Hacker News Reader

Comment by rors | Hacker News Reader

Your analogy is a little biased in that most professional basketball players careers are over by the time they hit their mid-thirties. If they want to go pro then they need to be playing at a high standard in their teens.

Whereas someone talented at math would be productive much longer than that.

View on HN

G. H. Hardy wrote: "Mathematics is a young man's game." Of course, you can continue to be a mathematician later, but for top performance, especially in terms of novelty, you have to start early.

Euler started strong early and peaked later

    During his Berlin years (1741–1766, aged 34-59), Euler was at the peak of his productivity.

    He wrote 380 works, 275 of which were published.

~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler

Admittedly some of that was playing a Swiss Charles Dodgson to 15 and 10 year old girls.

~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_to_a_German_Princess

Individual examples do not contradict the general statement. Galois was dead at an age when I wasn't even at university. Abel a bit later (so avoid groups if you want to have a long life), same with Ramanujan (which incidentally may be a factor in Hardy's comment). And so on, just as singular at the first glance. As a mathematician, however, I continue to argue Hardy's point, both for the present and for the past as a general and observable phenomenon.

And the number of books as a measure of quality, really? I think that view is skewed by today's “publish and perish” environment (nothing against Euler).

There's no suggestion that Euler is anything but an individual example however it is explicitly stated that number of works was a measure of productivity not quality.

If you want to split the difference on the age of mathenaticians I happened by chance to be in Adelaide in 1985 when this was snapped: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_Tao#/media/File:Paul_E...

Not all Groupies die young, https://mathematical-research-institute.sydney.edu.au/news/p... is still grinding along having created and steadily expanded on a system from 1980 through to today that is still actively used to beat quantum cryptographic cipher candidates.

> it is explicitly stated that number of works was a measure of productivity not quality.

I have noticed that. But my entire posting, to which you replied, had the subtext of excellence - in this case, the comparison of professional basketball and mathematics. And in the latter at least, quality and originality plays first fiddle. In this respect, I would be reluctant to shift the discussion to other qualities such as “productivity”. For me, this is not the relevant measure in this context and, as I said, I also view it critically as a criterion for whatever.

As for Tao, I knew the picture and the story. Yes, an old and a young one. So what? It's not countering my or Hardy's point. These are statements from experience about a whole profession.

> But my entire posting, to which you replied

Do you assume that I accepted terms of discussion that you set? How odd.

> had the subtext of excellence

Is this a peak value or an integral?

> In this respect, I would be reluctant to shift the discussion

Goodo, you do you. Catch you later. Maybe.

Mathematician very famously have their top achievement restricted to those under 40

What is your point? That because athletic ability degrades faster kids should be pushed into sports as soon as possible so they can reap potential benefits, but since math is mental thing and mental acuity declines slower kids should be kept away from mentally demanding things so they can reap the potential benefits at a later date?

Wouldn't both kids be better off if they could just do what they liked? Just because there is more money involved with sports and coaches and teams have noticed that they can get more bang for their buck when they focus recruiting as young as possible shouldn't make any difference if a kid is into chess or math or any other science.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com