Post #2644271
2026-05-02 15:27 UTC
In mathematics, the nature of the solution matters a lot.
If you solve an open problem using only old techniques, people will take it as proof that the person who made the conjecture simply missed a trick, and you don't really get rewarded by the Mathematical community very much.
If on the other hand, your solution to an open problem provides compelling evidence that the problem really couldn't have been solved without new ideas, and your solution contains those new ideas, then you are going to be rewarded with prestige, money, jobs, grants, etc.
Mathematics has always been about the ideas. Even in problem-oriented areas, where seemingly weird / useless problems are strategically placed like mines as Idea Heralds.
Replies (1)
-
@jonmsterling@mathstodon.xyz 2026-05-02 15:32
So, if you manage to solve an Erdős problem using Claude or whatever, it's not going to mean jack shit unless there's a new idea in there, and *you can explain* the new idea. If you can't explain the new idea, then whoever explains and generalises it is going to be the one who is rewarded. In this case, the loser who operates Claude is going to treated like the apple that fell on Newton's head. And rightfully so.