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

Re:“Math 2.0” will need to value mathematical progress more ... by __MatrixMan__ on Friday October 09, 2026 @05:40PM (#50026912)

I was taught that Copernicus's work was a more elegant predictive system: these equations work and are nicer than those, without attempting to address causation. Nothing about gravity in there. I guess I'll have to read his work and find out.

As for your second point, it seems we agree. They're orthogonal. Even if a machine can give you one, the other still needs doing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Math 2.0” will need to value mathematical progress more ... by godelski on Sunday October 11, 2026 @03:11PM (#50046731)

Note that Copernicus's system still has epicycles. So it was still fairly complicated. More elegant, but still complicated. It also, importantly, gives order to the planets. Distinguishablity matters

[ Parent | on HN ]