> why would you need $100k to work on mathematics?
it's to live off, and support dependents while doing something that would not bring in traditional forms of profit.
That's why it's usually called a grant, rather than an investment - because the granter isn't going to see a direct financial return (but would want to see a societal return such as knowledge or something cultural etc).
Yeah, PhD income is $40k or less a year. So 5x above market rate for high-risk research. On top of that, PhD students are well-aligned for the research and have other non-monetary reasons to pursue the research (their PhD requirements).
as mentioned in the other thread - the grant needs to compete with existing salary, or the OP would need to sacrifice potential income.
I dont think 100k for 6 months is ridiculous, because this is basically the starting salary for a grad engineer at a FAANG tech company. More, if they have experience.
What's actually ridiculous is "PhD income is $40k or less a year" - i think people (such as yourself) is so desensitized to low income as to feel normalized about it!
I'm saying I have no formal credentials in Math specifically, not no professional credentials in any field.
100k for six months would be a pay cut for me, but maybe you're right... Maybe I'm being greedy at the opportunity to make a real contribution.
At the end of the day I still need to feed/house a family of five so the 100k is still ballpark, but maybe I can set aside a few more than 6 months. 10?
Not that it matters because who would fund someone with no formal credentials in Math? Even I wouldn't fund me.
I mean, that's the heart of it right there. You're netting $200k+ but you wouldn't set aside six months expenses and take a sabbatical to work on your idea. So why would someone else?
Because different people have different marginal utilities of money. It's not implausible that there is someone (or a group of people) out there who is interested in seeing the Collatz conjecture proven, who places less value on the $100k than koheripbal does.
What you fail to understand is that when you net 200k$, you are rich. There's a moral issue to ask other to fund your rich lifestyle to allow you work on something and on top of that, taking all the fame in case of success.
It's ok to be on the top 1% by the benefits of you work. However, it's hard to justify asking others to finance your stay on the top 1% for charity.
I don't disagree with you -- $200k is a lot, especially by global standards. But I encourage you to check the Form 990s filed with the IRS by your favorite 501 charity, and see how much is spent on e.g. executive salaries. This kind of compensation is not uncommon.
$200K is not a lot if you live in a high cost location like SF on NYC, are senior in your IT career, and have a family. In IT it's below average, and the commenter here is saying he'd be taking a pay cut to do this.
He's an expensive grant, but he's probably got more potential to solve a problem than the average PhD student.
This is the problem of lifestyle creep. I have the same problem too, though I earn less than that. If everyone could live off next to nothing maybe we’d all have time to solve stuff sans-grants.
Sadly if you decide to have a family in an expensive COL then you are kinda out of the race for bang-for-buck grants unless you are genius level talented.
> If everyone could live off next to nothing maybe we’d all have time to solve stuff sans-grants.
I think this is, theoretically, one of the promises of communism. When I was in Cuba, I went to a local theater production of Don Quixote. It was free, and no one got any money from it, yet it was professional-level quality. In good times at least, under comminism, people have the freedom to explore their passions, because the state takes care of all their essential needs. Sadly, communism rarely leads to good times, and I can tell you for certian that none of my Cuban friends would say that the state adequately provides for their needs most of the time. It's a nice idea, at least.
In your case I think you would be better served by being able to discuss with a mathematics faculty in a way similar to what happens naturally in academia.
I think it's not just money but the ability to more freely go back to school. It is difficult-ish to get the funding for, essentially, self-directed research during the best years of your life, and basically impossible if you don't already have an undergraduate degree.
I know, that's why I'm not asking him to do that. It's just instead of giving him money what he really needs is an opportunity to speak with professionals. The issue is a typical academic career path is usually the only way to speak to those people.
If you don't then solve it, you burned $100,000 in good will and a year of your life. Better not to even suggest it, there's little enough going around as is.
it's to live off, and support dependents while doing something that would not bring in traditional forms of profit.
That's why it's usually called a grant, rather than an investment - because the granter isn't going to see a direct financial return (but would want to see a societal return such as knowledge or something cultural etc).