|
|
|
|
|
|
by ta123456789
1125 days ago
|
|
|
> And -let me get this right- you want society to keep paying you, so you can play with your imagination? No, pure mathematics is almost never completely recreational. No serious paper gets published in a decent journal without having some motivation and connection to the rest of mathematics. It is of course valid to ask why we should fund research in pure mathematics, which is not directly related to any "real" applications. Same question applies to things like niche art, literary studies, history, etc. One answer is that these things are relatively cheap, and our culture would be poor without these things. With pure maths the advantage is also that it is cheap, and the payoff in applications (if and when they happen) is high. |
|
|
It would be bad enough if the culture were merely ignorant of mathematics, but what is far worse is that people actually think they do know what math is about— and are apparently under the gross misconception that mathematics is somehow useful to society! This is already a huge difference between mathematics and the other arts. Mathematics is viewed by the culture as some sort of tool for science and technology. Everyone knows that poetry and music are for pure enjoyment and for uplifting and ennobling the human spirit (hence their virtual elimination from the public school curriculum) but no, math is important.
Also see the first two stanzas of the dialogue between "SIMPLICIO" and "SALVIATI" that follow the above paragraph. I think, in other words, that the author would say that the "motivation" in pure mathematics papers is more of a pretext to be able to get published and continue one's work unobstructed, than something that the mathematicians themselves really care about.