Hacker News Reader

Comment by vouaobrasil | Hacker News Reader

I would say both are dwindling. Few people can understand modern results and few people find them interesting.

Again, it's not clear to me that if you asked 1950s mathematicians to look at math journals in the 1950s, they would react very differently. You haven't presented any evidence of this.

It's certainly true that math is a more fragmented specialized field today than it was in the eras of Euler or Gauss, but without some more concrete evidence or objective claim, I don't know what is so bad about math journals today compared to 1950.

For what it's worth, I also have a PhD in mathematics and I also ultimately left academia with some disappointment at the gap between what it is and my sense or fantasy of what it once was or could be.

Do tell more... does it have to do with hyperspecialization, not being able to get fluent in a large enough proportion of the field as was the case in Euler's time, say?

No, while it may have been fun to be a generalist in Euler's era, that wasn't bothersome to me. To be clear, the issues I found in academia had little to do with math specifically, and affected academia broadly. The usual issues you've likely heard about dwindling ability to make a comfortable career of it without a great deal of luck.

I will attempt a more rigorous study with citation figures and data analysis and write part two then.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com