Re:Why do many math books have so much detail and so little ...
by paulmd on Monday May 15, 2017 @01:25PM
(#14343352)
> research papers can all be read by "people in the field".
Not necessarily. The classic example is Shinichi Mochizuki's work.
He's done some incredible work but he's basically invented his entire field out of thin air, he doesn't publish frequently, and the papers he does publish are essentially impenetrable.
He likes it this way and doesn't want to "dumb down" his work for the mere mortals who need to review it. That's essentially the end state of your argument - if you can't comprehend it you're not "in his field" and you're obviously not qualified to discuss it. And he's certainly not going to waste his time teaching some dunces the basics of his field.
Not necessarily. The classic example is Shinichi Mochizuki's work.
He's done some incredible work but he's basically invented his entire field out of thin air, he doesn't publish frequently, and the papers he does publish are essentially impenetrable.
He likes it this way and doesn't want to "dumb down" his work for the mere mortals who need to review it. That's essentially the end state of your argument - if you can't comprehend it you're not "in his field" and you're obviously not qualified to discuss it. And he's certainly not going to waste his time teaching some dunces the basics of his field.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26753-mathematicians-...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2099534-mathematicians-...