How to accelerate progress in mathematical researchConsequences of the Riemann hypothesisVisual...
How to accelerate progress in mathematical research
Consequences of the Riemann hypothesisVisual representation of mathematical research interrelationshipsResearch statement in PhD applications--how much is too much?Research-level mathematical bookstoresHow does one justify funding for mathematics research?Examples of research on how people perceive mathematical objectsMathematical research papers in general science journalsHow do you mentor undergraduate research?What happened to “Research in the Mathematical Sciences”?
$begingroup$
After a completing a Ph.D. in pure mathematics I left academia 10 years ago for working in industry. There, a typical question is "What can we do to accelerate $x$?" when a project is slowed down, and the typical answer is "Let the people concerned with the issue focus on it and/or bring in some experts", which usually solves the issue.
I wonder if mathematical research can work the same way. Say if you had $100 million to spare and really wanted to see the Riemann hypothesis resolved, what would you do?
Would it help to finance a special decade at some institution, where 25 leading researchers are free from everyday concerns (in particular, administrative and teaching duties) and can spend their entire time working on this problem together?
Would it be better to use these funds to let the 25 experts each supervise 10 graduate students over a course of 20 years? Or to support some sort of crowdsourcing?
Or is it just not possible to focus exclusively on one (incredibly difficult) problem and one should rather pursue whatever is doable at the moment? Is it similar to (paraphrasing Don Knuth) "Computer science is like the Great Wall of China where each workman contributes a brick"?
soft-question big-list
$endgroup$
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
After a completing a Ph.D. in pure mathematics I left academia 10 years ago for working in industry. There, a typical question is "What can we do to accelerate $x$?" when a project is slowed down, and the typical answer is "Let the people concerned with the issue focus on it and/or bring in some experts", which usually solves the issue.
I wonder if mathematical research can work the same way. Say if you had $100 million to spare and really wanted to see the Riemann hypothesis resolved, what would you do?
Would it help to finance a special decade at some institution, where 25 leading researchers are free from everyday concerns (in particular, administrative and teaching duties) and can spend their entire time working on this problem together?
Would it be better to use these funds to let the 25 experts each supervise 10 graduate students over a course of 20 years? Or to support some sort of crowdsourcing?
Or is it just not possible to focus exclusively on one (incredibly difficult) problem and one should rather pursue whatever is doable at the moment? Is it similar to (paraphrasing Don Knuth) "Computer science is like the Great Wall of China where each workman contributes a brick"?
soft-question big-list
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Your proposal for a special decade sounds like 10x the length and 10x the people of the IAS special years (math.ias.edu/special-years), also 10y later than their program on analytic number theory (math.ias.edu/sp/ant).
$endgroup$
– Matt F.
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
If one looks at famous open problems that have survived for a long time that were solved in the last century, most of them have the following feature: their solution took decades of mathematical breakthroughs to achieve, culminating in one final brilliant breakthrough, granting the person(s) who put the 'capstone' on the problem extraordinary credit, and everyone else who contributed much less so. For RH, there is no sign that the program that will ultimately solve it has even been initiated.
$endgroup$
– Stanley Yao Xiao
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
You might (re-)read The Mythical Man-Month by Fred Brooks Jr. (either the essay or the book). If you are interested in discussing this seriously, I can come up with ideas, and you can contact me using the email address on my user page. This forum is not well suited for your question: you might see if it fares better at Academia.StackExchange. Gerhard "More People Makes It Slower" Paseman, 2019.09.06.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@GerhardPaseman, I think this forum is well-suited to the question, since the answer will likely be specific to mathematical research -- for accelerating progress on a problem in biology or economics (e.g. thoughtco.com/unsolved-economics-problems-on-wikipedia-1148177 or realclearscience.com/lists/unsolved_problems_in_biology), the answers would be substantially different.
$endgroup$
– Matt F.
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
The problem is that it asks for opinion, not fact. While it is a good question (and one I have been considering), this forum is not well suited for discussion, which is where I see this leading. If you have a good answer that is not just opinion, I encourage you to post it. Gerhard "Will Read Well Opined Answers" Paseman, 2019.09.06.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
6 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
After a completing a Ph.D. in pure mathematics I left academia 10 years ago for working in industry. There, a typical question is "What can we do to accelerate $x$?" when a project is slowed down, and the typical answer is "Let the people concerned with the issue focus on it and/or bring in some experts", which usually solves the issue.
I wonder if mathematical research can work the same way. Say if you had $100 million to spare and really wanted to see the Riemann hypothesis resolved, what would you do?
Would it help to finance a special decade at some institution, where 25 leading researchers are free from everyday concerns (in particular, administrative and teaching duties) and can spend their entire time working on this problem together?
Would it be better to use these funds to let the 25 experts each supervise 10 graduate students over a course of 20 years? Or to support some sort of crowdsourcing?
Or is it just not possible to focus exclusively on one (incredibly difficult) problem and one should rather pursue whatever is doable at the moment? Is it similar to (paraphrasing Don Knuth) "Computer science is like the Great Wall of China where each workman contributes a brick"?
soft-question big-list
$endgroup$
After a completing a Ph.D. in pure mathematics I left academia 10 years ago for working in industry. There, a typical question is "What can we do to accelerate $x$?" when a project is slowed down, and the typical answer is "Let the people concerned with the issue focus on it and/or bring in some experts", which usually solves the issue.
I wonder if mathematical research can work the same way. Say if you had $100 million to spare and really wanted to see the Riemann hypothesis resolved, what would you do?
Would it help to finance a special decade at some institution, where 25 leading researchers are free from everyday concerns (in particular, administrative and teaching duties) and can spend their entire time working on this problem together?
Would it be better to use these funds to let the 25 experts each supervise 10 graduate students over a course of 20 years? Or to support some sort of crowdsourcing?
Or is it just not possible to focus exclusively on one (incredibly difficult) problem and one should rather pursue whatever is doable at the moment? Is it similar to (paraphrasing Don Knuth) "Computer science is like the Great Wall of China where each workman contributes a brick"?
soft-question big-list
soft-question big-list
edited 5 hours ago
community wiki
user50667
1
$begingroup$
Your proposal for a special decade sounds like 10x the length and 10x the people of the IAS special years (math.ias.edu/special-years), also 10y later than their program on analytic number theory (math.ias.edu/sp/ant).
$endgroup$
– Matt F.
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
If one looks at famous open problems that have survived for a long time that were solved in the last century, most of them have the following feature: their solution took decades of mathematical breakthroughs to achieve, culminating in one final brilliant breakthrough, granting the person(s) who put the 'capstone' on the problem extraordinary credit, and everyone else who contributed much less so. For RH, there is no sign that the program that will ultimately solve it has even been initiated.
$endgroup$
– Stanley Yao Xiao
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
You might (re-)read The Mythical Man-Month by Fred Brooks Jr. (either the essay or the book). If you are interested in discussing this seriously, I can come up with ideas, and you can contact me using the email address on my user page. This forum is not well suited for your question: you might see if it fares better at Academia.StackExchange. Gerhard "More People Makes It Slower" Paseman, 2019.09.06.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@GerhardPaseman, I think this forum is well-suited to the question, since the answer will likely be specific to mathematical research -- for accelerating progress on a problem in biology or economics (e.g. thoughtco.com/unsolved-economics-problems-on-wikipedia-1148177 or realclearscience.com/lists/unsolved_problems_in_biology), the answers would be substantially different.
$endgroup$
– Matt F.
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
The problem is that it asks for opinion, not fact. While it is a good question (and one I have been considering), this forum is not well suited for discussion, which is where I see this leading. If you have a good answer that is not just opinion, I encourage you to post it. Gerhard "Will Read Well Opined Answers" Paseman, 2019.09.06.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
6 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
1
$begingroup$
Your proposal for a special decade sounds like 10x the length and 10x the people of the IAS special years (math.ias.edu/special-years), also 10y later than their program on analytic number theory (math.ias.edu/sp/ant).
$endgroup$
– Matt F.
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
If one looks at famous open problems that have survived for a long time that were solved in the last century, most of them have the following feature: their solution took decades of mathematical breakthroughs to achieve, culminating in one final brilliant breakthrough, granting the person(s) who put the 'capstone' on the problem extraordinary credit, and everyone else who contributed much less so. For RH, there is no sign that the program that will ultimately solve it has even been initiated.
$endgroup$
– Stanley Yao Xiao
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
You might (re-)read The Mythical Man-Month by Fred Brooks Jr. (either the essay or the book). If you are interested in discussing this seriously, I can come up with ideas, and you can contact me using the email address on my user page. This forum is not well suited for your question: you might see if it fares better at Academia.StackExchange. Gerhard "More People Makes It Slower" Paseman, 2019.09.06.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@GerhardPaseman, I think this forum is well-suited to the question, since the answer will likely be specific to mathematical research -- for accelerating progress on a problem in biology or economics (e.g. thoughtco.com/unsolved-economics-problems-on-wikipedia-1148177 or realclearscience.com/lists/unsolved_problems_in_biology), the answers would be substantially different.
$endgroup$
– Matt F.
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
The problem is that it asks for opinion, not fact. While it is a good question (and one I have been considering), this forum is not well suited for discussion, which is where I see this leading. If you have a good answer that is not just opinion, I encourage you to post it. Gerhard "Will Read Well Opined Answers" Paseman, 2019.09.06.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
6 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Your proposal for a special decade sounds like 10x the length and 10x the people of the IAS special years (math.ias.edu/special-years), also 10y later than their program on analytic number theory (math.ias.edu/sp/ant).
$endgroup$
– Matt F.
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Your proposal for a special decade sounds like 10x the length and 10x the people of the IAS special years (math.ias.edu/special-years), also 10y later than their program on analytic number theory (math.ias.edu/sp/ant).
$endgroup$
– Matt F.
8 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
If one looks at famous open problems that have survived for a long time that were solved in the last century, most of them have the following feature: their solution took decades of mathematical breakthroughs to achieve, culminating in one final brilliant breakthrough, granting the person(s) who put the 'capstone' on the problem extraordinary credit, and everyone else who contributed much less so. For RH, there is no sign that the program that will ultimately solve it has even been initiated.
$endgroup$
– Stanley Yao Xiao
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
If one looks at famous open problems that have survived for a long time that were solved in the last century, most of them have the following feature: their solution took decades of mathematical breakthroughs to achieve, culminating in one final brilliant breakthrough, granting the person(s) who put the 'capstone' on the problem extraordinary credit, and everyone else who contributed much less so. For RH, there is no sign that the program that will ultimately solve it has even been initiated.
$endgroup$
– Stanley Yao Xiao
8 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
You might (re-)read The Mythical Man-Month by Fred Brooks Jr. (either the essay or the book). If you are interested in discussing this seriously, I can come up with ideas, and you can contact me using the email address on my user page. This forum is not well suited for your question: you might see if it fares better at Academia.StackExchange. Gerhard "More People Makes It Slower" Paseman, 2019.09.06.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
You might (re-)read The Mythical Man-Month by Fred Brooks Jr. (either the essay or the book). If you are interested in discussing this seriously, I can come up with ideas, and you can contact me using the email address on my user page. This forum is not well suited for your question: you might see if it fares better at Academia.StackExchange. Gerhard "More People Makes It Slower" Paseman, 2019.09.06.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
8 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@GerhardPaseman, I think this forum is well-suited to the question, since the answer will likely be specific to mathematical research -- for accelerating progress on a problem in biology or economics (e.g. thoughtco.com/unsolved-economics-problems-on-wikipedia-1148177 or realclearscience.com/lists/unsolved_problems_in_biology), the answers would be substantially different.
$endgroup$
– Matt F.
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@GerhardPaseman, I think this forum is well-suited to the question, since the answer will likely be specific to mathematical research -- for accelerating progress on a problem in biology or economics (e.g. thoughtco.com/unsolved-economics-problems-on-wikipedia-1148177 or realclearscience.com/lists/unsolved_problems_in_biology), the answers would be substantially different.
$endgroup$
– Matt F.
7 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
The problem is that it asks for opinion, not fact. While it is a good question (and one I have been considering), this forum is not well suited for discussion, which is where I see this leading. If you have a good answer that is not just opinion, I encourage you to post it. Gerhard "Will Read Well Opined Answers" Paseman, 2019.09.06.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
The problem is that it asks for opinion, not fact. While it is a good question (and one I have been considering), this forum is not well suited for discussion, which is where I see this leading. If you have a good answer that is not just opinion, I encourage you to post it. Gerhard "Will Read Well Opined Answers" Paseman, 2019.09.06.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
6 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Wikipedia is a great project, and it is without doubt a big impactful resource. With this as inspiration,
I started to collect definitions, theorems, formulas and references together with some examples, for topics regarding symmetric functions. This is skewed towards more personal interests and a bit too technical to be on wikipedia.
This has accelerated my personal research projects, as I can refer new collaborators to this page, instead of asking them to find the correct page in a book or paywalled article.
I also try to keep up with the latest research, so that the information is fresh, and quickly available.
Having quick access to definitions and references, which are easily found by search engines, and viewable on a regular web page with a smartphone, should help facilitate quicker progress.
The conclusion is, funding an online resource with the purpose to quickly get a new PhD student or researcher new to the field up to speed, is probably a good investment.
Aggregating and streamlining learning existing results and knowledge is a good step to produce new knowledge, in my opinion.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Yes, putting everything on-line as a first (or zero-th) approximation, and then having serious people refine and streamline, ... repeatedly, if appropriate... with their personal reputations giving some kind of guarantee of veracity... gives a more efficient starting-point for further progress.
$endgroup$
– paul garrett
6 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
One could argue similarly that MathOverflow is another such resource. While I think you have a good point, I believe Stanley's observation above is more pertinent to the question asked. I am unsure how your approach would improve the current literature assembled (and being assembled) on the Riemann Hypothesis. Gerhard "Wikipedia Does Deserve More Funding" Paseman, 2019.09.06.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's one budget for spending the money over 10 years. Obviously all the numbers are only indicative.
$$$75 million for child care for mathematically trained people who want to work on these issues, an average of $$$7,500 per year for 10 years for 1000 people each year. Household cleaning and food preparation could also be included. This would free up the time of current researchers, and open up the research to mathematically trained people, especially women, who are spending their time on work in the household instead of research.
$$$10 million as prize money for unconditional proofs of known consequences of either the Riemann or Generalized Riemann Hypothesis. Perhaps this would be 20 prizes, each worth $$$500,000, based on the lists of consequences here, here or here. The ideas in those proofs would be good sources ideas for proving the Riemann hypothesis.
$$$10 million in travel grants to encourage global collaboration on these topics. Perhaps this would be 10 years of 400 grants per year of $$$2,500 each, covering airfare and a week of expenses in each case.
$$$4 million to help people write up their research or their expository works in the area. Perhaps this means that for each of 10 years there are 10 people being paid an average of $$$40,000 per year to help write up this work.
$$$1 million to make existing numerical research in the area more accessible, e.g. better access to tables of the zeroes, translations of relevant algorithms into nice packages in several languages.
Note all of this money may go further in countries with high levels of mathematics but cheaper costs of living. Conditions for work on the Riemann hypothesis are already relatively good for math professors at American or European universities; to make a big step forward, it may help to involve people who are mathematically talented but not in those roles, for whatever reason.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I'm not sure the grants for unconditional results currently known to depend on RH would be move in the direction of RH. Many of those results use methods which wouldn't directly move in that direction. For example, there are statements which have been proven via "Assume RH. Then X" and then some proves "Assume ~RH. Then X."
$endgroup$
– JoshuaZ
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
JoshuaZ, if you can use that technique to prove “Assume ~RH. Then RH”, it would be good enough! Anyway, what other sorts of results would you suggest that are easier than RH but on the way there?
$endgroup$
– Matt F.
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f340039%2fhow-to-accelerate-progress-in-mathematical-research%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Wikipedia is a great project, and it is without doubt a big impactful resource. With this as inspiration,
I started to collect definitions, theorems, formulas and references together with some examples, for topics regarding symmetric functions. This is skewed towards more personal interests and a bit too technical to be on wikipedia.
This has accelerated my personal research projects, as I can refer new collaborators to this page, instead of asking them to find the correct page in a book or paywalled article.
I also try to keep up with the latest research, so that the information is fresh, and quickly available.
Having quick access to definitions and references, which are easily found by search engines, and viewable on a regular web page with a smartphone, should help facilitate quicker progress.
The conclusion is, funding an online resource with the purpose to quickly get a new PhD student or researcher new to the field up to speed, is probably a good investment.
Aggregating and streamlining learning existing results and knowledge is a good step to produce new knowledge, in my opinion.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Yes, putting everything on-line as a first (or zero-th) approximation, and then having serious people refine and streamline, ... repeatedly, if appropriate... with their personal reputations giving some kind of guarantee of veracity... gives a more efficient starting-point for further progress.
$endgroup$
– paul garrett
6 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
One could argue similarly that MathOverflow is another such resource. While I think you have a good point, I believe Stanley's observation above is more pertinent to the question asked. I am unsure how your approach would improve the current literature assembled (and being assembled) on the Riemann Hypothesis. Gerhard "Wikipedia Does Deserve More Funding" Paseman, 2019.09.06.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Wikipedia is a great project, and it is without doubt a big impactful resource. With this as inspiration,
I started to collect definitions, theorems, formulas and references together with some examples, for topics regarding symmetric functions. This is skewed towards more personal interests and a bit too technical to be on wikipedia.
This has accelerated my personal research projects, as I can refer new collaborators to this page, instead of asking them to find the correct page in a book or paywalled article.
I also try to keep up with the latest research, so that the information is fresh, and quickly available.
Having quick access to definitions and references, which are easily found by search engines, and viewable on a regular web page with a smartphone, should help facilitate quicker progress.
The conclusion is, funding an online resource with the purpose to quickly get a new PhD student or researcher new to the field up to speed, is probably a good investment.
Aggregating and streamlining learning existing results and knowledge is a good step to produce new knowledge, in my opinion.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Yes, putting everything on-line as a first (or zero-th) approximation, and then having serious people refine and streamline, ... repeatedly, if appropriate... with their personal reputations giving some kind of guarantee of veracity... gives a more efficient starting-point for further progress.
$endgroup$
– paul garrett
6 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
One could argue similarly that MathOverflow is another such resource. While I think you have a good point, I believe Stanley's observation above is more pertinent to the question asked. I am unsure how your approach would improve the current literature assembled (and being assembled) on the Riemann Hypothesis. Gerhard "Wikipedia Does Deserve More Funding" Paseman, 2019.09.06.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Wikipedia is a great project, and it is without doubt a big impactful resource. With this as inspiration,
I started to collect definitions, theorems, formulas and references together with some examples, for topics regarding symmetric functions. This is skewed towards more personal interests and a bit too technical to be on wikipedia.
This has accelerated my personal research projects, as I can refer new collaborators to this page, instead of asking them to find the correct page in a book or paywalled article.
I also try to keep up with the latest research, so that the information is fresh, and quickly available.
Having quick access to definitions and references, which are easily found by search engines, and viewable on a regular web page with a smartphone, should help facilitate quicker progress.
The conclusion is, funding an online resource with the purpose to quickly get a new PhD student or researcher new to the field up to speed, is probably a good investment.
Aggregating and streamlining learning existing results and knowledge is a good step to produce new knowledge, in my opinion.
$endgroup$
Wikipedia is a great project, and it is without doubt a big impactful resource. With this as inspiration,
I started to collect definitions, theorems, formulas and references together with some examples, for topics regarding symmetric functions. This is skewed towards more personal interests and a bit too technical to be on wikipedia.
This has accelerated my personal research projects, as I can refer new collaborators to this page, instead of asking them to find the correct page in a book or paywalled article.
I also try to keep up with the latest research, so that the information is fresh, and quickly available.
Having quick access to definitions and references, which are easily found by search engines, and viewable on a regular web page with a smartphone, should help facilitate quicker progress.
The conclusion is, funding an online resource with the purpose to quickly get a new PhD student or researcher new to the field up to speed, is probably a good investment.
Aggregating and streamlining learning existing results and knowledge is a good step to produce new knowledge, in my opinion.
answered 6 hours ago
community wiki
Per Alexandersson
1
$begingroup$
Yes, putting everything on-line as a first (or zero-th) approximation, and then having serious people refine and streamline, ... repeatedly, if appropriate... with their personal reputations giving some kind of guarantee of veracity... gives a more efficient starting-point for further progress.
$endgroup$
– paul garrett
6 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
One could argue similarly that MathOverflow is another such resource. While I think you have a good point, I believe Stanley's observation above is more pertinent to the question asked. I am unsure how your approach would improve the current literature assembled (and being assembled) on the Riemann Hypothesis. Gerhard "Wikipedia Does Deserve More Funding" Paseman, 2019.09.06.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
5 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Yes, putting everything on-line as a first (or zero-th) approximation, and then having serious people refine and streamline, ... repeatedly, if appropriate... with their personal reputations giving some kind of guarantee of veracity... gives a more efficient starting-point for further progress.
$endgroup$
– paul garrett
6 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
One could argue similarly that MathOverflow is another such resource. While I think you have a good point, I believe Stanley's observation above is more pertinent to the question asked. I am unsure how your approach would improve the current literature assembled (and being assembled) on the Riemann Hypothesis. Gerhard "Wikipedia Does Deserve More Funding" Paseman, 2019.09.06.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
5 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Yes, putting everything on-line as a first (or zero-th) approximation, and then having serious people refine and streamline, ... repeatedly, if appropriate... with their personal reputations giving some kind of guarantee of veracity... gives a more efficient starting-point for further progress.
$endgroup$
– paul garrett
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, putting everything on-line as a first (or zero-th) approximation, and then having serious people refine and streamline, ... repeatedly, if appropriate... with their personal reputations giving some kind of guarantee of veracity... gives a more efficient starting-point for further progress.
$endgroup$
– paul garrett
6 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
One could argue similarly that MathOverflow is another such resource. While I think you have a good point, I believe Stanley's observation above is more pertinent to the question asked. I am unsure how your approach would improve the current literature assembled (and being assembled) on the Riemann Hypothesis. Gerhard "Wikipedia Does Deserve More Funding" Paseman, 2019.09.06.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
One could argue similarly that MathOverflow is another such resource. While I think you have a good point, I believe Stanley's observation above is more pertinent to the question asked. I am unsure how your approach would improve the current literature assembled (and being assembled) on the Riemann Hypothesis. Gerhard "Wikipedia Does Deserve More Funding" Paseman, 2019.09.06.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's one budget for spending the money over 10 years. Obviously all the numbers are only indicative.
$$$75 million for child care for mathematically trained people who want to work on these issues, an average of $$$7,500 per year for 10 years for 1000 people each year. Household cleaning and food preparation could also be included. This would free up the time of current researchers, and open up the research to mathematically trained people, especially women, who are spending their time on work in the household instead of research.
$$$10 million as prize money for unconditional proofs of known consequences of either the Riemann or Generalized Riemann Hypothesis. Perhaps this would be 20 prizes, each worth $$$500,000, based on the lists of consequences here, here or here. The ideas in those proofs would be good sources ideas for proving the Riemann hypothesis.
$$$10 million in travel grants to encourage global collaboration on these topics. Perhaps this would be 10 years of 400 grants per year of $$$2,500 each, covering airfare and a week of expenses in each case.
$$$4 million to help people write up their research or their expository works in the area. Perhaps this means that for each of 10 years there are 10 people being paid an average of $$$40,000 per year to help write up this work.
$$$1 million to make existing numerical research in the area more accessible, e.g. better access to tables of the zeroes, translations of relevant algorithms into nice packages in several languages.
Note all of this money may go further in countries with high levels of mathematics but cheaper costs of living. Conditions for work on the Riemann hypothesis are already relatively good for math professors at American or European universities; to make a big step forward, it may help to involve people who are mathematically talented but not in those roles, for whatever reason.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I'm not sure the grants for unconditional results currently known to depend on RH would be move in the direction of RH. Many of those results use methods which wouldn't directly move in that direction. For example, there are statements which have been proven via "Assume RH. Then X" and then some proves "Assume ~RH. Then X."
$endgroup$
– JoshuaZ
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
JoshuaZ, if you can use that technique to prove “Assume ~RH. Then RH”, it would be good enough! Anyway, what other sorts of results would you suggest that are easier than RH but on the way there?
$endgroup$
– Matt F.
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's one budget for spending the money over 10 years. Obviously all the numbers are only indicative.
$$$75 million for child care for mathematically trained people who want to work on these issues, an average of $$$7,500 per year for 10 years for 1000 people each year. Household cleaning and food preparation could also be included. This would free up the time of current researchers, and open up the research to mathematically trained people, especially women, who are spending their time on work in the household instead of research.
$$$10 million as prize money for unconditional proofs of known consequences of either the Riemann or Generalized Riemann Hypothesis. Perhaps this would be 20 prizes, each worth $$$500,000, based on the lists of consequences here, here or here. The ideas in those proofs would be good sources ideas for proving the Riemann hypothesis.
$$$10 million in travel grants to encourage global collaboration on these topics. Perhaps this would be 10 years of 400 grants per year of $$$2,500 each, covering airfare and a week of expenses in each case.
$$$4 million to help people write up their research or their expository works in the area. Perhaps this means that for each of 10 years there are 10 people being paid an average of $$$40,000 per year to help write up this work.
$$$1 million to make existing numerical research in the area more accessible, e.g. better access to tables of the zeroes, translations of relevant algorithms into nice packages in several languages.
Note all of this money may go further in countries with high levels of mathematics but cheaper costs of living. Conditions for work on the Riemann hypothesis are already relatively good for math professors at American or European universities; to make a big step forward, it may help to involve people who are mathematically talented but not in those roles, for whatever reason.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I'm not sure the grants for unconditional results currently known to depend on RH would be move in the direction of RH. Many of those results use methods which wouldn't directly move in that direction. For example, there are statements which have been proven via "Assume RH. Then X" and then some proves "Assume ~RH. Then X."
$endgroup$
– JoshuaZ
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
JoshuaZ, if you can use that technique to prove “Assume ~RH. Then RH”, it would be good enough! Anyway, what other sorts of results would you suggest that are easier than RH but on the way there?
$endgroup$
– Matt F.
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's one budget for spending the money over 10 years. Obviously all the numbers are only indicative.
$$$75 million for child care for mathematically trained people who want to work on these issues, an average of $$$7,500 per year for 10 years for 1000 people each year. Household cleaning and food preparation could also be included. This would free up the time of current researchers, and open up the research to mathematically trained people, especially women, who are spending their time on work in the household instead of research.
$$$10 million as prize money for unconditional proofs of known consequences of either the Riemann or Generalized Riemann Hypothesis. Perhaps this would be 20 prizes, each worth $$$500,000, based on the lists of consequences here, here or here. The ideas in those proofs would be good sources ideas for proving the Riemann hypothesis.
$$$10 million in travel grants to encourage global collaboration on these topics. Perhaps this would be 10 years of 400 grants per year of $$$2,500 each, covering airfare and a week of expenses in each case.
$$$4 million to help people write up their research or their expository works in the area. Perhaps this means that for each of 10 years there are 10 people being paid an average of $$$40,000 per year to help write up this work.
$$$1 million to make existing numerical research in the area more accessible, e.g. better access to tables of the zeroes, translations of relevant algorithms into nice packages in several languages.
Note all of this money may go further in countries with high levels of mathematics but cheaper costs of living. Conditions for work on the Riemann hypothesis are already relatively good for math professors at American or European universities; to make a big step forward, it may help to involve people who are mathematically talented but not in those roles, for whatever reason.
$endgroup$
Here's one budget for spending the money over 10 years. Obviously all the numbers are only indicative.
$$$75 million for child care for mathematically trained people who want to work on these issues, an average of $$$7,500 per year for 10 years for 1000 people each year. Household cleaning and food preparation could also be included. This would free up the time of current researchers, and open up the research to mathematically trained people, especially women, who are spending their time on work in the household instead of research.
$$$10 million as prize money for unconditional proofs of known consequences of either the Riemann or Generalized Riemann Hypothesis. Perhaps this would be 20 prizes, each worth $$$500,000, based on the lists of consequences here, here or here. The ideas in those proofs would be good sources ideas for proving the Riemann hypothesis.
$$$10 million in travel grants to encourage global collaboration on these topics. Perhaps this would be 10 years of 400 grants per year of $$$2,500 each, covering airfare and a week of expenses in each case.
$$$4 million to help people write up their research or their expository works in the area. Perhaps this means that for each of 10 years there are 10 people being paid an average of $$$40,000 per year to help write up this work.
$$$1 million to make existing numerical research in the area more accessible, e.g. better access to tables of the zeroes, translations of relevant algorithms into nice packages in several languages.
Note all of this money may go further in countries with high levels of mathematics but cheaper costs of living. Conditions for work on the Riemann hypothesis are already relatively good for math professors at American or European universities; to make a big step forward, it may help to involve people who are mathematically talented but not in those roles, for whatever reason.
answered 5 hours ago
community wiki
Matt F.
$begingroup$
I'm not sure the grants for unconditional results currently known to depend on RH would be move in the direction of RH. Many of those results use methods which wouldn't directly move in that direction. For example, there are statements which have been proven via "Assume RH. Then X" and then some proves "Assume ~RH. Then X."
$endgroup$
– JoshuaZ
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
JoshuaZ, if you can use that technique to prove “Assume ~RH. Then RH”, it would be good enough! Anyway, what other sorts of results would you suggest that are easier than RH but on the way there?
$endgroup$
– Matt F.
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm not sure the grants for unconditional results currently known to depend on RH would be move in the direction of RH. Many of those results use methods which wouldn't directly move in that direction. For example, there are statements which have been proven via "Assume RH. Then X" and then some proves "Assume ~RH. Then X."
$endgroup$
– JoshuaZ
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
JoshuaZ, if you can use that technique to prove “Assume ~RH. Then RH”, it would be good enough! Anyway, what other sorts of results would you suggest that are easier than RH but on the way there?
$endgroup$
– Matt F.
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I'm not sure the grants for unconditional results currently known to depend on RH would be move in the direction of RH. Many of those results use methods which wouldn't directly move in that direction. For example, there are statements which have been proven via "Assume RH. Then X" and then some proves "Assume ~RH. Then X."
$endgroup$
– JoshuaZ
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm not sure the grants for unconditional results currently known to depend on RH would be move in the direction of RH. Many of those results use methods which wouldn't directly move in that direction. For example, there are statements which have been proven via "Assume RH. Then X" and then some proves "Assume ~RH. Then X."
$endgroup$
– JoshuaZ
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
JoshuaZ, if you can use that technique to prove “Assume ~RH. Then RH”, it would be good enough! Anyway, what other sorts of results would you suggest that are easier than RH but on the way there?
$endgroup$
– Matt F.
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
JoshuaZ, if you can use that technique to prove “Assume ~RH. Then RH”, it would be good enough! Anyway, what other sorts of results would you suggest that are easier than RH but on the way there?
$endgroup$
– Matt F.
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f340039%2fhow-to-accelerate-progress-in-mathematical-research%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
Your proposal for a special decade sounds like 10x the length and 10x the people of the IAS special years (math.ias.edu/special-years), also 10y later than their program on analytic number theory (math.ias.edu/sp/ant).
$endgroup$
– Matt F.
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
If one looks at famous open problems that have survived for a long time that were solved in the last century, most of them have the following feature: their solution took decades of mathematical breakthroughs to achieve, culminating in one final brilliant breakthrough, granting the person(s) who put the 'capstone' on the problem extraordinary credit, and everyone else who contributed much less so. For RH, there is no sign that the program that will ultimately solve it has even been initiated.
$endgroup$
– Stanley Yao Xiao
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
You might (re-)read The Mythical Man-Month by Fred Brooks Jr. (either the essay or the book). If you are interested in discussing this seriously, I can come up with ideas, and you can contact me using the email address on my user page. This forum is not well suited for your question: you might see if it fares better at Academia.StackExchange. Gerhard "More People Makes It Slower" Paseman, 2019.09.06.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@GerhardPaseman, I think this forum is well-suited to the question, since the answer will likely be specific to mathematical research -- for accelerating progress on a problem in biology or economics (e.g. thoughtco.com/unsolved-economics-problems-on-wikipedia-1148177 or realclearscience.com/lists/unsolved_problems_in_biology), the answers would be substantially different.
$endgroup$
– Matt F.
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
The problem is that it asks for opinion, not fact. While it is a good question (and one I have been considering), this forum is not well suited for discussion, which is where I see this leading. If you have a good answer that is not just opinion, I encourage you to post it. Gerhard "Will Read Well Opined Answers" Paseman, 2019.09.06.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
6 hours ago