4 ms·

Nothing in their comment reads to me as "arguing against" Reads like nothing but historical context

• magicalist 8d ago
  > Nothing in their comment reads to me as "arguing against" If competition is somehow the opposite of "centuries of traditions of open science", and "mathematics has always been highly competitive", then open science is neither sufficient or necessary for the future of mathematics. Their clear implication is that we don't need to worry about it, though, because it's always been that way. > Reads like nothing but historical context They literally accuse Tao of "a misstatement of mathematical history".
  • neuroticnews25 8d ago
    >If competition is somehow the opposite of "centuries of traditions of open science", and "mathematics has always been highly competitive", then open science is neither sufficient or necessary for the future of mathematics For the future of past mathematics, it says nothing about the current future. Also, open science can be nonsufficient and unnecessary but still extremely beneficial and desirable. >Their clear implication is that we don't need to worry about it, though, because it's always been that way. Lets just ask him if that's what he meant, I bet no.