Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I’m not so sure. The same argument would apply to theoretical physics in 1960. Circa 2023, there are remarkably few shallow parts of physics.

Math as a whole may last longer, but this list reminds us how far we’ve come in a mere few millennia: https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/SaI50Q1d/166786520...

On the timescale of civilization, it seems less and less likely that lone mathematicians can revolutionize the field.

We’re fortunate to have been born so early, relatively speaking.



> it seems less and less likely that lone mathematicians can revolutionize the field.

Which inspires the question: how much can cutting edge math be parallelized?


But you can manufacture new areas of mathematics. For example, Conway's Game of Life, and then prove theorems on it.


Physics is limited by having to represent phenomena in our physical world simply.

Mathematics is not just a small integer multiple larger than this.


This is almost correct.

It's not that math is vastly larger (or more sophisticated) as a field. Both fields are infinitely large in many senses. Rather, the number of respectable starting points where you can do interesting things is much larger, orders larger in math.


There are plenty of unexplored things in physics too; the key word is "respectable".

Looking from the outside, physics suffers a lot from fashion/hot trend tendencies, where you need to be doing the "hot" thing to make the jumps necessary to the coveted Tenure Track — and otherwise, you get kicked out.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: