EDIT: FFS why does this subject always get people frothing at the mouth before they even read the main point stated, only to go on and accidentally agree with it eventually? Pls read first before getting mad at stuff that I explicitly argued against.
EDIT 2: OK apparently there's still miscommunication, and I think the 1st edit somehow made it worse. When I say "useful" I put it in scare quotes on purpose and as I clarify in the 1st, 4th and 5th paragraps, it is NOT about value but about practical/technological utility.
I originally posted this on R*ddit to an audience of math nerds (so be warned that it is written with reddit STEMlords in mind) because there was a relevant convo going on and it would be fun to also have it here.
Sure, there is a lot of modern math that is practically useful, but the majority of pure math really isn't "useful' in any way, shape or form for now, and probably won't be any time soon, possibly forever. Like, even areas which are apparently "useful", like computer science, is full of things that have absolutely 0 practical utility and are solely of academic interest. Whether P does or doesn't equal NP doesn't really matter to anyone doing practical work. People wouldn't get upset about their discipline getting slighted or whatever if this stupid idea that scientific research should have "practical application" (which generally means "someone can sell it for money") hadn't proliferated, starting from schools.
Even when someone finds an "application" through some kind of far fetched (or not so far fetched) reasoning, it's some application to, like, highly theoretical physics that may or may not actually have something to do with the real world, and even if it does, it is only relevant in extremely niche experimental circumstances to the extent that it can't ever conceivably lead to technological progress. And even IF it does, sometimes it's just progress relevant only to more research about more stuff without application.
So even then you have to resort to saying something like "the result is not useful but maybe one of the methods used to prove it can be used for something else", and then that something else turns out to also not be useful but again "maybe one of the methods used to find that something else is useful for another something else and that other something else is useful for another other something else and then that other other something else has a practical application that is only relevant to research, but then maybe that relates to some other other other...", etc and it gets kind of silly. That or someone says something abstract like "it's useless now but it may be useful some time!". Maybe. Or maybe not.
In the end of the day the same arguments could be used to justify anything being useful via some contrived butterfly effect style conjecture. This of course is usually done because otherwise people can't get grant money otherwise, governments demand that research will produce results they can use to blow up people or sell stuff. Also the result of a bad educational system that emphasizes this kind of "usefulness", which therefore renders it unable to convince students that something is worth learning unless it is "useful". Of course "why should I learn this if it's not useful to me" is a very valid concern of students, but the problem is somewhere else. First, schools DON'T really teach any of the stuff that is useful and interesting to most people. If they did, then math would get a lot less attacks on that front. Schools teach with 30% of the students in mind, the ones who will really apply the things they learned. The other 70% can just go to prison or whatever as far as the educational system is concerned. Second, schools are very boring and antagonistic towards kids and since kids are miserable learning stuff, they need extra justification to learn them. Third, the schools themselves teach kids to think like that so it's no surprise that they do. Fourth, school math mostly sucks and is super boring for most people.
So yes, most modern pure math is indeed "useless". That is not the issue. The issue is, why does this matter? Why is it bad? Should it be bad? I don't think so. It's a false idea that gets perpetuated at many levels starting from school. But then there is the issue of mathematics being very exclusionary and distant from most people, which makes it harder for them to care, which brings us to the issue of outreach but whatever, that's a different matter.
Whether P does or doesn’t equal NP doesn’t really matter to anyone doing practical work.
P=NP is monumentally important to practical work. If it's true, all problems are easy to solve.
Leaving aside from that terrible abysmal awful example to address your general point: there's a difference between basic research and engineering. We need to find out basic facts about what sort of world we're in in order to do engineering later. We obviously can't know the "practical application" of things that we don't know yet; we need to find them out first. Did Rutherford think about the "practical application" of his model of the atom? Or did the street eventually find its own use for it?
P=NP is monumentally important to practical work. If it’s true, all problems are easy to solve.
that doesn’t necessarily follow right? like what if all NP problems are solvable in n^googolplex steps or somethinh
Even n^googolplex is still sub-exponential time, and in practice ridiculously shitty poly time algorithms can often be reduced in magnitude, whereas if you have an exponential time algorithm you need to find something completely different.
Yes, not necessarily, but they've pretty much always been up until now. There's like, three or four practical algorithms in n^10.
All of them are approximations of NP-class problems, suboptimal, or literally invented to be intractable.
There’s like, three or four practical algorithms in n^10.
That's usually because the longer ones aren't practical. Or because they can't find them. But I did a google search and there's some algorithms which are theoretically useful for... something, and they're in like n(10100).
The algorithms I found for n10100 are just approximations of non-polytime algorithms.
And by that I mean that they don't solve a practical problem, not that they aren't practical to use.
There was one which was about a neat little word problem which had to do with hanging a picture or something and it was like n^500000 or something. The rest I wasn't sure what they were supposed to be.
All of them are approximations of NP-class problems...
Then is it unreasonable to bet that if NP problems are actually P problems, their best algorithms might be n^(something huge)?
It's not, because fundamentally they are trying to approximate non-polynomial algorithms. We saw this play out for other algorithms before a polytime solution was found.
And even if they could, then one could approximate those high exponent algorithms and have a huge speedup.
P=NP is monumentally important to practical work. If it’s true, all problems are easy to solve.
It is not, at least not necessarily. Whether or not such a solution conceivably exists doesn't really matter at all to a programmer. Let's say it turns out that P=NP. Cool, then said fast solution exists. Does that mean the programmer can find?Not necessarily. But they can try. Let's say P does not equal NP. Cool. Then a faster solution may or may not exist. But the programmer doesn't generally know if the solution they found is the fastest one possible, so they probably will still try to find a better one. Nothing really changes for the programmer whether or not P equals NP. The programmer will keep looking for a faster solution to the extent they are willing or able to, unless they know the solution they found is the fastest possible, which is not something P versus NP can tell you alone. Oh, also forgot to mention that even if P=NP, a large number of problems won't have solutions which can feasibly be solved in polynomial time anyways due to other restrictions.
It is an example of something that SOUNDS like it has important applications but doesn't really in itself. This is similar to Navier-Stokes. The act of trying to solve NS will probably give immensely valuable insight into turbulence etc, however in terms of practical applications a strict solution of NS is not particularly important, because the systems involved are massively chaotic and real fluids don't truly obey NS anyways. In Mathematics existence and smoothness of solutions in many kinds of differential equations is a big problem, but anyone who does anything practical just ends up approximating them anyways.
The other argument you make is the same kind of hand wavy thing that people say and never convinces anyone. Some things you can tell are gonna have practical consequences, including Rutherford's model. Others maybe not but they do turn out to have some. But then there's all the other stuff.
Not extensively comp sci in particular except for a few classes (idk if that counts), but applied math in general.
This opinion is not unique to me. Like, many people who actually solely do research on the field will say as much. If P!=NP, well, that's what everyone kind of expects already and nothing much changes. If P=NP but no one finds a polynomial time solution of an NP hard problem, that's big news, but it still doesn't change anything practically. If someone DOES find that, well, it might be useful, or it might not be, depending on a few other things, but just proving P=NP won't give you that.
EDIT: I just saw your edit, hold on a while.
That is not necessarily true, as for many things in math. You don't have to find the thing you want to prove exists to prove that it exists. You can just prove that it can't not exist for example. You may even manage to find some kind of independence proof which states that it can not be decided based on your axioms.
Also "hard" and "easy" mean different things for comp sci and programmers.
There exist problems in P for which no polynomial algorithm is known like "does a given graph belong to a fixed minor-closed family (well, it also depends on method of representation of this family)", although for some such families like planar graphs efficient algorithms are known.
Btw before I said "a fast solution may or may not exist". I meant "a faster solution may or may not exist", in the sense that a solution faster than what the programmer did already may or may not exist. Sorry about that.
118 comments
You nerds really gonna have a struggle session about math?!
This serves as the arbitrary nth example in my inductive proof that Hexbear will struggle session about any topic. Now I just need the n+1 case to exist.
I'll be publishing my paper shortly in the American Journal of Mathematics.
We will have a struggle sesh over something written in nplusonemag, I have total confidence in this
They're not necessarily an actual troll. I know people like that and I've experienced music that way for brief periods.
It's a little silly to get angry/surprised when you say inflammatory or just straight up wrong things at the beginning of your post and don't clarify until near the end. Like, no kidding people don't want to read the whole thing when the first paragraph makes it look like you have zero clue what you're talking about
We've gone over this. The first paragraph is not wrong. Assuming this is what you are referring to, the process of solving P vs NP may bring something important for practical work, or it may not. But the actual answer to the question, which is considered extremely important theoretically and for good reason, won't change much. IF it turns out that P=NP and IF the proof actually involves finding an algorithm to solve NP hard problems in polynomial time and IF that algorithm is of a practicable form and not something insane like telling you that you can solve NP hard problems but in n^666 time, then alright, yeah. But that's a lot of ifs, and it's not directly linked to whether or not P=NP is solved. I brought this up specifically because it is one of the famous problems that the solution sounds like it may be massively important practically, but in reality kind of isn't.
Also I didn't "only" clarify near the end, the point is more or less contained in the first paragraph. It's just that for some reason this subject instantly pushes the buttons of people.
While the P=NP thing is a bad take for reasons people with more understanding than me have already explained, the worst part IMO is
the majority of pure math really isn’t "useful’ in any way, shape or form for now, and probably won’t be any time soon, possibly forever.
This is a ridiculously presumptuous and weird thing to say, particularly given how fast computing is expanding and making it more relevant than ever.
If I'm understanding your argument correctly, the better way to approach this is to say that all fields of study are useful. Non-STEM things like art and music are important, as are mathematics and physics that are too experimental to find an immediate use for. Like, modern art does not improve people's material conditions in any significant way, does that mean it should be tossed out? Should history? Should philosophy? For all his writing, Marx hasn't improved my life one bit so far, toss him out too.
I know this kind of slippery slope argument sounds silly, but that's the point. It's a really bizarre way to come around to your final point, which seems to be that it should be studied despite being useless.The P=NP thing isn't my personal take. Many people working in the field more or less agree. P=NP is about whether all NP hard problems can be solved in polynomial time. The answer doesn't necessarily tell you how to do it if it is even possible (and most don't believe it is). If it's not true, then not much changes practically. If it is, then there's many many reasons why it may still not really make a difference practically speaking. It could make a difference in some kind of optimal case where it turns out that the proof actually gives an algorithm, that algorithm is something practicable, and it isn't some kind of horribly unwieldy thing that renders any kind of practical solution in exponential time more practical for a typical problem (which is also possible, "fast" means something different to comp sci people and to programmers, for comp sci people fast is asymptotic, but in the real world you don't always care about the asymptotic behavior of something, in the real world many problems in polynomial time are practically not solvable), and a best case scenario solution is getting more unlikely by the day. Mathematical comp sci people don't care if they get that P!=NP or if they get a non constructive proof of P=NP or if they give some kind of independence proof or if they actually do find a constructive proof of P=NP but it is horribly impractical. Just getting any kind of proof is amazing news because it's such a deep result and such an important question theoretically, even though it probably won't change much in practical terms.
This is a ridiculously presumptuous and weird thing to say, particularly given how fast computing is expanding and making it more relevant than ever.
Well computing is expanding a lot but most relevant math is still relatively simple, bar a few niche contexts.
If I’m understanding your argument correctly, the better way to approach this is to say that all fields of study are useful.
See, I kept putting useful in scare quotes for a reason. I also said this in the first paragraph:
[...] this stupid idea that scientific research should have “practical application” (which generally means “someone can sell it for money”)
Usually when presented with something that seems far fetched or hard to apply, people say "why is that useful? What can someone do with this? What can you make? How can you sell it? Why do we need this? Why are we spending time on this if it isn't useful?". This is a consequence of capitalism. Practically useful and valuable are different things. I think all the miscommunication arises from people uncharitably or hastily interpreting what I mean by useless.
Simply P=NP being proven even with no implementation means we have to abandon assymetrical encryption, because there's no way to know if your opponent found it.
Math in computing gets pretty hairy pretty fast, it's just abstracted away from you. Do you know what kind of math is necessary for example to prove that a pseudo-random number generator is of cryptographic quality? Or the kind of math needed to optimise path-tracing algorithms. It gets into what one would call abstract math really fast.
Simply P=NP being proven even with no implementation means we have to abandon assymetrical encryption, because there’s no way to know if your opponent found it.
Only in the case that an actual algorithm is found and it is practicable enough.
Yes, but you can never know if the algorithm has been found or not. All you know is that it can be found.
And if it is found, it's probably going be n^3 to n^4 at worst, see the recent prime factoring attempt.
Yes, but you can never know if the algorithm has been found or not
You already don't know that but that doesn't stop anyone.
And if it is found, it’s probably going be n^3 to n^4 at worst
I'm not sure how someone could know that at this point, perhaps you know something that I don't about this though. I'm not a computer scientist.
So what, you put useless in "scare quotes" and that makes it sarcastic or something? Why not just say what you mean very directly? I think most people here are much more inclined to listen and try to understand/reply to you than the average person on reddit, you can be very straightforward and people will take it in good faith. The weird rhetorical devices just make you harder to understand, I'm kinda questioning if I ever actually knew what your point was now.
Why not just say what you mean very directly?
I mean I did, in the first paragraph, then the third paragraph, and then the last paragraph (I specifically thought wow, maybe I should make sure to put that in the first paragraph, and then I did and people still got angry), it's just that it seems like when you say something like that some people are geared to immediately disagree because they think you're attacking science. idk.
Why do people just come here and just comment while having seemingly not read what I said, my post very, VERY explicitly argues AGAINST the idea that is should have an immediate or even non immediate benefit.
Chapo ‘read between the lines’ challenge 2021
You seem to have forgotten to actually read the lines.
but the entire post itself postures itself on the assumed uselessness and lack of immediacy of modern math.
You yourself called the concept of demanding that something NEEDS to have "practical utility" pseudoreactionary, jeez.
or you’re just mad at math.
Yeah I'm definitely super mad at math, which is clearly why that's what I chose to do with my life.
Yes, they are practically "useless". Look at how many times I've put this in scare quotes and how many times I've said the exact same thing you said.
unless you’re deliberately gaslighting or you’re just mad at math.
you’re doing it again
You literally say ‘most of modern math is useless’.
Which is entirely irrelevant to what you said. Also I said most PURE math, not most math in general.
then try and absolve the post with a high level meta-analysis in the last paragraph, sure
What? I made the same point in like 3 different paragraphs:
People wouldn’t get upset about their discipline getting slighted or whatever if this stupid idea that scientific research should have “practical application” (which generally means “someone can sell it for money”) hadn’t proliferated starting from schools.
This is literally the first paragraph.
This of course is usually don ** because otherwise people can’t get grant money otherwise, governments demand that research will produce results they can use to blow up people or sell stuff** Also the result of a bad educational system that emphasizes this kind of “usefulness”, which therefore renders it unable to convince students that something is worth learning unless it is “useful”
This is the 3rd paragraph.
So yes, most modern pure math is indeed “useless”. That is not the issue. The issue is, why does this matter? Why is it bad? Should it be bad? I don’t think so. It’s a false idea that gets perpetuated at many levels starting from school. But then there is the issue of mathematics being very exclusionary and distant from most people, which makes it harder for them to care, which brings us to the issue of outreach but whatever, that’s a different matter.
This is literally the ENTIRE last paragraph.
but the entire post itself postures itself on the assumed uselessness and lack of immediacy of modern math.
Which is entirely irrelevant to what you said.
Whether P does or doesn’t equal NP doesn’t really matter to anyone doing practical work.
if P = NP, it will matter A LOT.
More generally, lots of math sits around, seemingly useless, until it's actually very useful for some practical solution. The Hairy Ball Theorem was written in 1885 and has applications in computer graphics. This deeply uncertain connection to practical applications means capitalism, like always, refuses to invest in long-term benefits for humanity because there's no quarter-to-quarter payout.
if P = NP, it will matter A LOT.
See my reply to the other person who said the same thing. It is important for theoretical reasons and reasons of understanding, but if an angel came and just said P=NP or P=/=NP and then left, no actual real world programming would change.
This deeply uncertain connection to practical applications means capitalism, like always, refuses to invest in long-term benefits for humanity because there’s no quarter-to-quarter payout.
It's kind of the opposite, the fact that there may be some payout eventually is the only reason it gets any funding at all unfortunately, which is why scientists are forced to make these convoluted connections, or go looking for the relatively few weird results that ended up having practical importance after years of no one seeing how they could have any. It's true that no one knows if it's gonna be useful in the future. But that's the issue, no one knows, and chances are it won't, and even if it does, it probably won't be worth it all things considered, or it could have been found later, in the process of solving whatever the relevant problem was.
Like, it's so funny to me that some thought they were somehow gonna make a return on investment on CERN. Even if CERN did find all that it was looking for, it would change physics massively, but in such a way that if someone found a technological application that can be used broadly and not simply for more research on things without practical application, it would probably take like 500 years to become applicable, if we don't die in the mean time. And yet they spent billions on it.
I don't complain that they spent billions. It's simply that unfortunately you can't always trick Porky into giving you a bunch of money for this and maybe that's not what we should be relying on.
if an angel came and just said P=NP
yeah, that wouldn'd be useful. If an angel dropped a proof on the table, everything would change.
the fact that there may be some payout eventually is the only reason it gets any funding at all
Mathematics predates capitalism and will outlast it. People would do it if no one was paying them. It's not some torture that they only endure because they can fleece investors of some money for it. And mostly, math is funded by legacy institutions like universities. Physics is IIRC different and mostly funded by governments who understand the longer-term benefit. It's pretty damning of capitalism.
But that’s the issue, no one knows, and chances are it won’t, and even if it does, it probably won’t be worth it all things considered, or it could have been found later
This is ridiculous, math and physics are invaluable to practical scientific discoveries like cryptography, electricity, software, lasers, etc.
yeah, that wouldn’d be useful. If an angel dropped a proof on the table, everything would change.
Everything as in what? It would depend on what the proof is and what the nature of the problem is. If said angel gave an algorithm AND that algorithm turned out to be a fast one yeah. But odds are against that.
Mathematics predates capitalism and will outlast it. People would do it if no one was paying them. It’s not some torture that they only endure because they can fleece investors of some money for it.
Yes, that is my point.
Physics is IIRC different and mostly funded by governments who understand the longer-term benefit. It’s pretty damning of capitalism.
Except tons of physics research that is extremely well funded doesn't have any such benefits, and it's funded because the people who fund it don't understand that.
This is ridiculous, math and physics are invaluable to practical scientific discoveries like cryptography, electricity, software, lasers, etc.
Thing is, WHAT math and physics were useful for these things? Definitely not string theory.
tons of physics research that is extremely well funded doesn’t have any such benefits
WHAT math and physics were useful for these things? Definitely not string theory.
All physics is useless theoretical physics before a practical use is found. Electricity and lasers were LHC-tier experiments until they became core components of modern society. The steam engine was a useless party trick according to ancient Greeks.
All physics is useless theoretical physics before a practical use is found. Electricity and lasers were LHC-tier experiments until they became core components of modern society.
No, this is a big misunderstanding. Early scientists working on electricity were doing experiments in their homes. What you say about ancient Greeks proves this point. They were far from being LHC tier experiments. They were things that people could easily do. I brought up string theory. Now, it is not known whether or not string theory is right. The issue is that to even tell any kind of difference between it being true or false, you have to have access to something like the entire energy of the sun. Again, that's just for you to be able to see a measurable difference, let alone use it for something.
No, this is a big misunderstanding
Einstein postulated lasers, theoretically, from Planck's work. It wasn't from home experiments, it was from mathematical models. You bring up string theory because it hasn't been proven useful yet, but you're ignoring examples like the theory of relativity being applied via math to correct micro-inaccuracies in GPS satellites.
It wasn’t from home experiments, it was from mathematical models.
Yes, mathematical models of early quantum mechanics. Actually it was a bit "worse" than that in that when he did, QM was more phenomenological than rigorously grounded.
I do not at all debate that you can make theoretical predictions that have practical applications. I know. Except most of these predictions have to do with phenomena that can conceivably be applied, unlike string theory. QM wasn't developed to explain phenomena we don't even know if they exist and would require an accelerator the size of the solar system to detect. It was developed to explain basic fundamental phenomena that you can test in the simplest physics lab, and in fact started out as a phenomenological theory. This is much different. Is it possible to find a few examples of something that no one could see how it could ever be applied which did find an application, however that is extremely rare. And then there is stuff that inherently can't have applications due to the nature of what they are predicting.
If an angel came and P=NP then we would have to abandon assymetrical encryption instantly. Which really matters.
it’s true man. art is boring and meaningless, and music is totally overrated.
I don’t engage with art or listen to music. Finally left that shit in 2020.
It’s weird how people pretend to enjoy art/music and find deep meaning in them. Like art is pretty pictures (or not even that), and music is neat sounds. But people pretend they can just sit and enjoy them and find deep meaning in them, like they were on LSD all the time.
They’re fine as background decoration, but they’re powerfully boring as a primary activity. And you can’t go look at Starry Night or listen to some Bob Dylan and honestly tell me that it’s meaningful.
You need to accept other people have different experiences from you mate. They are not pretending.
He's been doing this for at least a month. Either he's 100% committed to the bit or he will never be convinced because he thinks literally the ENTIRE world is lying about this.
Also you can't deny how effective a troll this is. Look at all the replies!
the entire world is lying
yeah it’s kinda like people who pretend to get something out of prayer
Could be. Could be a depressed teenager who needs to learn empathy and realise not having emotions is not healthy. I remember thinking similar things in my youth.
lmbo I’m not mentally ill just because I don’t pretend to enjoy boring stuff
find deep meaning in them
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/12031212/Scientists-find-link-between-people-impressed-by-wise-sounding-profound-quotes-and-low-intelligence.html
like they were on LSD all the time.
Schizophrenia is not unnatural, it's actually the norm of human cognition. Neural connections between the lobes go bzzzzzz
You're describing amusia/anesthetia.
I experienced it a few times as aurae for migraines. Neither you nor them are delusional.
...to programmers. Unless in the special case of P=NP actually being true and a constructive proof with a practicable algorithm has been found, which is a separate issue.
This thread is embarrassing. I can't take this shit anymore.
Personally I'm of the belief that working to understand the universe is a pursuit that's useful in and of itself, it doesn't really matter if it has a physical practical application of not. It's like using philosophy to understand our place in the universe, even though Camus isn't really practically applicable doesn't mean people would describe his ideas as useless.
But I understand other people want practical applications of math so for that I would recommend looking into how pure math, as you would describe it, has led to our understanding of quantum chemistry which has revolutionized a lot of technological applications (semiconductors, USBs, hell even light switches and rely on quantum electron tunneling though we didn't know that at the time). Quantum chemistry is also really useful in spectrosocopic and analytical techniques, which are not immediately obvious in how useful they are to people outside the field but inside the field these techniques are responsible for helping us develop things people use every day such as pharmaceuticals and vaccines.
I think you're right in diagnosing the problems in education, there are significant problems in how math is approached that damages people's ability to appreciate math in their lives. It's a difficult balance in our current society because an education system pushing for more 'practical' ideas is just pumping out workers for capitalism, while a completely conceptual education leaves students unprepared for the reality of life. Conceptual approaches to math are important for developing critical thinking skills, which the capitalists don't really want students to have. But a definite change needs to be made to help students appreciate the applicability of math.
Yeah I mostly agree with this even though I think perhaps you slightly overstate the technological applicability of pure math . But sure, I generally agree, especially with the last part. I also think that there is this false dichotomy between intuitive/approachable and abstract math in education, which combined with the emphasis on practical utility has led to schools teaching math in a very weird and boring way as well as unconvincing word problems to convince students they will somehow use calculus to buy groceries. I don't think there is anything wrong with teaching abstract math, because abstract does not mean unintuitive and hard to approach, and just because some student can't apply it to their daily lives or even to make profit for their boss doesn't mean there is no reason to learn it or no outcomes from learning it. After all, expanding your intuition and understanding abstract rigorous thought are useful skills in and of themselves, and the more abstract stuff can often be much more exciting and fun. Plus it is good for everyone, not just the few kids who will grow up to work somewhere where they actually have to apply the stuff they learned in highschool.
Yeah, everything under capitalism is oriented around profit and industrial application. Every damn time I go to undergrad research things or read through a paper or anything in my, theres always a section like "so why should we care?" that's almost always about commercial use. So that's why pure math is often seen as "useless" because a lot of theorems probably dont have an industrial use.
The standard counter example I give about pure math to industrial application though is Fermats little theorem. Fermat was a cool dude but he was one of those types that didnt think your math research was legit if it had any real world applications. His little theorem was especially good in terms of that, lol, he was quite proud how useless it was. Anyway, fast forward a few hundred years and it turns out his little theorem has a really useful application in fibre optics. It's hard to tell without the fore sight of a millenials what will be useful and what wont be, but capitalism is oriented around profit in the next quarter so while that kind of long term stuff is tolerated just on the off chance that one day itll be profitable, it definitely isnt a thing it wants funded in general.
Fermat was a cool dude but he was one of those types that didnt think your math research was legit if it had any real world applications
Yeah there's some mathematicians and physicists like that lol. Just people who aren't even interested unless it is NOT practical. After all, some of them picked their fields because they didn't want to end up helping the military or some evil surveillance capitalist firm.
I had some help by the person who posted in the comments that art and music are bad.
I know I'm just joking basically, given the ratio of the thread and people being super serious in here.
TL;DR NERD LOL
edit: I read everything you wrote and I agree with you.
