“Math 2.0” will need to value mathematical progress more holistically

Re:“Math 2.0” will need to value mathematical progress more ... by 6gvONxR4sf7o on Thursday October 08, 2026 @12:51PM (#50008296)

It's a funny feeling being on the outside of this with a background in applied math, not pure math. There are all these AI results in pure math, and pure mathematicians worrying about the role of mathematicians and looking for new purpose, meanwhile applied math is sitting here much less affected. From my perspective, the answer seems obvious.

My hope is that applied math departments and pure math departments get closer, and that we start having a ton more people finding applications outside of pure math for pure math results.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Math 2.0” will need to value mathematical progress more ... by cubefox on Thursday October 08, 2026 @07:25PM (#50013863)

It seems that most of pure math research was mainly a form of entertainment for very smart people. Like playing professional chess perhaps, or playing a difficult puzzle game.

Sure, sometimes they accidentally also developed something slightly useful (e.g. Haskell uses some concepts from category theory), but in terms of usefulness the questions are: 1. How useful were this applications it relative to the effort that went into pure math research, in terms of return of investment? 2. Could the useful math also have been purposefully invented by applied mathematicians when an actual need for it arose?

[ Parent | on HN ]