar to its further flourishing.
Show this thread -
If at any particular epoch of mathematical history no low-hanging fruit remains on some particular mathematical tree, then mathematicians may choose to plant, cultivate, and harvest the fruit of entirely new trees. Indeed, when frustrated, they have often done exactly that.
Show this thread -
So what is going on? Why is mathematical practice today not dramatically more successful than a century ago? Why is there no spectacular contemporary flourishing of the art, with entirely new fields opened up by ten times as many Poincarés, Hilberts, Cartans, and Noethers?
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.